partner-economicslisted

# Partner Economics Model one partner relationship as a small P&L - attributable revenue net of every partner cost, against partner CAC, ramp, and incrementality - to decide sign, scale, renegotiate, or prune. Two structural facts frame the whole exercise; state them plainly rather than paper over them: - **No canonical "partner P&L" template exists.** Practitioners converge on the same revenue and cost components, but vendors publish incompatible definitions, and any claim to _the_ standard (PARTNERNOMICS-style certification included) is a proprietary product, not industry consensus. - **Most widely quoted partner benchmarks are vendor marketing, not research.** The famous "80% of channel revenue from 20% of partners / only 11% hit incentive goals" figures are untraceable; so are the "most partners never transact" claims. Label every number's evidence class; quote nothing as settled fact without a named source. Read [references/benchmarks-and-figure-grading.md](references/benchmarks-and-figure-grading.md) before citing any figure: the graded benchmark set, plus the untraceable figures to refuse. What the field genuinely offers: - **Hans Peter Bech's channel-partner P&L** - model the PARTNER's own 3-5 year economics, because "it is crucial that the channel partner takes ownership of the P&L." The single most articulated practitioner method for one relationship. - **Spengler's double marginalization (1950)** and the two-part tariff fix (Jeuland & Shugan 1983; McGuire & Sta