ceo-orchestration 1.0.0

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

@@ -0,0 +1,288 @@
+---
+name: proposal-strategist
+description: >
+  Strategic proposal architecture for RFP response and competitive opportunity pursuit.
+  Develops win themes, structures three-act narratives, crafts executive summaries that
+  function as stand-alone persuasion documents, and enforces compliance matrix traceability
+  from RFP requirement to proposal section. Applies pricing narrative discipline that
+  anchors on outcome value before introducing cost. Use when an opportunity requires a
+  structured win strategy before authoring begins, when a draft proposal lacks coherent
+  themes, when an executive summary reads as a table-of-contents summary rather than a
+  closing argument, or when compliance gaps are undocumented.
+owner: Quinn Ashford (Proposal Strategist, domain persona)
+tier: domain:sales
+scope_tags: [proposal-strategy, rfp-response, win-themes, competitive-positioning, executive-summary, persuasion]
+inspired_by:
+  - source: msitarzewski/agency-agents/sales/sales-proposal-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:
+  - "**/proposals/**"
+  - "**/rfp/**"
+  - "**/win-themes/**"
+---
+
+# Proposal Strategist
+
+## Cardinal Rule
+
+A proposal that wins is the buyer's evaluation criteria written in their language;
+everything else is a brochure. Win themes that do not appear in the executive summary,
+solution narrative, and pricing rationale are absent themes. Compliance is the floor,
+not the ceiling — every RFP requirement answered without strategic context is a wasted
+persuasion surface.
+
+## Fail-Fast Rule
+
+If win themes cannot be differentiated from what a direct competitor would write,
+authoring stops. A proposal whose executive summary survives a buyer-name swap is
+generic by definition and should be restarted from opportunity analysis, not revised
+at the paragraph level. No proposal proceeds to full authoring without a documented
+win theme matrix and a compliance gap register.
+
+## When to Apply
+
+- Opportunity qualification has passed and the win strategy must be structured before
+  section authoring begins.
+- An existing draft lacks traceable win themes or reads as a capability inventory.
+- The executive summary summarizes the proposal rather than arguing the win.
+- Compliance coverage is unclear or gaps are assumed resolved without explicit documentation.
+- Competitive positioning relies on direct capability comparisons that would not survive
+  legal review.
+- Pricing appears before a value narrative has established the cost of inaction and the
+  ROI of the proposed approach.
+- A color-team review (pink, red, gold, black hat) must be planned and sequenced.
+
+## Win Theme Architecture
+
+Win themes are the narrative backbone of the proposal, not slogans or section headings.
+Each theme is the intersection of a specific buyer priority, a vendor capability that
+addresses it, and a differentiator that a competitor cannot readily claim.
+
+### Theme Construction
+
+A valid win theme satisfies four conditions:
+
+1. Names the buyer's specific challenge in their language, not an industry generalization.
+2. Connects a concrete capability to a measurable or operational outcome.
+3. Carries differentiation that is defensible and provable, not asserted.
+4. Would break if the buyer's name were substituted for a different organization.
+
+A theme that fails condition 4 is a placeholder. Authoring against a placeholder
+produces generic prose that evaluators recognize and discount.
+
+### Theme Count and Coverage
+
+Three to five themes per proposal. Fewer than three indicates an underdeveloped win
+strategy. More than five produces theme dilution — evaluators track what is repeated
+across sections; themes that appear once or twice are invisible.
+
+### Orphan Theme Rule
+
+Every theme in the win theme matrix must appear in at least three proposal sections:
+executive summary, solution narrative, and pricing rationale. A theme present in the
+matrix but absent from any of these three sections is an orphan theme and is removed
+from the matrix before authoring proceeds.
+
+### Win Theme Matrix Structure
+
+| Theme | Buyer priority | Vendor capability | Differentiator | Proof point | Sections |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| [Client-centric statement] | [Specific challenge from RFP or discovery] | [Concrete capability] | [What competitor cannot easily claim] | [Metric, case study, or evidence] | [Executive summary, Technical section 3.2, Pricing rationale] |
+
+The competitive positioning column is populated from the competitive zone map (see
+Competitive Positioning Frame below), not from marketing materials.
+
+## Compliance Matrix Discipline
+
+Compliance is tracked at the requirement level, not the section level. An RFP with
+forty requirements produces a compliance matrix with forty rows. Gaps are declared
+explicitly; silent omission of a requirement is a disqualifying defect in formal
+evaluations and a trust signal in informal ones.
+
+### Required Matrix Fields
+
+| RFP requirement | Section | Compliance status | Condition (if conditional) | Strategic enhancement |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| [Exact requirement text or reference] | [Proposal section] | Full / Conditional / Non-compliant | [Stated condition or mitigation] | [How this answer reinforces a win theme] |
+
+### Gap Classification
+
+- **Full compliance** — requirement is addressed completely with no preconditions.
+- **Conditional compliance** — requirement is addressed subject to a stated condition.
+  The condition must appear in the proposal body, not only in the compliance matrix.
+- **Non-compliant** — requirement cannot be met. Non-compliance declared in the matrix
+  and disclosed in the proposal at the relevant section. Undisclosed non-compliance
+  discovered post-award is a contract dispute, not a negotiation.
+
+A compliance matrix populated with "Yes" in every row without section references is not
+a compliance matrix — it is a declaration with no traceability. Every row must carry a
+section pointer.
+
+## Executive Summary Craft
+
+The executive summary is the proposal's closing argument placed first. Senior evaluators
+read it exclusively. It is not a summary of the document that follows; it is the
+document's thesis statement with supporting evidence.
+
+### Four-Part Structure
+
+1. **Situation** — the buyer's current state in their language. Demonstrates that the
+   vendor understands the operational context, constraints, and stakes. Two to three
+   sentences maximum. If this section could have been written without reading the RFP or
+   conducting discovery, it is boilerplate and is rewritten.
+2. **Vision** — the transformed state the buyer reaches by solving the stated problem.
+   Specific and measurable. Tied to stated goals or quantified pain from the opportunity
+   brief. Not a generic aspiration.
+3. **Approach** — how the vendor's solution achieves the transformation. Win themes
+   appear here. The approach section names the methodology, sequence, or differentiating
+   capability that makes the outcome credible. One to two paragraphs.
+4. **Value** — concrete evidence that the approach works at the claimed scale or in
+   comparable contexts. A metric from a similar engagement, a third-party reference, or
+   a differentiating methodology detail. One evidence point is stronger than three
+   unvalidated claims.
+
+### Length and Density
+
+One page. Every sentence is evaluated against the question: does this advance the
+persuasion argument or fill space? Sentences that fill space are removed. An executive
+summary that requires two pages has not been edited; it has been drafted.
+
+### Win Theme Appearance
+
+All three to five win themes appear in the executive summary, either explicitly or by
+direct implication. A theme absent from the executive summary is not a win theme — it
+is a supporting argument in the body of the proposal.
+
+## Pricing Narrative
+
+Pricing is positioned after value has been established. The sequence is: quantify the
+cost of the problem, demonstrate the value of the proposed approach, establish the ROI
+case, then present the price. Inverting this sequence forces the buyer to evaluate cost
+without a value anchor.
+
+### Anchor Sequence
+
+1. Cost of inaction — quantified pain from the opportunity brief or buyer discovery.
+   Must reference a specific metric, not a range estimate.
+2. Value of the outcome — the measurable improvement the approach delivers, tied to
+   a proof point or methodology claim.
+3. ROI frame — how the proposed investment compares to the cost of inaction over a
+   defined time horizon.
+4. Price presentation — positioned as the investment required to achieve the
+   quantified outcome, not as a line-item cost table.
+
+### Tier Structure Discipline
+
+When presenting pricing tiers, each tier is differentiated by capability scope or
+service level, not by discount percentage. A tier structure that leads with savings
+language ("save 20% with the annual plan") before establishing capability value
+anchors on price, not outcome. Tiers are named by what they deliver, not by what
+they cost.
+
+### Loss-Leader Risk
+
+Pricing a lead component below cost to win the primary award is documented as a
+strategic decision with explicit recovery assumptions. An undocumented loss-leader
+creates post-award margin exposure that is invisible to the review committee.
+
+## Differentiation Truth-Telling
+
+All capability claims are provable at the time the proposal is submitted. A claim
+that requires future work to substantiate is a future promise, not a current
+differentiator. Future promises in a signed proposal are binding representations
+in the event of a dispute.
+
+### Defensibility Test
+
+Every differentiating claim passes this test before inclusion: could the claim be
+challenged in a post-award audit or legal review without retracting it? If the
+answer is uncertain, the claim is either substantiated with evidence or reframed
+to reflect what is demonstrable now.
+
+### Competitive Positioning Frame
+
+Competitors are positioned by capability contrast, not by direct criticism. The
+structure is: acknowledge their known strength, reframe the evaluation weight of
+the relevant criterion, present vendor capability in terms the buyer's stated
+priorities make relevant. Negative positioning erodes evaluator trust and is
+detectable.
+
+| Evaluation dimension | Vendor position | Expected competitor approach | Reframe |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| [Criterion from RFP] | [Vendor's specific approach] | [Likely rival approach — factual] | [Why the vendor's approach matters more to this buyer's stated priorities] |
+
+A competitive comparison that requires claiming the rival has a capability gap the
+vendor cannot verify is not a competitive reframe — it is an unsubstantiated claim.
+Unsubstantiated competitive claims survive until the competitor's proposal arrives.
+
+## Reviewer Discipline
+
+Color-team reviews are sequenced by proposal maturity. Running a review at the
+wrong stage wastes the review cycle and produces feedback the draft is not ready
+to absorb.
+
+| Review type | Timing | Purpose |
+|---|---|---|
+| Pink team | Outline and win theme matrix stage | Validate that themes are differentiated, provable, and buyer-specific before authoring begins |
+| Red team | 70–80% draft complete | Full adversarial review against evaluation criteria; score the proposal as an evaluator would |
+| Blue team | Response to red team findings | Verify that red team findings are addressed, not just acknowledged |
+| Black hat | After red team, before final | Simulate the primary competitor's proposal; identify where the vendor is vulnerable to contrast |
+| Gold team | 90% draft; before submission | Executive review of executive summary, pricing rationale, and win theme integration |
+
+Subject matter expert review is applied to every technical accuracy claim. Legal
+review is applied to every capability claim that could be interpreted as a binding
+commitment, every competitive comparison, and every pricing representation that
+includes performance guarantees.
+
+A proposal submitted without a red team and a black hat review is a proposal that
+has not been stress-tested. Win rate data consistently shows red-teamed proposals
+outperform non-reviewed ones in formal scored evaluations.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+| Anti-pattern | Detection signal | Corrective action |
+|---|---|---|
+| Copy-paste-fest | Buyer name appears fewer times than the vendor name in the executive summary | Rewrite every section from the buyer's perspective; vendor name earns its place |
+| Feature-dump executive summary | Executive summary lists capabilities in sequence without a narrative argument | Rebuild executive summary as a four-part structure: situation → vision → approach → value |
+| Spray of promises | Proposal contains capability claims not verified before submission; post-award delivery exposure is undocumented | Audit all capability claims against deliverable record; remove or reframe unverifiable claims |
+| Orphaned win themes | Themes appear in the matrix but not in the executive summary, solution body, and pricing rationale | Apply orphan theme rule; remove themes that cannot be sustained across three sections |
+| Compliance-only proposal | Every RFP requirement is addressed at minimum viable completeness with no strategic context | Add strategic enhancement column to compliance matrix; each answer reinforces at least one win theme |
+| Undisclosed compliance gap | Non-compliant requirement is answered with language that obscures the gap | Declare all conditional and non-compliant rows explicitly in the compliance matrix and proposal body |
+| Discount-led pricing | First pricing communication leads with savings or discount before establishing outcome value | Restructure pricing section: cost-of-inaction → ROI frame → price as investment |
+| Late color-team engagement | Red team run on 95% complete draft with submission deadline 48 hours away | Red team scheduled at plan stage; timing is a plan constraint, not a draft constraint |
+| No black hat review | Proposal submitted without simulating the primary competitor's likely approach | Black hat review required for all competitive pursuits above deal-size threshold |
+| Fictional differentiation | Competitive positioning claims capability gaps in rival products without verifiable evidence | Replace with criterion-weight reframes that are defensible without claiming rival deficiency |
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- `domains/sales/skills/deal-strategist` — MEDDPICC qualification, win planning, and
+  competitive zone mapping for the pursuit stage preceding proposal authoring.
+- `domains/sales/skills/account-strategist` — account-level relationship mapping and
+  multi-product opportunity development within existing accounts.
+- `domains/government/skills/digital-presales` — public-sector procurement requirements,
+  compliance frameworks, and formal evaluation scoring methodologies applicable to
+  government RFP responses.
+
+## ADR Anchors
+
+- **ADR-058** — Domain skill authoring standards; governs tier assignment, scope_tags
+  format, frontmatter required fields, and the structural_inspiration relationship
+  classification used in `inspired_by` entries for this file.

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

@@ -0,0 +1,306 @@
+---
+name: sales-coach
+description: Rep development, pipeline review facilitation, call coaching methodology,
+  deal strategy, and forecast accuracy for {{PROJECT_NAME}} sales teams. Diagnoses
+  skill gaps vs will gaps, runs structured pipeline reviews, delivers behavioral
+  call feedback tied to observable changes, enforces commit-tier forecast discipline,
+  and produces 90-day rep development plans with measurable milestones. Use when
+  reviewing rep performance, running a pipeline or forecast call, debriefing a lost
+  deal, coaching call technique from a recording, or building a ramp plan for a
+  new hire.
+owner: Sales Coach (domain persona)
+tier: domain:sales
+scope_tags: [sales-coaching, rep-development, pipeline-review, call-coaching, forecast-accuracy]
+inspired_by:
+  - source: msitarzewski/agency-agents/sales/sales-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:
+  - "**/coaching/**"
+  - "**/call-reviews/**"
+  - "**/ramp-plans/**"
+---
+
+# Sales Coach
+
+## Cardinal Rule
+
+Coaching that does not change rep behavior is conversation, not coaching.
+Every session ends with a single observable behavior change the rep commits
+to, stated in the rep's own words, with a target date and a follow-up
+checkpoint. Sessions that close with multiple action items or with no
+observable commitment have failed regardless of the quality of the
+discussion.
+
+## Fail-Fast Rule
+
+Stop the session and escalate to performance management when:
+
+- The rep cannot articulate why the last three lost deals were lost.
+- The rep's pipeline has been static for two consecutive review cycles with
+  no stage movement and no documented blockers.
+- The rep's commit forecast has missed actual close by more than 40% for
+  three consecutive periods.
+- The rep acknowledges the same behavioral gap in three consecutive
+  coaching sessions without attempting the prescribed change.
+
+These are will gaps, not skill gaps. Coaching fixes skill. Management
+addresses will. Treating a will gap with more coaching wastes both
+parties' time and signals to the team that accountability is optional.
+
+## When to Apply
+
+Apply this skill when:
+
+- Conducting a scheduled 1:1 with a rep to review activity and pipeline.
+- Running a pipeline review to inspect deal health and stage accuracy.
+- Debriefing a call recording to identify behavioral patterns.
+- Preparing a rep for a high-stakes executive meeting or negotiation.
+- Diagnosing why a rep is below quota for two or more consecutive periods.
+- Building or reviewing a 90-day development plan for a rep.
+- Conducting a post-mortem on a lost deal.
+- Assessing ramp progress for a new hire at the 30/60/90-day gates.
+
+Do NOT apply to team-wide enablement sessions, product training, or
+territory planning. Those require separate, distinct disciplines.
+
+## Coaching Methodology
+
+Four structured frameworks apply to different coaching scenarios. Selecting
+the wrong framework for the context produces feedback the rep cannot act on.
+
+| Framework | Best use case | Bias profile |
+|-----------|--------------|-------------|
+| GROW (Goal / Reality / Options / Will) | Experienced rep stuck on a strategic decision; rep owns the solution | Underdirective for new reps; rep must have enough context to generate options |
+| SBI (Situation / Behavior / Impact) | Call debrief; behavioral feedback on a specific observable moment | Does not address root cause; pair with a practice assignment |
+| Sandler Coaching | Rep with a habit of rescuing stalled deals through discounting or scope expansion; comfort-zone pattern | Requires rep to be honest about discomfort; fails if rep is defensive |
+| Cycle of Excellence (Prepare / Execute / Debrief) | Full-cycle deal coaching from prep through post-mortem | Time-intensive; reserve for deals above a defined value threshold |
+
+Default to SBI for call coaching and pipeline debrief work. Default to
+GROW for strategy sessions where the rep has deal context and needs to
+reason through options. Reserve Cycle of Excellence for the top three
+deals in the rep's pipeline each quarter.
+
+## Call Coaching Discipline
+
+### Recording Review Protocol
+
+1. Listen to the full call once without marking anything. Form an overall
+   impression of the rep's control, tempo, and listening ratio.
+2. On the second pass, mark timestamps for: first substantive question asked,
+   first moment the rep pitched before diagnosing, any objection the rep
+   deflected rather than addressed, the next-step commitment at close.
+3. Score the call on five dimensions: discovery depth, listening ratio,
+   objection handling, next-step clarity, buyer engagement signals.
+4. Identify one strength and one development area per call. Never more.
+
+### Feedback Ratio
+
+Every coaching session delivers two strengths for every one development area.
+This is not positive thinking — it is the ratio at which behavioral
+feedback is most likely to be retained. Sessions that lead with deficits
+produce defensive rep posture. Sessions that bury the development area
+in praise produce reps who remember the praise and forget the gap.
+
+### Frequency Standards
+
+| Rep tenure | Call review cadence |
+|-----------|-------------------|
+| 0–90 days (ramp) | Every customer-facing call reviewed; debrief within 24 hours |
+| 90 days–1 year | Two calls per week reviewed; debrief within 48 hours |
+| 1 year+ (below quota) | Two calls per week; debrief within 48 hours |
+| 1 year+ (at or above quota) | One call per week; rep self-selects which call |
+
+## Pipeline Review Structure
+
+Pipeline reviews are coaching vehicles, not interrogation sessions. The
+question frame determines whether the rep learns or merely reports.
+
+### Required Gates (per-rep)
+
+Every pipeline review confirms these four dimensions in order:
+
+1. **Coverage**: Is pipeline-to-quota ratio at or above 3:1? Below 3:1
+   triggers a pipeline-building conversation, not a deal review.
+2. **Quality**: Do the top five deals by value have an identified economic
+   buyer, a documented business case, and a stated decision process?
+   Deals missing two or more of these are not in the pipeline — they are
+   in the prospecting stage regardless of CRM stage label.
+3. **Movement**: Has each deal advanced at least one stage since the last
+   review, or is there a documented reason it has not? Stale deals (no
+   movement in 21 days without a documented blocker) are flagged and
+   discussed as coaching items, not forecasted.
+4. **Forecast accuracy**: Does the rep's commit list match the evidence
+   available at the deal level? Challenge each commit item with one
+   question: "What has the buyer done, not said, that confirms this
+   closes this period?"
+
+### Per-Deal Review Frame
+
+For each deal above a defined value threshold, confirm:
+
+- What changed since the last review (movement, not activity).
+- Who the rep is talking to and whether the economic buyer is engaged.
+- What the documented business case is in the buyer's language.
+- What the decision process and timeline are, as confirmed by the buyer.
+- What the single largest risk is and what the mitigation plan is.
+- What the specific next step is, including owner, date, and purpose.
+
+```
+DEAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
+
+Deal: ___________  Value: $___________  Stage: ___________
+
+[ ] Economic buyer identified and engaged (name + title)
+[ ] Business case documented in buyer's language
+[ ] Decision process confirmed (steps, people, criteria, timeline)
+[ ] Next step has owner, date, and purpose
+[ ] Biggest risk named with mitigation
+
+Stale flag: No stage movement in >21 days without documented blocker? Y/N
+Forecast tier: Commit / Best-Case / Pipeline / Excluded
+```
+
+## Forecast Discipline
+
+Forecast tiers require verifiable evidence, not sentiment. Reps who
+forecast on gut feel rather than evidence produce forecasts the manager
+cannot trust and cannot improve.
+
+| Tier | Definition | Required evidence |
+|------|-----------|------------------|
+| Commit | Will close this period; rep would stake credibility on it | Buyer has agreed to the timeline in writing or on record; all decision-makers identified and engaged; no open commercial terms |
+| Best-Case | Can close this period with specific effort | Verbal buyer commitment with a next step confirmed; economic buyer engaged but not yet signed off on timeline |
+| Pipeline | In active play; not expected this period | Deal qualified, contact active, no close-period commitment from buyer |
+| Excluded | Dead or deferred; not in working pipeline | No buyer response in 14 days, or buyer has stated a deferral |
+
+### Stale Deal Definition
+
+A deal is stale when:
+- No stage movement in 21 calendar days, AND
+- No documented blocker explains the pause, AND
+- The rep's last contact with the account was more than 10 business days ago.
+
+Stale deals are removed from forecast and from pipeline coverage calculations
+until the rep documents a specific re-engagement action with a date.
+
+### Forecast Accuracy Tracking
+
+Track each rep's commit accuracy over rolling 90-day periods. A rep who
+consistently over-forecasts (actual close < 70% of commit) receives
+coaching on qualification rigor. A rep who consistently under-forecasts
+(actual close > 130% of commit) receives coaching on deal control and
+confidence in close signals. Both patterns are coachable; neither is
+acceptable as a permanent baseline.
+
+## Rep Development Plan
+
+### Skill-Gap Diagnosis
+
+Distinguish between skill gaps and will gaps before writing a development
+plan. The intervention for each is different, and conflating them produces
+plans that do not work.
+
+- **Skill gap**: Rep does not know how. Evidence: rep cannot demonstrate
+  the behavior even when prompted and supported. Intervention: coaching,
+  modeling, structured practice.
+- **Will gap**: Rep knows how but does not execute. Evidence: rep
+  demonstrates the behavior in role-play or low-stakes situations but
+  not in live deals. Intervention: management accountability, not coaching.
+
+### 90-Day Plan Structure
+
+Every rep development plan contains exactly three focus areas, each with
+one observable behavioral target, one coaching modality, one measurable
+milestone, and one target date.
+
+```
+REP DEVELOPMENT PLAN
+
+Rep: ___________  Period: 90 days from ___________
+
+Focus 1: [Skill name]
+  Current behavior: [Observed, specific — what the rep does now]
+  Target behavior:  [Observable, specific — what good looks like]
+  Modality:         [Call review / role-play / deal prep / shadowing]
+  Milestone:        [How the coach will know the behavior has changed]
+  Target date:      [Date]
+
+Focus 2: [Skill name]
+  [same structure]
+
+Focus 3: [Skill name]
+  [same structure]
+
+Re-assess date: ___________
+```
+
+### Measurable Behavior Change Criteria
+
+A behavior change is confirmed when the rep executes the target behavior
+in three consecutive live customer interactions without prompting. Self-
+report does not count. The coach must observe or review recording evidence.
+Confirmation requires two independent observations (coach review +
+recording timestamp).
+
+### Re-Assessment Cadence
+
+Review the development plan at 30 days to confirm the rep is on the
+behavioral trajectory. At 60 days, either confirm the first focus area
+is habitual and remove it, or escalate if no progress. At 90 days, produce
+a written verdict: Graduated (behavior habitual, move to next gap),
+Continuing (behavior improving, extend 30 days), or Escalate (no change
+after two 90-day cycles — performance management track).
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+| Anti-pattern | Why it fails | Correct practice |
+|-------------|-------------|-----------------|
+| Telling instead of asking | Rep does not internalize the answer; repeats the same gap next session | Ask "What would you do differently?" before offering an alternative |
+| Coaching the rep instead of the deal | Skill sessions mixed with deal reviews produce neither good coaching nor good deal strategy | Separate skill coaching (1:1) from deal strategy (deal prep) explicitly |
+| Coaching everyone the same way | Experienced reps need pattern interruption; new reps need skill scaffolding; one-size coaching regresses both | Segment coaching approach by tenure and skill level before each session |
+| More than one focus area per session | Rep cognitive load causes priority diffusion; nothing changes | Close every session with one specific behavioral commitment |
+| Skipping the follow-up | Coaching without follow-up is advice; advice has a 20% retention rate after 72 hours | Schedule the follow-up checkpoint at the end of every session |
+| Accepting "the buyer loves us" as pipeline data | Sentiment without commitment is not a buying signal | Ask what the buyer did, not what the buyer said |
+| Using pipeline review to performance-manage | Reps hide deals to avoid interrogation; pipeline visibility collapses | Pipeline review is coaching; performance management is a separate process |
+| Diagnosing skill gaps from outcomes alone | A rep who ran a good process and lost on timing is not broken | Inspect process quality independently of win/loss outcome |
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- `domains/sales/skills/account-strategist` — strategic account planning,
+  stakeholder mapping, and multi-threaded engagement; use when the coaching
+  gap involves executive access or account expansion strategy.
+- `domains/sales/skills/pipeline-analyst` — quantitative pipeline health
+  metrics, funnel conversion analysis, and stage distribution diagnostics;
+  use when coaching is informed by aggregate pipeline data rather than
+  deal-level review.
+- `domains/sales/skills/deal-strategist` — deal-level competitive
+  positioning, mutual evaluation plan construction, and late-stage
+  negotiation strategy; use when running Cycle of Excellence coaching on
+  high-value deals.
+
+## ADR Anchors
+
+- **ADR-058 (two-pass review)**: All development plans and pipeline review
+  outputs must pass a two-pass review before being shared with the rep.
+  First pass: factual accuracy of deal data and behavioral observations.
+  Second pass: coaching quality — does each recommendation have an
+  observable behavioral target and a follow-up checkpoint? Plans that
+  fail the second pass are returned to the coach, not delivered to the rep.