Signs a study is telling you what you want to hear, not the truth

You've commissioned a feasibility study. Weeks pass, the consultant delivers, and the report's conclusions align almost perfectly with what you hoped to hear. Your gut says something's off, but the document looks professional. The real question isn't whether a study *can* mislead you—it's whether you can spot the tells before you've already made a decision based on it.

A feasibility study that tells you what you want to hear is often a study that wasn't properly challenged, was steered toward a predetermined answer, or cut corners on the hardest parts of the investigation. Learning to recognise these failure modes early—before you sign contracts, commit capital, or brief your funder—is what separates smart investment decisions from expensive mistakes.

The consultant who didn't push back on your assumptions

One of the most common red flags is a study that accepts your framing without question. You tell the consultant "we know our customer base will pay R200 a month," and three weeks later the study assumes exactly that without testing it. You mention that a competitor is struggling, and the report treats that as established fact rather than investigating why.

A robust feasibility study challenges your premises. It asks hard questions: How do you actually *know* that price point? Have you tested it with real customers, or is it an educated guess? What's the evidence that your competitor is struggling—lower sales, higher churn, or hearsay? When a consultant nods along and builds the whole analysis on your assumptions without evidence, you're not getting independent validation. You're getting an echo.

Look for a study that flags assumptions explicitly, tests the risky ones, and either validates or refutes them with data. If the report treats everything you said as a given, it's already failed at its job.

Cherry-picked data and missing failure scenarios

A study that only shows you the upside is hiding the downside. You'll see market size figures that support growth, case studies from successful similar businesses, and trend data pointing favourable. What you won't see is analysis of what could go wrong or the conditions under which your business would fail.

This shows up as one-sided reasoning. The report emphasises the opportunities—growing demand, available funding, willing partners—but glosses over obstacles or treats them as minor. There's no stress-testing. No scenario where staffing costs run higher than projected, or customer acquisition takes longer. No honest assessment of what market share you'd actually capture, and why competitors wouldn't defend it.

A credible study walks through at least one failure scenario: "If uptake is 30% slower than forecast, the break-even point moves to month 18 instead of month 12, and cash reserve requirements increase." It quantifies what changes your go/no-go decision. A study that doesn't, or that treats downside as unlikely rather than possible, has probably been filtered to reassure rather than to inform.

Vague methodology and unverifiable sources

When you dig into how the consultant arrived at their conclusions, the paper trail should be clear. Who did they interview? How many? What was the sample? For financial projections, where did benchmark figures come from? What's the source of the market size estimate?

If the study is evasive on method—"based on industry research," "consultations with key stakeholders," "conservative estimates"—you're seeing opacity that allows for bias to hide. A consultant steering toward a yes-answer can claim a broad source base without having actually done rigorous work. They can cite "industry standards" that favour their conclusion or interview only the people most likely to say yes.

Press on detail. Ask for the list of people consulted, the exact questions asked, and the raw data or quotes that support major claims. If the consultant can't or won't provide it, the study's foundation is weaker than it appears. Specificity is a sign of honest work; vagueness is a warning.

Before you act on a feasibility study, treat it as a hypothesis to test, not a verdict to accept. The studies that get things right are the ones that actively looked for reasons the idea might fail, and either overcame those objections with evidence or warned you clearly about the risks. When you're reviewing a study, ask yourself whether the consultant was trying to answer your question fairly or trying to give you permission to proceed. The difference is visible once you know where to look.

If you're considering commissioning a study, choosing a consultant with a track record of challenge and independence—rather than one who simply agrees with your vision—makes all the difference. You'll find verified consultants on Strove who can walk you through how they'd approach yours.