Complete a reviewable sales sequence without inventing buyer facts, authority, budget or intent.
Collect permitted account facts, label unknowns and avoid turning public signals into private conclusions.
A useful brief separates confirmed facts, source dates, inferences and open questions. It does not infer budget, authority or purchase intent from a job title or website visit.
The company publishes a reporting role and requested a product demo. The brief records both sources but leaves team size, budget and implementation date unknown.
Choose one fictional or permitted account. Record five facts with source and date, two inferences to verify and three unknowns for discovery.
Create an account brief from these permitted sources: [sources]. Return confirmed fact, source, date, relevance, inference and open question. Do not infer private data, budget, authority, intent or timeline.
Convert unknowns into neutral questions tied to a real sales decision.
Discovery questions should help both sides understand the current process, impact, decision criteria and next step. They should not expose invasive research or embed an unsupported conclusion.
Ask “Who owns the weekly report today?” rather than “Why is your team failing to manage reporting?”
Use the account brief to write two process, two impact and two decision questions. Add the evidence or unknown behind each.
Prepare six discovery questions from this account brief: [brief]. Group by process, impact and decision. Explain the evidence or unknown behind each. Remove leading assumptions.
Use explicit criteria and evidence without allowing the model to fill missing fields.
Qualification is a policy decision expressed through criteria. AI can organize the evidence, but owners must approve the criteria and resulting action.
Workflow problem and next conversation are confirmed; team fit is unknown. The correct result is manual review, not a fabricated fit score.
Define three criteria, permitted sources and outcomes for met, not met and unknown. Apply them to the fictional brief.
Apply only these qualification criteria: [criteria]. Evidence: [evidence]. Return criterion, evidence, met/not met/unknown, reason and next action. Never convert unknown into a negative or positive score.
Turn reviewed notes into a concise follow-up with no new promise.
A reliable follow-up captures decisions, each side’s commitment, missing owners or dates and one next action. It should not add urgency or expand scope.
Maya will send the security questionnaire Friday. The buyer will confirm the review owner. The next meeting date remains not set.
Use a fictional call note. Draft the follow-up, then map each sentence back to the note and remove unsupported wording.
Draft a follow-up from these notes: [notes]. Return context, confirmed decision, our commitment, their commitment, open question and next action. Mark missing owner or date [NOT SET].
Yes. All four lessons exercises and answer explanations are available on this page without an account.
No. It prepares reviewable artifacts while research approval compliance and sending remain with the responsible person.
No. A public event can support a research question but does not establish budget authority priority or intent.
