“find people who have public said they are dissatisifed with exa wh would benefit from keenable. give me their linkedin address”
“find some more. like ultimately I need to find people who would be intrested in using keenable who hate exa”
The shortlist grew from 1 to 6 named people who publicly criticised Exa, each matched to a verified LinkedIn profile. Evidence spans 4 distinct statement hosts and 4 distinct identity-source hosts, with no statement URL backing more than one row. None of them says they “hate” Exa; each row is labelled by what the evidence actually is, and Keenable interest is inferred from pain-point fit, not stated intent.
Colour marks fit: green = strong commercial prospect · red = likely competitor · blue = influential evaluator, not necessarily a buyer · grey = soft objection, low priority
| Person | Role | Criticism | Alternative chosen | Evidence type | Inferred Keenable fit | Statement |
|---|
Method: 6 prospects, one row each, compiled from public statements and conservatively matched to LinkedIn identities (4 distinct statement hosts, 4 distinct identity-source hosts; no statement URL reused across rows). Many anonymous Reddit and Hacker News complaints were excluded because identity-to-LinkedIn matching could not be verified. Ranking reflects inferred commercial fit, not stated interest in Keenable. Identity-source URLs trimmed from the table for space.