{"id":"revops-stage-exit-criteria-check","audience":"revops","category":"sales-work","technique":"verification","track":"sales","level":"intermediate","title":"Check a deal against stage exit criteria and label each one","free":false,"task":"Check whether the Brightmoor deal can move from Stage 3 to Stage 4. List the 5 exit criteria as numbered lines in the form \"1. Criterion - Met / Not met / Unknown - evidence in under 10 words\". Choose Met only if the notes show it with a date or a named person; use Unknown when the notes are silent. End with a final line \"Verdict:\" saying Move or Hold. Plain text.","materialLabel":"Stage policy and deal notes (attached to your prompt automatically)","material":"STAGE 3 -> STAGE 4 EXIT CRITERIA (policy, 2026):\n1. Economic buyer identified by name and engaged in a meeting\n2. Business case with a quantified problem agreed with the champion\n3. Technical validation completed by customer IT\n4. Pricing proposal sent and reviewed on a call\n5. Mutual action plan with a target close date\n\nDEAL NOTES - Brightmoor Textiles ($85K), rep: Camille Ortiz\n- Oct 12: Met CFO Dennis Park (confirmed budget holder) on a call about priorities.\n- Oct 20: Champion Isa Lund confirmed the problem costs about $120K a year in rework; she wrote it in a shared doc.\n- Oct 27: Customer IT lead said he'd \"take a look\" at the integration docs. No follow-up recorded.\n- Nov 3: Proposal emailed. No review call scheduled yet.\n- A close date of Dec 18 was entered in the CRM by the rep; nothing says the customer agreed to it. No shared plan exists.","rules":[{"type":"numberedItems","count":5},{"type":"plainText"}],"mistakes":[{"title":"Calling things Met on thin evidence","why":"The AI treats 'take a look' as validation.","fix":"Add: \"Met only if the notes show it with a date or a named person.\"","checks":["r1"]},{"title":"Trusting the CRM close date","why":"The AI counts the rep-entered date as a plan.","fix":"Add: \"A plan needs customer agreement, not just a CRM date.\"","checks":["r2"]},{"title":"No verdict","why":"The AI ends with a long discussion.","fix":"Add: \"End with Verdict: Move or Hold.\"","checks":["r0"]},{"title":"Format sprawl","why":"The AI writes tables and bold.","fix":"Add: \"Numbered lines, plain text.\"","checks":["numberedItems","plainText"]}],"promptHints":[{"label":"Sets the line format","patterns":["criterion -","met / not met","met, not met"]},{"label":"Defines Met","patterns":["only if","date or a named","evidence"]},{"label":"Allows Unknown","patterns":["unknown","silent"]},{"label":"Asks for a verdict","patterns":["verdict","move or hold"]},{"label":"Limits evidence length","patterns":["under 10","\\d+\\s*words"]}],"hint":"Give the exact line shape and the rule for when something counts as Met.","rubricLabels":["Has exactly 5 numbered criterion lines followed by a final line starting \"Verdict:\"","Criteria 1 and 2 are Met, citing Dennis Park and Isa Lund or the $120K, and criterion 3 is Not met or Unknown because the IT lead only said he would take a look","Criterion 4 is Not met or Unknown because the proposal was emailed with no review call, criterion 5 is Not met because no shared plan exists, and the verdict is Hold"]}