deal-strategy

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.