Deal Qualification

Scores deals against qualification frameworks like MEDDIC and BANT, identifies specific qualification gaps, and recommends concrete actions to improve win probability.

Pre-Work Framework

Before scoring a deal, establish the context that determines which framework applies and what information you need. Ask the user:

1. What deal are we scoring, and what is the current deal stage? (Discovery, proposal, negotiation, contract review, or post-close.) Stage determines what information you should already have (you should have MEDDIC metrics by proposal stage; if you don't, it's a gap).

2. What framework would you like to use? (MEDDIC, BANT, or both.) MEDDIC is more thorough for complex B2B sales; BANT is faster for shorter cycles. Suggest MEDDIC as default.

3. What information do you have? (Call notes, email thread, CRM fields, deal summary, or rough notes.) Accept whatever format the user provides. Unstructured input is fine; you will extract signals from it.

4. What is your win probability estimate today, without framework scoring? (Gut feel.) This becomes your baseline to compare against the framework score.

5. What would success look like for this deal? (Signature by quarter-end? Pilot by month-end?) This helps you assess whether the timeline is realistic given qualification gaps.

Core Principles

The Rigor Principle

Deal scoring is not subjective. Do not accept "I think they have budget" as economic buyer confirmation. Do not accept "They seemed excited" as champion confirmation. Score based on verifiable actions and evidence, not sentiment. If the user says "The CTO will decide," ask: "Has the rep spoken directly with the CTO about decision criteria?" If the answer is no, score it as assumed (lower confidence) until there's direct evidence. Rigor prevents deals from advancing before they're ready, which saves time and prevents late-stage surprises.

The Qualification Gap Principle

Identifying gaps is more valuable than scoring. Any deal can score 0-18 on MEDDIC; the real question is: which gaps matter most, and what is the specific action to fill them? A deal at 10/18 with clear next steps is more actionable than a deal at 12/18 with unknown blockers. For each gap, you must generate a specific, executable action—not "Identify the economic buyer" but "Ask your champion: 'When your team has bought software at this price before, who signed off? Can we include them in our next conversation?'"

The Rep Optimism Bias Principle

Reps consistently overestimate deal strength because they're emotionally invested and want deals to close. When scoring, apply a skepticism filter. The prospect saying "I'll talk to my boss" is not economic buyer confirmation. The rep attending a meeting with the CFO is. The prospect saying "We love your product" is not champion confirmation. The prospect running internal proof-of-concept testing on their own time is. Score against verifiable actions, not words.

The Timeline Reality Principle

Deal timelines are almost always wrong. Prospects underestimate how long decisions take. Internal processes are slower than anticipated. Budget cycles reset. Key stakeholders go on vacation. Competing priorities emerge. When you see a deal with poor decision process clarity but a tight timeline ("We need to sign by month-end"), flag this as high risk. Qualification gaps + compressed timelines = lose the deal or leave money on the table through desperation discounting.

The Advancement Criterion Principle

Deals should not advance without minimum qualification criteria. Do not move a deal to proposal stage without confirming decision process and economic buyer. Do not move to negotiation without champion confidence. Advancing too early is the #1 reason for late-stage losses. Each stage should have clear entry criteria, and if those criteria are not met, the deal does not advance.

The Process

Phase 1: Information Collection (5-10 minutes)

Gather whatever information the user has: call notes (verbatim or summary), email exchanges, CRM field data, deal summary, or even a rough verbal description. Do not require a specific format. Your job is to extract qualification signals from unstructured input.

As you read, pull out signals that map to each MEDDIC criterion:

• Metrics: Any mention of goals, targets, KPIs, revenue, cost, timeline, or business outcomes.
• Economic Buyer: Names, titles, mentions of who has budget authority or final sign-off.
• Decision Criteria: Anything the prospect said about how they evaluate, what matters to them, or what they're looking for.
• Decision Process: Steps, timeline, approvals needed, committees, delays, or bottlenecks.
• Identify Pain: Specific problems mentioned, quantified issues, or business challenges.
• Champion: Names of internal advocates, people who have engaged multiple times, people with influence.

Create a summary table as you go:

Decision point: Do you have at least 3-4 signals across the framework? If you have fewer, what gaps are preventing qualification?

Phase 2: MEDDIC Scoring

Score each criterion on a 0-3 scale:

Score 3 (Confirmed): Direct evidence, specific to this deal, from a trusted source (internal champion or decision-maker).

• Example: "The CFO told me directly: 'We've budgeted $500K for this category this year.'"

Score 2 (Strong evidence, minor gap): Credible signal but not completely explicit, or from secondary source.

• Example: "The VP of Finance mentioned budget approval authority, but I haven't confirmed with the CFO directly."

Score 1 (Assumed/assumed from context): Inferred but not confirmed. Educated guess based on role or context.

• Example: "Given the deal size, they'll need CFO sign-off, but I haven't asked."

Score 0 (Unknown/absent): No evidence. Should not assume.

• Example: "I don't know if they have budget for this."

Apply this to all six MEDDIC criteria:

Decision point: Is the total score 14+ (Strong), 9-13 (Moderate), or 0-8 (Weak)?

Phase 3: Gap Identification and Prioritization

For each criterion with a score of 0-2, identify the gap and why it matters:

Rank gaps by severity: Does this gap, if not filled, kill the deal? (High) Or is it secondary? (Medium/Low)

Decision point: What is the single most critical gap that, if filled, would increase your win probability by 30%?

Phase 4: Specific Action Generation

For each gap identified as High or Medium, generate a specific, executable action. Do not just say "Identify the economic buyer" or "Get stakeholder buy-in." Give the rep actual words.

Format: "[Stakeholder], ask: '[Specific question about the gap].' This [builds evidence for / confirms / closes the gap] [criterion]."

Examples:

• Gap: Economic Buyer Unknown → "Ask your champion: 'When your team approved the [previous software purchase], who had the final sign-off authority — was it the CFO, the VP of Finance, or someone else?' This confirms who controls budget."

• Gap: Decision Process Unclear → "Schedule a follow-up with the VP of Product and ask: 'Walk me through your approval process from now until contract signature. Who needs to sign off at each stage, and what will each person evaluate us on?' This maps the entire process."

• Gap: Pain Not Quantified → "Ask the prospect: 'You mentioned new rep onboarding takes 90 days. In dollars, what does that cost you — how many deals are delayed because of that?' This quantifies impact."

• Gap: Champion Not Yet Fighting → "Ask your champion: 'What would need to be true for you to advocate for us internally? What concerns do you anticipate from [CFO/CTO/VP]?' This uncovers her objections and gives you ammunition."

Decision point: For each action, can the rep execute it in one conversation? If not, break it into multiple actions.

Phase 5: Advancement Recommendation

Recommend whether the deal should advance based on framework score and specific gaps:

• Score 14-18 + no High severity gaps: Advance. Create proposal. Move to close.
• Score 9-13 + 1-2 High severity gaps: Conditional advance. Require proof of economic buyer and decision process before proposal. Example: "Before sending the proposal, secure a conversation with the CFO to confirm budget allocation and final approval timeline."
• Score 0-8 + 3+ High severity gaps: Do not advance. Go back to qualification. Example: "This deal is too early. Before investing proposal effort, you need: (1) confirmed pain quantified in dollars, (2) named economic buyer, (3) mapped decision process. These are blockers, not nice-to-haves."

Decision point: Is the deal ready to advance, or does it need more qualification work first?

Phase 6: Comparative Ranking (Multi-Deal Scenarios)

If the user is scoring multiple deals, rank them by overall score and win probability:

Use this to prioritize effort. Which deal(s) should get your attention? Where can you move the needle fastest?

Decision point: Are you allocating effort to the deals most likely to close?

Anti-Patterns

Rep Optimism Bias

What it looks like: "The prospect seemed really interested in the demo. They said they love our product. I'm scoring this as high on Champion."

Why it's harmful: Interest and enthusiasm are not champion indicators. A champion is someone who will push internally for you when the price is debated and skeptics raise concerns. Enthusiasm today does not equal advocacy tomorrow. If you score based on sentiment rather than verifiable action, you will consistently overestimate deal strength, advance deals too early, and face surprises in late stage.

What to do instead: Score only verifiable actions. Has the champion: (1) engaged multiple times? (2) introduced you to stakeholders? (3) asked specific technical questions? (4) agreed to an internal presentation? These are champion signals. "They seemed interested" is not. If you have only sentiment, score Champion as 1 (Assumed) and generate an action to convert enthusiasm into evidence.

Advancing Without Qualification

What it looks like: Moving a deal to proposal stage when Economic Buyer is unconfirmed and Decision Process is unmapped. Assuming things will work out during negotiation.

Why it's harmful: This is the #1 cause of late-stage deal loss. You'll spend weeks on proposal, demo customization, and contract negotiation, only to learn in week 4 that the real decision-maker is a CISO you've never spoken with, or that the deal requires a committee approval that takes 60 days. You'll lose the deal or discount aggressively to "save" it. You'll have wasted time and damaged your credibility.

What to do instead: Create stage gates. Do not move to proposal without confirmed Economic Buyer and a mapped Decision Process. Do not move to negotiation without a champion who has committed to internal advocacy. These are not soft recommendations; they're deal rules. If a deal doesn't meet the entry criteria for the next stage, it doesn't advance. Generate the specific actions to meet those criteria first.

Pain That Is Vague or Assumed

What it looks like: "They're a growing SaaS company, so they probably have scaling challenges." OR "The prospect mentioned hiring is hard, so I'm assuming a 2-person implementation team is a pain point."

Why it's harmful: Assumed pain is not real pain. You're projecting your solution onto their situation without confirming they actually care. When the prospect doesn't feel the pain acutely, they won't prioritize your solution. They'll delay decisions, push back on pricing, or say "We'll revisit this next year." Pain must be specific, quantified, and tied to a business outcome. If it's not, it's not real pain.

What to do instead: Ask for specificity. "You mentioned hiring is challenging. What specifically is hard? How many open roles do you have? How long are they staying open? What does a failed hire cost you?" Once the prospect has articulated and quantified the pain themselves, they own it. They're more likely to move.

Unclear Decision Process Leading to Compressed Timeline

What it looks like: "They want to sign by month-end, but I'm not sure who makes the final decision or how long approval takes."

Why it's harmful: Compressed timeline + unclear process = deal collapse. The prospect thinks they can decide fast; internal approval takes 60 days. You're counting on this deal for quota; it slips to next quarter. Or you discount aggressively to force a signature before month-end, and you give away margin you didn't need to.

What to do instead: Flag this explicitly. "Given that the decision process is unclear and the timeline is tight (month-end), there's high risk of timeline slip. Before you commit to this close date, map the approval process. Ask: 'From demo to contract signature, what steps are involved, and how long does each take?' If the process is longer than your timeline, renegotiate the close date or identify what can be compressed (e.g., provisional approval while contracts are reviewed)."

Comparing Weak Deals to Each Other

What it looks like: "I have five deals in my pipeline, and the highest-scoring deal is 9/18. I'll focus on that one."

Why it's harmful: All deals are weak. You're optimizing for the least bad deal, not for high-probability closes. You're wasting time on deals that should not be in your pipeline yet. You're not investing in account development, pipeline generation, or qualification work that would improve overall pipeline health.

What to do instead: Use the ranking table to identify which weak deals can be quickly strengthened (one action away from 14+) vs. which should be recycled back to prospecting. Invest your effort in the high-upside deals first. If you have five deals, all under 10/18, that's a pipeline problem, not a prioritization problem.

Output Format

Single Deal Qualification Report

# Deal Qualification: [Company Name] — [Date]

## Overall Score
[Score]/18 | [Classification: Strong/Moderate/Weak]

## MEDDIC Breakdown

| Criterion | Score | Evidence | Gap (if any) |
|-----------|-------|----------|--------------|
| Metrics | [0-3] | [Specific evidence] | [Gap description] |
| Economic Buyer | [0-3] | [Specific evidence] | [Gap description] |
| Decision Criteria | [0-3] | [Specific evidence] | [Gap description] |
| Decision Process | [0-3] | [Specific evidence] | [Gap description] |
| Identify Pain | [0-3] | [Specific evidence] | [Gap description] |
| Champion | [0-3] | [Specific evidence] | [Gap description] |

## Critical Gaps (Ranked by Severity)

| Gap | Severity | Why It Matters | Specific Action |
|-----|----------|----------------|-----------------|
| [Gap 1] | High/Medium | [Why this gap could block the deal] | "Ask [person]: '[Specific question]' to [outcome]." |

## Advancement Recommendation
[Advance/Conditional/Do Not Advance] because [specific reason].

**If advancing conditionally:** Before moving to [next stage], you must [complete specific action] to confirm [criterion].

## Win Probability (Framework-Based)
[14-18 = 80-90%] | [9-13 = 50-70%] | [0-8 = 10-40%]

This deal's probability: [X]% based on current qualification.

Multi-Deal Ranking

# Pipeline Ranking by Qualification

| Rank | Company | Score | Biggest Risk | Probability | Recommended Action |
|------|---------|-------|--------------|-------------|-------------------|
| 1 | [Company A] | 16/18 | [Single largest risk] | 85% | [Specific action to secure] |
| 2 | [Company B] | 12/18 | [Single largest risk] | 65% | [Specific action to improve] |
| 3 | [Company C] | 8/18 | [Single largest risk] | 30% | [Specific action or recycle] |

## Focus Areas
- Invest in: [Highest probability deal(s)]
- Strengthen: [Medium deals that can improve with one action]
- Recycle: [Low-probability deals that should go back to prospecting]

Task-Specific Questions

Mode 1: Single Deal Qualification

When the user wants to score one deal and identify gaps, ask:

1. What information do you have — call notes, CRM data, email exchanges, or a summary?
2. What is your gut-feel win probability before scoring?
3. Are there any known blockers or risks you're aware of?

Mode 2: Multi-Deal Pipeline Review

When the user wants to rank and prioritize multiple deals, ask:

1. How many deals are you scoring? (If more than 10, consider focusing on the top 10 by deal size.)
2. Are all deals at the same stage, or do you want to compare deals across stages?
3. What is your primary goal — identify which deals will close this quarter, or improve overall pipeline quality?

Mode 3: Gap-Focused Deep Dive

When the user wants to focus only on gaps and action items (not full scoring), ask:

1. You've already scored the deal. What gap matters most to you right now?
2. Who do you need to have the conversation with to close this gap?
3. What are you worried they might say?

Quality Checklist

Before providing qualification output, verify:

• Each criterion is scored 0-3 based on evidence, not sentiment.
• Every gap is tied to a specific, actionable next step (not "improve communication").
• The rep optimism filter is applied — skeptical of confidence without verification.
• Advancement recommendation includes specific entry criteria for the next deal stage.
• Multi-deal rankings are prioritized by win probability, not by deal size.
• Any deal with a compressed timeline + unclear process is flagged as high-risk.
• Economic Buyer and Decision Process are identified as gatekeepers — deals do not advance without these confirmed.

Related Skills

Discovery — For running the discovery conversation using frameworks like MEDDIC to uncover the six qualification criteria during your calls.

Pipeline Review — For conducting a broader pipeline analysis across your entire book of business using qualification scores to prioritize effort.

Pricing Negotiation — For negotiating price and contract terms with full confidence once the deal is qualified and you know who the economic buyer is.

Objection Handling — For addressing prospect concerns during qualification and negotiation using the MEDDIC criteria to anticipate objections.

Example Prompts

1. "Score this deal against MEDDIC. Here are my call notes from the last three meetings: [notes]. What gaps do I need to fill?"

2. "I have five deals in my pipeline. Here's a summary of each: [summaries]. Rank them by win probability and tell me which one I should focus on."

3. "This prospect wants to close by month-end, but I'm not sure about the decision process. Is this a red flag? Score it and tell me the risk."

4. "What qualification gaps do I need to fill before I can move this deal to the proposal stage?"

5. "Compare these two deals: [Deal 1 info] vs. [Deal 2 info]. Which has higher probability, and what's the biggest difference in qualification?"

6. "Generate a specific question I should ask my champion to confirm the economic buyer and decision process."