Sales Outcome Log

Outcome Log

Closes the loop on one opportunity and feeds the proof library.

Two things depend on this skill. Win rate is not computable unless outcomes are recorded — and a large share of proposal leaders cannot state their own win rate. And marketing-content-case-study is unrunnable until a verified proof record exists, because it correctly refuses to invent client results.

Read First

1. The opportunity folder: !_discovery.md and proposal.md if present.
2. workspace/firm/proof/ — an existing record for this client may just need updating.
3. workspace/marketing/icp/{icp}.md — where a repeated loss pattern belongs.

When to Use

• A proposal was accepted, declined, or went quiet.
• Win-loss review across recent opportunities.
• bid_decision: no_bid — a declined bid is an outcome worth recording.
• Backfill: the firm has past client results and the repo has no proof records, so case studies and proposals have nothing to cite.

Modes

backfill is how a firm that just cloned this repo makes its existing track record usable. Run it once per notable past engagement; three good records beat a folder of thin ones.

fill is the mode that keeps this pipeline from stalling. A win creates a stub with empty metrics, and a stub nobody returns to is the failure mode of the whole proof library. Two things trigger fill: a client-qbr where the client just confirmed numbers out loud, and client-health-review, which reports every stub still empty.

Core Rules

1. Record the reason the buyer gave, separately from the firm's interpretation. The stated reason is usually not the real one, and conflating them destroys the only useful signal in the data.
2. Never invent a loss reason, a competitor, or a decision date. unknown is a real value, and a pattern of unknown is itself the finding: the firm is not asking.
3. verified: true on a proof metric requires a human to have confirmed the number. An agent may never set it from inference.
4. Do not mark a client public. client_public and quote_approved are the client's decision, recorded by a human. Default both to false.
5. A quiet prospect is no_decision, not lost. They are different problems: one is a competitive loss, the other is a stalled decision process, and they need different fixes.

Output — outcome.md

workspace/sales/opportunities/{opportunity}/outcome.md

---
opportunity: acme-industrial--platform-migration--2026-07
result: won                     # won | lost | no_decision | declined_by_us
decided: 2026-09-12
value: 32000
currency: EUR
price_model: project
reason_stated: unknown          # what the buyer said
reason_assessed: incumbent_renewal
competitor: unknown
proof_record:                   # set on a win
---

Allowed reason_assessed values: price, scope_mismatch, timing, no_budget, incumbent_renewal, internal_build, no_decision_process, lost_champion, capability_gap, we_declined, unknown.

Body:

## What happened

Short factual sequence, with dates.

## Reason the buyer gave

> "We decided to extend our current vendor for another year."

## Our assessment

The champion never introduced us to the economic buyer, and qualification flagged
that gap as a condition we then proposed past anyway.

## What we would do differently

Hold the `conditional` bid condition instead of waiving it.

The last section is what makes this a loop rather than a filing cabinet.

Output — Proof Record

On result: won, and in backfill mode, create or update:

workspace/firm/proof/{slug}.md

Schema and field rules: docs/WORKSPACE.md, section "Proof record".

---
client: northwind-logistics
client_public: false
quote_approved: false
usable_publicly: false
service: platform-migration
icp: mid-market-logistics
engagement_type: project
period: 2026-09..2026-11
metrics: []
reference_call_ok: false
source_opportunity: acme-industrial--platform-migration--2026-07
created: 2026-09-12
updated: 2026-09-12
---

On a fresh win the record is a stub: flags false, metrics empty. That is correct and honest — the engagement has not produced results yet. Set proof_record: {slug} in outcome.md so the two link.

Multi-brand workspaces: the record is written into the delivering brand's home — firm/brands/{brand}/proof/{slug}.md, the brand taken from the opportunity's path segment (sales/opportunities/{brand}/…), never asked for. No brand: field — the path carries it. Set cross_brand: false unless the user explicitly allows sibling brands to cite the result. In backfill mode ask which brand delivered each result.

The stub becomes useful later, when delivery ends and a human confirms numbers — that is fill mode. Say this to the user and offer to schedule the follow-up. If the firm uses workspace/clients/, the QBR is the natural moment: the numbers are already on the table, and client-health-review reports every stub still empty.

Filling a record

Each metric needs a label, before, after, and verified:

metrics:
  - { label: "Deployment lead time", before: "6 weeks", after: "4 days", verified: true }
  - { label: "Services on automated regression", before: "0", after: "9", verified: true }

Rules:

• verified: true only for a number a human confirmed. Ask explicitly: "can you confirm this figure is right and that we may use it?"
• client_public: true only after the client agreed to be named.
• quote_approved: true only with an actual approved quote, stored in the body.
• usable_publicly: true only when the client agreed to public use. This governs case studies and the website; a private proposal may cite a record that is not publicly usable, as long as naming and quote flags are respected.

Feeding The Loop

1. Repeated loss reason — the same reason_assessed three times: add the pattern to the ICP's anti_fit_criteria, so qualification, content, and prospecting all read it.
2. Named competitor — add or update workspace/intelligence/competitors/{slug}/ so the firm monitors who it actually loses to, rather than who it assumes.
3. Win with results — the proof record unblocks marketing-content-case-study, the highest-converting content type the repo supports.
4. Measurement — with workspace/pdca/, outcome.md frontmatter is the source of truth for the pipeline metric pack. Win rate becomes a grep, not an estimate.

Workflow

1. Pick the mode.
2. For close: read the folder, ask for the result, the date, the value, and what the buyer said. Ask what the buyer said verbatim — the paraphrase loses the signal.
3. Write outcome.md. Keep stated and assessed reasons separate.
4. On a win, create the proof stub and link it both ways.
5. For backfill: skip outcome.md, create the proof record directly, and ask which metrics a human can confirm right now. Leave the rest unverified rather than filling them in.
6. For fill: read the existing record, ask which numbers the client has now confirmed, and update metrics, the permission flags, and updated. Never promote a flag the client did not agree to.
7. Check the loop triggers above and act on any that fire.
8. If several outcomes in a row are unknown on reason_stated, say so. The firm is not asking losers why they lost, which is the cheapest research available.

Testing Requirements

1. Close a lost opportunity with reason_stated: unknown; confirm the assessment stays separate and no reason is invented.
2. Close a win; confirm a stub proof record appears with all flags false and empty metrics, linked from outcome.md.
3. Run backfill for a past engagement; confirm a record is created with only human-confirmed metrics marked verified: true.
4. Run marketing-content-case-study against a filled, publicly usable record; confirm its proof gate is now satisfied.
5. Run fill against a stub; confirm only human-confirmed metrics get verified: true and that unconfirmed ones stay out rather than being estimated.

Related Skills