| name | win-loss-review |
| description | Review win/loss evidence; avoid weak causal claims. |
| metadata | {"short-description":"Analyze win-loss evidence and learning"} |
Win-Loss Review
Outcome
A balanced review of outcomes, reported reasons, customer evidence, patterns, and actions for improvement.
CRM-neutral operating contract
- Discover available CRM, communication, calendar, knowledge, and file capabilities before choosing a retrieval plan. If no live CRM is available, use user-supplied exports when that still satisfies the request; never imply a live write is possible.
- Map records by meaning, not vendor labels: organization, person, lead, opportunity, activity, product, service record, user or team, and knowledge item. Inspect schemas and custom fields, preserve native IDs, stages, currencies, timezones, and fiscal periods.
- Keep observed facts, derived conclusions, and missing information distinct. Anchor consequential claims to record IDs, fields, timestamps, or named sources, and state access or freshness limits.
- Start read-only. Before creating, updating, assigning, sending, or scheduling, show the exact proposed action and obtain confirmation unless the current request already authorized that exact mutation.
- Obey connected-system permissions, resolve ambiguous records or people instead of guessing, check for duplicates before creation, and report partial failures without repeated retries.
Workflow
- Resolve the user, target records, requested scope, reporting window, timezone, and business objective. Ask only for missing details that materially change the result.
- Retrieve the minimum authorized evidence needed from the following inputs: Closed opportunities, values, segments, stages, cycle times, reported reasons, activities, stakeholders, transcripts, feedback, competition, and outcome dates.
- Normalize relevant entities and fields while retaining native record identifiers and source timestamps.
- Apply the analysis rules below. When evidence conflicts, show the conflict rather than averaging it away.
- Deliver the required output in a compact form suited to the scope. Put urgent or decision-relevant items first.
Analysis rules
- Define cohort, time window, segments, inclusion rules, currency treatment, and data completeness before comparing outcomes.
- Separate reported reason, observed evidence, inference, and unknown; multiple contributing factors may coexist.
- Compare like with like and show sample sizes, missingness, and survivorship or response bias.
- Treat correlations as hypotheses unless stronger evidence supports causality and include positive and disconfirming examples.
Required output
- Cohort and data-quality note
- Outcome metrics
- Win and loss themes
- Stage and process patterns
- Representative evidence
- Recommended experiments or process changes
Actions and boundaries
Remain read-only; taxonomy or record corrections require review and confirmation.
