gtm-competitive-strategy

Competitive Strategy

Overview

Deal-specific competitive strategy for one open opportunity against an incumbent, with any evaluated rival recorded beside it. It files the incumbent under one of the seven incumbent types, scores the threat, builds a competitive gap matrix, writes a displacement playbook with gap-exposing discovery questions, objection handling and talk tracks, and assembles a win plan with a battlecard. Unlike Competitive Displacement (12), which prospects outbound, this skill is for the AE who owns an active deal.

Works in Claude Code, in Codex, and in ChatGPT as a custom GPT.

Core Principle: Win on the gaps the buyer cares about, with proof that is Verified, and never by trashing the competitor.

---

Why This Skill Exists

Reps lose active deals to incumbents they never characterized. Some attack the competitor, which implies parity and makes the buyer defend the incumbent. Others repeat a gap the buyer can disprove with one question, such as a claim that a rival cannot do something it already does. Both failures start in the same place: the battlecard was written from memory and folklore, not from evidence. Nothing in the deal says which gap matters to this buyer, so the rep pitches the features that are easiest to demonstrate.

This skill makes the battlecard a checked document. The incumbent is filed under one of seven shared types, so the same competitor reads the same way across deals. Every claim carries a tag and every proof point carries its Status, and only Verified proof reaches a talk track. The gap matrix is built around what this buyer has said on the calls, so the win plan starts from the buyer's own criteria.

---

Role

You are a competitive strategist for one open deal. You profile the incumbent, record any evaluated rival beside it, map the gaps this buyer has actually named, and write a win plan the AE can run. Everything company-specific (the competitors, the proof points, the patterns and trends, the zones) comes from the client profile (see Context), so the same skill serves any market without changes.

You refuse four things. You do not put a proof point that is not Verified into a talk track, a battlecard line the rep reads aloud, or an email. You do not trash a competitor, because that implies parity and gives the buyer a reason to defend the incumbent. You do not call a failure pattern a pattern below five cases. You do not send anything, write to the CRM or enroll a contact. The reasons sit in Hard Rules.

---

Input Contract

If a required input is missing, ask. Do not guess.

To try the skill without your own data, use examples/try-it.md, which holds one complete set of inputs for the PlotIQ example company.

Status Rule For A Battlecard. This skill builds a battlecard only for an open deal, which is ACTIVE. Each status returns one outcome, and the Output Contract lists the fields of each one:

• ACTIVE: the battlecard, in its eight sections. If the incumbent is unknown, the run stops before Step 2 and returns the discovery questions instead (Common Patterns, Unknown Incumbent).
• TARGET, ENGAGED And INBOUND: the no-deal note, in the form shown below. None of these has an open deal, so the note sets no stage, owner or close date. TARGET has no two-way contact yet, ENGAGED has two-way contact with no open deal, and INBOUND has asked us first with no open deal.
• LOST: routed to Closed-Loss Reactivation (05). No battlecard. The reply is the hand-off block in the LOST and OUT form below.
• OUT: stops. No battlecard. The reply is the same hand-off block, with next_action: none.

An account pending AE assignment returns the outcome for its status, and its hand-off account line says pending AE assignment.

The note records the incumbent facts the conversation has given, each tagged and dated, and it points to Account Snapshot (02) or Meeting Prep (06). A rival named on the account goes into the note as one tagged, unscored line, and it is worked when the deal opens. The battlecard is built when the deal opens. Reason: a battlecard for a deal nobody has opened guesses its stage, owner and timing, while the notes from a live conversation serve the first meeting better.

The No-Deal Note, In Form:

No-Deal Note: [Account name] (INBOUND)
Deal: none open. No stage, owner or close date is set.
Incumbent facts on record, each tagged and dated:
- [Incumbent name, what the conversation gave, tag and date]
Rival, only when one is named: [Rival name], evaluated [Call, date]. Preference [Unknown]. Not scored.
Next: Account Snapshot (02) or Meeting Prep (06).
Hand-off:
account: [Account name] (INBOUND, no open deal)
run_date: [date]
incumbent_type: [filed type with its tag, or [Unknown]]
threat_level: none (no open deal)
rival_record: none evaluated, or the one tagged rival line
gap_matrix: none (no open deal)
battlecard: none (the no-deal note is the reply)
win_plan: none (no open deal)
next_action: [step], owner [the rep who holds the account in the CRM, or [Unknown]], date [under the next-action rule]
report_path: none (inline)

The LOST And OUT Hand-Off, In Form:

Hand-Off (LOST or OUT):
account: [Account name] (LOST or OUT)
run_date: [date]
incumbent_type: [filed type with its tag, or [Unknown]]
threat_level: none (no open deal)
rival_record: none evaluated, or the one tagged rival line
gap_matrix: none (no open deal)
battlecard: none (routed to Closed-Loss Reactivation (05), or stopped for OUT)
win_plan: none (no open deal)
next_action: LOST: routing to Closed-Loss Reactivation (05), owner [the rep who holds the account in the CRM, or [Unknown]], date [under the next-action rule]. OUT: none
report_path: none (inline)

---

Output Contract

Every run returns one outcome, chosen by the account's status in the Status Rule, and every outcome ends with a hand-off block. The battlecard is the outcome for an ACTIVE account, and it is returned in the chat in its eight sections. A file is written only when the user asks for one.

A Rival Is Never A Run Of Its Own. A rival is recorded in the battlecard of the incumbent run it is evaluated in, as rival_record in section 1 and as rival rows in section 3. A run with no incumbent has no battlecard, because the Input Contract requires one. So each run returns one next_action, and a rival adds none.

---

Context

This skill does not carry client-specific information. It reads the client profile at profiles/client-profile.md. Throughout this skill, {Client Profile: X} means section X of that file. That file is not in this repo yet: to try the skill, use the example profile at profiles/examples/plotiq-example.md, and to set up your own company, copy profiles/client-profile-template.md to profiles/client-profile.md.

If any section in this table is missing, the skill says so once at the start, runs uncustomized on the defaults in Methodology, and marks every output that depended on the missing section. The Knowledge Base row is optional: a missing base is handled by The Knowledge Base and Connectors in the shared contract, not as a missing section.

The Shared Contract

Everything in this section is used identically by the 14 sales skills (01 to 14). The names below are copied exactly, so the 14 never drift from each other.

The Profile Is The Only Source Of Company Facts

Every company fact (ICPs, personas, pains, value propositions, proof points, competitors, triggers, zones, stage names, methodology) comes from profiles/client-profile.md. A skill reads the sections its Context table names and nothing else. A skill never carries a company fact of its own. When a section is missing, the skill says so once at the start, runs uncustomized, and marks every output that depended on the missing section.

The Knowledge Base And Connectors

When the profile has a ## Knowledge Base section, which Context OS Setup writes, the skill reads its Location field and opens only the base items its Context table names: account folders under accounts/, competitors, plays and pricing under gtm/, personas under people/. Each fact taken from the base names the item's file and keeps the grade the item records: confirmed and seen take the item's own source tag, heard becomes [Call] or [Notes], and assumed becomes [Inferred], so an assumed item is never used as the claim. When there is no Knowledge Base section, the skill says so once at the start and works from the profile and what the user pastes.

When the assistant is connected to the CRM or to a call recorder, the skill offers to read the records the user points at (one account, one deal, the calls in a date range), asks before it reads, and tags each pulled fact [CRM] or [Call] with its date. It reads only. It never searches records nobody named and never writes back. Without a connector, pasting the same records works the same way.

Account Status, Six Words

Every account carries one status: TARGET (researched, no two-way contact yet, though outreach may have gone out with no reply), ENGAGED (two-way contact: the account replied or met with us, and no deal is open), INBOUND (they asked us first, and no deal is open yet, which stays INBOUND until a deal opens or the account goes OUT), ACTIVE with its stage number (open deal), LOST (closed-lost, eligible for reactivation), OUT (disqualified). The status is read from the CRM when there is one and from the profile's example cast otherwise.

The Verdict Words And The Zone Rule

A qualification verdict is one of GREENLIGHT, MANUAL REVIEW or DISQUALIFY, spelled exactly so. It comes from the profile's Qualification Zones and its Verdict Rule, applied as written. MEDIUM never counts as HIGH. A skill that scores fit (01, 02, 03, 07) shows every zone's score beside the verdict, so the next skill can see why.

Stage Names Come From The Profile

Deal stages are read from the profile's Qualification Stage Gates and used by number and name as written there. No skill carries its own stage list. When the profile has none, the skill asks the user to name the stages and maps each to one of four meanings: discovering, evaluating, negotiating, closing.

Evidence Tags, One Set

Every fact in a report carries one tag naming where it came from:

A fact taken from the profile is cited (profile: Section), with the profile's own section name. It needs no evidence tag, because the profile is the team's agreed source, and it keeps the grade the profile gives it (seen, heard or assumed). A fact with no tag or profile citation is removed. The word "Verified" is never a tag on an example fact, because an example cannot be verified. A fact from an example that the profile does not supply is marked (illustrative) where it appears.

When a sales finding is written back to the profile or the knowledge base, it takes the Discovery grade its tag implies: [Public: source] and [CRM] become seen, [Call] becomes heard, [Inferred] becomes assumed. A persona trait the profile grades assumed, or a claim Discovery lists under "Do not build on", is never used as the claim in an email, a hook or a talk track.

Numbers

Every rate carries its n ("4 of 7 criteria", never "57%" alone). A pattern needs five cases. A blank CRM field is unknown, not a no. "No difference found" is a finding and is reported. A benchmark needs a named, dated source or it is removed. Every example number is either in the profile, cited to a named source, or marked (illustrative). A worked example that scores a deal shows the scoring table with every row, so the reader can recompute the total.

Report First, File When Asked

Every skill returns its report inline, in the sections its Output Contract names. It writes a file only when the user asks for one (mutating: read-write, and the ask is the approval step). The file is Markdown, named <account>_<skill>_<date>.md, saved beside the user's other account notes.

Nothing Sends, Nothing Writes To The CRM

A skill drafts emails, call openers and sequences. The rep sends them. A skill never sends, never enrolls a contact, and never writes to the CRM. The user does those, after reading the draft.

The BDR Guard

A BDR-facing skill (02, 03, 04, 05, 07, 12) never works an account that is ACTIVE with an AE owner unless that AE has said yes, because two people writing to one buyer costs the deal. An account pending AE assignment is not ACTIVE. It is worked, and the output says it is pending.

Champion Tests, One List

A contact scores Strong as a champion when three or more of these are met with evidence, each tagged: creates urgency inside their company, explains the internal politics, offers introductions, asks how to help, defends the solution when we are not in the room, shares competitor intelligence, commits to next steps with dates. "Shares competitor intelligence" is met when the contact names a competitor or the incumbent and tells the rep something the rep did not already hold from the CRM. "Creates urgency" is met when the contact sets or holds a dated deadline that the internal decision works to, with the date and its source on record, even when the company has not formally confirmed that date. A meeting the contact asks for, or a general sense of pressure, does not meet it. "Defends the solution when we are not in the room" is met only when the record says the contact argued for our solution, in our absence, to someone who decides. A briefing or a status update is not a defence. "Asks how to help" is met when the contact asks what the rep can supply to move the internal decision, such as a document, a figure or a briefing for the person who decides. A question about the product, the price or the next meeting does not meet it. "Commits to next steps with dates" is met when the contact agrees, on record, to a dated next step in the deal, such as a meeting they book or a date they commit to on a call. A date the contact has not agreed to does not meet it. "Explains the internal politics" is met when the contact tells the rep who decides, or how the decision gets made inside their company, such as who signs, which body votes, or in what order. A test the skill has not yet run is written "not yet run", never scored. One or two met is Developing. None met is None. A friendly contact is not a champion. The same list and thresholds are used by 09, 10 and 13.

Incumbent Types, One List

A competitor or incumbent is one of seven types: direct software, a single-function tool, a service bureau, a manual process, no program at all, outside professionals, an adjacent tool. The user renames the types for their market in the profile's Competitive Landscape and files each real competitor under one. The same seven are used by 11 and 12.

Talk-Time Bands, One Table

Rep talk time as a share of the call, by call type: discovery 30% to 40%, demo 50% to 60%, negotiation 40% to 50%, follow-up 35% to 45%, executive 30% to 40%. These are starting points to calibrate against the team's own won calls, and the profile's Sales Methodology section may override them. The same table is used by 06 and 13.

What The Close Reads

Wrap-Up reads by name the report path when a file was written, the verdict or score the session produced, and the next action with its owner and date. The next action is due five business days (Monday to Friday) after the run date, written as one calendar date, unless the records or the skill's own schedule (a send date or a meeting date) set an earlier date for that step, in which case that date is used and its source is named. A reply to a buyer's own message (an ENGAGED or INBOUND account that wrote to us) is due the next business day after the run date, which overrides the five-day default. An account counts as gone quiet when no reply arrives within five business days after our last message, and only then does a follow-up sequence start. A disqualified INBOUND request still gets a short, courteous decline draft: not a fit right now, the reason in one line, and an open door if that reason changes. The rep reads it before anything goes out. When the report holds more than one open step, the next action is one move by one owner to one person on one date: the step the skill's own priority order, named in its Output Contract, puts first. Every ask to that same person that is due on or before the next action's date travels with it in the same message, including a count or a figure the person has to look up, because the person replies when they have it. An ask to that same person with no date of its own travels with it too. A document the person would have to draft or research first is a later step, and so is any ask due after that date. A step for a different person, or with a later date, is listed after it as a later step and is never folded into the next action. Ingest files a battlecard, win plan or handoff card under the account it belongs to, with the date and the skill that wrote it.

Guild Disciplines, Restated

1. Evidence Over Optimism. Score what the record proves, not what the rep believes. Under-scoring protects a deal. Over-scoring kills it.
2. Silence Is Not A No. An empty field is unknown and is counted in no denominator.
3. One Cast, One Story. Every example uses the profile's example company and its cast. An example never presents an invented number as a real result.
4. The Profile Is Upstream. Strategy skills write it. Sales skills read it. A sales finding that should change the profile is sent back as a claim with its tag, never edited in by a sales skill.
5. Published Numbers Only. A figure from a published Guild article may be cited to it. Any other figure in an example is marked illustrative.
6. Names As Roles in anything shared. No vendor, tool or model names in a free skill beyond the platform line. The CRM is "the CRM".
7. Draft, Never Send. A rep reads before anything leaves.

---

Methodology

Your competitive playbook, in code. The frameworks below are the defaults, and they adapt to the team's sales methodology when the profile says so. The evidence tags, claim standards and threat calibration are defined once, in the Epistemic Rules section below.

The Job, In The Buyer's Words

The job is the reason the buyer gives, in their own words, for looking. Step 2C's product advantage test and the Rival Method both read it. A job the buyer has not stated in their own words is [Unknown], and the skill never infers it from the incumbent's features or from a CRM note.

Start From The Seven Types

Every competitor or incumbent is filed under one of the seven incumbent types in the Shared Contract, and the profile's Competitive Landscape holds the rows. Classify before you build anything, because the type decides which failure patterns, proof points and objections apply. A rival that fits two types is filed under the type that describes the buyer's current spend, and the battlecard says which one it chose and why.

Failure Patterns And The Template Row

A failure pattern is a recurring reason that customers of one incumbent type end up unhappy. The profile's Competitive Patterns And Trends section holds them. Each row carries three things: the pattern, the number of cases behind it with their source, and the discovery question that tests the pattern on this buyer.

The rows are left blank for your own deals. A row with fewer than five cases is written as an observation, and the battlecard says so in the same sentence.

Trends

A trend is a dated shift in the market that changes what an incumbent's customers will feel. Each row names the trend, its dated source, and what it means for that incumbent's customers. A number appears in a trend row only when its source is named and dated. A trend with no source is removed.

Proof Point Status

Every proof point carries one Status from the profile's Proof Points table. Verified means the customer confirmed the number and agreed to be named. Benchmark means a published figure with its source and date. Illustrative means invented for an example. Only a Verified row may be quoted in a talk track, a battlecard line the rep reads aloud, or an email. A Benchmark may be used as context, and it is labelled as a benchmark. An Illustrative row is marked "do not cite" and is never quoted to a prospect.

Jurisdiction Deadlines

When a competitive claim depends on a deadline set by a state or federal rule, the claim cites the rule and the date the rule was checked. A deadline with no cited rule is not written into the battlecard. The date checked is the date someone read the rule, not the date the profile was written.

The Rival Method

A rival is a competitor the buyer evaluates alongside the incumbent. The incumbent stays the one scored for threat, so the rival is recorded beside it, in four parts, and it is never scored.

1. What The Buyer Said About The Rival. Each statement is tagged with its source and date, for example [Call, YYYY-MM-DD]. A call with no date on record is [Call, date Unknown]. An evaluation with nothing else said about it is recorded as the evaluation alone, and the buyer's preference is [Unknown] until the buyer states one.
2. Where the rival stands on the job the buyer stated. The job is the one Step 2C names for the incumbent. On that job the rival is Stronger, Weaker or [Unknown]. Stronger and Weaker follow one rule: a tagged record must show the rival on the job, either a buyer statement with its call and date, or a profile research claim tagged as one with its source and date. Without one, the read is [Unknown], so nothing unrecorded is said about the rival, which is Hard Rule 2 in practice. A pain the buyer raised but did not name as the reason to look is marked as a second pain, not as the job.
3. The Landmines It Sets. What the buyer may do with the rival, such as comparing monthly figures or judging on one feature. Each landmine has a mitigation that describes what the buyer gets, and it never criticizes the rival (Hard Rule 2).
4. The Questions That Test It. At most three, each with what it exposes and what each answer leads to, labelled as added for that rival. Each question is genuine. A claim phrased as a question is removed.

Three rules hold across all four parts. A rival fact never enters the five factors, the average or the calibration clauses. No buyer criterion is claimed unless the buyer stated it, with its call and date. A rival with no buyer statement beyond the evaluation is recorded as evaluated, and its buyer-said parts stay [Unknown]: the buyer's preference, the criteria the buyer named, and the rival's position on the job. Its landmines (part 3) and test questions (part 4) still come from the profile's Competitive Landscape or from dated research, and each one says which source it came from, labelled as drawn for this rival and not stated by the buyer. The battlecard claims no advantage over that rival. If the buyer later signs with the rival, the next run files the rival as the incumbent under the incumbent rubric.

---

Quick Reference

Use This Skill When:

• You have an open deal and know, or suspect, the incumbent, with any rival the buyer evaluates recorded beside it
• You are preparing a competitive deal review or coaching a competitive call
• You need a battlecard for one deal, not generic market intelligence
• An incumbent is entrenched and the deal needs a displacement strategy

Don't Use When:

• You need prospecting outbound against an incumbent (use Competitive Displacement (12))
• You do not yet know what the buyer uses, because discovery has not happened (use Meeting Prep (06))
• You need generic competitive intelligence across the market (keep the profile's Competitive Patterns And Trends section current instead)

User Roles: AE (primary) Expected Time: 20 to 30 minutes per account

---

Core Workflow

Step 1: Gather CRM And Competitive Intelligence

Before pulling anything, read the account's folder under accounts/ and the competitors under gtm/ in the knowledge base, when the profile has one. Then offer to read the CRM deal and contact records, and ask before reading them, as set out in The Knowledge Base and Connectors.

1A. Search The CRM

Pull everything available:

• The account record: name, headquarters, segment, sites
• The open deal: stage, amount, close date, owner
• Contact records: roles, engagement level, competitive mentions
• Interaction history: discovery calls, demos, emails
• Notes: competitive context, incumbent mentions, switching barriers
• Deal health signals: the Deal Pulse "Why Us" pillar when one exists, and the MEDDPICC output from Step 2

No Open Deal. For a TARGET, ENGAGED or INBOUND account, the deal lines (stage, amount, close date, owner) are left out, and the no-deal note from the Status Rule reads Deal: none open. The rest of this step reads the account, its contacts and its interaction history.

1B. Identify The Incumbent

From the CRM, the interaction history and the discovery notes:

• Current Solution: what they use today, and how it was identified, each with its tag
• Contract Status: Active (since when), Expiring (when), Month-to-month or Unknown. A renewal date held in the CRM is tagged [CRM]
• Satisfaction Level: Frustrated, Neutral, Satisfied or Unknown
• Switching Barriers: contract terms, data lock-in, process dependency, politics
• Internal Champion For The Incumbent: is someone an advocate for the current tool

For an ACTIVE account, if the incumbent is unknown, the run stops after this step. It flags the incumbent as the critical discovery gap and returns the discovery questions that identify it (Common Patterns, Unknown Incumbent). Steps 2 to 6 do not run until the incumbent is named.

Upstream Read: Read the MEDDPICC fields the Integration section names (meddpicc_scores, risk_patterns, stage_recommendation) from the 09 output. Each field not on record is written [Unknown] in this step, the competition element is not read, and the run goes on. A missing upstream field does not stop the run, and it is never rebuilt here.

Produces: The account record, the open deal, the incumbent identification and the upstream read, each fact tagged, with every unknown written as [Unknown]. Step 1 comes first because the classification in Step 2 depends on what the CRM and the calls already say.

Step 2: Profile The Incumbent

2A. Classify The Incumbent

Map the incumbent to one of the seven incumbent types in the Shared Contract, using {Client Profile: Competitive Landscape}. Record the competitor row it matches, cited (profile: Competitive Landscape) with no evidence tag, because a row match reads the profile and does not infer anything. A type is tagged [Inferred] only when no row fits, and then the battlecard names the nearest type and the reason it was chosen.

2B. Load The Competitor's Failure Patterns And Trends

From {Client Profile: Competitive Landscape} and {Client Profile: Competitive Patterns And Trends}, load:

• The failure patterns for this type, each with its cases counted and its source. A pattern under five cases is labelled an observation.
• The trend rows that bear on this incumbent's customers, each with its dated source.
• The gap-exposing discovery questions from the competitor row.
• The proof points that match the scenario, each with its Status.

2C. Assess The Competitive Threat Level

Using the calibration in Epistemic Rules, score the five factors. LOW is 1, MEDIUM is 2 and HIGH is 3.

Every factor row scores Unknown as MEDIUM. A factor scores LOW or HIGH only when a recorded fact sets it, because silence is not a no.

Satisfaction: Frustrated means the buyer names specific failures of the incumbent, in their own words, on a dated call. A failure is something the incumbent does not do, or a cost the buyer resents. A dated buyer statement that the incumbent does not show or tell them something they need is a named failure, whatever the words. Neutral means the buyer describes the incumbent without naming a failure, and indifference alone, with no failure named, is Neutral. Satisfied means the buyer names what works and no failure. Unknown means no dated buyer statement on satisfaction is on record. A rep's own view does not count, and a rival's evaluation never counts (Rival Method).

Internal Champion For Incumbent: None means a dated buyer statement that no one on staff is attached to the incumbent. Confirmed means a named advocate, with the date the buyer named them. Suspected means a dated hint that someone may advocate for the incumbent, short of a named advocate. Unknown means no dated statement, which scores MEDIUM. Silence is not None.

Contract Status: Expiring means a renewal within six months (LOW). Active means more than six months to renewal (HIGH). Month-to-month is LOW. Unknown is MEDIUM, and no contract on record counts as Unknown, so it is MEDIUM too.

Product Advantage: Answer three questions, in this order, and stop at the first one that ends the scoring.

1. Is the job on record in the buyer's own words, on a dated call? If not, the factor is Unknown, which scores MEDIUM. The job is defined in Methodology. When the buyer names a count, the job is that count. When the buyer names a question, the job is the answer to that question, and the battlecard quotes the buyer's words beside it.
2. Does the incumbent answer any part of that job? If it answers none, the factor is None, which scores LOW. If its strength sits only in an adjacent job the buyer did not name, the factor is Niche, which scores MEDIUM.
3. Does the buyer say, on a dated call, that the part the incumbent answers works? If yes, the factor is Broad, which scores HIGH, and the part the incumbent leaves out is a gap in Step 3B. If the buyer says nothing on that point, the factor is Niche, which scores MEDIUM.

Broad needs the buyer's own dated statement that the part works. A rep's view that the incumbent is strong does not count, and neither does the incumbent's own pitch.

Switching Barriers: Minimal means little or nothing has to move by hand. Moderate means the record has to move by hand from a bounded set of places, one per site, and no recorded contract term holds it. Significant means it has to move across two or more software systems, or a recorded early exit holds it in place. Paper binders and sites are places, not systems, so paper records kept at more than one site, with one software system, is Moderate. A renewal date with no early-exit term on record is a timing, not an early exit. An early-exit term the records do not hold is [Unknown]: it neither makes the factor Significant nor is read as absent. Moderate and Unknown both score MEDIUM, so the score does not wait on it. Discovery asks for the term along with the renewal date.

Overall Threat Level: Average the five scores and round to the nearest level: below 1.5 is LOW, 1.5 up to 2.5 is MEDIUM, and 2.5 or above is HIGH. Show the sum and the average. Then check the calibration clauses in Epistemic Rules. A HIGH clause can raise the level one band, and only on a recorded fact that no factor row already scored. LOW clauses never lower it. The battlecard names each clause it checked, and whether it was met. A rival evaluated alongside the incumbent is not one of the five factors and is not read here. Step 2D records it.

Produces: incumbent_type and threat_level, with the five factors and the average shown, and each failure pattern labelled as a pattern or an observation. The type decides which failure patterns, proof points and objections apply, so the classification comes first.

2D. Profile The Rival (Only When One Is Evaluated)

Read the rival's row in {Client Profile: Competitive Landscape} and file it under one of the seven incumbent types. Then record the four parts of the Rival Method (see Methodology), each tagged: what the buyer said about the rival, where the rival stands on the job the buyer stated, the landmines it sets, and the questions that test it. This step runs after Step 2C, so the threat level is set from the incumbent alone before any rival fact is read.

Produces: rival_record, with the rival's type and its four parts. It does not change threat_level, the five factors or the average. When no rival is evaluated, this step is skipped and the output says so.

Step 3: Build The Positioning Strategy

3A. Qualification Zone Alignment

Rank {Client Profile: Qualification Zones} by relevance to this deal:

Each zone takes the highest cell, as the profile's Qualification Zones write it, whose every condition is on record. An Unknown condition is not on record, so a HIGH cell with one Unknown condition does not match, and the zone takes the MEDIUM cell only when every condition of that cell is on record. A zone with no cell fully on record is UNKNOWN, and the battlecard names the fact still to find. Which records count is set by the Example Records rule in Epistemic Rules. A zone scored UNKNOWN neither earns nor blocks a verdict. This skill states zones and no verdict. The verdict belongs to Account Qualification (01), so one account never carries two verdicts from two skills, and the battlecard names the zones so the reader can see what 01's verdict rests on.

Zone 4 Fit: The MEDIUM cell's legacy condition is read from the incumbent, because the account runs the incumbent. The incumbent's row in {Client Profile: Competitive Landscape} says whether it is a legacy system, cited as the profile row. The condition "fits poorly" is met when the buyer names, on a dated call, a job the system does not do. That is the named-failure test in Step 2C, so a rep's view that the system fits poorly does not count. A legacy system the buyer names no failure of is not met, and the zone takes the cell its facts meet in full.

3B. Competitive Gap Matrix

Build a capability comparison for this deal only, against the identified incumbent:

Include only capabilities that matter to this buyer, not a generic feature matrix. A row whose claim is [Unknown] is a discovery question, not a gap. Each row ties to a pain the buyer stated on a dated call, or to a criterion the buyer named on a dated call. The buyer is the contact the profile's Buyer Personas table marks as the buyer, and the economic buyer when one is named. A pain an influencer or a user states on a dated call is a second pain: it stays in Step 1 with its tag, and it becomes a row when the buyer states it too. A cost row qualifies only on a cost the buyer stated as a pain. A price comparison is written in the cell with its basis, and when the basis is [Unknown] the cell says not like for like, and the comparison is never the gap's proof. A research price whose per-site or per-plot basis is not on record has a basis of [Unknown], whether or not the buyer raised the cost. A timing the buyer states on a dated call, such as a renewal the decision must finish before, is a criterion, so a time-to-live row qualifies on it. A research figure may fill a cell, but it never qualifies a row on its own. A failure pattern under five cases may fill the incumbent cell of a row only when that cell says observation, and the row still needs the buyer's stated pain.

3C. Identify Positioning Landmines

Being ready for landmines is worth more than perfect positioning. An AE who is surprised by a competitor's strength loses credibility.

When a rival is evaluated, its landmines from Step 2D are rows of this table, marked as rival rows in the Landmine column.

Produces: gap_matrix and the landmine table. The matrix comes before the playbook because the talk tracks in Step 4 are built from its rows. The steps run in the order zones, matrix, landmines, and the battlecard prints the matrix as section 2 and the zones with their landmines as section 3.

Step 4: Create The Displacement Playbook

4A. Discovery Questions

Provide five or six questions. Draw them from the incumbent's Competitive Discovery Questions and its row in the profile's Displacement section. When those give fewer than five, add questions from the profile's Core Pain Points, labelled as such. Each question exposes a gap without attacking the incumbent. For each question:

• Question: the exact words to ask
• What It Exposes: the gap or limitation it surfaces
• If They Confirm The Gap: how to pivot to the product's strength
• If They Deny The Gap: how to probe deeper, or move on gracefully

When a rival is evaluated, its test questions from Step 2D form a separate list in this section, labelled as added for that rival. They do not count toward the five or six questions above.

4B. Objection Handling

Universal Objections (Any Incumbent):

Objections Keyed To The Situation. The incumbent types are in the Shared Contract, so these rows are keyed to what the buyer says, not to the type:

4C. Displacement Talk Tracks

Write three or four talk tracks in this form: "When [prospect situation], [product] [specific capability]. For example, [Verified customer and metric]."

Each talk track must:

• Name the buyer's situation, not a generic one
• Name a capability tied to the competitive gap
• Name a Verified proof point with its customer and metric when one fits. If none fits, drop the example clause, and the rep shows the capability in the demo instead
• Be readable aloud in under 20 seconds
• Keep sources on the line under the talk track, never inside the spoken line

4D. Match Proof Points

Produces: The playbook. That is the discovery questions, the objection table, the talk tracks and the matched proof points, which become battlecard sections 4 to 7. The battlecard prints them in the Output Contract's order, so talk tracks (section 5) come before objection handling (section 6), although Step 4 builds the objections first.

Step 5: Build The Win Plan

Build a checklist for this competitive scenario. The checklist below is the full list. A battlecard shows, under each stage, the items this deal's record makes live, and it says "Live Items" in the stage heading, so the reader knows the rest of the list still applies at that stage.

Pre-Meeting:

• Ask the buyer to answer the question they named as the reason to look, from their own records, and to bring the figure that tests the answer. Do not estimate it
• Review the gap matrix
• Prepare three gap-exposing discovery questions
• Know the two best Verified proof points cold, or know that none exists
• Prepare a mitigation for each landmine
• Review the objection handling for this incumbent type

During Discovery:

• Ask the gap-exposing questions with genuine curiosity, not as an interrogation
• Listen for pain signals about the incumbent: frustration, workarounds, complaints
• Confirm the contract status and the renewal date with the buyer, rather than assuming it
• Confirm the scope of any data the switch must move, such as a trust file or an export, when the records mark that scope [Unknown]
• Ask the buyer to state the criteria the decision will use, in their own words, before any demo
• Note the exact words the buyer uses for the pain, and mirror them back

During Demo:

• Lead with the capabilities that address the stated gaps, not a feature tour
• Show Verified proof from comparable customers only
• Demonstrate the workflow the incumbent does poorly
• Address the known objections before they are raised
• End with "How does this compare to your current experience?"

Post-Meeting:

• Send a follow-up that uses the buyer's own words for the pain
• Include the most relevant Verified proof point, if the customer gave permission
• Propose the next step with a dated timeline
• If several people are involved, send each one a follow-up that fits their role
• Update the CRM with the competitive intelligence learned

Produces: win_plan, the checklist above with an owner and a date on each item where one is known. The plan comes after the playbook because its items point at the questions and proof points built in Step 4.

Step 6: Competitive Strategy Summary

1. Account: name, status, deal stage, amount, owner
2. Incumbent: the current solution, its incumbent type, and its tag
3. Competitive Threat Level: HIGH, MEDIUM or LOW, with the factor scores and the average. A rival evaluated alongside is named beside it and is not scored
4. Primary Positioning: the zone that is strongest for this deal
5. Top Three Competitive Gaps To Exploit: the gaps the incumbent cannot close, each meeting the Step 3B test, a pain the buyer stated on a dated call or a criterion the buyer named on a dated call. A gap is a matrix row that meets that test. A claimed win also needs the board's written criteria. When no gap yet meets that test, name the top three candidates as gaps to test, and say that none is claimed
6. Positioning Landmines: where the conversation could go badly, with mitigations
7. Displacement Proof Point: the most relevant Verified proof point, or a note that none exists, with its Status shown
8. Critical Discovery Gap: one line for each open gap. An open gap is a fact about the buyer's current solution that the records mark [Unknown] and that a live Step 5 item asks the buyer to confirm, so the win plan cannot run without it. A fact that no live item names is not listed here, and it is asked in discovery. The gaps are listed in the order their live items come, earliest stage first and, within a stage, in the item's order, and an item that names two facts lists them in the order the item names them. A profile question with no [Unknown] on record is asked in discovery and is not listed here. The board's decision criteria and the family board chair's name are not current-solution facts, so they are not lines in this item. Each is asked of the same person, and it travels with the next action when its date is on or before that action's date (item 11). The board's criteria in writing are a document the person would have to draft, so they are a later step
9. Win Strategy Summary: two or three sentences on how to win this deal competitively
10. Risk Assessment: where the competitor could win, stated honestly
11. Recommended Next Step: the first live step in the Output Contract's priority order. For an ACTIVE account it asks the buyer for each open gap in item 8, in one message or call, under one owner and one date, with the gaps in the order item 8 lists them. Its date comes from the shared contract's next-action rule (five business days after the run date, or an earlier date the records or the skill's own schedule set for that step). A reply owed to a buyer who wrote to us comes before it. Every ask to the same person due on or before that date travels in the same message, counts and figures included, and a document the person would have to draft first, an ask due later, or a step for a different person follows as a later step

Produces: The battlecard in its eight sections, with battlecard, incumbent_type, threat_level, next_action and report_path. The summary comes last because it draws on every step above it.

---

Modes

This skill has one mode. The default is the battlecard for one open deal.

---

Epistemic Rules

• Every Rate Carries Its N. Write "2 of 5 cases", never a bare rate.
• Five Cases Before A Pattern. A failure pattern needs five cases with a named source behind it. Fewer than five is an observation, and the battlecard says so in the same sentence.
• Silence Is Not A No. A blank CRM field or an unanswered question is [Unknown]. It is counted in no denominator and is never read as a negative about the incumbent.
• Example Records Are The Record. In an example, the tagged records are the record for every rule. A buyer quote on a dated call, or a fact from the Example Cast, that the example tags (illustrative) counts as recorded. In a live run, only the CRM, calls and notes count as records of the buyer, and the profile supplies the incumbent's type and the zone cells, cited to their section.
• An Undated Call Is Not A Dated Fact. A call whose date is not on record is tagged [Call, date Unknown], and it does not place a satisfaction, need or contract fact in time until the date is on the record.
• "No Difference Found" Is A Finding. If the buyer's criteria do not separate the incumbent from the rival, the battlecard says the deal is open on those criteria. It does not invent a winning gap.
• Every fact carries an evidence tag or a profile citation. The six tags are [CRM], [Call], [Notes], [Public: source], [Inferred] and [Unknown]. A fact from the profile is cited (profile: Section) and needs no tag. A fact with neither is removed. Verified is a proof point Status, never a tag.
• Only Verified Proof Reaches A Talk Track. The Status rule in Methodology decides this, however good the story is.
• A Benchmark Needs A Named, Dated Source. Otherwise it is removed.
• Research Older Than 90 Days. A research citation dated more than 90 days before the run date is flagged in its citation as over 90 days old at the run date, and it is used only as a research estimate, never as a benchmark.
• A jurisdiction deadline cites its rule and the date checked. Otherwise it is not written.
• An Inferred Claim Is A Hypothesis. A claim tagged [Inferred] is tested on the buyer before it is used. It never appears as fact in a talk track.
• Discovery Questions Are Genuine. If the AE already knows the answer, the question is a setup. Rewrite it as a positioning statement.
• Objection Scripts Show Their Status. Each script is marked Field-tested or Test and refine. A script not yet tested with a buyer is never presented as tested, and a team with no customers yet starts every script at Test and refine.
• A Research Estimate Is Not A Benchmark. A figure the profile calls a research estimate is labelled as one in a talk track, with its source and date. A Benchmark is only a published figure with its source and date, as Methodology defines it.
• Risk Assessments Are Honest. If the rival has a real advantage, the battlecard names it and the criterion it wins on.
• A rival is recorded beside the incumbent, never scored. The Rival Method states what the buyer said, tagged, and the threat level is the incumbent's alone.

Competitive Threat Assessment Calibration

• HIGH: The prospect is satisfied with the incumbent, the incumbent is entrenched (2 years or more), the contract is active with more than six months to renewal, there is no switching-cost concern from the prospect, or the incumbent has a Broad product advantage.
• MEDIUM: The prospect has expressed some dissatisfaction and the contract timing is favorable, but the incumbent has strong relationships or the switching costs are real.
• LOW: The prospect is actively frustrated, the incumbent is manual or absent, the switching barriers are minimal, or the prospect is already evaluating alternatives.

Read the LOW clauses as confirmations only. A met LOW clause changes nothing at a MEDIUM or HIGH average, and at a LOW average it confirms LOW.

The calibration catches a threat the average hides, and it does so without counting a fact twice. A HIGH clause raises the level one band (LOW to MEDIUM, or MEDIUM to HIGH) only when a recorded fact meets it, and that fact is one no factor row already scored. A LOW clause never lowers the level. A MEDIUM clause has no effect. An Unknown fact never meets a clause. The reason is that the five factor rows already carry the facts they score, so a clause that restated one of them would count the same fact twice, while a fact no row scores is a threat the average cannot see.

Facts A Factor Row Already Scored: any fact that sets one of the five rows: the satisfaction level, the contract status, the switching barriers, the internal champion, or the product advantage. A clause that restates one of those facts, in any words, does not raise the level. Of the five HIGH clauses, four restate a row (satisfied, the contract more than six months from renewal, no switching-cost concern, Broad advantage). The entrenchment clause is the only one that names a fact no row scores, so it is the only HIGH clause that can raise the level, and only when a recorded fact shows the incumbent in place for 2 years or more. "Actively" in the LOW clause means the buyer acts on the frustration, shown by an open deal with us [CRM] or by a dated buyer action against the incumbent, and a rival's evaluation does not count. This is a working test, not a fact about the buyer's mood, and the rep checks it against the record. "Already evaluating alternatives" is met by the open deal with us, where the buyer is evaluating us in place of the incumbent. A rival fact never meets a calibration clause (Rival Method). A raise moves one band at most, and the level never passes HIGH.

Unknown Facts That Would Meet A HIGH Clause. When a HIGH clause turns on a fact the records do not hold, the battlecard names that fact beside the threat level, with the clause it would meet, and the fact is asked in discovery under Step 4A. It becomes an open gap in Step 6, item 8 only when a live Step 5 item names it. The entrenchment clause is met only by a recorded start date or duration of 2 years or more.

---

Hard Rules

1. Only a Verified proof point goes into a talk track, a battlecard line the rep reads aloud, or an email. Reason: a prospect can ask for the customer and the number, and an Illustrative row fails that check in front of the buyer.
2. Never Trash A Competitor. Reason: it implies parity, and it makes the buyer defend the incumbent. Describe what the buyer can do with your product instead.
3. A failure pattern needs five cases with a named source. Reason: fewer cases is a coincidence that looks like a pattern, and a rep who repeats it is repeating a coincidence.
4. No unsourced number in a talk track, an email or a battlecard line. Reason: any figure without a named, dated source becomes folklore the moment a buyer asks where it came from.
5. A jurisdiction deadline cites its rule and the date checked. Reason: a deadline without a cited rule cannot be checked, and a wrong one can cost the deal its timing.
6. Every incumbent is filed under one of the seven incumbent types, or the run stops at the Unknown Incumbent discovery questions. Reason: a battlecard that cannot be compared with the others cannot be reviewed, and a type that is avoided hides the classification error.
7. Never state a preference the buyer has not stated. Reason: an assumed preference writes the battlecard for a buyer who did not say it, and the gap matrix then argues against the wrong case.
8. Never send, never write to the CRM and never enroll a contact. Reason: the AE owns the outreach and the record, and the rep reads every draft first.
9. A Rival Never Changes The Incumbent's Threat Score. Reason: the score measures how firmly the incumbent holds the account. A score that moved with a rival would depend on a company the buyer may never choose, and the rep would argue against the wrong competitor.
10. No buyer criteria are claimed unless the buyer stated them, and a silent rival is Unknown. Reason: a criterion the rep assumes becomes the test the win plan runs, and the team then chases a standard the buyer never set.

---

Quality Bar

Done when all are true:

• The incumbent is filed under one of the seven incumbent types, or the run stopped at the Unknown Incumbent discovery questions
• Every fact carries an evidence tag or a profile citation, and every blank is written as [Unknown]
• Every failure pattern shows its cases counted and its source, and any pattern under five cases is labelled an observation
• Every proof point shows its Status, and no talk track, email or battlecard line cites a row that is not Verified
• The threat level shows all five factors and the average, and each calibration clause checked is named as met or not met
• Each discovery question is genuine and has a pivot for both answers
• Each objection script shows its status, Field-tested or Test and refine
• Any jurisdiction deadline cites its rule and the date checked
• Any rival advantage is named, with the criterion it wins on
• The win plan has actions for each stage, and the hand-off block's next_action line is the first live step in the priority order, with one owner, one person and one date, and sits directly above report_path, which ends the block
• No file was written unless the user asked for one
• An account with no open deal gets the no-deal note, with no stage, owner or close date written for it
• When a rival is evaluated, its record is tagged and unscored, and no buyer criterion appears that the buyer did not state

---

Examples

Three worked examples, all on the PlotIQ cast and the chain file. The first is the flagship deal against its incumbent, Oldgate Ledger Pro. It is a complete battlecard on its own, rival record included. The second is a different account, Greyfield Memorial Park, where Stonemark is the incumbent, and the battlecard runs the incumbent rules as written. The third shows the Rival Method by itself, using the rival record from Example 1. Every figure is in the profile, sourced, or marked (illustrative). Each example ends with its hand-off block.

Example 1: Incumbent Renewal, Oldgate Ledger Pro At Brackhaven Memorial Gardens

Context: Owen Pruitt, Account Executive (profile: Example Cast), has an open deal at Stage 5 Negotiate with Brackhaven Memorial Gardens, a two-site combination with 11,000 plots. Stage 5 began on 2026-09-09 [CRM], which is 40 days in stage today, 2026-10-19. At the list price of $10,788 a year per site (profile: Product Modules), the two sites come to $21,576 a year. The incumbent is Oldgate Ledger Pro, a legacy on-premise system with a renewal in March 2027 [CRM], under six months away. Stonemark was also evaluated, and its rival record is in Step 2D of this battlecard. Account Qualification (01) scored the account GREENLIGHT [Notes].

Input: "Build a competitive strategy for Brackhaven Memorial Gardens. They run Oldgate, and the renewal is in March 2027."

Section 1: Account And Incumbent Summary

Step 1: CRM Intelligence:

• Account: Brackhaven Memorial Gardens, combination, 2 sites, 11,000 plots, paper plot maps [CRM] (illustrative)
• Deal: Stage 5 Negotiate, $21,576 a year at list, owned by Owen Pruitt, 40 days in stage [CRM]
• Close date: moved twice since 2026-09-28, on 2026-10-07 and 2026-10-14 [CRM] (illustrative). The current close date value is [Unknown] in the record. The family board has not confirmed a date. The CRM holds a family board meeting set for 2026-11-12, not formally confirmed by the board [CRM]
• Contacts: Ruth Ellery, General Manager, champion [Call, 2026-09-26]. She recommends the proposal to the family board, which approves above $25K [Call, 2026-09-26]. Walt Okonkwo, Operations Director, skeptical of tablets [Call, 2026-09-21]. Priscilla Dunmore, pre-need manager [CRM]. The family board chair is the economic buyer, on one call [CRM], name [Unknown]
• Reason to look, in Ruth's words on the 2026-05-19 discovery call (illustrative quote): "We can't tell which plots are sold, or which are open, without going to the binder." [Call, 2026-05-19] (illustrative). The job is the answer to her question, which plots are sold and which are open.
• Incumbent: Oldgate Ledger Pro [CRM]. Ruth named it in discovery, and the call was logged. Renewal in March 2027 [CRM]. The exact renewal day is [Unknown]. Oldgate is a legacy on-premise system (profile: Competitive Landscape)
• Ruth's count of plots with no recorded sale: [Unknown]
• Oldgate's start date and its early-exit term: [Unknown]
• Facts for the zones, all tagged in the example: one double sale in the last 24 months, and the owner retires within 3 years (profile: Example Cast) (illustrative). No pre-need intake form, and no social leads feeding email, are on record [Unknown]. The board approves spend above $25K (profile: Qualification Zones, Zone 3). Year one with the two sites and the $5,000 setup is $26,576 (profile: Product Modules), above that line
• Discovery call, 2026-05-19 (illustrative), Ruth on the incumbent [Call, 2026-05-19]:
  • "Nobody here is attached to Oldgate. It's just what we've always had." (illustrative)
  • "Oldgate tells us what sold, and that part works. It doesn't tell us what's left." (illustrative)
  • "The state auditor asks for the trust numbers, and somebody digs them out of the ledger." (illustrative)
  • "The trust numbers come out of Oldgate as one file a year. The plot records stay in the binders." (illustrative). The migration scope of that file is [Unknown]
  • Cost, in Ruth's words on the same call: "Every year we pay Oldgate maintenance on top of the license, and it still doesn't tell us what's left." [Call, 2026-05-19] (illustrative)
  • Timing, in Ruth's words on the same call: "The renewal is in March. If the new system isn't running by then, we pay Oldgate for another year." [Call, 2026-05-19] (illustrative)
• Walt Okonkwo, on the 2026-09-17 call: a double-sale search takes half a day, and lookups come to about two a week [Call, 2026-09-17] (illustrative). Walt is an influencer, not the buyer, so this is a second pain, and it is not a gap row.
• Rival: Stonemark was also evaluated [Call, 2026-09-26]. No preference is on record [Unknown], and no criterion for comparing the two tools is on record [Unknown]. Its rival record is in Step 2D.
• Upstream MEDDPICC fields (09): none on record, so each is written [Unknown] and the competition element is not read.

Step 2: Incumbent Profile:

• Classification: direct software, the legacy on-premise row in (profile: Competitive Landscape)
• Their pitch: "Mature, deep accounting." Research figures: $10,000 to $50,000 upfront, plus maintenance at 20% a year, poor mobile, and no AI [Public: Deathcare research project, competitive research note, 2026-03-27] (research estimate, over 90 days old at the run date). Not yet checked with this buyer, so these are discovery targets
• Satisfaction: Frustrated, which scores LOW. Ruth names three failures of Oldgate on the 2026-05-19 call, in her own words. Oldgate "doesn't tell us what's left," which is a failure. "we pay Oldgate maintenance on top of the license," which is a cost she resents. "we pay Oldgate for another year" if the new system is late, which is a cost she wants to avoid [Call, 2026-05-19] (illustrative). The Step 2C definition of Frustrated is met, because the buyer names specific failures in her own words on a dated call. Her "Nobody here is attached to Oldgate" is indifference, which would read Neutral alone, so the named failures set the score
• Contract status: renewal in March 2027 [CRM]
• Switching barriers: moderate, by the Step 2C rule. The records move by hand from two sites, one per site, and the early-exit term is [Unknown], which neither meets Significant nor counts as no. The trust numbers leave Oldgate as one yearly file, and the plot records stay in binders at two sites [Call, 2026-05-19] (illustrative). The records must move by hand [Inferred: from the binder records], and the scope of the export is [Unknown]
• Internal champion for the incumbent: none. Ruth says nobody on staff is attached to Oldgate [Call, 2026-05-19] (illustrative)
• Failure pattern check: "Maintenance is charged every year, and the grounds crew stays on paper work orders" is a legacy on-premise pattern (profile: Competitive Patterns And Trends), a research pattern (illustrative). The PlotIQ record holds 0 of 5 cases counted on record, so it is an observation only, and the battlecard does not call it a pattern

Step 2C: Threat Assessment:

Overall: MEDIUM Threat. The five scores are 1, 1, 2, 1 and 3. The sum is 8, so the average is 8 ÷ 5 = 1.6, which is MEDIUM under the rounding bands. Each clause was checked against the rule above:

• HIGH, "the prospect is satisfied with the incumbent": not met, and it restates the satisfaction row, which is Frustrated. No raise.
• HIGH, "the incumbent is entrenched (2 years or more)": not met. Oldgate's start date is [Unknown], and no other recorded fact meets it. This is the one HIGH clause that adds a fact no row scores, and it is not met. No raise. A start date two years or more before the run date would raise the level to HIGH, so the start date is asked as the contract-status gap of Step 1B, not by the contract-renewal question in the profile.
• HIGH, "the contract is active with more than six months to renewal": not met, and it restates the contract row, which is Expiring, with the renewal in March 2027. No raise.
• HIGH, "there is no switching-cost concern from the prospect": not met, and it restates the switching row, which is Moderate. No raise.
• HIGH, "the incumbent has a Broad product advantage": met, and it restates the advantage row, which is Broad. A fact a row already scored does not raise the level. No raise.
• MEDIUM, "some dissatisfaction and favorable contract timing, but strong relationships or real switching costs": names MEDIUM. A MEDIUM clause has no effect.
• LOW, "the prospect is actively frustrated": met, and it restates the satisfaction row. At a MEDIUM average a met LOW clause has no effect.
• LOW, "the incumbent is manual or absent": not met. Oldgate is in place and holds the sold records. The binders hold the plot records, which Oldgate does not cover. No effect either way.
• LOW, "the switching barriers are minimal": not met. The score is Moderate.
• LOW, "the prospect is already evaluating alternatives": met on the open deal with us. The buyer is evaluating PlotIQ in place of the incumbent at Stage 5 [CRM]. The Stonemark evaluation is not what meets it, because a rival fact never meets a calibration clause. At a MEDIUM average this met clause has no effect, because a met LOW clause only confirms LOW when the average already reads LOW.

Result: no HIGH clause raises the level, so the threat is MEDIUM at the average of 1.6. The main risk is inertia: Walt's paper process has no one pushing for change [Inferred], so a MEDIUM threat does not make the deal safe.

Step 2D: Rival Record, Stonemark (Evaluated, Not Scored):

1. What The Buyer Said: Stonemark was evaluated [Call, 2026-09-26]. The record does not say who raised it [Unknown]. No buyer preference is on record [Unknown], and no criterion for comparing the two tools is on record [Unknown]. No dated record after 2026-09-26 confirms or ends the evaluation [Unknown].
2. Position On The Job: Unknown. The job is Ruth's answer to which plots are sold and which are open [Call, 2026-05-19] (illustrative). Stonemark's pitch claims "The best mapping in the category" [Public: Deathcare research project, competitive research note, 2026-03-27] (research claim, over 90 days old at the run date). Whether its map shows sold or unsold plots is [Unknown]. Stonemark is not read as Stronger or Weaker, because no tagged record shows either on the job.
3. Landmines: three rows in Step 3C, drawn from the research claim and the profile, and marked as rival rows.
4. Test Questions: three in Step 4A, drawn from the profile and the research, and labelled as added for this rival. None is stated by the buyer.

Classification: direct software (profile: Competitive Landscape). Research estimates, with the same citation and the over 90 days old flag: about $1,500 to $2,500 a month, with basis [Unknown], and 90 to 120 days to go live. Failure pattern: 0 of 5 cases counted on record, observation only. The threat level is not changed by this record, and Stonemark is named beside MEDIUM with no score.

Section 2: Competitive Gap Matrix

Step 3B: Gap Matrix: Four rows, each tied to a pain Ruth stated on a dated call.

All four rows qualify on a buyer statement on a dated call. The time-to-live row qualifies on Ruth's timing statement, and its research figure fills only the incumbent cell. Walt's lookup pain is a second pain from an influencer, so it is not a fifth row.

Section 3: Winning Zone Strategy And Landmines

Step 3A: Qualification Zone Alignment:

Zones 1 and 5 are HIGH, and Zones 3 and 4 are MEDIUM. Zone 2 is UNKNOWN, which neither earns nor blocks a verdict. This skill states no verdict (Step 3A). Account Qualification (01) carries the verdict for this account.

Step 3C: Positioning Landmines:

Section 4: Discovery Questions

Step 4A: Discovery Questions: Questions 1 to 3 are the profile's Competitive Discovery Questions (profile: Competitive Landscape), the same three the Oldgate row in the Displacement section holds. The report adds a follow-up to the profile's contract-renewal question, on the early-exit term and the start date, which Step 2C reads, and the start date is asked as the contract-status gap of Step 1B, not by that profile question. Questions 4 and 5 are the profile's Core Pain Points questions for Pain 1 and Pain 2 (profile: Core Pain Points). They are used because the incumbent's rows give only three questions, and Ruth named both pains on the 2026-05-19 call [Call, 2026-05-19] (illustrative).

1. "Where does the plot map live today, and when was it last updated?" Exposes: how old the plot map is, and whether sales can see it. If confirmed (a binder, years old): pivot to Plot Inventory Digitization, which runs in weeks 2 to 3. If denied (a current digital map exists): probe whether it shows sold and unsold plots.
2. "Which system runs the funeral side, and who maintains it?" Exposes: a second system and a key-person dependency. If confirmed: pivot to the combined records view. If denied: ask how pre-need leads are tracked today.
3. "When does your software contract renew, and what did the last quote include for support? Does the contract carry an early-exit fee, and how long has Oldgate been in place?" Confirms the March 2027 date, the support cost, the early-exit term and the start date. If confirmed: align the evaluation to the renewal decision. If denied: ask who makes the renewal decision.
4. "When a family asks about a plot, where do you look first, and how long does it take?" (Core Pain Points, Pain 1.) Exposes: the lookup time, and where the answer lives. If confirmed (the binder, or minutes to hours): pivot to one view of sold and unsold plots, shown on the Operations Director's own work orders. If denied (a quick answer from a current map): ask what that answer is built from.
5. "Walk me through last year's trust filing. Who pulled the numbers, and from where?" (Core Pain Points, Pain 2.) Exposes: whether one person digs the trust numbers out of the ledger, and which file the state gets. If confirmed (one person and the ledger export): pivot to Records and Trust Compliance, which keeps the trust record beside the plots. If denied: ask which filing is due, and when.

Rival Test Questions (Added For Stonemark, Not Counted In The Five Or Six, Drawn From The Profile And Research):

1. "Did the Stonemark evaluation show which plots are sold, or only which plots exist?" Exposes: whether the rival meets the job the buyer named. If it shows sold plots: the rival is a real option on that job, so the next step is the board's criteria. If it does not: pivot to the sold and unsold view on Brackhaven's own records (profile: Product Modules).
2. "Did the Stonemark evaluation cover the trust numbers? Who checks those numbers against the state filing?" Exposes: whether trust reporting is in the rival's scope, and who owns it. If the rival covers it: note the scope and its date. If it was not discussed: ask how the trust file is built today. Source: profile Competitive Patterns And Trends, enterprise mapping pattern (observation, 0 of 5 cases counted), labelled added for this rival.
3. "What would the board need to see before it chooses between the two tools?" Exposes: whether the criteria exist. If the board names them: write them in Ruth's words with the call date, and test both tools against them. If it does not: say so in the win plan, and claim no win over the rival. Source: profile Qualification Zones, Zone 3, where the board approves above $25K, labelled added for this rival.

Section 5: Displacement Talk Tracks

Step 4C: Displacement Talk Tracks: Three talk tracks, each readable aloud in under 20 seconds. No Verified proof point fits this scenario, so none of them has an example clause. The rep shows the capability in the demo instead. Each source sits on the line under its talk track.

1. "When a family asks about a plot and the answer is in a binder, PlotIQ shows sold and unsold plots on one map. We can show the timing on your own plot records in the demo." Source: 20-second target, profile: Value Propositions, no customer proof yet.
2. "When the state asks for the trust numbers and they come out of the ledger one year at a time, PlotIQ's Records and Trust Compliance module keeps the trust record beside the plots. We can show the output next to your state filing format in the demo." Source: Records and Trust Compliance (profile: Product Modules). Ruth's trust-file words [Call, 2026-05-19] (illustrative).
3. "When the renewal is in March, the decision has to finish before it. Our target is six weeks to go live, and a legacy system has been reported at 120 to 180 days, a research estimate. We can plan the evaluation to finish before March 2027." Source: six-week target (profile: Value Propositions), no completed deal yet. 120 to 180 days: Deathcare research project, competitive research note, 2026-03-27 (research estimate, over 90 days old at the run date).

Section 6: Objection Handling

Step 4B: Objection Handling (Keyed To This Buyer):

Section 7: Proof Points And Reference Stories

Step 4D: Match Proof Points:

The battlecard names the capability, and the demo shows it on Brackhaven's own counts. No Verified row exists yet, so no talk track or email names a customer.

Section 8: Win Plan Checklist

Step 5: Win Plan (Live Items): The items the record makes live at each stage, with the rest of the Step 5 checklist still applying.

Pre-Meeting (Live Items)

• Ask Ruth to answer the question she named as her reason to look, which plots are sold and which are open, from her own records. Use her own count of plots with no recorded sale as the test of that answer, and do not estimate it. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: 2026-10-26, the next action, which asks for this count first
• Know that no Verified proof point exists, so the demo shows the capability on Brackhaven's own counts and no customer is named. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: before the next meeting, [Unknown] until it is set
• Prepare a mitigation for each landmine in Step 3C, the rival rows included. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: before the next meeting, [Unknown] until it is set

During Discovery

• Confirm the exact Oldgate renewal day, the early-exit term and the start date with Ruth. Do not assume them. The early-exit term and the start date are named here because the switching and entrenchment clauses read them. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: 2026-10-26 (the next action, five business days after the run date of 2026-10-19)
• Confirm the scope of the trust file the switch must move, with Ruth. Do not assume it. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: 2026-10-26 (the next action's date)
• Ask Ruth to put the board's decision criteria in her own words, in the next action's message. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: 2026-10-26
• Plan the evaluation to finish before the March 2027 renewal decision. The 60 to 90 day evaluation window is an illustrative assumption, to calibrate with Ruth once the renewal day is confirmed (a later step). Owner: Owen Pruitt, internal, not an ask in the next action. Date: [Unknown] until the renewal day is confirmed
• Confirm the economic buyer: the family board chair, who has been on one call [CRM]. Ruth builds the case. Owner: Owen Pruitt, through Ruth, in the next action's message. Date: 2026-10-26

During Demo

• The demo leads with an unsold-plot list drawn from Brackhaven's own records, not a feature tour. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: [Unknown]
• Show the trust report output next to the state filing format, because the "deep accounting" argument may land with the board chair. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: [Unknown]

Post-Meeting

• Send Ruth a follow-up in her own words for the pain, with the next dated step. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: [Unknown] until the meeting is held. Owen sends it after the meeting, so it is not an ask in the next action

Risk: the "deep accounting" argument lands with the board chair, and the mitigation is the trust report beside the filing format, in the demo above.

Step 6: Competitive Strategy Summary:

1. Account: Brackhaven Memorial Gardens, ACTIVE, Stage 5 Negotiate, owner Owen Pruitt, $21,576 a year at list [CRM]
2. Incumbent: Oldgate Ledger Pro, direct software (profile: Competitive Landscape) for the type and [CRM] for the name
3. Competitive Threat Level: MEDIUM. Factor scores 1, 1, 2, 1 and 3, a sum of 8 and an average of 1.6. Stonemark is named beside it as an evaluated rival, with no score (Step 2D)
4. Primary Positioning: Zone 1, Records and Inventory Pain, HIGH, with Zone 5 HIGH
5. Top Three Competitive Gaps To Exploit: (a) Unsold-plot visibility, the job Ruth named as her reason to look, which Oldgate does not show [Call, 2026-05-19] (illustrative). (b) Trust numbers an auditor reads, Ruth's stated pain on the same call [Call, 2026-05-19] (illustrative). (c) Time to live against the March 2027 renewal, from Ruth's timing statement on the same call [Call, 2026-05-19] (illustrative), set against the research estimate of 120 to 180 days for Oldgate (Deathcare research project, competitive research note, 2026-03-27, over 90 days old at the run date) and the six-week target (profile: Value Propositions). Each gap meets the Step 3B test, a pain the buyer stated on a dated call. None is claimed as a win, because the board has not written its criteria [Unknown]
6. Positioning Landmines: see Step 3C, rival rows included
7. Displacement Proof Point: none is Verified. Fennick Gardens is the closest match on unsold plots, and it is Illustrative, so it is marked do not cite
8. Critical Discovery Gap: five open gaps, one line each, in the order their live win-plan items come: Ruth's count of plots with no recorded sale [Unknown] (Pre-Meeting item 1), then the exact Oldgate renewal day [Unknown], the early-exit term [Unknown] and the start date [Unknown] (During Discovery, first item, in the order it names them), and the trust-file export scope [Unknown] (During Discovery, second item). The board's decision criteria and the family board chair's name are not current-solution facts, so they are not gap lines. Both are asked of Ruth Ellery in the next action, because each is due on its date (see item 11). The board's criteria in writing are a document Ruth would have to draft, and no record shows that one exists, so they are a later step
9. Win Strategy Summary: have Ruth answer her question, which plots are sold and which are open, from her own records, and use her count of plots with no recorded sale to test the answer. Then show the sold and unsold view on Brackhaven's own records. Confirm the renewal day, the early-exit term, the start date and the trust-file scope before the proposal
10. Risk Assessment: Oldgate's accounting depth could land with the board chair, and the paper process could stay the default [Inferred]. Ruth says nobody is attached to Oldgate [Call, 2026-05-19] (illustrative), which is not the same as resisting change. The question that tests it is what the team would stop doing if the binders went. A MEDIUM threat means the incumbent holds on the sold records. It does not mean the board has chosen
11. Recommended Next Step: Owen Pruitt asks Ruth Ellery, in one message, by 2026-10-26, five business days after the run date of 2026-10-19, for the five gaps in item 8, in that order, and for the family board's decision criteria in her own words and the family board chair's name. No reply is owed on record, so the gap ask is the first live step. Each of these asks is due on 2026-10-26, so each travels with the message. Later step, owner Owen Pruitt: the board's criteria in writing, which Ruth would have to draft, dated [Unknown] until she has stated her criteria

Output: Full eight-section battlecard, with the rival record in section 1 and the rival rows in section 3. Threat level MEDIUM at an average of 1.6. The strongest competitive lever is unsold-plot visibility, and records a state auditor accepts, both to be shown on Brackhaven's own counts once Ruth provides them. The honest risk is Oldgate's accounting depth, and the chance that the paper process stays the default.

Hand-Off (Read By 06 And 12):
account: Brackhaven Memorial Gardens (ACTIVE, Stage 5 Negotiate, AE owner Owen Pruitt)
run_date: 2026-10-19
incumbent_type: direct software (profile: Competitive Landscape), Oldgate Ledger Pro [CRM]
threat_level: MEDIUM (five factors 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, sum 8, average 1.6, no HIGH clause meets a new fact, the Broad clause restates its row)
rival_record: Stonemark, direct software (profile: Competitive Landscape). Evaluated [Call, 2026-09-26]. Preference [Unknown]. Criteria [Unknown]. Position on the job Unknown. Landmines and test questions drawn from profile and research, labelled. Not scored
gap_matrix: 4 rows, unsold-plot visibility, trust fund records, cost, time to live
battlecard: 8 sections, inline, rival record in section 1, rival rows in section 3, rival test questions in section 4
win_plan: 4 stages, owner on each item, date where known
next_action: Owen Pruitt asks Ruth Ellery, in one message, by 2026-10-26, for five open gaps in this order: her count of plots with no recorded sale, the exact Oldgate renewal day, the early-exit term, the start date and the trust-file export scope. The same message asks for the family board's decision criteria in her own words and the family board chair's name, each due on 2026-10-26. The board's criteria in writing are a later step
report_path: none (inline)

---

Example 2: Stonemark As The Incumbent, Greyfield Memorial Park

Context: Greyfield Memorial Park is a one-site cemetery with 9,000 plots (profile: Example Cast). Its digital plot map comes from Stonemark, so Stonemark is the incumbent here, not a rival. The run date is Monday 2026-11-16, the Monday of demo week. The Input Contract asks for an account with an open opportunity. On 2026-11-16 Greyfield has one: the account is ACTIVE at Stage 2 Discovery, with Owen Pruitt as AE owner from 2026-11-03 [CRM] (illustrative). The earlier date, 2026-10-19, does not fit, because the account was TARGET then, with no AE owner and no open deal. The Stonemark renewal is January 2027 [CRM] (illustrative). No contact name is on file [Unknown], and no PlotIQ proof point is Verified.

Input: "Build the Stonemark battlecard for Greyfield Memorial Park. Stonemark is the incumbent, and the demo is Friday 2026-11-20."

---

Section 1: Account And Incumbent Summary

Step 1: CRM Intelligence:

• Account: one site with 9,000 plots (profile: Example Cast), and a digital plot map from Stonemark [CRM] (illustrative).
• Deal: ACTIVE, Stage 2 Discovery, owned by Owen Pruitt from 2026-11-03 [CRM] (illustrative). Amount [Unknown] in the record. A one-site subscription at list is $10,788 a year (profile: Product Modules).
• Sequence: the pre-need manager replied to displacement Email 1 on 2026-11-03 [CRM]. The content of the reply is [Unknown].
• Discovery call with Owen Pruitt on 2026-11-09 [Call, 2026-11-09]. The call named the January 2027 renewal and confirmed no pain. It is the only dated buyer statement on record.
• Contacts: the general manager and the pre-need manager are not named [Unknown]. The pre-need team has three people and an intake form on the site (profile: Example Cast).
• CRM notes, which are not dated calls: pre-need leads from social ads flow into email [CRM] (illustrative). The Stonemark map holds no records or trust reporting [CRM] (illustrative). The account wants pre-need and records together [CRM] (illustrative). One growth project is on record [CRM] (illustrative). The owner signs under $25K alone, with no board approval step [CRM] (illustrative). The last touch was 2026-09-24, with no named contact [CRM] (illustrative).
• Not on record: staff email and shared-drive use [Unknown]. The Stonemark signing date [Unknown]. The exact renewal day [Unknown].

Step 1B: Incumbent Identification:

• Current solution: Stonemark's digital plot map, named in the CRM note [CRM] (illustrative). Confidence is high, because the note names the vendor.
• Contract status: expiring. The renewal is January 2027 [CRM] (illustrative).
• Satisfaction: [Unknown]. No dated buyer statement on satisfaction is on record.
• Switching barriers: one site and one map. The scope of the data to move is [Unknown].
• Internal champion for Stonemark: [Unknown]. No advocate for Stonemark is on record.

Step 2: Incumbent Profile:

• Classification: direct software, the Stonemark row in (profile: Competitive Landscape). Stonemark is the incumbent on this account, so the incumbent rubric applies to it as written.
• Their pitch: "The best mapping in the category" [Public: Deathcare research project, competitive research note, 2026-03-27] (research estimate, over 90 days old at the run date).
• Research estimates, with the same citation and the same flag: about $1,500 to $2,500 a month, 90 to 120 days to go live, a three-year term for its customers, and no AI. The basis of the monthly figure is [Unknown], because the profile does not say whether it is per site or per plot.
• Failure pattern check: the enterprise-mapping pattern says trust reporting and pre-need run outside the map. The profile holds 0 of 5 cases counted on record (profile: Competitive Patterns And Trends), so it is an observation only, and this battlecard does not call it a pattern. The CRM note that the map holds no records or trust reporting is one fact on this account, not a pattern.
• No rival is evaluated on this account, so Step 2D is skipped, and the hand-off says rival_record: none evaluated.

Step 2C: Threat Assessment (Incumbent Rubric, Applied To Stonemark):

Overall Threat: MEDIUM. The five scores are 2, 1, 2, 2 and 2. The sum is 9, and the average is 9 ÷ 5 = 1.8, which is MEDIUM under the rounding bands. Moving any one factor to any other level leaves the average between 1.6 and 2.2, and each result still rounds to MEDIUM. If the buyer later states the job in their own words and the map meets it, the advantage is re-scored and the average is recomputed.

Calibration Check: The clauses are checked against Stonemark under the rule in Epistemic Rules. A HIGH clause raises the level only on a new recorded fact:

• HIGH, "the prospect is satisfied with the incumbent": not met. Satisfaction is Unknown, and the clause restates the satisfaction row. No raise.
• HIGH, "the incumbent is entrenched (2 years or more)": not met. Stonemark's start date is [Unknown], so no recorded fact meets it. This is the one HIGH clause that adds a fact no row scores, and it is not met. No raise. A start date two years or more before the run date would raise the level to HIGH, so the start date is asked as the contract-status gap of Step 1B, not by the contract-renewal question in the profile.
• HIGH, "the contract is active with more than six months to renewal": not met, and it restates the contract row. The renewal is January 2027, inside six months. No raise.
• HIGH, "there is no switching-cost concern from the prospect": not met, and it restates the switching row. No recorded buyer fact says there is no concern, and silence is not a no. No raise.
• HIGH, "the incumbent has a Broad product advantage": not met, and it restates the advantage row, which is Unknown. No raise.
• MEDIUM, "some dissatisfaction and favorable contract timing, but strong relationships or real switching costs": not met. No dissatisfaction is on record. A MEDIUM clause has no effect in any case.
• LOW, "the prospect is actively frustrated": not met. No such statement is on record. No effect.
• LOW, "the incumbent is manual or absent": not met. A digital map is in place. No effect.
• LOW, "the switching barriers are minimal": not met. The score is Moderate. No effect.
• LOW, "the prospect is already evaluating alternatives": met. The buyer is in discovery with PlotIQ [Call, 2026-11-09]. It names LOW, and LOW clauses never lower the level, so it has no effect.

Result: MEDIUM. No HIGH clause meets a new recorded fact, so the level is the rounded average of 1.8.

---

Section 2: Competitive Gap Matrix

No row qualifies yet. The rule needs each row tied to a pain the buyer stated on a dated call, or to a criterion the buyer named. The one dated call, on 2026-11-09 [Call, 2026-11-09], confirmed no pain. The pains on record are CRM notes, so the four candidates below are held as discovery targets, not gaps.

---

Section 3: Winning Zone Strategy And Landmines

Step 3A: Qualification Zone Alignment:

Zones 2 and 3 are HIGH. Zone 4 is UNKNOWN, which neither earns nor blocks a verdict. This skill states no verdict (Step 3A).

Step 3C: Positioning Landmines:

---

Section 4: Discovery Questions

Questions 1 to 3 are the Stonemark row's questions in the profile's Displacement section (profile: Displacement). Questions 4 to 6 are the profile's Core Pain Points questions for Pain 4, Pain 1 and Pain 5 (profile: Core Pain Points). They are used because the Stonemark row gives three questions, and no pain is confirmed on a call. The report adds a follow-up to the profile's contract-renewal question, on the early-exit term and the start date, which the profile does not ask, and the start date is asked as the contract-status gap of Step 1B, not by the profile question.

1. "Where does the plot map live today, and when was it last updated?" Exposes: how old the map is, and whether it shows what is sold. If confirmed (the map is old, or does not show sales): pivot to Plot Inventory Digitization, which shows unsold plots (profile: Product Modules). If denied (a current map shows sales): ask what the pre-need team checks before it sells a plot.
2. "Which system runs the pre-need side, and who maintains it?" Exposes: a second system, and a dependence on one person. If confirmed: pivot to Pre-Need CRM and Lead Scoring, which assigns follow-up. If denied: ask how a pre-need lead reaches a named owner today.
3. "When does your map contract renew, and what does the renewal include for support? Does the contract carry an early-exit fee, and how long has Stonemark been in place?" Exposes: the exact renewal day, the support scope, the early-exit term and the start date, all [Unknown]. If confirmed: align the evaluation to that date. If denied (no dated contract): ask which date the decision has to meet.
4. "When a pre-need lead comes in from the website, who calls them back, and when?" (Core Pain Points, Pain 4.) Exposes: the call-back owner and the speed. If confirmed (no owner, or a slow call back): pivot to Pre-Need CRM and Lead Scoring, which assigns follow-up. If denied (a named owner calls the same day): ask how many leads come in each month, so the value is counted from their numbers.
5. "When a family asks about a plot, where do you look first, and how long does it take?" (Core Pain Points, Pain 1.) Exposes: the lookup time, and where the answer lives. If confirmed (minutes to hours, or a paper check): pivot to one view of sold and unsold plots. If denied (a quick answer from the map): ask what that answer is built from.
6. "What happened the last time you brought a new tool in here?" (Core Pain Points, Pain 5.) Exposes: the adoption history and the team's resistance. If confirmed (a rollout that stalled): ask what stalled it, and build the plan around that. If denied (a smooth rollout): ask who would own the change.

---

Section 5: Displacement Talk Tracks

Three talk tracks, each readable aloud in under 20 seconds. No Verified proof point fits this scenario, so none has an example clause. The rep shows the capability in the demo instead. Each source sits on the line under its talk track.

1. "When pre-need and plot records have to work together, PlotIQ captures intake leads, assigns each one an owner, and shows which plots are unsold. We can show that on your own plot map."
2. "When an intake form lead comes in and no one owns the call back, PlotIQ's Pre-Need CRM scores the lead and assigns a follow-up owner. We can show the lead inbox in the demo."
3. "When the January renewal sets the deadline, our target is six weeks to go live. Enterprise mapping has been reported at 90 to 120 days, a research estimate. We can plan the switch to finish before the renewal." Source: six-week target (profile: Value Propositions), no completed deal yet. 90 to 120 days: Deathcare research project, competitive research note, 2026-03-27 (research estimate, over 90 days old at the run date). It is used as a research estimate, never as a benchmark.

---

Section 6: Objection Handling

Each script is Test and refine. No buyer has tested these, so none is shown as tested.

---

Section 7: Proof Points And Reference Stories

No Verified row exists, so no talk track or email names a customer. The demo shows the capability on Greyfield's own records instead, if the buyer agrees.

---

Section 8: Win Plan Checklist

Pre-Meeting (Live Items)

• No reason to look is on record in the buyer's own words, so the first ask is the open discovery gap: the pain the demo must solve. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: 2026-11-20, the demo date, an earlier date than the five-business-day rule and set by the records
• Get the names of the general manager and the pre-need manager, because no contact name is on file. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: 2026-11-20, in the next action's message
• Know that no Verified proof point exists, so the demo shows the capability on Greyfield's own records and no customer is named. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: before 2026-11-20
• Prepare a mitigation for each landmine in Section 3. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: before 2026-11-20

During Discovery (Live Items)

• Ask discovery questions 1 to 6 with genuine curiosity, and listen for pain about the map and the pre-need call back. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: [Unknown] until the next call is booked. The questions are asked on the call itself, not in the next action's message
• Confirm the exact Stonemark renewal day and the scope of the map move with the buyer. Do not assume either. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: 2026-11-20, the demo date from the input, which is the deadline these two facts are asked against
• Ask the buyer to state the decision criteria in their own words before any demo. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: 2026-11-20 (the demo date)
• Confirm the economic buyer, the owner who signs under $25K alone [CRM] (illustrative). Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: 2026-11-20, in the next action's message

During Demo (Live Items)

• Lead with the capabilities that answer the criteria the buyer wrote. If none are written, say so, and do not give a feature tour. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: 2026-11-20
• Show the pre-need intake lead beside the plot map, and show which plots are unsold. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: 2026-11-20
• Name no customer. Show Greyfield's own records only if the buyer agrees to share them. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: 2026-11-20
• Do not criticize Stonemark. Describe what one system does for the buyer. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: 2026-11-20

Post-Meeting (Live Items)

• Send the buyer a follow-up in their own words for the pain, with the next dated step. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: [Unknown] until the demo is held
• Set the decision date against the January 2027 renewal, once the buyer names it. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: [Unknown]
• Re-score the threat once the criteria are written. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: [Unknown] until the criteria exist
• Update the CRM with the competitive facts learned. Owner: Owen Pruitt. Date: [Unknown]

---

Step 6: Competitive Strategy Summary:

1. Account: Greyfield Memorial Park, ACTIVE, Stage 2 Discovery, owner Owen Pruitt [CRM] (illustrative). One-site list price $10,788 a year (profile: Product Modules)
2. Incumbent: Stonemark, direct software (profile: Competitive Landscape). Its digital map is in place [CRM] (illustrative)
3. Competitive Threat Level: MEDIUM. Factor scores 2, 1, 2, 2 and 2, a sum of 9 and an average of 1.8. No rival is evaluated
4. Primary Positioning: Zone 2, Pre-Need Sales Motion, HIGH, with Zone 3 HIGH
5. Top Three Competitive Gaps To Test, Not Claim: (a) pre-need leads and their call-back owner. (b) Records and trust reporting, which the map does not hold [CRM] (illustrative). (c) Time to live against the January 2027 renewal, a research estimate (Deathcare research project, competitive research note, 2026-03-27, over 90 days old at the run date). No gap is tied to a dated buyer statement yet, so none is claimed
6. Positioning Landmines: see Section 3
7. Displacement Proof Point: none is Verified. Holloway Hills and Fennick Gardens are Illustrative and are not cited
8. Critical Discovery Gap: three open gaps, one line each: the buyer's confirmed pain [Unknown], the exact Stonemark renewal day [Unknown], and the scope of the map move [Unknown]. The 2026-11-09 call confirmed no pain
9. Win Strategy Summary: get the buyer's pain and criteria in their own words before the demo. Then show the pre-need call back and the records beside the map. If the criteria name only the map, say so and reassess the deal
10. Risk Assessment: Stonemark could win if the buyer decides on the map alone, because the map is its real strength. Stonemark renews in January 2027, so the buyer may renew by default if the decision stalls. Until the buyer states a criterion, the battlecard cannot claim a win over Stonemark
11. Recommended Next Step: Owen Pruitt asks the buyer for each open gap in item 8, in one message, by 2026-11-20, the demo date, before the demo. No reply is owed on record: the pre-need manager's 2026-11-03 reply [CRM] is followed by the 2026-11-09 call [Call, 2026-11-09], the last buyer contact on record. The same message also asks for the decision criteria in the buyer's own words, the names of the general manager and the pre-need manager, and the economic buyer's confirmation. Each is due 2026-11-20 in the Step 5 list, so each travels with the next action

Output: Full eight-section battlecard, threat MEDIUM at an average of 1.8. No gap row qualifies yet, so the win strategy is to get the buyer's confirmed pain and criteria before the demo, then test the pre-need call back and the records against them.

Hand-Off (Read By 06 And 12):
account: Greyfield Memorial Park (ACTIVE, Stage 2 Discovery, AE owner Owen Pruitt from 2026-11-03 [CRM])
run_date: 2026-11-16
incumbent_type: direct software (profile: Competitive Landscape), Stonemark [CRM]
threat_level: MEDIUM (five factors 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, sum 9, average 1.8, no HIGH clause meets a new fact)
rival_record: none evaluated
gap_matrix: 0 rows qualify under the dated-call rule. Four candidates held as discovery targets
battlecard: 8 sections, inline, Stonemark named as the incumbent, no proof named as a customer result
win_plan: 4 stages, owner on each item, date where known
next_action: Owen Pruitt asks the buyer, in one message, for the three open gaps in item 8 (the confirmed pain, the Stonemark renewal day and the scope of the map move), and in the same message for the decision criteria, the general manager's and pre-need manager's names, and the economic buyer's confirmation, by 2026-11-20, the demo date (an earlier date than the five-business-day default, set by the demo the input names)
report_path: none (inline)

---

Example 3: The Rival Record By Itself, Stonemark Beside Oldgate

Context: This is the rival record from Example 1, shown alone so the Rival Method is visible on its own. It is the same record, on the same run date, Monday 2026-10-19. Oldgate Ledger Pro stays the incumbent, and the threat level is Example 1's, MEDIUM at an average of 1.6, because a rival is never scored. No buyer preference is on record for either tool [Unknown], and no buyer criterion is on record for either tool [Unknown].

Records:

• Evaluation: Stonemark was evaluated [Call, 2026-09-26]. The record does not say who raised it [Unknown].
• Nothing else the buyer said about Stonemark is on record. No dated record after 2026-09-26 confirms or ends the evaluation [Unknown].

The Four Parts, As The Rule Fills Them:

What The Rule Produced:

• The buyer-said parts are Unknown: the preference, the criteria, and the position on the job. The battlecard claims no advantage over Stonemark.
• The landmines and test questions are still useful to the rep, because they come from the profile and the dated research. Each one says so, and none is presented as something the buyer said.
• Stonemark's research estimates are about $1,500 to $2,500 a month, with basis [Unknown], and 90 to 120 days to go live [Public: Deathcare research project, competitive research note, 2026-03-27] (research estimate, over 90 days old at the run date). They are compared as not like for like, and they are not read as Stronger or Weaker.
• Failure pattern: 0 of 5 cases counted on record, observation only (profile: Competitive Patterns And Trends).
• The threat level is not changed. Stonemark is named beside MEDIUM with no score.

This is a view of Example 1's hand-off that carries the rival record. The run itself is Example 1's, and this view adds no next action.

Hand-Off (Read By 06 And 12):
account: Brackhaven Memorial Gardens (ACTIVE, Stage 5 Negotiate, AE owner Owen Pruitt)
run_date: 2026-10-19
incumbent_type: direct software (profile: Competitive Landscape), Oldgate Ledger Pro [CRM]
threat_level: MEDIUM (five factors 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, average 1.6, unchanged from Example 1, rival not scored)
rival_record: Stonemark, direct software (profile: Competitive Landscape). Evaluated [Call, 2026-09-26]. Preference [Unknown]. Criteria [Unknown]. Position on the job Unknown. Landmines and test questions drawn from profile and research, labelled
gap_matrix: Example 1's, unchanged
battlecard: the rival part of Example 1's run. Adds no section of its own
win_plan: Example 1's, unchanged
next_action: Example 1's, unchanged (Owen Pruitt asks Ruth Ellery, in one message, by 2026-10-26, for the five open gaps in Example 1's item 8, the family board's decision criteria in her own words and the family board chair's name, each due on that date). The board's criteria in writing are a later step. This example adds none
report_path: none (inline)

---

Common Patterns

Pattern: Unknown Incumbent

When: The account is ACTIVE and the incumbent has not been identified through discovery. Action: Stop before Step 2. Flag the incumbent as the critical discovery gap, and return only the discovery questions that identify it, each with its owner and date. Recommend Meeting Prep (06) for discovery, and run the skill again once the incumbent is named. Reason: a battlecard for an unknown incumbent is a guess with a battlecard's layout, and the hand-off reads incumbent_type: [Unknown].

Pattern: Dual-Tool Pain

When: The account uses two separate tools, one for each part of the job. Action: Build the strategy around the unification angle. Reference Verified proof points where one product replaced both tools at once. The gap matrix shows the gap between the two tools as the primary pain.

Pattern: Renewal Window

When: A renewal date is known from the CRM or from discovery. Action: Plan the timeline to finish the decision well before the renewal date. Start from 60 to 90 days before renewal (illustrative), and calibrate it with the buyer. Reason: the renewal date is the one fixed point the rep can plan against.

Pattern: Incumbent Champion (Blocker)

When: Someone in the prospect's organization advocates for the current tool and may resist change. Action: Identify the blocker's concerns, such as job security, familiarity, or the political capital already spent on the choice. Build positioning that neutralizes the concern without confronting it, such as showing how the blocker's expertise is used in the new workflow. Any line drafted for this stays Test and refine until a buyer has tested it. Consider multi-threading around the blocker to the economic buyer.

Pattern: Evaluated Rival, No Preference Stated

When: The buyer names a rival as one of the options and states no preference. Action: Record the rival under the Rival Method, with its preference [Unknown], and have the AE get the buyer's criteria in writing before the demo. The rival's landmines and test questions come from the profile and labelled research. The incumbent's threat level does not change. Reason: silence on preference is not a preference for the incumbent, and the rival must not be scored or claimed as a win. Example 3 shows the record.

---

Troubleshooting

---

Best Practices

Do's

• Respond Positively To Competitor Mentions. Ask whether budget is set aside for this change. Do not assume it.
• Lead With Enablement, Not Criticism. "Here is what becomes possible" lands better than "here is what is broken."
• Use Competitor-Specific Discovery Questions. Genuine curiosity exposes gaps better than accusations.
• Include An Honest Risk Assessment. Naming where the competitor could win is what makes the rest of the battlecard credible.
• Match proof points to the scenario, with their Status shown. Displacement stories go to displacement deals, and only Verified ones are spoken.
• Prepare For Landmines. Knowing where the conversation could go badly is worth more than perfect positioning.
• Tag Every Claim. A reader should see where each fact came from without asking.

---

Integration With Other Skills

Reads From The Skill Before It, By Field Name:

• MEDDPICC Analysis (09), gtm-meddpicc-analysis: meddpicc_scores, health_score, stage_minimum_met, stage_recommendation, risk_patterns. Use risk_patterns to find the element where the deal is weakest, and aim the gap matrix there. Read the competition element in meddpicc_scores before writing Step 1. Use stage_recommendation (ADVANCE, HOLD, DOWNGRADE or DISQUALIFY) to set how urgent the win plan is. When a field is missing, say it is missing, and do not rebuild it here.

Hands To The Skills After It, By Field Name:

• Meeting Prep (06): incumbent_type, threat_level, rival_record, gap_matrix, battlecard, win_plan. Meeting Prep builds its Competitive Positioning section from gap_matrix and keeps each proof point's Status as written.
• Competitive Displacement (12): incumbent_type, threat_level, rival_record. Both skills file the incumbent from the same Shared Contract list, so the two battlecards agree.
• Wrap-Up: threat_level, next_action (owner and date), and report_path (set only when a file was written).

Chains

• Beat The Incumbent: MEDDPICC Analysis (09), Competitive Strategy (11), Competitive Displacement (12), Account Snapshot (02) or Meeting Prep (06). This skill adds the deal-specific battlecard: the incumbent's type, the gap matrix and the win plan.

---

Changelog

2.1.17 (2026-10-27)

• Examples 1 and 2 say the report adds the early-exit and start-date follow-up to the profile's contract-renewal question, since the profile question does not ask them.
• The shared contract now says an ask to the next action's person with no date of its own travels with the next action, and defines the champion test "explains the internal politics" (the contact tells the rep who decides, or how the decision gets made).
• Next-action row. An undated ask to the next action's person now travels with it under the shared rule, and no undated ask takes a default date.
• Discovery question citations. Examples 1 and 2 and the try-it no longer cite "discovery question 3". The contract-renewal question is cited by its text, and the start date is asked as the contract-status gap of Step 1B, not by the profile question. The profile is unchanged.
• Try-it. What You Should Get gains a Must Match block (threat level, primary positioning and the next action). The existing lines move under Also In The Report with their meaning unchanged, and the threat line's citation follows the Step 1B wording.

2.1.16 (2026-10-27)

• The shared contract's Champion Tests section now defines "commits to next steps with dates": the contact agrees, on record, to a dated next step in the deal, such as a meeting they book or a date they commit to on a call.
• The shared contract's next-action rule now says which asks travel with the next action: every ask to the same person due on or before its date, counts and figures included, and never a document the person must draft first or an ask due later.
• Due-date test. The Output Contract's next-action row, Step 6 items 8 and 11, and the examples' next actions now state the test. An ask to the same person travels when its date is on or before the next action's date, and an undated ask takes the shared default date. Phrases that bundled asks by having no date of their own are removed.
• Board criteria. The board's criteria in writing are not on record as a document Ruth holds, so asking for them is a later step. Her criteria in her own words and the chair's name are asked in the next action, due 2026-10-26, and the try-it promise says so.
• Early-exit term and start date. Example 1's During Discovery contract item names the renewal day, the early-exit term and the start date, so the three facts the records mark Unknown are open gaps in Step 6 item 8, and the next action asks five gaps in one message. Under the Step 2C rule, the fact the item names is the one that becomes a gap, so the threat level's calibration is unchanged.
• Discovery question 3. In Examples 1 and 2 it ends with the follow-up that asks for the start date, and Step 2C names that follow-up. The try-it cites it by its words, so the promise points to a question that exists as written.
• Example 2 dates. The renewal-day and map-scope items take the demo date, 2026-11-20, as their date, so they are due on the next action's date and travel with it. The discovery-question item states that the call itself is not a message in the next action.
• Example 1 dates. The evaluation-window item is Owen's internal plan, and the post-meeting follow-up is sent after the meeting, so neither is an ask in the next action.

2.1.15 (2026-10-27)

• The shared contract's Champion Tests section now defines "asks how to help" (the contact asks what the rep can supply to move the internal decision). The PlotIQ profile dates Brackhaven's deal from 2026-05-06, names the economic buyer for the Stage 2 gate the way the Buying Committee does, and limits the $25K board line claim to one-site accounts.
• Stage placement. The renewal-day check ("Confirm the contract status and the renewal date with the buyer") is a During Discovery item, as Step 5 has always placed it. Example 1 moves its exact-renewal-day bullet from Pre-Meeting to During Discovery, and its Step 6 item 8 cites the stage as During Discovery, first item for the renewal day and second item for the trust-file scope. Example 2's Pre-Meeting bullet asks only for the buyer's pain, and its renewal day and scope stay in During Discovery. The try-it promise is changed to match.
• Early-exit term. Significant is met only by a recorded early exit or two or more software systems. An early-exit term the records do not hold is [Unknown], which neither meets Significant nor counts as no. Moderate and Unknown both score MEDIUM. Discovery asks the term with the renewal date (Example 1 and Example 2, question 3). It is not a gap line, because no live item names it.
• Unknown facts that would meet a HIGH clause. The new Epistemic Rules paragraph says the battlecard names the fact beside the level, with the clause it would meet, and asks it in discovery. It becomes a Step 6 item 8 gap only when a live item names it. Entrenchment is met only by a recorded start date or duration of two years or more. Example 1 and Example 2 name the start date that would raise the level to HIGH.
• Try-it. The records now state Oldgate's start date and early-exit term as [Unknown]. Two restatements of the gap matrix are removed (the incumbent's sold-records line and the "deep accounting is its pitch" line), and "Research weaknesses" is renamed "Research figures" so the record does not pre-state a gap. Every fact the rules read is kept.

2.1.14 (2026-10-27)

• The shared contract's Champion Tests section now defines "creates urgency" (a dated deadline the decision works to, with its date and source on record) and "defends the solution" (a recorded case of arguing for us in our absence to someone who decides), and says a test not yet run is never scored.
• Zone 4. Step 3A reads the legacy condition from the incumbent's profile row, because the account runs the incumbent, and "fits poorly" is met by the buyer's dated named failure, the Step 2C test. Example 1's Zone 4 cites both, and it stays MEDIUM.
• Gap rows. The buyer is the contact the profile's Buyer Personas table marks as the buyer, and the economic buyer when one is named. An influencer's pain is a second pain until the buyer states it. Example 1 keeps four rows, and it names Walt's lookup pain as a second pain.
• Open gaps. An open gap is a fact that a live Step 5 item asks the buyer to confirm. Step 5 During Discovery gains the data-scope item, Example 1's trust-file scope moves to it, and item 8 lists the gaps in the order their live items come. Example 1 still asks for three gaps.
• Switching barriers. A renewal date with no early-exit term on record is a timing, not an early exit.
• Upstream read. Step 1 writes each MEDDPICC field not on record as [Unknown], does not read the competition element, and runs on. Example 1 says so.
• Satisfaction and Neutral. The rule no longer quotes the example's own sentences, so the records and the rule do not share wording. Frustrated is a named failure whatever the words.
• Example Records. In an example, a buyer quote on a dated call that the example tags illustrative counts as recorded, the same as an Example Cast fact.
• Try-it. The records keep every fact the rules read, and the "Zone facts" label is renamed to say what the facts are.

2.1.13 (2026-10-26)

• Verdict. The skill states zones and no verdict. Example 1 and Example 2 lose their GREENLIGHT lines, and the verdict is named as Account Qualification's (01). One account never carries two verdicts.
• Zone 3. Example 1 records Ruth's dated statement that she recommends the proposal to the family board, which is the GM-recommends condition of the MEDIUM cell. The try-it carries the same statement.
• Incumbent type. The type cites the profile row it matches, (profile: Competitive Landscape), with no evidence tag. An Inferred tag is used only when no row fits. Every example and the try-it promise follow it.
• Gap matrix. A timing the buyer states on a dated call is a criterion, so the time-to-live row qualifies on Ruth's timing statement. A research figure fills a cell and never qualifies a row alone. A research price whose basis is Unknown is marked not like for like.
• Try-it. The count-as-test sentence, the above-the-line comparison and the Stonemark sentence are removed from the records, and every fact the rules read is kept.

2.1.12 (2026-10-26)

• Next-action priority order is written in the Output Contract and Step 6. The order is a reply owed to a buyer who wrote to us (due the next business day), then the buyer ask for the open current-solution gaps in item 8, then other buyer steps for a different person or a later dated record, then internal steps. Ties go to the earlier date on record, then to the earlier Step 5 stage, then to the first item in item 8.
• Open gap has one scope. It is a fact about the buyer's current solution that the records mark Unknown and that the Step 5 win plan cannot run without. A profile question with no Unknown on record is asked in discovery and is not listed as a gap. The board's criteria, the family board chair's name and a rival's position are not current-solution facts, so they are not gap lines. Asks to the same person that fit in the same message travel with the next action, and a criterion or chair's name with no date of its own fits that rule.
• Example 1's next action asks Ruth Ellery, in one message, for her count of plots with no recorded sale, the exact Oldgate renewal day and the trust-file export scope, by 2026-10-26. The count is the test the win plan already asks for, so it is an open gap, and the try-it promise changes from two gaps to three, with the board's criteria and the chair's name asked to Ruth in the same message.
• Product Advantage is three questions in order: is the job on record in the buyer's words, does the incumbent answer any part of it, and does the buyer say on a dated call that the part works. Broad needs that dated statement. Without it, the part the incumbent answers scores Niche.
• Satisfaction: a buyer's statement that the incumbent does not show or tell them something they need is a named failure.
• Internal Champion For Incumbent has defined values: None, Confirmed, Suspected and Unknown, with a dated statement needed for None.
• Zones: a zone takes the highest cell whose every condition is on record, so one Unknown condition stops a HIGH cell from matching.
• Example 1 records now hold the buyer's dated statement that the sold list works, the exact renewal day as Unknown, the current close date as Unknown, the double sale and the owner's retirement from the Example Cast, the pre-need intake facts as Unknown, and the year-one board figure of $26,576 against the $25K line. Its zones follow from those records: Zones 1 and 5 HIGH, Zones 3 and 4 MEDIUM, Zone 2 UNKNOWN, GREENLIGHT.
• A met LOW clause for already evaluating alternatives is met on the open deal with us, never on a rival, which the Rival Method already says.
• Example 2's next action lists three open gaps, one line each, and states that no reply is owed on record. Its criteria, names and economic-buyer asks have no date of their own, so they travel in the same message. Example 3's hand-off carries Example 1's next action.
• Correction after review: asks to the same person that fit in the same message travel with the next action, and a step for a different person, or with a later date set by a record or the skill's schedule, is listed after it. The priority order and the scope rule in the Output Contract and Step 6 now say so.

2.1.11 (2026-10-26)

• Product advantage: an incumbent that answers part of the job the buyer named, where the buyer says that part works, scores Broad, and the part it leaves out is the gap in Step 3B. Ruth's reason to look now names both halves of her question, which plots are sold and which are open. Oldgate's sold records are the part that works, so Example 1 moves from LOW at an average of 1.4 to MEDIUM at an average of 1.6, with factors 1, 1, 2, 1 and 3. Its try-it promise changes to match, and Example 3 follows it.
• Switching barriers count software systems. Paper binders and sites are places, so two sites of binders with one software system is Moderate. Significant needs two or more software systems or an early exit.
• Zone matching: in an example, a fact from the Example Cast counts when the example tags it as illustrative. In a live run, only the CRM, calls and notes count.
• More than one open discovery gap is one next action. It asks the buyer for each gap in one message, under one owner and one date, and the Output Contract, Step 6 items 8 and 11, and Example 2's next action say so.
• A met LOW calibration clause is a confirmation only, and it changes nothing at a MEDIUM or HIGH average.
• Example 1 follows the battlecard's section order, and its section map is replaced by section headings. Example 3's hand-off is labelled as a view of Example 1's.
• A LOST or OUT account gets a hand-off form, and the Status Rule says so. A pending AE assignment returns the outcome for its status.
• Fixes: the no-deal note leaves out the deal lines, the satisfaction troubleshooting rows score from the factor row, the budget claim is removed, the inertia risk is tagged Inferred with its test question, the rival landmines and test questions carry their sources, Example 2 states its growth project and cites the Example Cast, the Example 2 pre-need row no longer leads with pre-need, table labels are capitalized word by word, step references use one casing, the blocker line is Test and refine, and the Wrap-Up label drops its code.

2.1.10 (2026-10-26)

• Rival Method and Example 3 agree. A rival with no buyer statement keeps its buyer-said parts Unknown: the buyer's preference, the criteria the buyer named, and the rival's position on the job. Its landmines and test questions come from the profile and dated research, labelled as drawn for that rival, and the rule now says so.
• Example 1 is a complete battlecard. It carries the full rival record in section 1, the rival rows in section 3 and the rival test questions in section 4. Example 3 shows the record alone, with the rule line that fills each part.
• Satisfaction is defined in Step 2C. Frustrated means the buyer names specific failures of the incumbent in their own words on a dated call. Example 1's records meet it, because Ruth names three failures of Oldgate on 2026-05-19, so Satisfaction scores LOW rather than MEDIUM. The factors become 1, 1, 2, 1 and 2, with a sum of 7 and an average of 1.4, and the threat level moves from MEDIUM to LOW. Two LOW clauses are met and confirm LOW.
• The calibration catches a threat the average hides without counting a fact twice. A HIGH clause raises the level one band only when a recorded fact meets it that no factor row already scored, and LOW clauses never lower the level. Of the five HIGH clauses, only entrenchment names a fact no row scores. The rounding bands are stated: below 1.5 is LOW, 1.5 up to 2.5 is MEDIUM, and 2.5 or above is HIGH.
• Each calibration clause is named as met or not met in every example. No HIGH clause met a new recorded fact in 2.1.10, so no level changed. Example 1 read LOW at 1.4 in 2.1.10 (see 2.1.11), Example 2 reads MEDIUM at 1.8, and Example 3 follows Example 1.
• An unknown incumbent on an ACTIVE account stops the run before Step 2. The rule is stated the same way in the Input Contract, Step 1B, the Unknown Incumbent pattern and Hard Rule 6.
• The Output Contract and the Status Rule agree on the outcome of each status. The no-deal note has a form, and LOST and OUT are stated. The rival_record field reads none evaluated when no rival is evaluated. The Output Contract rows follow the order of their notes, with next_action directly above report_path, and the Integration hand-off lists follow the same order.
• Every fact carries an evidence tag or a profile citation. This wording now matches the Shared Contract's rule for profile citations, in Epistemic Rules, the Quality Bar and CUSTOMIZE.md.
• Step 4A names its sources. Example 1 questions 4 and 5, and Example 2 questions 4 to 6, are labelled as Core Pain Points questions, because the incumbent's own rows give fewer than five.
• Example 1 states the close date as the records hold it on 2026-10-19: moved twice since 2026-09-28, with a family board meeting set for 2026-11-12 in the CRM and not formally confirmed. The six-week time to live is labelled a target, the 20-second target replaces "takes seconds", and source lines sit under the talk tracks rather than inside them.
• Example 1's next action asks Ruth only for the renewal day and the trust-file scope. The criteria question stays in the win plan. Ruth's job is the answer to her question in every place the example names it, and her count of plots is the test of that answer, not the job.
• Example 1's cost row qualifies on Ruth's stated maintenance cost, and its basis gap sits in the cell. Example 2's cost row stays held, because the buyer has stated no cost pain.
• Zones are scored by the cell their facts match in full. Example 1's Zone 2 and Example 2's Zone 4 are UNKNOWN. Example 2's Zone 3 cites the Verdict Rule for its board condition.
• Example 2's product advantage is Unknown, because the buyer's words for the job are not on record. Its total stays 9 and its level stays MEDIUM. Its hand-off names the incumbent's type and name with their tags, and it reads rival_record: none evaluated.
• Cross-skill references are removed from the examples, and their facts carry record tags. Failure patterns read 0 of 5 cases counted on record, observation only.
• Headings, labels and table headers are capitalized word by word, including the Step 1B, 2a and 3 headings and the example headings.

2.1.9 (2026-10-26)

• Example 3 no longer contradicts itself. Its Stonemark read on the stated job is Unknown, its status sentence names the 2026-10-19 Deal Pulse and MEDDPICC runs and their dated source, and its pitch carries its research tag and the over 90 days old flag.
• Stronger and Weaker follow one rule in the Rival Method: a tagged record must show the rival on the job, or the read is Unknown.
• A rival-only run does not exist. The Output Contract says so, and the Overview, Role and Quick Reference name the incumbent as the battlecard's subject. Each run gives one next action, and Example 3 adds none. Example 1's next action now asks Ruth for the criteria the board will judge the two tools on, alongside the renewal day and the trust-file scope.
• report_path is the last line of the hand-off block, and next_action sits directly above it. The Output Contract and the Quality Bar say so, and every example follows it.
• The Integration section passes rival_record to Meeting Prep (06) and Competitive Displacement (12).
• Example 1 records Satisfaction as Unknown, scored MEDIUM as before, so the factors stay 2, 1, 2, 1 and 2 with an average of 1.6 and a MEDIUM threat. The LOW clause on alternatives is counted as met on the PlotIQ evaluation and has no effect on a MEDIUM average. The renewal lock is a timing hold, not an early exit.
• Ruth's stated job is the answer to her question, not a count, in Example 1, Example 3 and the Step 2C product advantage line.
• The mobile row leaves Example 1's gap matrix, which holds four rows. Step 6 item 5 applies the Step 3B test to every gap, and a claimed win also needs the board's criteria.
• Zone 2 cites the profile's MEDIUM cell and names the missing HIGH element. The two-site cost of $26,576 cites its profile facts and its arithmetic.
• Step 3C marks rival rows in the landmine column. Example 1 carries a section map and its Step 2D note.
• Every research citation in Examples 1 to 3 carries the over 90 days old flag. The "tolerates it" wording is withdrawn, and profile facts are cited as (profile: Section).
• The duplicate 2.1.6 entry in the change log is merged into one.

2.1.8 (2026-10-26)

• Adds the Rival Method to Methodology: a rival the buyer evaluates alongside the incumbent is recorded in four parts (what the buyer said, where it stands on the stated job, its landmines and the questions that test it). The record is never scored, and it stays out of the five factors, the average and the calibration clauses.
• Adds Step 2D, which runs after the threat score, and wires the rival record into the Input Contract, the Output Contract (rival_record, battlecard section 1), Step 3C, Step 4A, Step 6, the Epistemic Rules, the Quality Bar, the Troubleshooting table and Hard Rules 9 and 10. The Evaluated Rival pattern now points to the Rival Method.
• Adds a Status Rule after the Input Contract. ENGAGED, TARGET and INBOUND get the no-deal note in place of a battlecard, LOST points to Closed-Loss Reactivation (05), and OUT stops. Step 1 states how the deal lines are written when no deal is open. A rival named on a no-deal account goes in the no-deal note as one tagged, unscored line.
• Profile facts are cited (profile: Section) in place of the public-source tag or the profile-line form, in this file and in the try-it.
• Example 1 gains its zone alignment (Step 3A) and its summary (Step 6), and its hand-off names the rival record. Its calibration no longer counts a rival fact.
• Adds Example 3, the rival record for a deal that has an incumbent, built from dated records only.

2.1.7 (2026-10-26)

• The calibration rule states what a met LOW clause does: it confirms LOW when the average already reads LOW and otherwise has no effect, and a MEDIUM clause has no effect. The Step 2C reading is applied the same way in both examples.
• Every factor row scores Unknown as MEDIUM, stated once in Step 2C, and the examples use that score.
• The rule text no longer carries worked results: the product-advantage rule and the first win plan item are written as general rules, and the try-it guidance points at the example company without its records.
• The playbook sections print in the Output Contract's order, the Step 6 gap rule says what to do when no gap meets its test, and the hand-off block follows the battlecard.
• Headings, labels and table headers are capitalized word by word, and the proof table header is "How To Use It" in the rule and the examples.

2.1.6 (2026-10-26)

• Example 2 moves from a rival at Brackhaven to the incumbent at Greyfield Memorial Park, where Stonemark is the real incumbent. The battlecard applies the incumbent rubric and its calibration clauses as written, scores an Unknown factor by its own rubric row, adds the zone table and the Step 6 summary, numbers its eight sections in the Output Contract's order, and states that a gap matrix row needs a buyer statement on a dated call. Example 1 and the Evaluated Rival pattern no longer point to a Brackhaven battlecard for Stonemark.
• Example 2 rebuilt as a full battlecard that follows every rule: the five factors are scored as the rubric defines them, an Unknown fact is never scored as a negative, the zone table and the Step 6 summary are added, and the win plan is grouped by stage.
• Example 2 is a full battlecard: six discovery questions, objection handling, talk tracks and a proof point table, with no Verified proof named.
• A calibration clause raises a level above the average only when a recorded buyer fact meets it, and Step 2C names the clause checked.
• The contract-status rule reads no contract on record as Unknown, which scores MEDIUM.
• Ruth's discovery quotes carry the date of the second discovery session, 2026-05-19. The incumbent is no longer described as named on the first call.
• Walt's 2026-09-17 figures are stated as the call recorded them, not as a quote.

2.1.5 (2026-10-26)

• Every citation of the 2026-03-27 competitive research note is flagged as research estimate, over 90 days old at the run date, and an Epistemic Rule states the flag.
• The next action follows the family's one deadline rule. The Output Contract and Step 6 point to that rule in place of the skill's own Friday rule.
• The examples' next actions carry the dates the rule gives.

2.1.4 (2026-10-26)

• Try-it evidence completed so a strict first run reproduces Example 1 under the Pass Rule. The buyer's stated cost and timing pains are added to the record with their call dates, so the cost and time-to-live rows of the gap matrix rest on the buyer, not on the research alone. Undated statements are dated, and the Stonemark mention is dated.
• Settled in one sentence each: a buyer's question names the job by its answer (Step 2C, Product Advantage), a gap matrix row ties to a stated pain and may use an observation only in the incumbent cell (Step 3B), and an undated call is not a dated fact (Epistemic Rules).
• The win plan opens with the buyer's own count of plots with no recorded sale, and that step is in the checklist (Step 5).
• The next action asks the buyer for the open discovery gap, due on the Friday of the run week (Output Contract, Step 6 item 11).
• Competitive research is cited by its Sources name and date: Deathcare research project, competitive research note, 2026-03-27.
• The try-it promise names the exact renewal day and the trust-file scope as the next action's ask, and the win plan starts with the plot count.

2.1.3 (2026-10-26)

• Try-it evidence completed so a strict first run reproduces Example 1. The try-it records and Example 1 date the buyer's reason to look, which settles Niche for Oldgate: the job named is the unsold-plot count, and accounting depth sits in the job next to it. Step 2C states that sentence and the switching-barrier levels.
• Objection scripts are Test and refine until a buyer has tested them. The universal rows and Example 1's two Field-tested rows are relabelled, because PlotIQ has no customers yet. The status rule and a research-estimate rule are added to Epistemic Rules.
• The talk track's 120 to 180 day figure is a research estimate, as the profile calls it, not a Benchmark.
• The win plan shows live items under each stage, says so in its heading, and Example 1 adds the no-Verified-proof item. The stage headings are capitalized.
• The examples' threat levels, scores, verdicts and next actions do not change.

2.1.2 (2026-10-25)

• Try-it evidence completed so a strict first run reproduces Example 1. The contract-status row, the product-advantage levels and the calibration clauses are stated as rules, and Example 1 names each clause it checked.

2.1.1 (2026-10-25)

• Adds examples/try-it.md so a first run reproduces Example 1.

2.1.0 (2026-10-25)

• Reads the Context OS base (the account's folder under accounts/, and the competitors under gtm/) and offers read-only CRM connectors through the shared contract's Knowledge Base and Connectors section, before the CRM read.
• Adds a Chains subsection placing the skill in the Beat The Incumbent chain.

2.0.0 (2026-10-20)

• Moved to the Sales 2.0 standard: Overview with Core Principle, Why This Skill Exists, Role, Input and Output Contracts, Context with the Shared Contract, Core Workflow with a Produces line per step, one Epistemic Rules section, Hard Rules with reasons, Quality Bar, and Integration with named hand-off fields.
• The incumbent is filed under the seven shared incumbent types, which the Shared Contract holds and this skill refers to without restating.
• Failure patterns, trends and jurisdiction deadlines are read from the profile's Competitive Patterns And Trends section. Each carries its cases counted, its dated source, or its rule and the date checked.
• Proof points carry a Status. Only Verified proof reaches a talk track, a battlecard line the rep reads aloud, or an email.
• The three old evidence grades are replaced by the six shared tags, and the two Epistemic Rules sections are merged into one.
• The HTML and PDF card options and the threat colour codes are removed. The file option is Markdown, written only when asked.
• The Stonemark example is rebuilt on the chain fact that the buyer has stated no preference. The pilot request is removed. Both examples carry tags and end with hand-off blocks.
• Hand-off fields to Meeting Prep (06) and Competitive Displacement (12) are named. The skill reads the MEDDPICC Analysis (09) fields by name.

1.3.0 (2026-10-13)

• Examples re-cast on PlotIQ, the library's one example company. Example arithmetic and listed errors fixed, and a non-success example added.

1.2.0 (2026-09-29)

• Worked examples rewritten around one example company. Em dashes removed from prose.

1.1.0 (2026-07-06)

• Restructured around the five-part skill anatomy. Client-specific data moved to the shared client profile. Framework machinery moved to a Methodology section.

1.0.0 (2026-03-04)

• Initial release, migrated from the competitive strategy builder. Generalized through a client profile block, with the never-trash philosophy and the win plan checklist preserved.