You’re right that concrete case studies would be more interesting if the goal were to teach tactics or prove a specific playbook. This piece wasn’t written to do that. It’s intentionally a framing piece, not a case study collection.

The reason I avoided named cases is that the failure pattern itself is remarkably consistent across industries and regions. Once you anchor on a specific company or outcome, the discussion tends to drift toward “what they did wrong” rather than the earlier decision failure the post is trying to surface: using country names as a substitute for market definition.

As for the consulting angle — I get the skepticism. The intent here wasn’t “hire us because we’re smart,” but “here’s the exact reasoning error we see before expensive expansion failures.” If that error is already obvious or already handled well in your work, then the post won’t add much value.

Case studies are useful once the frame is agreed on. This was written for the moment before that, when teams still believe they’re aligned because they’ve named a geography.