Presales and Solution Shaping

Executive summary

Presales and solution shaping is where commercial intent meets technical truth—before contracts, sunk costs and reputational damage. An AI Solution Engineer qualifies whether there is a funded problem, economic buyer, champion and measurable success criteria; shapes bounded solutions that survive delivery and risk gates; separates demos (narrative, directional) from PoCs (hypothesis test with kill criteria); estimates effort and uncertainty honestly; and builds a commercial narrative that links problem, approach, evidence, risk and investment—not vendor feature tours. Frameworks like BANT, MEDDIC/MEDDPICC and SPIN are not CRM trivia—they drive decisions to pursue, pause or walk away. Responsible demos calibrate expectations: what is mocked, what is measured, what requires phase 0 discovery. This topic teaches you to produce qualification scorecards, solution outlines and PoC plans you can defend in partner review and client steering—not pursuits that win the demo and lose the programme.

When to use this page

• When invited to “just do a demo” before discovery, buyer access or success metrics exist.
• When MEDDPICC shows no Champion, fuzzy Metrics or Paper process undefined—deal velocity is fiction.
• When client asks for fixed-price “AI transformation” without corpus, risk or adoption scope.
• When competing against a vendor who promises full automation— you need bounded shaping and ACE responses.
• When internal pursuit debate: invest presales hours or walk away.
• Before writing a PoC SOW—define hypothesis, eval design, data access and kill criteria.
• When partner panel asks margin, scope boundaries and technical credibility pre-sign.
• When RFP drops and solution must be shaped in days—not by copying last year’s deck.

Executive view

Ask whether pursuit is **qualified** (economic buyer, metrics, champion) before funding presales burn. Demand pursue/pause/walk with explicit rationale—not optimism from a flashy demo.

Decision lens: If we win, can we deliver margin and client outcome within bounded scope—or are we buying a case study with our own write-off?

Technical view

Shape solutions with architecture, eval, risk and adoption hooks—not slideware. Label demo mocks; never present synthetic success as production evidence without eval design.

PoC plans need data access, thresholds, timeline and kill criteria signed before build starts.

Why this matters

AI presales failures are expensive and public. A firm wins a pursuit with a hallucination-free demo on sanitised data; contract signs for £2.8m “enterprise copilot”; discovery reveals no corpus licensing, CISO blocks SaaS, and buyer ≠ economic buyer—programme pauses at £400k write-off, client trust damaged, partner panel scrutiny. Root cause: unqualified pursuit and solution shaping as theatre.

Conversely, disciplined shaping wins better deals: smaller initial SOW with phase 0 discovery; client respects honesty; delivery meets gates; expansion follows evidence. A UK insurer pursuit scored MEDDPICC amber (weak Metrics); team paused demo circus, ran 2-day discovery workshop, co-authored value hypothesis with COO—won £680k phase 1 SOW (not £2.2m transformation fantasy) with 14-month payback agreed upfront. Competitor won larger headline deal elsewhere; re-competed at scale 9 months later after client’s first vendor stalled.

AI Solution Engineers in presales bridge Consulting and client engagement, Discovery, Architecture, and Delivery Guide. Topic 29 is pursuit and shape; topic 30 covers RFP/procurement mechanics.

Learn

Pursuit lifecycle — qualify, shape, propose, close (or walk)

Phase	Goal	Exit criterion
Qualify	Funded pain, access, fit	Scorecard green/amber/red
Shape	Bounded solution + narrative	Client validates problem/success metric
Propose	SOW/commercials aligned to shape	Partner review passed
Prove	PoC/pilot per plan	Kill/continue vs thresholds
Close	Signature with scope boundaries	No “TBD” on data/risk

Rule: No custom build presales without qualified opportunity—or explicit investment pursuit approval with write-off cap.

Qualification — BANT and beyond

BANT (Budget, Authority, Need, Timeline)—minimum bar:

Element	Question	AI-specific probe
Budget	Funded initiative or innovation theatre?	Capex vs opex; AI platform envelope
Authority	Economic buyer named?	COO vs IT vs “digital sponsor”
Need	Problem metric?	Baseline handle time, error rate, cost
Timeline	Real driver?	Regulatory, board, or vendor FOMO

BANT alone misses competition, champion, process. Use MEDDIC/MEDDPICC for enterprise AI.

MEDDIC / MEDDPICC scorecard

Letter	Element	Strong signal	Weak signal
M	Metrics	Baseline + hurdle agreed	“Efficiency” only
E	Economic buyer	Exec owns P&L impact	IT budget only
D	Decision criteria	Eval, security, adoption listed	“Best demo wins”
D	Decision process	Gates, procurement path known	“We’ll figure it out”
I	Identify pain	Quantified cost	Generic “AI strategy”
C	Champion	Political capital + access	Enthusiastic PM only
P	Paper process	RFP date, legal template	Unknown
C	Competition	Incumbent, build, other SIs	Unacknowledged

Scoring: 0–2 per element; ≤8 → pause pursuit; 9–12 → invest presales with gaps plan; ≥13 → active pursue.

SPIN in discovery conversations

SPIN (Situation, Problem, Implication, Need-payoff)—consultative questioning:

• Situation: “How do adjusters find policy clauses today?”
• Problem: “Where do errors or delays concentrate?”
• Implication: “What does 18% handle-time increase cost in £ and CSAT?”
• Need-payoff: “If median handle dropped 4 minutes with human verify, what would that enable?”

Avoid jumping to Need-payoff before Implication—client must feel pain value before you propose AI.

Solution shaping — bound the problem before the stack

Shaping outputs problem statement, success metric, scope in/out, constraints, phasing—not architecture first.

Shaping canvas (text):

Problem: [metric baseline] → [target] on [workflow]
Users: [role, n, context]
In scope: [corpus, workflow, geography]
Out of scope: [automation without HITL, languages, BU X]
Constraints: [residency, SaaS ban, union]
Success: [eval threshold, adoption %, benefit £]
Phase 0: [discovery weeks, deliverables]
Phase 1: [pilot scope, duration, kill criteria]

Anti-pattern: Shape = “Azure OpenAI + RAG” before workflow understood.

Demos vs PoCs vs pilots — definitions and rules

Artefact	Purpose	Data	Evidence level	Contract
Demo	Vision, narrative	Mock/sanitised	Directional only	Presales
PoC	Test hypothesis	Real subset	Eval vs threshold	PoC SOW
Pilot	Operational trial	Production-like	Benefits + risk	Pilot SOW

Demo rules:

• Label mock data and canned paths live
• Show refuse and low confidence, not only happy path
• No implied production accuracy from demo
• Separate product demo from client-specific demo

PoC rules:

• Written hypothesis (“RAG achieves ≥0.8 precision on golden set”)
• Kill criteria (“Stop if <0.65 after 4 weeks tuning”)
• Data access and legal sign-off before start
• Effort cap and timebox

Pilot rules:

• Adoption and change in scope (topics 25–26)
• Production controls path defined
• Benefits baseline captured pre-start

Commercial narrative — SCQA for pursuits

Executive storyline (topic 28) applies in presales:

• Situation: Client context with respect
• Complication: Pain with number
• Question: “How to achieve [metric] within [constraints]?”
• Answer: Bounded approach, phases, investment range, why us

Commercial narrative pillars:

1. Problem worth solving — £ or risk
2. Credible approach — human-in-loop, eval, not magic
3. Evidence path — PoC → pilot → scale
4. Risk honesty — data, security, adoption
5. Investment proportionality — phase 0 de-risks big spend

Estimation and uncertainty — ranges, phases, assumptions

AI estimates fail when treated as deterministic LOE.

Estimation layers:

Layer	Output
Phase 0 discovery	Fixed days; corpus/risk/adoption assessment
PoC	Timebox + team shape; excludes scale hardening
Pilot	Range ±20% with assumptions listed
Scale	Order of magnitude until pilot exit

Assumption register in proposal:

• Corpus available and licensed
• Identity/SSO within X weeks
• Client SME availability Y hrs/week
• Security decision by date Z

Pricing posture: Fixed price only where scope and client dependencies bounded; otherwise T&M + cap or phase gates.

Technical due diligence — client and partner

Client-side diligence questions:

• Who owns corpus and licensing?
• CISO stance on SaaS, training on data, residency?
• Existing platform standards (CoE)?
• Prior failed AI initiatives—why?
• Union/work council sensitivities?

Partner/internal diligence:

• Margin at proposed price and staffing
• Skills available vs subcontract need
• Independence and conflict checks
• Delivery methodology alignment (8D Framework)
• Reusable assets vs custom build

Competitive positioning — without trashing competitors

Strategy	When
Scope discipline	Competitor promises full automation
Risk leadership	Regulated client fears harm
Phase 0 de-risk	Client burned before
Evidence-based	Client culture sceptical of hype
Walk away	Unqualified + unrealistic price

ACE in competitive situations: Acknowledge competitor strength; Clarify client criterion; Evidence your bounded path with metric.

Bid management and pursuit governance

Pursuit roles:

Role	Accountability
Engagement lead	Narrative, client relationship
Solution architect / ASE	Shape, estimate, risk
Commercial	Price, margin, T&Cs
Partner	Sign-off, independence
Delivery quality	Methodology, staffing credibility

Pursuit stage gates (internal):

1. Qualification scorecard
2. Shape review (architecture + eval sketch)
3. Proposal review (margin, scope boundaries)
4. Orals/demo rehearsal (honesty check)

Presales burn cap: Track hours vs expected margin—stop rules when qualification red.

Responsible demos — trust and ethics

• Do not demo personal data without consent
• Do not claim regulatory approval not obtained
• Show human approval step for regulated outputs
• Document demo script vs production gap in follow-up email

PoC plan anatomy

1. Objective and hypothesis
2. Scope in/out
3. Data access and privacy
4. Eval design and thresholds
5. Timeline and milestones
6. Team and client dependencies
7. Deliverables (report, recommendation)
8. Kill/continue criteria
9. Commercial path (pilot SOW template if continue)

From pursuit to delivery handover

Winning creates handover debt if shape artifacts don’t transfer:

• Qualification scorecard + assumptions
• Shaping canvas + ADRs draft
• PoC/pilot eval thresholds
• RAID seed from presales identified risks
• Commercial narrative / exec one-pager client signed onto

Handover meeting: Delivery lead accepts shape or flags gaps—no silent rewrite.

Frameworks and methods

MEDDPICC pursuit scorecard (template)

Opportunity: [Name] | Date: | Pursuit lead:

M Metrics: [0-2] — notes:
E Economic buyer: [0-2] —
D Decision criteria: [0-2] —
D Decision process: [0-2] —
I Pain: [0-2] —
C Champion: [0-2] —
P Paper process: [0-2] —
C Competition: [0-2] —

Total: /16 | Pursue / Pause / Walk
Gaps to close (dated actions):

Demo vs PoC decision tree

Three pursuit outcomes

Outcome	When	Action
Pursue	Score ≥13; gaps closable	Invest presales; shape workshop
Pause	Score 9–12	Close gaps before demo/build
Walk	Score ≤8; unethical scope	Decline politely; preserve reputation

VALUE gate alignment (presales)

Reference VALUE gate in proposals—shows methodology maturity.

Solution outline one-pager (presales)

1. BLUF problem + proposed phase
2. Scope in/out table
3. Architecture sketch (logical, not vendor logo soup)
4. Eval/adoption success metrics
5. Risk top 3 + mitigations
6. Effort/phasing and price range
7. Client dependencies with dates
8. Why this team (evidence, not adjectives)

Commercial narrative ↔ delivery alignment check

Before proposal sign:

Presales claim	Delivery artefact
“Private deployment”	Architecture + CISO path
“60% adoption”	Change plan + embed
“−20% handle time”	Baseline + pilot design
“Enterprise scale”	Phasing after pilot gate

Mismatch → fix proposal or scope down.

Pursuit meeting choreography

Meeting	Attendees	Output
Qualify call	Buyer delegate, ASE	Scorecard draft; gaps list
Discovery workshop	Buyer, users, risk	Shaping canvas v1
Shape review (internal)	ASE, architect, commercial	Estimate range, margin
Client readback	Buyer + champion	Validated problem/metric
Proposal orals	Decide roles	Decision or explicit next step

Never skip readback—clients hear what they want in workshops; readback surfaces misunderstanding before price.

Pricing models for AI pursuits

Model	When to use	Risk
Fixed phase 0	Unknown corpus/security	Low
T&M PoC	Hypothesis test	Medium—cap hours
Fixed pilot	Bounded users/workflow	High—assumptions must be contractual
Outcome-based	Mature client, clear metric	Very high—avoid unless leadership accepts
Managed service	Operate included	Margin needs eval/corpus capacity

AI margin killers: unlimited prompt change requests, free corpus labelling, 24/7 support without SLA tier.

RFP triage in 48 hours

When RFP lands with short deadline:

1. MEDDPICC skim — walk if ≤6 unless strategic account
2. Compliance matrix — mandatory vs nice; flag unpriceable clauses
3. Reuse — past shape packs, ADRs, eval templates (no copy-paste scope)
4. Gap session — legal, security, delivery leads same day
5. Bid/no-bid — partner decision with written rationale

Document no-bid politely—clients remember honesty on the next RFP.

Oral presentation structure (45 minutes)

1. BLUF recommendation (2 min)
2. Client problem in their words (5 min)
3. Bounded approach + phase diagram (10 min)
4. Evidence plan PoC/pilot (8 min)
5. Risk and mitigations (7 min)
6. Team and credentials (5 min—brief)
7. Q&A with objection grid (8 min)

Slides ≤15; appendix for architecture depth.

Win-loss review discipline

Within 2 weeks of outcome:

Question	Purpose
Scorecard accurate in hindsight?	Calibrate qualification
Demo/PoC role in decision?	Improve honesty
Price vs value perception?	Commercial tuning
Delivery feasibility if won?	Shape quality

Feed learnings to next pursuit—teams that only celebrate wins repeat losses silently.

Alliance and subcontract shaping

When partnering with ISV or niche vendor:

• RACI on demo, PoC, support, incident
• Client sees one throat to choke—prime firm accountable
• Margin split documented before client mentions vendor name
• IP and data use in subcontract DPA
• Exit if vendor roadmap conflicts with client CoE standard

Never let vendor run unsupervised client demo on your brand.

Real-world scenarios

Scenario A — Insurer: pause demo circus, win phased SOW

Context: UK insurer; contact-centre copilot pursuit; £2.2m client expectation; competitor demo scheduled.

MEDDPICC assessment:

• Metrics 1 (no baseline)
• Economic buyer 2 (COO engaged)
• Champion 1 (PM enthusiastic, no political capital)
• Paper process 1 (RFP Q3)

Total 9/16 → Pause

Intervention:

• Declined bespoke build demo; offered 2-day paid discovery workshop
• Workshop output: baseline handle 11.4 min; hurdle −20%; corpus 2,400 docs licensing risk flagged
• Shaped £680k phase 1 pilot SOW with kill criteria

Outcome:

• Won phase 1 vs competitor £2m “big bang”
• Client competitor stalled at month 8 on security; re-bid for scale £1.4m
• Firm margin 36% on phase 1 vs projected 18% on original unscoped bid

Scenario B — Bank: MEDDPICC red on economic buyer

Context: Tier-2 bank; AML narrative assist; IT director driving; £900k budget “from innovation fund.”

Qualification:

• Economic buyer for AML ops not in room
• Metrics: “analyst productivity” undefined
• Champion 0 (IT only)

Decision: Walk from fixed-price proposal; offered £95k phase 0 only.

Outcome:

• IT bought phase 0; workshop surfaced MLRO as true buyer
• Repriced pilot £420k with MLRO sign-off
• Avoided £900k fixed-price loss scenario partner modelled at −£310k margin

Scenario C — Pharma: demo responsibly vs MLR fear

Context: Pharma field medical; vendor competitor showed auto-send demo; client buyer excited.

Shaping response:

• Live demo labelled draft-only; showed approve gate and citation
• PoC plan: 500 output audit; off-label zero tolerance
• Commercial narrative: time-to-response −30% without bypassing MLR

Outcome:

• Won £1.1m pilot; competitor perceived as “regulatory risk”
• PoC passed; scale decision at steering with MLR Decide role documented

Scenario D — Public sector RFP: compressed shaping

Context: Housing association; 6-week RFP; repairs assist; £340k cap; union consultation required.

Approach:

• Qualification: pain quantified (22% failed first visit); buyer named; consultation Assumption with risk premium
• Solution outline: human override, no surveillance metrics
• PoC 8 weeks inside pilot SOW; kill if union block

Outcome:

• Won on credibility score vs lower-priced vendor without change plan
• Delivered within cap; first-visit fix +7 points in pilot

Numbers: Evaluation weighting 40% methodology / 30% price—shaping beat discount competitor.

Scenario E — Technology ISV bundle trap

Context: Mid-market logistics firm; incumbent ERP vendor bundles “AI module” at £40k/year; client asks your firm to validate and compete.

Qualification:

• Economic buyer: COO (yes)
• Pain: pick-path errors £1.2m/year (Fact from ops study)
• Champion: weak (warehouse manager, no board access)
• Competition: bundled “free” AI

Shaping:

• Phase 0 £75k compares ERP module vs workflow-specific assist with eval on their data
• Commercial narrative: bundle optimises vendor lock-in, not pick-path metric
• PoC kill if error rate reduction <8% absolute

Outcome:

• Client chose phased assist after PoC showed ERP module 2% improvement vs assist 11%
• Won £540k 18-month programme; vendor bundle not renewed (£40k saved client-side mis-spend)
• Firm avoided competing on feature checklist—won on metric and honesty

Practice exercises

Primary exercise — MEDDPICC score fictional opportunity (45 minutes)

Brief: Fictional energy retailer; field agent assist; £1.8m ask; group CoE vs BU conflict; vendor POC already signed by BU.

Tasks:

1. Score each MEDDPICC element 0–2 with one-line evidence.
2. Total score; recommend pursue / pause / walk.
3. List top 5 gaps with dated close actions.
4. Draft 7-line commercial BLUF for internal partner review.
5. Decide demo vs PoC vs phase 0 with one-paragraph rationale.

Acceptance criteria:

• Recommendation consistent with score (not optimistic override without justification)
• Economic buyer distinguished from IT/BU exec
• Competition element addresses incumbent vendor POC
• No production claims in demo recommendation

Stretch exercise — Full shape pack for pursuit (half day)

Brief: Insurance claims RAG; 2,500 users; client wants fixed £2.8m year one; CISO SaaS concern; union informed.

Tasks:

1. Shaping canvas complete (problem, in/out, constraints, success).
2. Solution outline one-pager (8 sections per framework).
3. PoC plan (6 weeks) with hypothesis, eval thresholds, kill criteria.
4. Demo script (2 pages) with mock labels and refuse path.
5. Estimate: phase 0, PoC, pilot ranges with assumption register (10 items).
6. Partner review memo: margin risks, scope boundaries, walk-away triggers.

Acceptance criteria:

• Fixed price challenged or bounded with carve-outs
• Adoption and security tracks in phasing
• Handover artefacts list for delivery lead
• Commercial narrative uses SCQA without hype adjectives

Questions you should be able to answer

1. Is there a funded problem with a quantified baseline—not only an “AI strategy”?
2. Who is the economic buyer, and who is merely enthusiastic?
3. What are the client’s decision criteria and process dates?
4. Is there a champion with political capital and access to the buyer?
5. What does MEDDPICC score—and what gaps block pursue?
6. What is in scope, explicitly out of scope, and phasing?
7. What evidence level does each phase produce—demo vs PoC vs pilot?
8. What are PoC kill criteria if the hypothesis fails?
9. How does the commercial narrative link problem, approach, risk and £?
10. What client dependencies (data, SSO, legal) appear in the proposal?
11. What would prevent the deal—competition, security, union, prior failure?
12. How is the demo labelled so it cannot be mistaken for production proof?
13. What margin and scope boundaries does partner review need?
14. What transfers to delivery on day 1 after win?
15. When do you walk away—and how do you preserve the relationship?

Pursuit qualification workshop (2-hour agenda)

When MEDDPICC score is 9–12, run structured workshop before presales build:

Block	Duration	Questions
Pain	25 min	Baseline metric source; cost of delay
Buyer map	20 min	Economic buyer; champion; blockers
Decision	20 min	Criteria; process; paper dates
Constraints	20 min	Security, union, data, residency
Success	20 min	PoC/pilot thresholds; kill criteria
Next	15 min	Paid discovery vs PoC vs walk

Output: Updated scorecard; shaping canvas v0.9; pursue/pause decision with partner.

Estimation reference ranges (indicative, adjust per market)

Use ranges in proposals—not single numbers without basis:

Phase	Team shape	Duration	Indicative band (professional services)
Phase 0 discovery	2–3 FTE	2–4 weeks	£40k–£120k
PoC	3–5 FTE	4–8 weeks	£80k–£250k
Pilot	5–8 FTE + change	12–16 weeks	£300k–£900k
Scale wave	8–15 FTE	6–12 months	£800k–£3m+

State exclusions: corpus licensing fees, cloud consumption, client SME time, vendor licences.

Competitive demo defence script

When client says “Competitor showed full automation yesterday”:

1. Acknowledge: “Impressive demo—did they show refuse path and approval gate on your data?”
2. Clarify: “Your MLR/CISO criteria require human approve—automation demo may not be production path.”
3. Evidence: “Our PoC tests precision on your golden questions with kill criteria—demo is not PoC.”

Follow up in writing within 24 hours—paper trail beats memory.

Solution shaping red flags — walk away triggers

Red flag	Why fatal
No access to economic buyer after 2 attempts	No funding durability
“Fixed price AI transformation” RFP	Margin and scope death
Client refuses data for PoC but wants accuracy guarantee	Unpriceable risk
Champion wants to bypass legal/security	You wear liability
Prior 3 vendor failures, no root cause	Repeat theatre
Competitive bake-off on demo only	Race to bottom

Document walk decision in CRM—protects firm from re-opening bad pursuit every quarter.

Commercial narrative one-pager (filled example skeleton)

BLUF: Recommend £680k phase-1 pilot (14 weeks) to reduce claims handle time −20% on 800-agent queue.

Situation: Adjusters search 12 systems; median handle 11.4 min (Fact, ops Q1 2026).
Complication: +18% YoY; £4.2m rework (Fact, finance).
Approach: Policy RAG in CRM; human approve before customer text; private tenant (CISO path).
Phase 0 (done): Corpus 2,400 docs; licensing amber on 120 docs—tracked D-014.
PoC result: Precision 0.84 on 200 golden questions; refuse rate 11%.
Pilot: 800 agents; adoption hurdle 55% by week 10; kill if <45%.
Risk top 3: adoption, corpus licensing, latency—owners named.
Ask: Sign phase-1 SOW by 30 Aug to hold Q4 benefit window.

Adapt numbers—never ship template with unfilled Fact/Assumption labels.

Presales to delivery handover checklist (15 items)

1. MEDDPICC scorecard PDF
2. Shaping canvas signed by client delegate
3. Commercial narrative / exec one-pager
4. PoC/pilot eval thresholds
5. Assumption register with client dependencies
6. RAID seed (min 10 items)
7. Demo script with mock labels
8. Recorded client constraints (security, union, residency)
9. Estimate basis (rates, team shape, exclusions)
10. Partner review conditions
11. Named client stakeholders (RACI seed)
12. Benefits baseline source documents
13. Competitive notes (fact-based)
14. Open questions list with owners
15. Kick-off date and room attendees

Delivery lead signs acceptance or returns with gap list within 5 business days of win.

SPIN question bank for AI discovery calls

Situation: “Walk me through how your team handles [workflow] today—from trigger to close.”

Problem: “Where do delays or errors cluster? What happened last time this went wrong?”

Implication: “If that happens 200 times a month at £X cost each, what does that mean for your OKRs?”

Need-payoff: “If verified assist saved 4 minutes per case without raising error rate, what would you reinvest that capacity into?”

Avoid Need-payoff before client quantifies Implication—they will discount your ROI later.

Demo storyboard template (one page)

Scene	User action	System response	Label on slide
1	Agent asks policy question	Medium confidence + 2 citations	“Mock corpus subset”
2	Agent opens citation	Snippet + effective date	“ACL enforced”
3	Low confidence query	Refuse + runbook link	“Production threshold”
4	Agent reports wrong	Ticket # + trace	“Quality loop”
5	Approve before send	HITL gate	“Not auto-send”

Footer every slide: “Directional demo—not production eval results.”

MEDDPICC gap-closure plan template

When score is 9–12 (Pause):

Element	Gap	Action	Owner	Due
Metrics	No baseline	Ops data request + workshop	ASE	15 Aug
Champion	Weak PM	Identify ops director sponsor	Account lead	22 Aug
Paper process	RFP unknown	Procurement intro call	Commercial	8 Aug

Re-score at due dates—do not start custom build until ≥13 or explicit investment approval with cap.

Value hypothesis one-slide (client-facing)

IF we deploy [bounded assist] on [workflow]
AND achieve [metric] from [baseline] to [target]
AND adoption reaches [h]% by [date]
THEN benefit [£ range] at [assumptions]
ELSE kill/pivot at PoC gate [date/criteria]

Client co-authors slide in workshop—reduces “you sold us magic” later.

PoC success and failure narratives (client email templates)

Continue (PoC pass):

Subject: PoC results — recommend pilot SOW

Hypothesis met: precision 0.84 ≥ 0.80 threshold on golden set (n=200).
Kill criteria not triggered. Recommend pilot: 800 users, 14 weeks, adoption hurdle 55%.
Attached: PoC report, updated RAID, pilot SOW draft. Decision requested by [date].

Stop (PoC fail):

Subject: PoC results — recommend stop without pilot

Precision 0.61 below 0.80 threshold after tuning window. Kill criteria met.
Recommend stop OR pivot to corpus remediation phase (Option B estimate attached).
Honest stop preserves trust for future engagements.

Written follow-up within 48 hours of PoC readout—verbal-only allows selective memory.

BANT quick filter (first call)

BANT	Pass question
Budget	“Is there allocated funding or a live business case this FY?”
Authority	“Who signs SOW over £X—name and role?”
Need	“What metric moves if this works—baseline number?”
Timeline	“What event fixes the date—board, regulator, contract renewal?”

≤2 passes → nurture not pursue; 3 passes → schedule MEDDPICC workshop; 4 passes → rare on first call, validate in writing.

Internal pursue/pause/walk decision memo (7 lines)

1. Opportunity name and £ range
2. MEDDPICC total and top 2 gaps
3. Recommend pursue / pause / walk
4. Presales investment cap (hours/£)
5. Margin band at proposed price
6. Delivery risk headline (one line)
7. Partner review date required before client proposal

Attach scorecard—decision in CRM for audit.

Orals rehearsal checklist (internal, 60 minutes)

• BLUF spoken in 60 seconds; ask repeated at close
• Demo labels “mock” aloud at least once
• Refuse path shown live
• Objection grid: CFO, CISO, buyer rows rehearsed
• No production metric claimed without eval citation
• Partner/challenge role assigned to interrupt once
• Timeboxed: 15 min present / 15 min Q&A for 30-min slot

Record rehearsal; fix slide titles that fail storyline test before client orals.

Pursuit ethics and independence reminders

• Do not shape scope to maximise firm revenue when smaller phased SOW serves client outcome
• Decline pursuits where you cannot staff delivery credibly
• Disclose subcontractor and vendor commercial relationships before client asks
• Never demo on production customer data without contract and DPA
• Document what you do not know—phase 0 exists to learn, not to hide gaps

Independence and honesty win re-competes when competitors over-promise.

Reference reading in this Learning Map

Before high-stakes pursuits, refresh Consulting and Problem Solving, Commercial and Financial Modelling, Communication and Executive Articulation, and RFP, Procurement and Contracting for the proposal-to-signature path.

Negative cases — when presales fails

Demo-driven selling

Symptom: Custom demo before qualification; client remembers promises demo cannot meet.

Impact: Contract/sign then scope catastrophe; write-offs; reputational harm.

Fix: MEDDPICC gate; paid discovery; labelled demos.

Economic buyer bypass

Symptom: Deal shaped with IT/innovation; P&L owner meets once at signing.

Impact: No adoption mandate; benefits fail; non-renewal.

Fix: No proposal without buyer workshop on metrics.

PoC without kill criteria

Symptom: Open-ended “experiment”; no thresholds; success = “interesting.”

Impact: PoC never ends; or fails silently into blame.

Fix: Written hypothesis, eval, kill/continue in SOW.

Fixed price fantasy

Symptom: £2m fixed for “enterprise AI” with TBD data and security.

Impact: Negative margin; cut corners on risk; client incident.

Fix: Phase 0 + gated phases; assumptions in contract.

Competitive trash talk

Symptom: Attack competitor instead of clarifying client criteria.

Impact: Client distrust; focus on politics not outcomes.

Fix: ACE; scope discipline; evidence path.

Handover amnesia

Symptom: Delivery team discovers scope promises presales never documented.

Impact: Change requests, relationship fracture, margin loss.

Fix: Shape pack handover; delivery acceptance sign-off.

Ethics lapse

Symptom: Demo on real customer PII; overclaim regulatory readiness.

Impact: Legal exposure; disqualification.

Fix: Sanitised data; legal review; responsible demo checklist.

Output

Expected outputs for this topic:

• Qualification scorecard — MEDDPICC/BANT with pursue/pause/walk
• Solution outline — problem, scope, constraints, phasing, metrics
• Commercial narrative — SCQA/BLUF for client and partner
• Demo script — mock labels, refuse path, gap email template
• PoC plan — hypothesis, eval, timeline, kill criteria, data access
• Estimate and assumption register — ranges, dependencies, phase gates
• Pursuit handover pack — for delivery lead on win

Practice checklist

• I scored a fictional deal with MEDDPICC and consistent recommendation
• I can explain demo vs PoC vs pilot without conflating evidence levels
• I wrote kill criteria for a PoC hypothesis
• I drafted a solution outline with explicit out-of-scope items
• I linked commercial narrative to delivery gates and adoption (topics 25–26)
• I identified economic buyer vs champion vs influencer on a pursuit
• I opened Consulting and client engagement for engagement standards

Related playbook content

• Consulting and client engagement — pursuit governance, workshops and executive narrative
• Discovery and problem framing — phase 0 and baseline capture
• Architecture Guide — shaping technical bounds
• Delivery Guide — phasing from PoC to operate
• Adoption and change — pilot scope includes embed and training
• Leadership in Shaping Major Data and AI Client Opportunities
• Client Opportunity Shaping roadmap
• Leadership: How to Shape Major Market Opportunities
• Market Opportunity Shaping roadmap
• Communication and Executive Articulation — BLUF and SCQA in pursuits
• RFP, Procurement and Contracting — next step after shape
• How to use this Learning Map
• 8D Framework

Key takeaways

• Qualify before you demo—MEDDPICC gaps predict write-offs better than demo applause.
• Shape bounded problems with metrics, scope out and phasing—not stack diagrams first.
• Demos narrate; PoCs test with kill criteria; pilots prove value with adoption in scope.
• Commercial narrative connects pain, evidence path, risk honesty and proportional investment.
• Walk away from unqualified pursuits—reputation and margin compound over bad wins.
• Win handover requires shape artifacts delivery can execute—not oral promises.

What to do next

1. Complete MEDDPICC primary exercise on your active or fictional pursuit.
2. Rewrite your next demo script with mock labels and a refuse path.
3. Continue with RFP, Procurement and Contracting.
4. Align pursuit standards with Consulting and client engagement.
5. Open the interactive playbook for workshop and estimation tools.