{"id":1126,"slug":"rule-diagnose-prior-vendor-failure-as-competence-or-integrity","title":"R5 — Diagnose previous-vendor failures as competence or integrity; route the repair strategy accordingly (apology vs structural commitments)","kind":"rule","scope":"business","status":"current","audiences":["kevin","candid-team"],"topics":["psychology-aversion","trust-repair"],"reference_body":"**Rule:** When a prospect references a previous bad vendor experience, the diagnostic question is not \"what happened?\" but **\"did they fail to deliver or did they misrepresent?\"**\n\n- **Competence-framed failures** (\"they didn't know what they were doing,\" \"the work was bad\") → addressable through demonstrated Candid competence. Apology-shaped acknowledgment of the previous vendor's mistake is congruent.\n- **Integrity-framed failures** (\"they took my money and disappeared,\" \"they lied about timelines,\" \"they billed for work that wasn't done\") → **NOT addressable through competence demonstration alone**. Requires **structural commitments**: milestone billing, written deliverables before next payment, references the prospect can call directly. These defuse rather than answer the integrity question.\n\n**Why:** Kim, Ferrin, Cooper & Dirks (2004) shows the asymmetry — apology works for competence, denial works for integrity ([[kim-ferrin-cooper-dirks-2004-competence-vs-integrity-trust-repair]]). Negative integrity information is more diagnostic than negative competence information ([[rozin-royzman-2001-negativity-dominance]]). Substituting one repair strategy for the other backfires.\n\n**How to apply:**\n- Listen for the **moral content** of the complaint. \"They were bad\" = competence. \"They were dishonest\" = integrity.\n- For competence complaints: show the work. Detailed case studies, named projects, technical depth.\n- For integrity complaints: offer **structural** protection. Escrow, staged billing tied to inspectable deliverables, a list of three current clients the prospect can call without notice. The cost of the structural protection is low; the signal value is high.\n- Do not protest innocence in the abstract. Integrity violations don't repair through assertion.","rationale_body":null,"metadata":null,"links":{"outgoing":[{"slug":"research-brief-risk-aversion-post-failure-may-2026","title":"Research brief: risk aversion, loss aversion, and post-failure decision patterns in GC and trades-business decision-makers (May 2026)","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"relates-to"},{"slug":"kim-ferrin-cooper-dirks-2004-competence-vs-integrity-trust-repair","title":"Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, Dirks 2004 (JAP) — competence violations repair via apology; integrity violations repair via denial; opposite mechanisms","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"depends-on"},{"slug":"mayer-davis-schoorman-1995-trust-ability-benevolence-integrity","title":"Mayer, Davis, Schoorman 1995 (AMR) — trust = ability + benevolence + integrity; all three required; absence of any forecloses trust","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"depends-on"},{"slug":"rozin-royzman-2001-negativity-dominance","title":"Rozin & Royzman 2001 (PSPR) — negativity bias / negativity dominance; bad weighs more than the algebraic sum of equivalent goods","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"depends-on"}],"incoming":[]},"created_at":"2026-05-25T13:13:31.098Z","updated_at":"2026-05-25T13:13:31.098Z"}