Sources & Methodology

Prepared: 31 October 2026 · Study period: 31 October 2026 (single-day research window) · Currency: SAR unless stated

---

1. Method

1.1 Sequence

The study followed the requested order: 1 Catalog audit → 2 Regulatory → 3 Existing presence → 4 Market → 5 Competitive → 6 Product benchmark → 7 Unit economics → 8 Go-to-market and risk. Intermediate files were saved as they were produced; the raw data is in work/raw/ and the analysis scripts in work/.

1.2 Catalog extraction

The catalogue PDF (Catalogue_Performance_Line_1_10_2026_C_ENG.pdf, 18 pages, 29 MB) has no text layer — every page is an image. Each page was rendered at 170 dpi with PyMuPDF and read visually, including the nutrition panels, ingredient lists, NPNs, claims and warnings. Values were transcribed into products.csv and cross-checked against the page images. This is a manual extraction; transcription errors are possible, so the CSV should be reconciled against the final print-ready artwork before registration.

1.3 Search and access

• English and Arabic queries were used for SFDA, GSO, market and retailer research. Arabic queries included "المكملات الغذائية", "لائحة المكملات الغذائية", "المواد المحظورة", "هيئة الغذاء والدواء".
• Google blocked automated access (reCAPTCHA). DuckDuckGo HTML worked briefly, then served a bot challenge. Bing worked through a real browser session but degraded long queries on the scripted endpoint. The study therefore relied on direct navigation to primary sources, the SFDA site's own indexes, and the in-app browser for search.
• Rate limiting: SFDA and retailer requests were spaced (1–2 seconds) and kept to the minimum needed. No bulk scraping was performed.
• Retailers: Amazon.sa rendered in the browser and provided the price benchmark. Nahdi (KSA) was searchable and returned no NBP/Lipofel/TrimFit/INOV, while a creatine control returned products. Noon timed out/blanked; Al-Dawaa returned HTTP 403; no pharmacy shelf prices were captured.
• Health Canada LNHPD pages were fetched in the browser context for all 11 printed NPNs. The LNHPD brand-search form required a CSRF/session token and was not completed.

1.4 Evidence hierarchy

Primary regulator/standards sources were preferred: SFDA guides, GSO standards, Health Canada LNHPD, World Bank, GASTAT, ITA. Industry reports (IMARC, Grand View, Ken Research) were used for market size with their scope and limitations stated. Press and company sites were used only for context or company-reported metrics. No paid report was purchased; only public summaries were used.

1.5 Calculations

• Protein % of serving, g/100 g, kcal per g protein, sugar % energy and servings per pack are computed in work/build_products.py from the transcribed panel values.
• Price per 100 g, price per g protein and price per serving are computed in work/build_benchmarks.py from the Amazon.sa listings.
• Landed cost, margins, break-even and scenarios are computed in work/model.py and replicated with live formulas in 05_Pricing_and_Financial_Model.xlsx.
• Market reconciliation and per-capita figures are in 02_Market_Overview.md; the non-drinks split is a derived estimate, not a published figure.

1.6 What was not done

• No physical product was sampled or lab-tested.
• No consumer survey, focus group or interview was conducted.
• No Google Trends data was collected.
• No pharmacy or Noon sell-through data was obtained.
• A public SAIP IP search was attempted, but it returned 0 for control marks (Nike, Samsung, Almarai), so no reliable trademark clearance was completed.
• No legal opinion was obtained; the regulatory chapter is a compliance analysis, not legal advice.

---

2. Source register

Reliability: High = primary regulator/standard/peer-reviewed; Medium-high = established research firm with transparent public summary, or government trade guide; Medium = company site, press, consultancy; Low = not used as a sole basis.

Access date for all URLs: 31 October 2026, unless the source itself carries a later/earlier publication date as shown.

---

3. Data gaps and what could not be verified

---

4. Assumptions register

---

5. Self-review and consistency checks

5.1 Numbers reconciled across reports

5.2 Counts

• Products: 14 rows in products.csv = 13 current SKUs + 1 pipeline (Pro Milk). Extreme Mass 5 lb and 10 lb are counted separately.
• Unique NPNs: 12 printed across 13 SKUs (both mass sizes share NPN 80066429).
• NPN mismatches: 7 of 12 unique NPNs (8 of 13 SKUs).
• Benchmark rows: 81 = 69 Amazon.sa market listings + 12 NBP planning rows.
• Competitors: 22 brands in competitors.csv.
• Channels: 7 in channel_map.csv.
• Charts: 6 PNGs (5 required + 1 reconciliation).

5.3 Checks performed

• Product metrics recomputed from panel values; protein % energy and sugar % energy sums are consistent.
• Price per gram protein recomputed from price ÷ (protein × servings); flagged where servings were assumed.
• Excel formulas recalculated in LibreOffice and compared to the Python model; scenario totals match to the riyal.
• Claims thresholds checked against SFDA's 12%/20% energy rules.
• NPN audit cross-checked against Health Canada's LNHPD for all 11 printed NPNs.
• Market figures checked for scope (all include sports drinks) and labelled as such.
• Every number in the executive summary traced to a source or the model.

5.4 Known inconsistencies in the source material (deliberately reported, not smoothed)

• The 2021 SFDA guide says shelf life >24 months needs approval; the 2024 guide says the maximum is 5 years. Both are cited; the recommendation is ≤24 months.
• Ken Research says 59.1% of adults met 150 min/week in 2025; GASTAT's 2022 survey says 48.2% did 30+ min/week. Different definitions; both are reported, not reconciled.
• IMARC's 11.4% CAGR vs GVR/Ken's 8.0%; the report uses 8% base and 11.4% optimistic rather than averaging.
• The catalogue's NPNs and the LNHPD records conflict; the LNHPD is treated as authoritative for what is licensed in Canada.
• The catalogue's ProWhey front (24 g) and panel (24 g) match, but the Canadian licence is for Iso-Whey (22 g); the conflict is between label and licence, not within the panel.
• The catalogue's Extreme ISO has no panel; its Canadian licence records a 60 g dose, not the 33 g scoop. Both are reported.

5.5 Confidence summary

---

6. Final self-review statement

The study meets the evidence rules in the brief: every market size, regulatory requirement, price and competitor fact is tied to a URL and an access date, or explicitly labelled ESTIMATE or UNVERIFIED. The main weaknesses are the absence of physical lab testing, the placeholder ex-works prices, and the lack of pharmacy/Noon data. These are stated in the executive summary and in the model's Read Me, not buried.

The most important analytical judgement is that the regulatory route is not the deal-breaker; the manufacturer's label and licence integrity is. A clean competitor catalogue could execute the same plan with the same SFDA fees and the same channel strategy. That is why the verdict is conditional on INOV fixing its documents, not on the Saudi market.

---

End of report. Companion files: 00_Executive_Summary.md, 01_Regulatory_Pathway.md, 02_Market_Overview.md, 03_Competitive_Landscape.md, 04_Product_Benchmark.md, 05_Pricing_and_Financial_Model.xlsx, 06_Go_To_Market_and_Risk.md, products.csv, compliance_matrix.csv, benchmark_prices.csv, scorecards.csv, competitors.csv, channel_map.csv, charts/.