| name | decision-process-mapper |
| description | Map a prospect's buying process as voiced on recent calls — their stated decision criteria, timeline, steps, and approvers. Uses conversation_intelligence over an account's recent engagements, with account_research for stakeholder context. Identify the account by ZoomInfo company ID (preferred) or name/domain (triggers a lookup). Use when someone asks "what's their buying process", "who actually signs off", "what's the timeline and what do they need to decide", or wants to qualify a deal against MEDDIC-style criteria. Captures only what was actually stated; gaps are marked as unknown rather than inferred. |
Decision-Process Mapper
Reconstruct how the prospect actually buys, from what they have told you: criteria, steps, timeline, and the people who decide.
Prerequisites
conversation_intelligence requires at least one connected meeting or email source; conversation_intelligence and account_research consume AI credits. If no conversation data exists, build what you can from account_research and mark the rest unknown, pointing the user to their ZoomInfo admin.
Input
Provided via $ARGUMENTS:
- Account (required) — ZoomInfo company ID (preferred), or a name/domain to resolve via
search_companies.
- Framework (optional) — e.g. "MEDDIC", "just the approvers and timeline". Shapes which fields to foreground.
Workflow
- Resolve the account. Use the ZoomInfo ID directly, or resolve a name/domain via
search_companies.
- Extract the process. Run
conversation_intelligence scoped to the account, asking what the prospect has said about how they will decide: the decision criteria, the evaluation steps, the timeline and any deadlines, the budget or procurement process, and who is involved in or approves the decision. Run account_research for the org/stakeholder picture. Keep CI scoped to one account; it sees only the last few engagements and cannot topic-search, so map what was said, not the whole sales cycle.
- Map, and mark gaps honestly. Assemble the process. For anything not actually stated in conversation, label it not stated rather than inferring it. Distinguish a named approver from a guessed one. Tie each filled field to the source moment.
Output Format
Decision process — [Company]
| Element | What they said | Source / status |
|---|
| Decision criteria | | |
| Evaluation steps | | |
| Timeline / deadline | | |
| Budget / procurement | | |
| Decision-makers & approvers | | |
| Champion | | |
Use not stated in any cell the conversations did not cover.
Biggest gaps — the two or three unknowns that most need confirming, and a question to surface each on the next call.
When there is no data
If conversation data is unavailable, present the account_research stakeholder view, mark the process fields unknown, and note the read is limited without connected conversation history.
