How to read this
How confident is each finding?
Every finding in this analysis carries a label saying how well established it is. The labels are not decoration — they govern what a finding may be used for.
Verification
What each label commits us to
Six labels, applied consistently across every page.
- Verified · primary
- Established directly from a primary source or from our own reproducible measurement of it.
- Verified · independent
- Corroborated by an independent third party that is not the subject of the claim.
- Observed on retail surface
- Directly observed on a retail or DTC surface at a stated capture date. Factual about that surface at that moment — not a market-wide fact.
- Company claim
- Asserted by the subject company about itself. Never upgraded without independent corroboration.
- Analyst estimate
- Our own derived figure. The method is stated alongside it.
- Unresolved
- Sources conflict, or evidence is insufficient. Not to be presented as settled.
A company's own assertion is never promoted to verified by repetition. Only independent corroboration moves it, and the corroborating source is recorded when it does.
Open questions
Where the sources disagree
Open questions, shown rather than smoothed over. Each sits under something a client will plausibly ask.
The sustainable line is reachable at /marcas/consorcio-linea-sostenible/ in the 2026-08-02 sitemap and recorded, while the 2026-07-31 homepage recorded linked it as /marcas/consorcio-linea-eco/. Apparent rename from "Línea ECO" to "Línea SOStenible"; the eco path was not re-tested in this cycle.
Two readings of the site on different dates disagree on the path. A single pair is a hypothesis, not a confirmed rebrand — it needs a third observation or an archived page to settle.
Serrats' 0.0% promotion rate is a measurement blind spot, not a commercial fact: its product data does not expose a comparison price, so discounts are invisible to us rather than absent. Any competitive promotion comparison that includes Serrats at zero is wrong.
High confidence that the blind spot exists; no confidence at all in the 0.0% figure.
Spanish conservas turnover ladder is contested and must not be published as a single ranking. Ranking-Empresas: Frinsa del Noroeste S.A. EUR 625,863,433 (#1 sector), Jealsa Foods S.A. EUR 553,365,084 (#2). Mercasa 2026 reports a group-level ladder of EUR 781M / 741M / 727M / 320M. Only the 727M is identifiable (Nauterra). Entity-vs-group scope differs.
Sources disagree; reconciliation impossible from public data.
Callipo anniversary figures conflict: evidence records ">EUR 100m for the first time in 112 years" (2024) while the company site states "sono passati 110 anni" against a 1913 founding (implying 111 in 2024). Logged rather than reconciled.
Minor discrepancy between two company statements; likely stale site copy, but unresolved.
~99% household penetration for conservas in Spain is UNVERIFIED; the circulating 97% figure refers to Peru. Pending a Kantar Spain category report.
No verifiable Spanish source found this cycle
Reading the charts
Three conventions worth knowing
- Every chart states its unit, geography and period. If two things are plotted together, they share a unit. Where they could not be normalised honestly, they are not plotted.
- Excluded observations are counted, not dropped. The price ladder excludes any product without a real net weight, and says how many.
- Evidence density is not market share. Where a chart counts how much is known about a subject, it says so. No market share is estimated anywhere in this analysis.