ceo-orchestration 1.0.0

package/.claude/skills/domains/sales/skills/deal-strategist/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,292 @@
+---
+name: deal-strategist
+description: >
+  MEDDPICC qualification, competitive positioning, and win planning for complex B2B
+  sales cycles. Scores opportunities against an 8-element framework, exposes pipeline
+  risk before it becomes forecast error, and authors close plans with stage-level
+  actions, owners, and buyer-side validation gates. Use when an opportunity needs
+  structured qualification, when a deal is stalled or single-threaded, when competitive
+  displacement is active, or when forecast accuracy on a commit deal must be defended
+  with documented evidence rather than optimism.
+owner: Morgan Hale (Deal Strategist, domain persona)
+tier: domain:sales
+scope_tags: [meddpicc, deal-strategy, qualification, competitive-positioning, win-planning, b2b]
+inspired_by:
+  - source: msitarzewski/agency-agents/sales/sales-deal-strategist.md@783f6a72bfd7f3135700ac273c619d92821b419a
+    license: MIT
+    relationship: structural_inspiration
+    authored_by: ceo-orchestration framework
+    authored_at: 2026-05-07
+# --- smart-loading fields (PLAN-083 Wave 0b sub-agent 0.7c) ---
+domain: sales
+priority: 8
+risk_class: low
+stack: []
+context_budget_tokens: 500
+inactive_but_retained: true
+repo_profile_binding:
+  frontend: {active: false, priority: 10}
+  engine: {active: false, priority: 10}
+  fintech: {active: false, priority: 10}
+  trading-readonly: {active: false, priority: 10}
+  generic: {active: false, priority: 10}
+activation_triggers: []
+# --- K1 paths: native file-touch activation (PLAN-135 W3 unit k1a) ---
+paths:
+  - "**/deals/**"
+  - "**/opportunities/**"
+  - "**/close-plans/**"
+---
+
+# Deal Strategist
+
+## Cardinal Rule
+
+A deal without a documented Champion, Economic Buyer, and verified pain is
+forecasted at zero regardless of stage. Stage advancement without evidence is
+pipeline inflation, not progress. Every qualification gap carries a corresponding
+deal-loss probability that compounds each week it remains unaddressed.
+
+## Fail-Fast Rule
+
+Qualify out early or pay full price at the end. A deal that cannot produce a
+quantified pain statement, a named Economic Buyer with verified access, and a
+Champion willing to act internally is disqualified from commit forecast until those
+three elements are documented. Continued investment in an unqualified deal diverts
+capacity from deals that can close.
+
+## When to Apply
+
+- Initial opportunity qualification before committing resource to a discovery cycle.
+- Stage-gate review when a deal is advancing without evidence-backed MEDDPICC coverage.
+- Competitive displacement scenarios where evaluation criteria drift toward a rival.
+- Stalled deal recovery when momentum has stopped and the cause is undiagnosed.
+- Forecast defense when a commit deal requires documented evidence to survive inspection.
+- Win plan authoring for deals above deal-size threshold entering the final third of
+  the sales cycle.
+- Pipeline hygiene reviews to cull deals older than 2× average sales cycle without
+  a compelling event.
+
+## MEDDPICC Discipline
+
+All eight elements must carry documented evidence, not assumptions. A score without
+evidence is a guess. Gaps are surfaced explicitly; no element is marked complete
+until the evidence statement is verifiable in the deal record.
+
+### Metrics
+
+The quantifiable outcome the buyer must achieve. Evidence format: specific number,
+current baseline, target state, and consequence of missing it. "Better reporting" is
+a feature request, not a metric. Acceptable evidence: "Reduce new-hire onboarding
+from 14 days to 3, saving $420K annually in lost productivity." If the buyer cannot
+articulate the metric, the internal business case does not exist. Help them build it
+or disqualify.
+
+### Economic Buyer
+
+The individual who controls budget allocation and can approve spend without escalation.
+The EB is not necessarily the contract signer. Test: can this person reallocate budget
+from another initiative to fund this deal? If the answer is uncertain, access has not
+been earned. EB access is negotiated through the Champion; it is not granted by
+title-matching org charts.
+
+### Decision Criteria
+
+The explicit technical, business, and commercial criteria the buying committee will
+use to evaluate options. If criteria are undocumented, the competitor who co-authored
+them is leading. Decision criteria must be captured before the formal evaluation stage.
+Criteria not yet documented are treated as adverse until confirmed neutral or favorable.
+
+### Decision Process
+
+The sequential steps from shortlist to signed contract, including approval levels,
+committee composition, timeline, and explicit dependencies between steps. Every
+unmapped step is a place the deal can stall without visible cause. Required capture:
+step name, owner (buyer side), gate condition, and estimated duration.
+
+### Paper Process
+
+Legal review, procurement intake, security questionnaire, vendor risk assessment,
+DPA execution, and InfoSec review. Paper process is the operational gauntlet where
+verbally-won deals die. Initiation timing: no later than stage 3 of a 5-stage cycle.
+A 6-week procurement cycle discovered in week 11 destroys the quarter.
+
+### Identify Pain
+
+The specific, quantified business problem driving urgency. Pain has a cost—revenue,
+risk, time, or reputational. Acceptable evidence: "Lost three enterprise deals last
+quarter because implementation took 90 days; competitor does it in 30. Each loss
+averaged $280K ACV." If the buyer cannot state the cost of inaction, urgency is
+assumed, not real. Assumed urgency produces forecast slippage.
+
+### Champion
+
+An internal advocate with organizational power, access to the Economic Buyer and
+decision process, and personal motivation for the initiative to succeed. Qualification
+test: ask the Champion to do something difficult—internal meeting request, sharing
+competitive intelligence, or advancing a next step. A contact who declines hard asks
+is a coach, not a Champion. A Champion sells internally when the vendor is not present.
+
+### Competition
+
+Every deal has competition: direct rivals, adjacent products expanding scope,
+internal build teams, and status quo (do nothing). The competitive map must capture:
+where the deal is won (criteria aligned to vendor strengths), where it is contested
+(both vendors credible), and where it is losing (criteria aligned to rival strengths).
+Losing zones are addressed by repositioning criteria weight, not by attacking the
+rival's capabilities.
+
+## Opportunity Scoring Rubric
+
+Each MEDDPICC element is scored 1–5. Aggregate score drives forecast tier.
+
+| Element | 1 (No evidence) | 3 (Partial / unvalidated) | 5 (Documented / verified) | Weight |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| Metrics | No quantification | Buyer stated goal; no cost model | CFO-validated metric + ROI model | 1.5× |
+| Economic Buyer | Unknown | Named; no direct access | Direct conversation; budget confirmed | 2.0× |
+| Decision Criteria | Unknown | Draft list; not finalized | Signed-off criteria; mapped to differentiators | 1.0× |
+| Decision Process | Unknown | Steps partial; owners unclear | Full map; each step owned + timed | 1.0× |
+| Paper Process | Not raised | Raised; timeline unknown | Initiated; timeline confirmed | 1.5× |
+| Identify Pain | Not articulated | Described; not quantified | Cost of inaction quantified; validated by ≥2 stakeholders | 2.0× |
+| Champion | No advocate identified | Friendly contact; not tested | Tested; acts internally; coaches deal | 2.0× |
+| Competition | Not mapped | Direct rival named; gaps unknown | Full zone map; battlecard active | 1.0× |
+
+**Weighted aggregate threshold:**
+
+| Tier | Weighted Score | Forecast Category | Action |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Strong | ≥38 | Commit | Defend in forecast; activate close plan |
+| Qualified | 28–37 | Best Case | Close gap plan required before next stage |
+| Developing | 18–27 | Pipeline | Gap plan required; no commit forecast |
+| Weak | <18 | At Risk | Disqualify or restart qualification |
+
+A deal with any single element scored 1 on a 2.0× weight (Economic Buyer, Pain,
+Champion) is capped at Best Case regardless of aggregate score until the gap closes.
+
+## Competitive Positioning Frame
+
+### Zone Classification
+
+For each active competitor, classify every evaluation criterion as one of three zones:
+
+- **Winning zone** — vendor's differentiation is clear and the buyer values it.
+  Action: amplify weight; make these criteria central to evaluation scoring.
+- **Contested zone** — both vendors are credible on this criterion.
+  Action: shift the conversation to adjacent factors (implementation velocity, total
+  cost of ownership, ecosystem integration) where separation can be created.
+- **Losing zone** — competitor's capability is genuinely stronger on this criterion.
+  Action: do not attack; reposition the criterion's weight. Talk track structure:
+  "They are strong at X. Customers at your scale typically find Y matters more
+  because [evidence]." Never fabricate capability claims to cover a losing zone.
+
+### Battle-Card Structure
+
+Each active competitor requires a documented battle card. Required fields:
+
+| Field | Content |
+|---|---|
+| Competitor | Name |
+| Encounter rate | % of pipeline where this rival appears |
+| Their stated strength | Specific capability they lead with |
+| Truthful counter | Factual repositioning—not a denial |
+| Proof point | Reference customer, third-party validation, or measured outcome |
+| Landmine questions | Discovery questions that surface requirements where the vendor leads |
+| Trap handling | If buyer cites [competitor claim] → respond with [reframe] |
+
+**Landmine question discipline:** questions asked during discovery that surface
+requirements aligned to vendor strengths are legitimate business questions, not
+manipulation. They must be defensible as genuine discovery. Example: if the vendor
+handles multi-entity consolidation natively and the rival requires middleware, ask:
+"How are you managing data consolidation across subsidiary entities today? What breaks
+when you add a new legal entity?" The answer surfaces a real operational gap.
+
+## Win Plan Authoring
+
+A win plan is required for all deals above deal-size threshold entering the final
+third of the sales cycle. The win plan is a stage-gated action plan, not a narrative.
+
+### Win Plan Required Fields
+
+| Field | Description |
+|---|---|
+| Deal name + ACV | Account name and annual contract value |
+| Close date | Committed close date with basis |
+| MEDDPICC score | Current weighted aggregate |
+| Champion name | Named Champion with test evidence |
+| Economic Buyer | Named EB; last contact date; access method |
+| Compelling event | External or internal event driving the timeline |
+| Competitive zone | Winning / Contested / At Risk + active rivals |
+| Paper process status | Stage; estimated completion date |
+
+### Stage-Action Table
+
+Each stage of the close plan carries explicit buyer-side and seller-side actions,
+a completion gate, and an assigned owner. Template:
+
+| Stage | Seller action | Buyer validation | Owner | Target date | Exit gate |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| Technical validation | Deliver proof of concept | Technical stakeholder sign-off | AE + SE | [date] | Written summary from buyer |
+| Economic justification | ROI model walkthrough | EB attends; approves model | AE | [date] | EB verbal commit on budget |
+| Legal / paper | Redline MSA + DPA | Procurement initiates intake | AE + Legal | [date] | First markup returned |
+| Final approval | Executive alignment call | EB + executive sponsor confirm | AE | [date] | Verbal go ahead |
+| Contract execution | Order form delivered | Signature obtained | AE + RevOps | [date] | Signed document |
+
+Stages without a buyer-side validation action are stalled stages wearing close
+plan formatting. Every stage requires a buyer commitment, not just a seller task.
+
+## Risk Surfacing Discipline
+
+The following risk patterns require immediate escalation to the close plan with a
+documented remediation step and deadline. An undocumented risk is an unmanaged risk.
+
+| Risk pattern | Severity | Required action |
+|---|---|---|
+| Single-threaded to a contact who is not the EB | High | Champion must broker EB introduction within 10 business days |
+| No compelling event or consequence of inaction | High | Qualify out of commit forecast; establish urgency before re-entry |
+| Champion will not grant EB access | High | Re-evaluate Champion status; identify alternate path |
+| Stale deal: no buyer-side activity in 30+ calendar days | High | Re-engagement conversation with explicit next step or disqualify |
+| Decision criteria map cleanly to a rival's known strengths | High | Reposition criteria weight immediately; do not proceed to proposal |
+| Paper process not initiated by stage 3 of 5 | Medium | Initiate procurement conversation regardless of deal status |
+| Mute champion: no internal advocacy visible | Medium | Test Champion with a hard internal ask within 5 business days |
+| Late-arriving competitor: new rival enters evaluation post-stage 2 | Medium | Update battle card; assess criteria impact; adjust competitive zone map |
+| No quantified pain: buyer cannot state cost of inaction | Medium | Return to discovery; do not advance stage without pain quantification |
+| Buyer-initiated contact with no stated business problem | Low | Discovery required before any solution conversation |
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+Patterns that produce forecast error, extend cycle time, or cause late-stage losses.
+Each carries a detection signal and a corrective action.
+
+| Anti-pattern | Detection signal | Corrective action |
+|---|---|---|
+| Happy-ears qualification | Rep describes deal health with phrases such as "they loved the demo" or "we have great relationships" without documented evidence | Require MEDDPICC evidence entries; replace narrative with data |
+| Missing Decision Process | Stage 3+ deal with no step-by-step map of buyer approval sequence | Block stage advancement until Decision Process is documented |
+| Champion conflated with high-title contact | Named Champion has senior title but has never taken a hard internal action | Test Champion immediately; re-evaluate status if test is declined |
+| Metrics-free pipeline | Pain described qualitatively; no cost of inaction stated | Return to discovery; no advance without quantified metric |
+| Paper process deferred to close | Procurement timeline raised only after verbal agreement | Paper process must be initiated at stage 3 regardless of deal momentum |
+| Artificial deadline | Buyer "needs it by Q-end" with no underlying compelling event | Identify the external driver; if none exists, the urgency is assumed |
+| Evaluation criteria not documented | Rep assumes criteria favor the vendor based on relationship quality | Map all criteria explicitly; treat undocumented criteria as unknown |
+| Competitor dismissed without zone analysis | Rep states "they're not a real threat" without evidence | Require battle-card completion for every named competitor |
+| Single-threaded executive relationship | All access flows through one contact regardless of title | Identify two additional stakeholder contacts within 15 business days |
+| Stage advancement on seller activity | Deal moves to next stage because seller completed a task; buyer made no commitment | Stage advance requires buyer-side validation gate, not seller task completion |
+| Forecast optimism without close plan | Deal in commit forecast without a documented stage-action table | Block commit forecast entry until win plan is complete |
+| Proposal sent before discovery complete | RFP or proposal delivered before pain, criteria, and process are documented | Return to discovery or accept the deal is not qualified |
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- `domains/sales/skills/pipeline-analyst` — pipeline-level risk aggregation,
+  stage distribution analysis, and conversion rate modeling across the full book.
+- `domains/sales/skills/account-strategist` — account-level relationship mapping,
+  expansion planning, and multi-product opportunity development within existing accounts.
+- `domains/sales/skills/proposal-strategist` — proposal structure, executive summary
+  authoring, and commercial packaging for deals that have passed MEDDPICC qualification.
+
+## ADR Anchors
+
+- **ADR-058** (Brainstorm Gate and Two-Pass Review) — every authored
+  MEDDPICC capture, scorecard, and close plan under this skill is
+  subject to two-pass adversarial review before Owner sign-off.
+- **ADR-060 amendment §Bulk creative-authoring path** — governs
+  domain-skill authoring discipline (tier assignment, scope_tags, the
+  structural_inspiration relationship in `inspired_by`, and the
+  ≤12-word verbatim / ≤4-word H2 constraints).

package/.claude/skills/domains/sales/skills/discovery-coach/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,257 @@
+---
+name: discovery-coach
+description: >
+  Governs discovery methodology for sales conversations: question design using SPIN-style
+  sequencing, current-state mapping co-built with the buyer, gap quantification expressed
+  in the buyer's own currency, and call structure that surfaces real buying motivation before
+  any pitch occurs. Use when an account executive needs a discovery call framework, when a
+  seller is rushing to demo before mapping pain, when a pipeline review reveals shallow
+  qualification, or when quantifying the cost of inaction is needed to create authentic urgency.
+owner: Morgan Vale (Discovery Coach, sales methodology domain)
+tier: domain:sales
+scope_tags:
+  - sales-discovery
+  - question-design
+  - current-state-mapping
+  - gap-quantification
+  - buying-motivation
+inspired_by:
+  - source: msitarzewski/agency-agents/sales/sales-discovery-coach.md@783f6a72bfd7f3135700ac273c619d92821b419a
+    license: MIT
+    relationship: structural_inspiration
+    authored_by: ceo-orchestration framework
+    authored_at: 2026-05-07
+# --- smart-loading fields (PLAN-083 Wave 0b sub-agent 0.7c) ---
+domain: sales
+priority: 8
+risk_class: low
+stack: []
+context_budget_tokens: 500
+inactive_but_retained: true
+repo_profile_binding:
+  frontend: {active: false, priority: 10}
+  engine: {active: false, priority: 10}
+  fintech: {active: false, priority: 10}
+  trading-readonly: {active: false, priority: 10}
+  generic: {active: false, priority: 10}
+activation_triggers: []
+# --- K1 paths: native file-touch activation (PLAN-135 W3 unit k1a) ---
+paths:
+  - "**/discovery/**"
+  - "**/call-notes/**"
+  - "**/qualification/**"
+---
+
+# Discovery Coach
+
+## Cardinal Rule
+
+Pain not quantified in the buyer's own currency is preference, not pain; preference does
+not fund a deal. Until the buyer states — in their own words — the measurable cost of their
+current state, discovery is incomplete. All call structure and question sequencing exists
+to reach this moment.
+
+## Fail-Fast Rule
+
+Disqualify when three conditions are simultaneously absent after two full discovery calls:
+(1) a root-cause problem the buyer acknowledges, (2) quantified business impact, and
+(3) an identified economic buyer with authority and timeline. A pipeline entry without all
+three is a forecast liability, not an opportunity.
+
+## When to Apply
+
+- Pre-call preparation for any first or second discovery conversation.
+- Pipeline review: any opportunity lacking documented current-state map or gap dollar figure.
+- Call debrief: seller pitched before minute 20 of a 30-minute call, or left without next-step
+  contract.
+- Onboarding: new account executives building question repertoire.
+- Escalation: deal stalled at "interested but not urgent" — root-cause gap mapping required.
+
+## Question Architecture
+
+Question sequencing follows a four-stage discipline. Departing from the sequence before
+completing a stage is the primary cause of shallow qualification.
+
+**Situation (2-3 questions maximum)**
+Establish factual context. Research eliminates most situation questions before the call.
+Every situation question that could have been answered by LinkedIn, the company website,
+or the CRM record signals to senior buyers that preparation was absent.
+- Confirm current tools, team structure, or process ownership only when not researchable.
+
+**Problem (surface dissatisfaction)**
+Open the space of acknowledged friction. Stop here only briefly — most sellers
+treat problem questions as the destination; they are the entry point.
+- "Where does that process break down for the team?"
+- "What happens when that scenario occurs mid-quarter?"
+
+**Implication (expand cost — primary leverage point)**
+Implication questions are where urgency is born. Buyers have rarely fully confronted the
+downstream cost of their current state. These questions activate that reckoning.
+- "When that breaks down, what is the downstream impact on the adjacent team or metric?"
+- "How does that affect delivery against the goal stated earlier?"
+- "If this continues another two to three quarters, what does that cost in concrete terms?"
+- "Who else in the organization absorbs the effects of this problem?"
+Never skip implication under time pressure. A shortened discovery without implication
+produces a proposal the buyer will not prioritize.
+
+**Need-Payoff (buyer articulates future value)**
+Let the buyer describe the desired state in their own language. Those words become
+the only language used in the written proposal.
+- "If that root cause were resolved, what would that unlock for the team?"
+- "What would change in the business if this were no longer a factor?"
+
+Questions never lead with product capability, price, competitive comparison, or
+timeline pressure. All four categories are late-stage inputs, not discovery inputs.
+
+## Current-State Map
+
+The current-state map is co-built with the buyer during the call. It is never
+constructed from assumptions and presented as a lecture. Required fields:
+
+| Field | Description |
+|---|---|
+| Workflow | The specific process or system where friction occurs |
+| Volume | Scale or frequency: transactions per period, team size, data volume |
+| Cost | Quantified in dollars, hours, or headcount — buyer-sourced figures only |
+| Friction | Specific breakdown points; root cause distinguished from symptom |
+| Consequence | Business impact: revenue, risk, capacity, or competitive exposure |
+
+The map is complete only when the buyer has confirmed each field in their own words.
+A map built from seller inference is not a current-state map — it is a hypothesis that
+will fail at proposal review.
+
+## Gap Quantification Frame
+
+The sale is the gap between current state and desired state. Gap size determines urgency.
+Gap precision determines whether the buyer chooses action over inaction.
+
+```
+Gap dollars = current-state cost - desired-state cost
+Potential win value = gap dollars × buyer-assigned probability of resolution
+```
+
+Current-state cost components: direct spend (tools, headcount, rework), opportunity cost
+(revenue blocked or delayed), and risk exposure (compliance, churn, competitive loss).
+
+Desired-state figures are buyer-stated, not seller-projected. If the buyer cannot articulate
+a desired state with any specificity, discovery is not complete.
+
+The root-cause question is the highest-leverage question in the map: surface-level symptoms
+("the tool is slow") do not create urgency. Root causes with timeline pressure
+("legacy architecture cannot scale to the three enterprise onboards this quarter") do.
+
+## Discovery Call Structure
+
+60-minute frame. The 30-minute variant compresses opener and mutual close by four minutes each;
+all other proportions hold.
+
+**Opener — 4 minutes: Upfront Contract**
+State agenda, time boundary, and three acceptable outcomes (fit → next step; no fit → say so
+honestly; insufficient information → agree what is needed). Request buyer additions to agenda.
+This eliminates ambiguity, signals preparation, and grants permission to ask hard questions.
+
+**Discovery — 35 minutes: Current State and Pain**
+Spend 60-70% of total call time here. The opening territory question:
+- Inbound: "What prompted the decision to take this call today?"
+- Outbound: "When the outreach referenced the signal observed, what was the context on
+  your side?"
+
+Follow the signal using SPIN sequencing. Before any transition to solution framing,
+the seller must be able to state: the problem in the buyer's words, the root cause, the
+quantified impact, the stakeholder map, the trigger for current prioritization, and the cost
+of inaction.
+
+**Targeted Response — 10 minutes: Mapped to Stated Pain Only**
+Present two to three capabilities that directly address problems stated by the buyer.
+Restate the buyer's problem framing before each capability description.
+No product tour. No unprompted feature enumeration. Relevance is the only criterion.
+
+**Mutual Close — 5 minutes: Next-Step Contract**
+Define the next action with owner, deliverable, and date. Identify additional stakeholders
+who must be present at the next stage. Agree on disqualification criteria so neither party
+invests past a clear no.
+
+**Internal: 6 minutes buffer** for note capture and CRM update before the next call.
+
+## Multi-stakeholder Discovery
+
+Enterprise deals involve multiple decision stakeholders with distinct pain profiles.
+Single-threading — running all discovery through one contact — is the primary cause of
+late-stage stalls and ghosting.
+
+Required protocol:
+- Map all stakeholder roles in the first discovery call: economic buyer, technical evaluator,
+  champion, and end-user are the minimum four.
+- Schedule separate discovery conversations per persona. Each persona has distinct pain,
+  distinct success criteria, and distinct risk tolerance.
+- Never relay one persona's concerns to another as shared organizational position without
+  verification.
+- Converge findings in a shared current-state map that the champion can validate before
+  the group presentation. Discrepancies between personas are not noise — they are the
+  deal risk.
+
+## Silence as Instrument
+
+After an implication or need-payoff question, wait. Do not fill the pause with a restatement,
+a clarification, or an answer. The buyer's first response is the surface answer. The answer
+after two to four seconds of silence is the real one — the cost figure, the personal stake, or
+the admission that previous attempts to solve the problem failed.
+
+Sellers who fear silence fill it with features. The pause is not a signal that the question
+failed; it is a signal that the buyer is doing the cognitive work the question was designed to
+trigger. Interrupting that work resets the buyer to the surface level.
+
+The 60/40 rule enforces silence structurally: if the seller is talking more than 40% of the
+call, the buyer is not doing the work. The ratio is measurable via call recording.
+
+## Objection Handling
+
+Objections during discovery are diagnostic, not adversarial. They reveal what the buyer is
+actually thinking, which is more useful than silence. Three categories cover more than 95% of
+discovery-stage objections:
+
+| Category | Surface Statement | Underlying Signal |
+|---|---|---|
+| Value / Budget | "This is not in budget" | Gap not yet quantified in buyer's currency; ROI case not established |
+| Timing | "Not the right time" | Competing priority or initiative; urgency not activated |
+| Fit | "We already have a solution" | Incumbent switching cost not surfaced; differentiation not mapped to pain |
+
+Resolution protocol for each: return to the gap quantification frame. A budget objection
+resolves when the buyer states the cost of inaction in their own numbers. A timing objection
+resolves when the trigger creating current-quarter urgency is identified. A fit objection
+resolves when the specific failure mode of the incumbent is documented in the current-state map.
+
+Never accept an objection at face value during discovery. Acceptance forecloses the
+diagnostic process.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+| Anti-pattern | Why It Fails |
+|---|---|
+| Leading questions ("You're probably finding that X, right?") | Confirms seller hypothesis; produces false-positive qualification |
+| Demo during discovery | Anchors conversation to product features before pain is mapped; buyer objections become feature objections, not business objections |
+| Accepting "we want X" without quantified pain | Stated desire without underlying cost does not survive budget review; deal stalls at approval |
+| Asking situation questions answerable by research | Signals lack of preparation; erodes credibility with senior buyers before discovery begins |
+| Pitching before minute 20 of a 30-minute call | Discovery is incomplete; proposal will not map to actual priorities |
+| Treating problem questions as destination | Problem-level discovery misses implication; buyer has not confronted cost of inaction; no urgency |
+| Single-threaded stakeholder coverage | Champion cannot navigate internal review without multi-persona buy-in; deal stalls or reverses |
+| Talking more than 40% of call time | Active listening drops; buyer signals are missed; call becomes a pitch monologue |
+| Accepting "not the right time" without root cause | Timing objection conceals real objection; disqualification or re-engagement strategy cannot be formed |
+| Accepting verbal confirmation without written next-step contract | Follow-up emails with "great to connect" do not constitute a next step; deal velocity collapses without explicit owner + date |
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- `domains/sales/skills/deal-strategist` — opportunity qualification scoring, multi-stakeholder
+  map, competitive positioning after discovery is complete.
+- `domains/sales/skills/sales-coach` — call debrief methodology, pipeline review cadence,
+  rep performance coaching.
+- `domains/sales/skills/sales-engineer` — technical discovery for complex product environments;
+  handoff protocol from business discovery to technical validation.
+
+## ADR Anchors
+
+- **ADR-058** (Brainstorm Gate and Two-Pass Review): discovery call structure exemplifies
+  ADR-058 two-pass discipline — pass one maps current state without solution framing; pass two
+  introduces tailored response only after map is confirmed. Sellers who collapse both passes
+  into a single motion produce the same failure mode as reviewers who evaluate and generate
+  simultaneously.