Ra Stakeholder Mapper

Stakeholder Mapper

Maintains structured stakeholder maps for all accounts. Tracks roles, influence, engagement history, and coverage gaps. Part of the Relationship Architecture pillar -- the data infrastructure that supports the most human-dependent pillar.

This is a data maintenance and analysis skill. It tracks who matters and how recently they have been engaged. It does not assess relationship quality (that is the CSM's read), develop relationships, or make contact strategy decisions.

When to Run

• Continuous: Updates stakeholder data as CRM contacts, activities, and engagement signals change
• Scheduled: Weekly coverage gap analysis across all accounts
• On-demand: When a CSM or manager requests a stakeholder map for a specific account

Core Execution Logic

Step 1: Build and Maintain Contact Map

For each account, maintain a structured record per contact:

Step 2: Classify Stakeholder Types

Each contact is classified into one or more types:

Classification responsibility: The CSM classifies contacts. The agent tracks engagement. If a contact has no classification after 30 days in the CRM, the skill prompts the CSM to classify them.

Step 3: Compute Coverage Status

For each contact, compare engagement recency to expected cadence:

Step 4: Identify Structural Risks

Assess the stakeholder map for structural vulnerabilities:

Step 5: Generate Stakeholder Map

{
  "account_id": "string",
  "map_date": "2026-03-10",
  "total_contacts": 6,
  "coverage_summary": {
    "active": 3,
    "cooling": 1,
    "gap": 1,
    "lost": 1
  },
  "structural_risks": [
    {
      "risk": "no_economic_buyer_engaged",
      "detail": "Sarah Kim (CFO) last engaged 85 days ago. Gap status",
      "severity": "high",
      "recommended_action": "Re-engage through champion introduction or executive-to-executive outreach"
    }
  ],
  "contacts": [
    {
      "name": "Tom Chen",
      "title": "VP Engineering",
      "type": ["champion"],
      "influence": "high",
      "sentiment": "advocate",
      "last_engagement": "2026-03-01",
      "days_since_touch": 9,
      "engagement_frequency_days": 12,
      "expected_cadence_days": 14,
      "coverage_status": "active",
      "primary_channel": "meeting",
      "notes": "Strong advocate. Drives internal adoption. Attends all QBRs"
    },
    {
      "name": "Sarah Kim",
      "title": "CFO",
      "type": ["economic_buyer"],
      "influence": "high",
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "last_engagement": "2025-12-15",
      "days_since_touch": 85,
      "engagement_frequency_days": null,
      "expected_cadence_days": 30,
      "coverage_status": "gap",
      "primary_channel": "email",
      "notes": "Met once during QBR in December. Has not engaged since. Critical to re-engage before renewal"
    }
  ],
  "multi_threading_score": {
    "score": 0.58,
    "assessment": "moderate_risk",
    "detail": "3 active contacts but concentrated in Engineering. No active relationship with Finance or executive level"
  },
  "recommendations": [
    {
      "priority": 1,
      "action": "Re-engage Sarah Kim (CFO) before renewal. Approach through Tom Chen (champion) for an introduction to discuss ROI",
      "rationale": "Economic buyer in Gap status 67 days before renewal"
    },
    {
      "priority": 2,
      "action": "Identify and engage a contact in the Operations team. Product is used cross-functionally but relationships are single-department",
      "rationale": "Narrow coverage risk -- all relationships are in Engineering"
    }
  ]
}

Handoff to Human

Confidence and Limitations

• High confidence for contact tracking and engagement recency -- structured data from CRM and activity logs
• High confidence for coverage status computation -- deterministic comparison of engagement dates to expected cadence
• Medium confidence for structural risk detection -- the risks are real patterns, but the severity depends on account context the agent may not fully capture
• Low confidence for stakeholder classification accuracy. Champion, Economic Buyer, and Detractor labels come from CSM input and may be outdated, optimistic, or incorrect. The skill prompts for review but cannot validate
• Cannot assess relationship quality. A contact touched last week may still be disengaged emotionally. A contact not touched in 45 days may still be a strong advocate. Engagement frequency is a proxy, not a measure, of relationship health
• Cannot detect contacts who matter but are not in the CRM (informal influencers, board members, procurement gatekeepers, executive assistants who control calendar access)
• Cannot account for relationship dynamics that happen outside observable channels (conversations at conferences, hallway chats, personal connections between executives)

Dependencies

Required:

• CRM API (contact records, activity logs)
• Calendar integration (meeting data)
• Email integration (email engagement data)

Strongly recommended:

• ra-engagement-tracker (detailed engagement metrics per contact)
• ra-stakeholder-change-detector (alerts on contact changes)
• bi-account-brief (stakeholder map feeds into account context for every human decision point)
• lo-check-in-scheduler (cadence alignment with stakeholder coverage expectations)

Downstream consumers:

• bi-account-brief (stakeholder section of account briefs)
• bi-risk-detector (single-thread and champion-at-risk as risk signals)
• lo-handoff-manager (stakeholder context for account transitions)
• cm-commercial-case-builder (stakeholder coverage for expansion readiness)
• All human decision points (who to engage, how to approach, who has influence)

References

• references/stakeholder-classification.md -- Type definitions, classification criteria, and review process