“Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law? Which general has most ability? With whom lie the advantages of Heaven and Earth?”
Victory is forecast by weighing the same factors on both sides, not by optimism about your own.
The five factors now become an instrument: seven questions, each asked comparatively — which sovereign has the Moral Law, which general more ability, whose Heaven and Earth advantages hold, whose discipline is stricter, whose officers and soldiers are stronger, whose men are better trained, whose rewards and punishments clearer. The framework’s power is the word "which": every answer is a comparison, and comparisons cannot be spun.
Before pitching against an incumbent, a sales lead runs the seven honestly: better product (yes), better references (no), clearer pricing (no), stronger service team (no), better-known brand (badly no), better-trained reps (tie), better incentives to switch (yes — the incumbent’s contracts are up). Two of seven won, and both are the ones that decide renewals. The pitch was built on exactly those two and conceded the rest — and won on the narrow ground it had chosen.
The seven comparisons are not a vote where 4-3 means advance. Some factors outweigh others in a given contest — one decisive advantage in the factor that matters can beat a sweep of the trivial ones. The exercise builds honesty about where you actually win, so you can refuse the fight everywhere else; it is a targeting instrument, not a scoreboard.