[Client Name]

Account Overview

[Brief description of the company and relationship context]

Relationship Context

• Existing Products: [What Optimizely products they use]
• Expansion Opportunity: [What we're pursuing]
• Account Status: [Customer/prospect, relationship health]

Organizational Structure

[Key organizational dynamics relevant to selling - who has power, how decisions get made]

Key Contacts

• [Name] - [Title], [Role in deals/relationship]

Strategic Notes

Winning Themes

• [What resonates with this account]

Avoid

• [What doesn't work or topics to avoid]

[Full Name]

Role & Context

[Brief description of their role, responsibilities, and relevance to OPAL opportunities]

Relationship Notes

[Notes from interactions, their communication style, interests, concerns]

Key Insights

• Priorities: [What matters most to them]
• Pain Points: [Challenges they face]
• Communication Style: [How they prefer to engage]

Interaction History

[Date] - [Interaction Type]

[Brief note about the interaction]

[Client] Opal [Year]

Executive Summary

[Brief overview of the opportunity, key value propositions, and current status]

Account Context

• Existing Products: [What Optimizely products they currently use]
• Relationship History: [Brief history of engagement]
• Primary AE: [Who owns the account relationship]

Validated Use Cases

1. [Use Case Name]

• Pain: [What problem this solves]
• Solution: [How OPAL addresses it]
• Value: [Expected outcome]

Key Stakeholders

Champions

• [Name] - [Title], [Role in deal]

Decision Makers

• [Name] - [Title], [Authority level]

Recent Activity

[Date] - [Meeting/Event Title]

• [Key outcome 1]
• [Key outcome 2]

Parallel Workstreams

Never run linear processes. Legal, security, and procurement should start in parallel with technical validation.

Expansion Vectors

Identify expansion and renewal opportunities early — don't wait until post-implementation.

• Existing contract renewal date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
• Co-term opportunity: [Can Opal be co-termed with existing products? Y/N — details]
• Platform migration dependency: [Any planned migrations that unlock deeper integration?]
• Expansion use cases (not in current deal): [What could a Year 2 expansion look like?]
• Renewal risk to leverage: [Is there renewal pressure that creates urgency for new product success?]

Next Steps

• [Action item] @[date]

Risk Factors

• ⚠️ [Risk description]
• ✅ [Mitigating factor]

[YYYY-MM-DD] - [Client] [Meeting Type]

Executive Summary

[2-3 sentence overview of meeting outcomes and key takeaways]

Key Outcomes

• [Outcome 1]
• [Outcome 2]
• [Outcome 3]

Discussion Notes

[Topic 1]

[Details]

[Topic 2]

[Details]

Stakeholder Insights

[Name] - [Key observation about their perspective, concerns, or interests]

Next Steps

• [Action item] - [Owner] @[date]

Deal Impact

[How this meeting affects the deal - stage progression, risk changes, new information]

[Client] — Demo Run-of-Show

Date/Time: [YYYY-MM-DD] [HH:MM] [TZ]
Deal: [[Deal Name]]
Meeting Type: [Demo / Workshop / Executive Briefing]

---

Pre-Meeting Checklist

• All presenters briefed on roles and time boxes
• Demo environment tested and loaded with [client-relevant / industry-relevant] content
• Customer's website/brand NOT being reformatted in demo
• Break-glass protocol agreed upon
• Galvanize statement prepared
• Suite pitch separated from overlay pitch

---

Attendees & Roles

Our Team

Their Team

---

Galvanize Statement

Open by naming the thing they're most worried about. Address it head-on. Then they'll open up.

"I know the biggest question on your mind is [___]. Before we show you anything, let me address that directly: [___]."

---

Demo Flow

1. Opening Frame — [___] min

Presenter: [Name]
Purpose: Set context, deliver galvanize statement, confirm agenda

Say:

• [Galvanize statement]
• [Frame today's objective — what they'll walk away with]
• [Confirm time and agenda]

Don't say:

• [Anything that invites them to redesign the agenda]

---

2. [Section Name] — [___] min

Presenter: [Name]
Purpose: [What this section proves]

Show:

• [Specific feature/workflow 1]
• [Specific feature/workflow 2]

Don't show:

• [Feature that's not relevant to their use case]
• [Anything half-baked or in beta]

Be prescriptive — tell them how to think about value, don't ask how they prefer to measure it.

"Most teams in [their industry] use this to [specific outcome]. Here's what that looks like..."

Transition to next section: [How the handoff works]

---

3. [Section Name] — [___] min

Presenter: [Name]
Purpose: [What this section proves]

Show:

• [Specific feature/workflow]

Don't show:

• [___]

---

4. Suite Context (if applicable) — [___] min

Presenter: [Name]
Purpose: Show platform breadth as an influencer, not as today's sale

Separate the suite pitch from the overlay pitch. Show suite as context for the decision, not what you're selling today.

Say:

• "Here's how Opal fits within the broader platform you already use..."
• [1-2 integration points that are relevant NOW]

Don't say:

• Anything that expands scope or threatens timeline

---

5. Close & Next Steps — [___] min

Presenter: [AE Name]
Purpose: Summarize value, confirm next steps, book next two meetings

• Recap key value points (outcome-framed, not feature-framed)
• Confirm their evaluation process and timeline
• Book next meeting: [___]
• Book meeting after that: [___]

Book two meetings out. Lock calendar slots before you hang up.

---

Break-Glass Protocol

If things go sideways, every presenter needs to know the escalation.

---

Post-Meeting Debrief Prompts

Complete within 1 hour of meeting end:

1. What landed? [Which moments got visible engagement]
2. What fell flat? [Where did we lose them]
3. Champion signal? [Did someone emerge or strengthen as champion]
4. Blocker signal? [Did someone reveal themselves as a blocker]
5. Next two meetings confirmed? [Dates/times]
6. Deal stage change? [Does this meeting move the deal forward]

[Client] — Power Map & Signature Path

Deal: [[Deal Name]]
Account: [[Accounts/[Client]/_Overview]]
Last Updated: [YYYY-MM-DD]

---

Signature Path

Map the person who signs, not just who decides. Budget authority, IT approval, legal, and final signoff often live in different places.

Approval Thresholds

• Under $[___]: [Who can approve autonomously]
• $[___] - $[___]: [Requires additional approval from ___]
• Over $[___]: [Board/committee approval required]

Anything above the board-approval ceiling becomes a fundamentally different deal. Architect pricing to stay under thresholds when possible.

---

Stakeholder Map

Champions (actively selling internally)

Economic Buyer (controls budget)

Technical Evaluators (IT, security, architecture)

Blockers / Skeptics

Don't go direct to resistant decision-makers. Identify who they trust and empower that person.

---

Informal Influence Network

Org charts lie. Map who actually carries weight.

Key Relationships

• [Person A] trusts [Person B] on [topic] — [how you know this]
• [Person C] has disproportionate influence because [subject-matter credibility / tenure / exec access]
• [Person D] is the unofficial gatekeeper for [decisions/access/budget]

Internal Politics to Track

• [Any known rivalries, competing initiatives, or organizational dynamics]
• [Reorgs, departures, or promotions that could affect the deal]

---

AI Governance / Committee Risk

Avoid AI governance committees until signature. The "build vs. buy" trap intensifies under AI oversight scrutiny.

• AI governance committee exists? [Yes/No/Unknown]
• Committee involvement required for this deal? [Yes/No/Can avoid]
• Strategy to avoid premature committee exposure: [___]
• If unavoidable, key committee member to pre-brief: [[Person]]

---

Champion Readiness

Your champion will get grilled. Prepare them.

• Champion's boss: [[Person]] — management style: [detail-oriented/big-picture/metrics-driven/etc.]
• Review format champion faces: [Weekly standup / Monthly business review / Ad-hoc]
• Business case document provided? [Yes — [[Champion-Evaluation-Document]] / No]
• Champion can articulate: [ ] Problem [ ] Solution [ ] ROI [ ] Timeline [ ] Risk mitigation

---

Map Gaps

[Client] — POC Scoring Framework

Deal: [[Deal Name]]
Account: [[Accounts/[Client]/_Overview]]
POC Duration: [Start Date] → [End Date]
Participants: [___] users across [___] teams
Success Threshold: [___] / 5.0 average across use cases

---

How to Use This Framework

Customers don't know how to evaluate AI outputs fairly. Define what good looks like upfront so decisions are based on consistent criteria, not subjective reactions.

1. Co-define criteria before the POC starts — collaborate with the customer, don't hand it to them
2. Anchor scoring to concrete descriptions — "what does a 5 look like?" for each criterion
3. Score during the POC, not after — capture reactions in the moment
4. Use results in the business case — this feeds directly into [[Champion-Evaluation-Document]]

---

Use Case Evaluations

Use Case 1: [Name — e.g., Campaign Brief Generation]

Evaluator(s): [[Person]], [[Person]]
Test scenario: [Specific task the POC will execute]

Use Case Average: [___] / 5.0

---

Use Case 2: [Name]

Evaluator(s): [[Person]], [[Person]]
Test scenario: [Specific task]

Use Case Average: [___] / 5.0

---

Overall POC Score

Result: [ ] Exceeds threshold — proceed to commercial | [ ] Meets threshold — proceed with conditions | [ ] Below threshold — extend or reassess

---

Tool Displacement Analysis

ROI gets stronger when you eliminate vendor costs. Identify what Opal replaces.

Total Displacement Value: $[___] / year
Net New Cost (Opal minus displaced tools): $[___] / year

---

Qualitative Feedback

What Users Said (verbatim quotes)

"[___]" — [Name], [Title]

Concerns Raised During POC

---

POC → Decision Bridge

• Scoring framework reviewed with customer stakeholders
• Results incorporated into [[Champion-Evaluation-Document]]
• Tool displacement savings validated with customer
• Next step: [Commercial discussion / Executive briefing / Extended POC]

[Client Name] — Opal Content Orchestration Evaluation

Prepared by: [Champion Name], [Champion Title]
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Distribution: [Executive Sponsor], [Budget Owner]

---

Internal Sponsors

All four sponsors must be identified before proceeding to commercial discussion.

---

Business Problem

Current State

• Content production timeline: [___] days from brief to publish
• Approval bottleneck: [___] days locked in [legal/brand/compliance] review
• Teams involved: [___] people across [___] departments
• Annual content volume: [___] assets across [___] channels

Cost of Inaction

• [Describe what happens if nothing changes — missed campaigns, resource strain, competitive lag]
• [Quantify where possible: hours lost, campaigns delayed, revenue impact]

---

Recommended Solution

Opal provides AI-powered content orchestration that [1-2 sentences on primary value — written in the champion's voice, not vendor language].

Use Cases Evaluated

---

Investment & ROI

Proposed Investment

• Annual cost: $[___]
• Contract term: [___] years

Value Justification

• Tool displacement: Replaces [___] at $[___]/year
• Efficiency gain: [___] hours/month recaptured across [___] roles
• Business outcome: [Outcome-framed, not efficiency-framed]

Conservative ROI Estimate

"Even if we capture only half the projected value, the investment pays back within [___] months."

---

Recommended Timeline

Legal, security, and procurement should run in parallel with final evaluation — not sequentially.

---

Risk Mitigation

[Client] — Value Narrative Builder

Deal: [[Deal Name]]
Account: [[Accounts/[Client]/_Overview]]
Target Audience: [Who will see/hear this narrative — title and name]
Last Updated: [YYYY-MM-DD]

---

Part 1: Quantify the Status Quo Pain

Quantify the pain before showing the solution. The current state IS the business case — you just have to make it visible.

Current Content Production Timeline

Resource Burden

Hidden Costs of Current State

• Campaigns delayed or killed: [___] per [quarter/year] due to production bottleneck
• Off-brand content published: [___] instances per [quarter/year] — reputational/compliance risk
• Tool sprawl: [___] tools at $[___]/year total
• Opportunity cost: [What they CAN'T do because resources are consumed by production]

Status Quo Summary Statement

"Today, [Client] spends [___] days and [___] people to produce a single [asset type]. [___] days of that are locked in [bottleneck]. At [___] assets per [quarter], that's [___] person-hours consumed by process, not creativity."

---

Part 2: Outcome-Based Value Framing

Outcome-based grouping trumps efficiency metrics for C-level audiences. Don't sell time savings — sell business enablement.

Reframe: From Efficiency to Outcomes

Value Pillars (pick 2-3 for this audience)

Pillar 1: [e.g., Campaign Velocity]

• Current state: [___]
• With Opal: [___]
• Business impact: [___]
• Proof point: [Customer story, POC result, or industry benchmark]

Pillar 2: [e.g., Brand Governance at Scale]

• Current state: [___]
• With Opal: [___]
• Business impact: [___]
• Proof point: [___]

---

Part 3: Conservative ROI Positioning

Lead with ROI assumptions, let them correct you. "Even if we capture half..." positions high value while seeming conservative.

ROI Model

Payback Scenarios

---

Part 4: Narrative Arc

Assemble the pieces into a story. Status quo pain → outcome vision → conservative proof.

The Talk Track (2-minute version)

[Status quo pain]: "Today your team spends [___] to [___]. That means [consequence]."

[Outcome vision]: "What if instead of [current painful process], your team could [business outcome]?"

[Conservative proof]: "Based on what we've seen with [similar company / POC results], even a conservative estimate puts the value at [___] — a [___]x return within [___] months."

[Call to action]: "The question isn't whether this creates value — it's whether [___] is the right time to capture it."

Objection Preloads

---

Deliverable Checklist

• Status quo pain quantified with customer's own numbers
• 2-3 value pillars selected for this audience
• ROI model built with conservative positioning
• Talk track rehearsed
• Narrative incorporated into [[Champion-Evaluation-Document]]

Deal Risk Assessment & Mitigation

Reusable Template – Internal Use Only

---

1. Deal Snapshot

---

2. Risk Table

Show only the 5–10 most material risks. Tag each as (Known) or (Assumed).

Play Code Legend

Risks

Categories: Political · Paper · Commercial · Technical · Value · Timing

---

3. Mitigation Plays – Cross-Mapping

List only plays actually used. 3–6 lines max.

• P_ – [Play name] → Risks: R__, R__
• P_ – [Play name] → Risks: R__, R__
• P_ – [Play name] → Risks: R__, R__

---

4. AE Action Plan

4.1 Top Priorities (Must-Do)

1. [P_] Action: [1-line description]
   • Linked risks: R__, R__
   • Why: [1-line impact statement]
   • Owner: [AE · SE · Value · Exec · Partner]
   • Due by: [date or "this week"]
2. [P_] Action: [1-line description]
   • Linked risks: R__, R__
   • Why: [1-line impact statement]
   • Owner: [AE · SE · Value · Exec · Partner]
   • Due by: [date or "this week"]

4.2 Secondary Tasks (If Time / As Needed)

• Action: [1-line description] — Owner: [role/name] — When: [timing]

---

5. Internal Exec Support

Complete this section only if ELT/SLT involvement (P1, P2, P10) is needed.

Top risks requiring exec help (max 3):

• R__ – [1-line risk]
• R__ – [1-line risk]

What we've already done to mitigate:

• [Bullet]

Specific requests from ELT / SLT:

• [Name] to [action] before [date]

---

6. Usage Notes

• Keep entire document to 1–2 pages max.
• Use short bullets and tables; avoid long paragraphs.
• Focus on what changes the outcome this quarter.
• Tag risks as Known vs Assumed and suggest the most relevant mitigation plays.
• This template is internal-only.