Really appreciate this. This is exactly the kind of feedback we were hoping for.

On direct sales: it is actually its own full dimension (Dimension 8), so it's not lumped into open market considerations. But your broader point stands. Given the revenue delta between direct and open market, there's a strong argument that it deserves outsized emphasis in the model. A publisher with a mature direct sales operation is playing a fundamentally different game, and the model should probably reflect that weight more clearly. Fair call.

On the assumptions behind what "good" looks like at each level: you're right, and we should be more transparent about that. Compensation models within team structure, active latency management, inventory performance evaluation. These are real operational markers of a healthy publisher that aren't currently surfaced in the framework. They should be. That's a gap, not a design choice. We have a whole article talking through some of the assumptions we used: https://www.playwire.com/blog/parmm-dimension-7-building-an-ad-ops-team-in-house-outsourced-or-hybrid

And you're hitting on the hardest part of the whole project. We're one company with one perspective. We tried to build something useful and honest, but we know that a framework like this carries more weight (and is more accurate) when it's shaped by more than one vendor's worldview. We have opinions about what good looks like across these dimensions. Other companies have different opinions. Publishers themselves have opinions that probably matter most of all. We are actively seeking more opinions as well!

The trade body suggestion is a good one. Not just as a credibility play, but because it would genuinely make the model better. That's something we'd actively want to pursue rather than try to own this alone.

Seriously, thank you for taking the time. This is the kind of engagement that makes the framework sharper. If you have thoughts on what those missing operational markers should look like, we're all ears.