| name | deal-strategy |
| description | Strategic frameworks including the Five-Lens Prism, Three Paths, and 5-Component POV Model for deal analysis |
| tier | 1 (universal) |
| auto-fire | /strategy, /pov, /battle |
| user-invocable | false |
Deal Strategy — Strategic Frameworks Skill
Purpose
Contains the three major strategic frameworks used by deal analysis commands: the Five-Lens Prism (used by /strategy), the Three Paths Framework (used by /strategy), and the 5-Component POV Model (used by /pov). Also includes the evidence grading reference for strategic analysis.
When Referenced
- /strategy — Five-Lens Prism analysis and Three Paths recommendation
- /pov — 5-Component POV Model
- /battle — Competitive Dynamics lens from Five-Lens Prism
Core Framework
Five-Lens Prism
Analyze any deal through 5 distinct strategic lenses. Each lens reveals different aspects of the deal's health and opportunities.
Lens 1: Stakeholder Psychology
Who supports us, who blocks us, who's undecided?
Analysis prompts:
- Map every known stakeholder by role (Champion, Economic Buyer, Technical Buyer, Influencer, Blocker, User)
- Assess each stakeholder's sentiment (Champion, Supportive, Neutral, Skeptical, Blocker)
- Identify motivations: What does each stakeholder personally gain or lose from this decision?
- Map political dynamics: Who influences whom? Who's rising, who's falling?
- Identify the "silent stakeholder" — someone we haven't met who could influence the outcome
Strength assessment:
- Strong: Multiple supporters including the economic buyer. Blockers identified and neutralized.
- Mixed: Some supporters, but key stakeholders are neutral or unknown. Blockers present but not dominant.
- Weak: Few supporters. Key decision makers are skeptical or unknown. Blockers have significant influence.
Lens 2: Political Capital
What are the internal dynamics at the prospect organization?
Analysis prompts:
- Who has political capital to spend on this decision?
- Is our champion rising or falling politically?
- Any recent reorgs, leadership changes, or power shifts?
- Is there internal alignment or competing priorities?
- Who would be embarrassed if this project fails?
Strength assessment:
- Strong: Our champion has strong political capital. Organization is stable. Project has executive sponsorship.
- Mixed: Champion has moderate influence. Some organizational uncertainty. Competing priorities exist.
- Weak: Champion lacks political capital. Reorg underway. No clear executive sponsorship.
Lens 3: Competitive Dynamics
Where do we stand vs. alternatives (including do-nothing)?
Analysis prompts:
- Who's the primary competitor? What's their positioning?
- Does the competitor have existing relationships with key stakeholders?
- What's the incumbent advantage (if displacing)?
- What's our unique wedge — the thing only we can do?
- What would happen if they choose "do nothing"?
Strength assessment:
- Strong: Clear differentiation. No incumbent advantage. Our relationships are stronger.
- Mixed: Some differentiation. Competitor has partial relationships. Evaluation is genuinely competitive.
- Weak: Competitor has strong incumbent advantage. They're the safe choice. Our differentiation is unclear.
Lens 4: Hidden Leverage
What untapped advantages haven't we used?
Analysis prompts:
- Are there proof points, case studies, or references we haven't surfaced?
- Do we have adjacent relationships (other departments, sister companies, board connections)?
- Are there timing advantages we haven't exploited (contract renewals, budget cycles, events)?
- Can we change the evaluation criteria in our favor?
- Is there competitive intelligence we haven't applied?
Strength assessment:
- Strong: Multiple untapped advantages identified. Clear path to leverage them.
- Mixed: Some potential advantages, but uncertain impact.
- Weak: Few untapped advantages. We've played most of our cards.
Lens 5: Temporal Dynamics
What time-based pressures and windows exist?
Analysis prompts:
- When does their current contract expire?
- What's their budget cycle? When does money expire?
- Are there seasonal factors (Q4 urgency, fiscal year end, planning cycles)?
- Is there a triggering event creating urgency (regulation, competitor launch, leadership mandate)?
- What happens if they DON'T decide by [date]?
Strength assessment:
- Strong: Multiple urgency factors. Clear window of opportunity. Time pressure favors action.
- Mixed: Some time pressure, but no hard deadline. Customer could delay without consequence.
- Weak: No urgency. Customer has no timeline pressure. "Next quarter" energy.
Three Paths Framework
After Five-Lens analysis, synthesize into three distinct paths forward. The AE always chooses — the system never prescribes.
Path 1: Velocity (Strike)
When to recommend: Strong signals across 3+ lenses, champion engaged, window closing.
Characteristics:
- Accelerate the deal. Push for concrete next steps.
- Propose a timeline. Create mutual action plan.
- Risk: Moving too fast before the deal is truly ready.
Actions to recommend:
- Schedule next meeting within [X] days
- Propose specific timeline to decision
- Send executive summary or business case
- Request champion to schedule EB meeting
- Set up technical validation or POC
Path 2: Diagnostic (Go Deep)
When to recommend: Mixed signals, MEDDPICC gaps, need more intelligence before acting.
Characteristics:
- Slow down to speed up. Don't accelerate into a wall.
- Run discovery. Fill MEDDPICC gaps.
- Invest in relationships before asking for commitments.
- Risk: Losing momentum or appearing indecisive.
Actions to recommend:
- Schedule discovery call focused on specific gaps
- Request meetings with additional stakeholders
- Run /research for deeper account intelligence
- Ask champion for honest deal assessment
- Map the complete decision process before proposing
Path 3: Protective (Pause)
When to recommend: Red flags, stalled champion, competitive threat, political uncertainty.
Characteristics:
- Protect the relationship. Don't burn bridges.
- Re-engage differently — new angle, new stakeholder, new timing.
- Consider whether this deal is winnable at all.
- Risk: Deal goes cold or competitor advances.
Actions to recommend:
- Shift to value-add mode (share insights without asking for anything)
- Identify new stakeholder entry points
- Wait for a triggering event to re-engage
- Run /battle if competitive threat is the issue
- Consider disqualification if Hell No signals are strong
5-Component POV Model
Used by /pov to build a Point of View document. A POV is NOT a pitch — it's a perspective on the prospect's business that demonstrates deep understanding.
Component 1: Executive Anchor
A 2-sentence opening that speaks to what the executive cares about.
Rules:
- Address a business outcome, not a technology problem
- Reference their specific situation (industry, size, competitive position)
- Make them feel understood before you make any claims
- Evidence grade: Should reference Verified data about the company
Component 2: Blind Spot
Something they probably know but haven't fully quantified or addressed.
Rules:
- Not an insult — a genuine insight they'll recognize as true
- Should be specific enough that they think "how did they know that?"
- Often tied to industry trends, competitive shifts, or operational inefficiencies
- Evidence grade: Can be Estimated based on industry patterns, but flag it
Component 3: Math of Pain
Quantify the cost of inaction.
Rules:
- Use their numbers when possible (from calls, public data)
- If using estimates, clearly tag them and show the math
- Three types of cost: direct financial, opportunity cost, risk cost
- Must tag every number with evidence grade (Verified/Estimated/Hypothesis)
- This is where the 50% Rule matters most — if >50% is hypothesis-grade, flag the entire POV
Component 4: Mechanism
How you solve it — but positioned as an approach, not a product demo.
Rules:
- Lead with the approach/methodology, not the product
- Connect back to the Blind Spot — show how the mechanism addresses it
- Use Financial, Technical, or Strategic angle (Commandment 9) — not features
- Reference proof points from similar companies
- Evidence grade: Proof points should be Verified, projected outcomes Estimated
Component 5: Call to Action
One specific, low-friction next step.
Rules:
- Must be proportional to the stage of the relationship
- Early stage: "15-minute call to explore if this resonates"
- Mid stage: "Working session to map out the impact for your specific situation"
- Late stage: "Executive briefing with your team to align on the business case"
- Never ask for more commitment than the evidence supports
Evidence Grading for Strategic Analysis
All strategic analysis must be evidence-graded:
| Source | Grade |
|---|
| Deal data from Notion (stage, MEDDPICC, value) | Verified |
| Customer quotes from call notes | Verified |
| Competitive positioning from battlecard + call history | Estimated |
| Industry trends and benchmarks | Estimated |
| Strategic projections (win probability, path outcomes) | Hypothesis |
| Future-state assumptions | Hypothesis |
The 50% Rule: If more than 50% of the strategic analysis is hypothesis-grade, flag it: "This strategy is heavy on assumptions. Consider running /research [Company] to gather more verified intel before acting."
Personalization Notes
- Strategic frameworks (Five-Lens Prism, Three Paths) are universal — framework structure is not personalized
- Proof points and case studies come from company-intel skill (Tier 3 — regenerated during /setup)
- Competitive analysis references battlecards skill (Tier 3 — regenerated during /setup)
- POV angle selection (Financial/Technical/Strategic) uses {{PRODUCT_DESCRIPTION}} context
First-Use Calibration Storage (/strategy)
On the first run of /strategy, the user is asked whether they prefer aggressive or conservative deal strategy. The Three Paths framework is universal, but the recommendation bias is personalized:
- Strategy posture: [Populated on first /strategy run — aggressive / balanced / conservative]
- Posture notes: [Any additional context, e.g., "I push hard when I see champion engagement" or "I prefer to slow down and gather more intel"]
This does not change the Three Paths framework itself — all three paths are always presented. It influences which path the RECOMMENDATION line suggests when signals are mixed.
