Every comp conversation I've been in goes fine until someone says "why this number?" and the room goes quiet. The number usually came from a blend of gut, a half-remembered market rate, and what we could afford. None of that survives a direct question from a candidate or finance.
So I built a generator that turns role, region, and seniority into a written rationale — the doc you wish you'd had before the meeting.
Role and region framing stops the hand-waving
The first inputs are the two things people skip: what the role actually is in the market, and what region sets the pay context. "Senior backend in Berlin" and "senior backend in a low-cost region" are different numbers for reasons a rationale has to state out loud. The generator makes you name them so the rest of the narrative has a foundation instead of a vibe.
The pay-band narrative is the core: it places the offer within a band and says why it sits where it does — midpoint for a clean fit, lower for a stretch hire, higher for a rare skill. Writing that down forces the honesty that "we just liked them" isn't a defensible reason on its own.
Equity and bonus as structure, not advice
The equity-or-bonus structure part lays out how the total package splits, because a rationale that only mentions base leaves the most-confusing part unspoken. The generator drafts the split from your inputs; it does not tell you what's competitive or fair, because that depends on data I won't pretend to have baked in.
The talking points are the part for the actual conversation — short lines you can use when the candidate pushes. They're derived from the narrative, so they stay consistent with the written rationale instead of contradicting it mid-call.
What I'd tell a founder doing this by hand
Write the rationale before you extend the offer, not after the candidate pushes back. The document is the thinking; the offer is the output. CompReason just makes the document fast so you actually do it. The failure mode is treating comp as a number to defend rather than a story to tell, and a written rationale fixes that.
Keep the band ranges editable. Any generated range is a starting assumption, and the moment you ship a hard number as fact, you've over-claimed.
The limit
It's decision-support, not a salary survey and not legal or financial advice. The narrative is only as good as the market assumptions you bring; the tool structures them, it doesn't certify them. I'm clear that this helps you explain a decision, not make one for you or guarantee it holds up to any pay-transparency law.
When the meeting is at 4pm and I have five minutes, CompReason gets the rationale on paper before anyone asks why. The talking points stay tied to the narrative, so I'm not improvising a different story in the room.
FAQ
What does the rationale include?
Role and region framing, a pay-band narrative explaining where the offer sits, the equity or bonus structure, and talking points for the conversation.
Does it tell me the right salary?
No. It structures your reasoning from inputs you provide. Market data and what's fair are yours to supply; the tool doesn't invent a number.
Can it keep me compliant with pay-transparency laws?
It helps you document a rationale, which some laws expect. It does not certify compliance — that needs local legal review.
Should finance and the candidate see the same doc?
Often yes — the talking points and narrative are consistent by design, so you're not saying one thing on paper and another in the room.
