---
name: 01-forecast-review
description: Run before a forecast call. Trigger - "run 01" plus the pipeline or forecast sheet.
---

# TASK 01 — FORECAST REVIEW

## INPUT
Deals with stage, value, close date, owner, and the category
they have been put in. Better: last week's version, and the
evidence behind each commit.

## PROCESS
1. Separate commit from hope. A deal is commit only when
   there is evidence in what I gave you — a signed order, a
   dated approval, procurement engaged. A confident rep is
   not evidence.
2. Flag every deal whose category improved without any new
   evidence attached. That pattern, not any single deal, is
   what breaks a quarter.
3. Compare to the previous version. Note slips with the date
   they moved from and to.
4. Name the three questions the CEO will ask, and whether we
   currently have answers.

## OUTPUT
COMMIT (with the evidence for each) / AT RISK (what would
have to be true) / MOVED WITHOUT EVIDENCE (list) /
WHAT THE CEO WILL ASK (3).

## RULES
- Never state a total that implies guidance. This is an
  internal working view and it says so.
- Never upgrade a deal on sentiment.
- If the evidence field is empty across most of the sheet,
  say that first. It is the real finding.

## EDGE CASES
- First time seeing this data with no prior version: say the
  slip analysis is unavailable and what to keep for next week.
- The number makes plan comfortably: still list what would
  have to go wrong for it not to, in three lines.

## GOOD LOOKS LIKE
"MOVED WITHOUT EVIDENCE: four deals went from stage 3 to
commit after one call each. Same rep. Ask what changed."

---
name: 02-handoff-audit
description: Run when something is stuck and it is not obvious which function owns it. Trigger - "run 02" plus the history.
---

# TASK 02 — HANDOFF AUDIT

## INPUT
What happened, in sequence, across whichever functions
touched it. Who said what to the customer and when.

## PROCESS
1. Lay out the sequence and mark every point where ownership
   changed hands: sales to SE, sales to PS, PS to CS, direct
   to channel.
2. Find where the customer's understanding and our delivery
   diverged. Name the specific commitment and who made it.
3. Separate the three questions people conflate: what do we
   owe the customer, what do we fix in the process, and who
   carries it commercially. Answer them separately.
4. Name the control that would have caught it. One control,
   implementable, not a policy document.

## OUTPUT
THE SEQUENCE (with handoff points marked) / WHERE IT DIVERGED
(the commitment, who made it, when) / WHAT WE OWE THE CUSTOMER
/ THE PROCESS FIX (one control) / COMMERCIAL POSITION
(separate, for me only).

## RULES
- Never name an individual as the cause. Name the handoff.
  I own all five functions and a blame trail costs me more
  than the deal does.
- One control. A list of five is a document nobody applies.
- The commercial position never appears in anything
  customer-facing produced from this.

## EDGE CASES
- The customer is right and we are fully at fault: say so
  plainly to me, then still keep it out of the external
  letter until legal has seen it.
- Nothing actually diverged and the customer misremembers:
  say that, and make the fix a written confirmation step
  rather than a defence.

## GOOD LOOKS LIKE
"THE CONTROL: no implementation kickoff without the SE
reading back the configuration commitments in front of the
customer. Fifteen minutes, catches this class entirely."

---
name: 03-escalation-response
description: Run when a customer escalation reaches me. Trigger - "run 03" plus what happened and what we know.
---

# TASK 03 — ESCALATION RESPONSE

## INPUT
What the customer said, who said it and how senior, what we
have found so far, and where the renewal sits.

## PROCESS
1. Classify the cause: product, configuration, handoff,
   expectation, or their environment. This decides everything
   and getting it wrong in writing is expensive.
2. Apply the public company rule before drafting. Flag to me
   in one line if anything I have asked for would breach it.
3. Write the letter: acknowledge, state what we found, state
   what happens next with a date and a named owner, and give
   them one thing to do.
4. Keep the internal cause and the commercial position in
   separate notes that do not travel.

## OUTPUT
- One line to me: the cause and any public-company flag.
- THE LETTER.
- INTERNAL NOTE: the cause, the control, the owner.
- COMMERCIAL: where this leaves the renewal, for me only.

## RULES
- No admission of liability before legal sees it.
- No performance number that has not been measured in their
  environment. Offer to show it instead of stating it.
- Never name the function that failed. Say what we found.
- Never raise the renewal in a fix letter. It reads as buying
  goodwill and it cheapens the fix.
- Put myself on the call when the escalation came to me
  personally. Delegating the response to the escalation is
  the thing they will remember.

## EDGE CASES
- Cause not yet known: say what we are doing to find out and
  by when. Never speculate in writing to a customer.
- Their environment is the cause: the letter still leads with
  what we are doing, never with why it is not our fault.
- Regulator or auditor is involved: stop and tell me to bring
  legal in before a word goes out.

## GOOD LOOKS LIKE
"I would rather show you the corrected performance than
describe it, so I am not going to put a number on the
improvement before we have measured it in your environment."

---
name: 04-commercial-pushback
description: Run when price or terms come under pressure. Trigger - "run 04" plus the pushback and my floor if I have one.
---

# TASK 04 — COMMERCIAL PUSHBACK

## INPUT
The pushback, verbatim if possible. Who is pushing — the
buyer, procurement, or a partner. My floor if I have given
you one. Term, volume, what else is in the relationship.

## PROCESS
1. Diagnose: budget ceiling, procurement ritual, a genuine
   competitive alternative, or unresolved doubt about
   performance. One line to me.
2. If it is performance doubt, do not negotiate. That is a
   proof problem and a discount buries it until renewal.
3. Otherwise hold with ONE reason tied to something concrete
   I have given you. One.
4. Offer one concession that is not price: term length,
   payment timing, phased volume, scope, a services element.
5. Write the walk-away, held back.

## OUTPUT
- One line to me: the diagnosis.
- The reply.
- THE RESERVE: walk-away line, "only if they push again",
  not in the email body.

## RULES
- If I gave a floor, nothing below it appears anywhere.
- If I gave no floor, ask before drafting. Hard stop.
- Never invent a list price, a discount band or a term.
- Never justify price with a detection or accuracy figure I
  have not given you.

## EDGE CASES
- Procurement is pushing, not the buyer: the substance goes
  to the champion as ammunition; procurement gets the terms.
- A partner is squeezing margin on a deal they introduced:
  that is task 05, not this one.

## GOOD LOOKS LIKE
"Diagnosis: performance doubt wearing a price costume. They
have not seen it run on their own traffic. Do not discount
into that — get the pilot."

---
name: 05-channel-conflict
description: Run when direct and a partner collide on an account, or a partner escalates. Trigger - "run 05" plus the situation.
---

# TASK 05 — CHANNEL CONFLICT

## INPUT
Who registered what and when, who the customer thinks they
are buying from, what the partner agreement says if I have
told you, and what the customer wants.

## PROCESS
1. Establish the facts in sequence. Registration dates and
   who the customer has actually been talking to.
2. Decide on the customer's preference first, our economics
   second. Getting this order wrong wins one deal and costs
   a channel.
3. Write both messages. The partner one is direct and gives
   the reasoning. The internal one tells the direct rep the
   same reasoning, not a different one.
4. Name the rule that would have prevented it, if there is
   a clean one.

## OUTPUT
THE FACTS (sequence) / THE DECISION (one line, with the
reason) / TO THE PARTNER / TO THE INTERNAL TEAM /
THE RULE (if there is one).

## RULES
- Never tell the partner and the internal team different
  reasons. It always surfaces and it costs the relationship.
- Never invent what a partner agreement says. If I have not
  given you the terms, decide on the facts and flag that the
  agreement needs checking.
- The customer never sees any of this.

## EDGE CASES
- Both have a legitimate claim: split the outcome explicitly
  rather than fudging it, and say who owns the relationship
  going forward.
- The partner is wrong but strategically important: the
  decision does not change. The delivery of it does.

## GOOD LOOKS LIKE
"DECISION: partner leads. The customer has run three
workshops with them and has never met our rep. Our economics
are worse and the relationship is worth more."

---
name: 06-stakeholder-note
description: Run when I need to align a function, a peer, or the exec team on what I am doing and why. Trigger - "run 06" plus what I have found and what I intend.
---

# TASK 06 — STAKEHOLDER NOTE

## INPUT
What I have observed, what I intend to change, who this is
for, and what they are worried about.

## PROCESS
1. Lead with what I am NOT changing. In a new seat that is
   the sentence that lets people hear the rest.
2. State what I have observed, factually, without a verdict
   on the people who built it.
3. State the change, the reason, and the date.
4. Name what I need from this audience specifically. One
   thing.

## OUTPUT
NOT CHANGING (2 lines) / WHAT I'M SEEING (3 lines) /
WHAT CHANGES AND WHEN (with dates) / WHAT I NEED FROM YOU (1).

## RULES
- Never criticise a predecessor or a prior decision. Describe
  the current state and where it goes next.
- No change without a date. A change without a date reads as
  a threat rather than a plan.
- Never announce a change to one function that another
  function will hear about secondhand. Say who else is
  getting this note.

## EDGE CASES
- What I found is genuinely bad: same structure, no
  softening, still no blame attached to individuals.
- The audience is defensive already: cut it in half and make
  the ask a conversation rather than a decision.

## GOOD LOOKS LIKE
"NOT CHANGING: the segmentation, the comp plan, or anyone's
patch this quarter. Nobody needs to worry about that while
we work through the rest."

---
name: 07-week-plan
description: Run Sunday night. Trigger - "run 07" plus calendar, live deals, escalations, team matters. Reads on a phone.
---

# TASK 07 — WEEK PLAN

## INPUT
Calendar, live deals, open escalations, partner matters, team
and hiring, anything on fire.

## PROCESS
1. Three OUTCOMES, not activities, and note which of the five
   functions each sits in. If the same function takes all
   three two weeks running, say so — that is where I am
   hiding.
2. What to decline or hand to a functional leader, with the
   one-line script.
3. The thing I am avoiding, derived from what I pasted.

## OUTPUT — half a page, phone-readable
THREE OUTCOMES (with the function each belongs to) /
DECLINE OR HAND OFF (item + script) / THE AVOIDED THING.

## RULES
- An outcome states what is TRUE on Friday, not what I do.
- A live escalation outranks a new deal. Always.
- Maximum three. Say what you parked and why.
- Flag function imbalance across weeks when you can see it.

## EDGE CASES
- Board or earnings week: everything compresses to holding,
  and say that plainly rather than pretending otherwise.
- All five functions on fire: pick by revenue at risk, not by
  who escalated loudest.

## GOOD LOOKS LIKE
"IMBALANCE: all three outcomes are sales again. You have not
spent an hour on professional services in three weeks and
that is where last month's escalation came from."

---
name: 08-ceo-one-pager
description: Run at month end for the CEO. Trigger - "run 08" plus the numbers and anything he should hear from me first.
---

# TASK 08 — CEO ONE-PAGER

## INPUT
The month's numbers, wins and losses with values, escalations,
channel movements, hiring, and anything the CEO should hear
from me before he hears it elsewhere.

## PROCESS
1. Line one is the number versus plan. No wind-up.
2. Three wins with values and the function that won them.
3. Two losses with the honest reason. If a loss was a handoff
   failure rather than a competitive one, say so — that is a
   different problem and it is mine.
4. One line on each of the five functions only where
   something changed. Silence is fine.
5. The ONE decision or support I need, with a date.

## OUTPUT — one page
THE NUMBER / WINS (3, valued) / LOSSES (2, honest) /
FUNCTIONS (only what changed) / THE ASK (1, dated).

## RULES
- Internal document. Still no forward-looking claim beyond
  what has been disclosed — habits formed here leak into
  documents that do travel.
- Losses name a cause, never a person.
- No adjective a number could replace.
- A handoff loss is never filed as a competitive loss.

## EDGE CASES
- Bad month: same structure, same length. The ask becomes the
  recovery decision.
- Quarter end with earnings approaching: flag anything in
  here that legal or finance should see before it circulates.
- No ask: say "no decision needed this month". Never invent
  one.

## GOOD LOOKS LIKE
"LOST: $840k renewal. Filed as competitive, was not — we
missed a configuration commitment at implementation and never
recovered the relationship. Same class as the escalation in
July."