Entry is a right-to-win and cost-to-enter question, not a TAM slide.
A new market is a bet that you can win a beachhead cheaper than the incumbents can defend it. TAM is not that number. Cost to enter, time to a paying cohort, and the kill criterion if the first cohort does not look like the model — those are. If the core still returns more than the new market after honest numbers, stay.
The move that usually makes it worse: Entering on brand and hope while the core's payback is still the better use of the same cash.
Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures.
If it is your problem and you want the analysis on your numbers, the live page is https://percision.app/should-we-enter-a-new-market. The engine routes this question to Market Entry. Metrics that decide it: right to win · cost to enter.
Industry variants: Professional services · Banks & financial services · Healthcare providers · Healthtech / digital health · Logistics & supply chain · E-commerce & DTC · Manufacturing · Construction & trades · Retail · Real estate & property · Fintech
Strategy School lesson: enter-new-market
Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures.
You need a ranked beachhead, a cost, and a kill criterion. A facilitated offsite is optional. Politics and introductions are a human job Percision does not do.
Then it is still a cost-to-enter question. 'AI is changing our industry' is a different page if the issue is disruption of the current book.