When AI Evaluates the Industry That Sells It
Jon W. Hansen | December 29, 2025
Earlier today, I published a post arguing that the procurement technology industry is chasing a brass ring that doesn’t exist without Phase 0 readiness. Two respected voices in the space—James Meads and Mathew Schulz—responded.
Rather than offering my own opinion, I posed the question to five RAM 2025 AI models: “What do you think of their responses?”
Here’s what AI—the technology this industry sells—had to say.
The Comments
James Meads:
“In all fairness Jon, I think 99% of Founders, Analysts, and Consultants would agree with you that there is no silver bullet (or brass ring). It all goes south when procurement leaders don’t really know what they want or what the market offers (more common than you think), and salespeople at procuretech companies don’t really understand the buyer’s key challenges and organisational maturity.”
Mathew Schulz:
“Marketing is a hell of a thing, isn’t it? I’ve bought, I’ve built, and I’ve spent more time than I could possibly imagine working with practitioners to explore modern procurement. Additionally, I’ve spent a significant amount of time inside several procuretech companies, and continue to this day advising the earliest of startups in the space. Procurement is a people business. The tech is there to help.”
The Question I Posed to Five AI Models
“What are your thoughts regarding James’ and Mathew’s comments to my post? They seem to be delicately on the perimeter of acknowledging without acknowledgement.”
What AI Said
MODEL 1
On James:
“He’s offering a ‘99% agree’ concession, then reframing the failure source as unclear buyer intent and vendor misdiagnosis. That’s acknowledgement without stepping into your sharper claim: that the market’s revenue model + tech-first playbooks systematically encourage skipping Phase 0.”
On Mathew:
“He’s validating your core (‘procurement is a people business; tech helps’) and calling out marketing, but he stops short of saying vendors/analysts benefit from the brass-ring chase, or that ‘readiness gating’ should be a hard stop/go requirement. It’s alignment in principle, non-commitment on mechanism.”
The verdict:
“They’re agreeing with the symptom, but re-scoping the cause. They’re staying on the perimeter: ‘no silver bullet’—without endorsing ‘Phase 0 is the missing gate.'”
MODEL 2
On James:
“He agrees that there is no single magic solution. He shifts the explanation of failure primarily to two parties: procurement leaders (who lack clarity) and salespeople (who lack understanding). He does not engage with the core argument: that readiness (Phase 0 / organisational preparation) is the critical missing piece.”
On Mathew:
“He does not address the brass ring metaphor, the 80% failure rate, the need for Phase 0 readiness, or the risks of chasing technology without preparation. The comment remains very general and does not engage with any specific point you made.”
The verdict:
“Both comments show a pattern that is very common in industry discussions: They signal superficial agreement (‘yes, there is no silver bullet’, ‘yes, marketing can be overblown’) while avoiding the more uncomfortable or disruptive part of your argument. This creates the impression of alignment while carefully sidestepping the call to fundamentally rethink the sequence (preparation first, technology second).”
MODEL 3
On James:
“‘There is no silver bullet/brass ring’—full agreement with your headline, but framed as something everyone already knows: ‘99% of founders, analysts, consultants would agree with you.’ Notice what’s missing: any acknowledgment that the industry’s own incentives and narratives have been actively selling the brass ring for 20+ years, or that something like Phase 0 is structurally absent.”
On Mathew:
“His bottom line is: ‘Procurement is a people business. The tech is there to help.’ That aligns with your human-first architecture instinct, but it still stops one step short: It doesn’t confront how much tech has been sold as substitute for readiness, not as helper.”
The verdict:
“They’re half-agreeing with your conclusion while carefully avoiding your premise. They are trying to agree with your conclusion while preserving the comfort of the current game.”
MODEL 4
On James:
“The ‘Sucking’ (The Admission): He admits there is no silver bullet and that ‘organizational maturity’ is often ignored. The ‘Blowing’ (The Avoidance): By framing it as a mutual misunderstanding, he avoids admitting that the industry’s incentive structure (selling the ‘sled’) is designed to bypass that maturity check to maintain spend velocity.”
On Mathew:
“The ‘Sucking’ (The Admission): He validates that tech is secondary to the human element. The ‘Blowing’ (The Avoidance): He treats ‘marketing’ as an external force rather than the engine that fuels the failure loop. He acknowledges the ‘people’ strand but doesn’t explicitly call for the Phase 0 diagnostic that would hold that marketing accountable to actual ROI.”
The verdict:
“They are ‘acknowledging without acknowledgement’ because to fully agree would be to admit that Phase 0 is the only legitimate revenue model for a transformation partner. Until they stop selling ‘sleds to the untrained,’ they are part of the ecosystem optimized for race entry, not the finish line.”
MODEL 5
On James:
“Translation: ‘Everyone already knows this, so it’s not really a new insight.’ The deflection: He shifts blame to procurement leaders who ‘don’t know what they want’ and salespeople who ‘don’t understand the buyer.’ What he avoids: Any acknowledgment that the structure of the ecosystem—vendor economics, consultant economics, analyst economics—is optimized to sell race entry, not readiness. He personalizes a systemic problem.”
On Mathew:
“Translation: ‘Yeah, marketing overpromises, but we all know the tech is just a tool.’ The deflection: He positions himself as a wise insider who has ‘bought, built, and advised’ across the space—implying he’s already above the critique. What he avoids: Any acknowledgment that the 80% failure rate persists because the ecosystem he advises, builds for, and operates within is structurally incapable of asking ‘Should you do this at all?'”
The verdict:
“They’re agreeing with you in principle while protecting the system that perpetuates the problem in practice. Your post named the structure. Their responses protected it. That’s not acknowledgment. That’s diplomatic evasion.”
The Convergence
Across five independent AI models, the pattern was consistent:
Five models. Five independent assessments. One conclusion:
Both responses follow the same pattern: agree with the headline, protect the system.
What This Reveals
James and Mathew aren’t wrong. Buyers are confused. Marketing does overpromise. Procurement is a people business.
But framing it that way—as a communication gap, a marketing problem, an execution risk—protects the ecosystem they operate within.
The harder question is why, after 25+ years of documented failure patterns, nothing has changed.
The AI models identified what the humans wouldn’t say:
- The industry’s incentives are designed to skip readiness — Vendor economics, consultant economics, analyst economics all reward selling race entry, not assessing race readiness.
- Phase 0 is structurally absent — No one in the value chain is paid to ask “Can this organization absorb what we’re selling?”
- Agreeing with symptoms while protecting causes isn’t insight — It’s diplomatic evasion.
The Meta-Irony
James and Mathew operate in an ecosystem that sells AI as transformative intelligence.
Five AI models just evaluated their positioning and concluded: diplomatic evasion.
They can’t dismiss this as “Jon’s opinion.” They’d have to explain why the AI they promote is wrong about their positioning.
The Question That Remains
The question isn’t whether James and Mathew are wrong. They’re not.
The question is whether acknowledging symptoms while protecting the structure that causes them qualifies as insight—or evasion.
AI seems to have an opinion on that.
The Path Beyond Diplomatic Evasion
Moving beyond diplomatic evasion requires saying what the models said:
- If 99% agree there’s no brass ring, why does the industry still behave as if there is? Quotas, roadmaps, analyst reports, and implementation models all assume “buy the platform” as the starting point.
- If procurement is a people business, where’s the people readiness gate? Phase 0 is the unglamorous part where we measure whether the people, incentives, and structures are ready before we add tech.
- If marketing is “a hell of a thing,” who holds it accountable? Until readiness becomes a go/no-go gate, marketing will keep filling the vacuum.
The industry will only start to change when more people are willing to move from “yes, but…” to “yes, and therefore we need to do the preparation work first.”
This post wasn’t written to attack James or Mathew.
It was written to demonstrate what happens when AI—the technology this industry sells—is asked to evaluate the industry’s own responses to structural critique.
The answer was unanimous.
— Jon W. Hansen Creator, Hansen Method | Founder, Procurement Insights December 29, 2025
Procurement Insights
How To Move Beyond Diplomatic Evasion
Posted on December 29, 2025
0
When AI Evaluates the Industry That Sells It
Jon W. Hansen | December 29, 2025
Earlier today, I published a post arguing that the procurement technology industry is chasing a brass ring that doesn’t exist without Phase 0 readiness. Two respected voices in the space—James Meads and Mathew Schulz—responded.
Rather than offering my own opinion, I posed the question to five RAM 2025 AI models: “What do you think of their responses?”
Here’s what AI—the technology this industry sells—had to say.
The Comments
James Meads:
Mathew Schulz:
The Question I Posed to Five AI Models
“What are your thoughts regarding James’ and Mathew’s comments to my post? They seem to be delicately on the perimeter of acknowledging without acknowledgement.”
What AI Said
MODEL 1
On James:
On Mathew:
The verdict:
MODEL 2
On James:
On Mathew:
The verdict:
MODEL 3
On James:
On Mathew:
The verdict:
MODEL 4
On James:
On Mathew:
The verdict:
MODEL 5
On James:
On Mathew:
The verdict:
The Convergence
Across five independent AI models, the pattern was consistent:
Five models. Five independent assessments. One conclusion:
Both responses follow the same pattern: agree with the headline, protect the system.
What This Reveals
James and Mathew aren’t wrong. Buyers are confused. Marketing does overpromise. Procurement is a people business.
But framing it that way—as a communication gap, a marketing problem, an execution risk—protects the ecosystem they operate within.
The harder question is why, after 25+ years of documented failure patterns, nothing has changed.
The AI models identified what the humans wouldn’t say:
The Meta-Irony
James and Mathew operate in an ecosystem that sells AI as transformative intelligence.
Five AI models just evaluated their positioning and concluded: diplomatic evasion.
They can’t dismiss this as “Jon’s opinion.” They’d have to explain why the AI they promote is wrong about their positioning.
The Question That Remains
The question isn’t whether James and Mathew are wrong. They’re not.
The question is whether acknowledging symptoms while protecting the structure that causes them qualifies as insight—or evasion.
AI seems to have an opinion on that.
The Path Beyond Diplomatic Evasion
Moving beyond diplomatic evasion requires saying what the models said:
The industry will only start to change when more people are willing to move from “yes, but…” to “yes, and therefore we need to do the preparation work first.”
This post wasn’t written to attack James or Mathew.
It was written to demonstrate what happens when AI—the technology this industry sells—is asked to evaluate the industry’s own responses to structural critique.
The answer was unanimous.
— Jon W. Hansen Creator, Hansen Method | Founder, Procurement Insights December 29, 2025
Share this:
Related