dojo.md 0.1.0

package/courses/objection-handling/scenarios/level-3/objection-analytics.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+meta:
+  id: objection-analytics
+  level: 3
+  course: objection-handling
+  type: output
+  description: "Use data and analytics to improve objection handling — analyze objection patterns, conversion rates, and response effectiveness across your team"
+  tags: [sales, objections, analytics, data, optimization, performance, advanced]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're a Sales Operations Manager at "PipelineIQ" (sales analytics
+  platform, $55M ARR, 45-person sales team). Your CRO asks you to
+  build an "Objection Analytics Dashboard" and use the data to
+  improve team performance. You have access to call recording
+  transcripts, CRM data, and win/loss analysis for the past year.
+
+  Raw data you've compiled:
+  - 2,400 recorded sales calls analyzed
+  - 8,600 objections identified and categorized
+  - Average 3.6 objections per deal cycle
+  - Win rate when first objection is handled well: 41%
+  - Win rate when first objection is handled poorly: 12%
+  - Most common objection by stage:
+    Discovery: "We already have a solution" (38%)
+    Demo: "It doesn't have [feature]" (29%)
+    Proposal: "Too expensive" (44%)
+    Negotiation: "Can you match competitor price?" (52%)
+  - Objection-to-close time varies by type:
+    Price: 14 days average
+    Timing: 42 days average
+    Competitor: 21 days average
+    Authority: 28 days average
+  - Top 3 reps by objection handling score all use Explore/question
+    techniques; bottom 3 all use direct response/feature dump
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. Design the "Objection Analytics Dashboard" — specify the 8
+     metrics that should be tracked, what each tells you, and what
+     action to take when each metric moves in the wrong direction.
+     Explain which metrics are leading indicators (predict future
+     performance) vs. lagging indicators.
+
+  2. Using the data above, write the "3 Biggest Findings" report
+     for the CRO. Each finding should include: the data insight,
+     why it matters, and the specific intervention to improve it.
+     The CRO cares about revenue impact, not methodology.
+
+  3. Design the "Objection Handling Improvement Program" based on
+     the data. The data shows questioning techniques outperform
+     direct responses — how do you change behavior across 45 reps?
+     Include training approach, measurement plan, and expected
+     timeline to see results.
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Dashboard metrics are well-chosen — includes objection resolution rate, time-to-resolution, win rate by objection type, first-objection success rate, technique usage distribution, stage-specific objection frequency, and clearly distinguishes leading from lagging indicators"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Well-chosen dashboard metrics"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "CRO report is revenue-focused — translates data into revenue impact (e.g., improving first-objection handling from 12% to 41% win rate = X additional revenue), with 3 clear interventions tied to the biggest revenue opportunities"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Revenue-focused CRO report"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Improvement program is realistic — addresses behavior change across 45 reps with a phased approach (train, practice, measure, reinforce), realistic timeline (months not weeks), and measurement plan that shows correlation between technique adoption and win rate improvement"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Realistic improvement program"

package/courses/objection-handling/scenarios/level-3/objection-to-close.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+meta:
+  id: objection-to-close
+  level: 3
+  course: objection-handling
+  type: output
+  description: "Turn objections into closing opportunities — recognize when an objection signals buying intent and use it as a bridge to commitment"
+  tags: [sales, objections, closing, buying-signals, conversion, advanced]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're a Sales Director at "RapidHire" (recruiting platform,
+  $60M ARR). You're coaching your team on a counterintuitive insight:
+  certain objections are actually buying signals in disguise. A
+  prospect who objects is engaged; a prospect who says nothing is
+  already gone.
+
+  Buying-signal objections to analyze:
+
+  Signal 1: "What happens if we outgrow your platform?"
+  From: VP of HR at a fast-growing startup (200→500 employees)
+  Why it's a signal: They're imagining a future WITH your product.
+  They're mentally past "should we buy?" and into "what happens
+  after we buy?"
+
+  Signal 2: "Can we get out of the contract if it doesn't work?"
+  From: CHRO at a 300-person company
+  Why it's a signal: They're negotiating exit terms, which means
+  they're considering entry. Nobody negotiates termination clauses
+  for a product they don't plan to buy.
+
+  Signal 3: "My team will need a lot of training on this."
+  From: Director of Talent Acquisition
+  Why it's a signal: They're thinking about implementation details,
+  not whether to buy. This is a logistical concern, not a strategic
+  objection.
+
+  Signal 4: "What if our hiring slows down and we don't need all
+  those seats?"
+  From: CFO
+  Why it's a signal: They're mentally calculating usage scenarios.
+  They've accepted the product; they're optimizing the purchase.
+
+  Non-signal objection for contrast:
+  "Send me some information and I'll take a look when I have time."
+  Why it's NOT a signal: No specificity, no engagement, no future
+  planning. This is a brush-off.
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. For each of the 4 buying-signal objections, write the response
+     that: (a) addresses the concern legitimately (don't dismiss it),
+     (b) subtly advances toward closing by using their future-
+     oriented thinking, and (c) includes a trial close or next-step
+     commitment. Show the transition from objection handling to
+     closing.
+
+  2. Create the "Buying Signal vs. Genuine Objection" diagnostic
+     framework. Include 6 indicators that distinguish buying signals
+     (future-oriented, specific, logistical) from genuine objections
+     (past-oriented, vague, strategic/emotional) with examples.
+
+  3. Write the coaching guide for junior reps: "How to Close from
+     an Objection." Include the 3-step technique: acknowledge the
+     concern, address it, then bridge to commitment. Show 3 "bridge
+     to close" phrases that feel natural, not pushy.
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Responses address concern AND advance — each legitimately answers the prospect's question while subtly incorporating a trial close or next-step that leverages their forward-looking mindset, without being manipulatively pushy"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Concern-addressing closers"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Diagnostic framework is clear and useful — provides 6 specific indicators with examples that help reps distinguish buying signals from genuine objections in real-time, covering temporal orientation, specificity, emotional tone, and engagement level"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Clear diagnostic framework"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Coaching guide is practical for juniors — 3-step technique (acknowledge, address, bridge) is simple enough for new reps, with 3 bridge phrases that sound natural and examples of the full acknowledge→address→bridge sequence"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Junior-friendly coaching guide"

package/courses/objection-handling/scenarios/level-3/procurement-objections.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+meta:
+  id: procurement-objections
+  level: 3
+  course: objection-handling
+  type: output
+  description: "Navigate procurement-specific objections — handle professional buyers whose job is to object, negotiate, and extract concessions"
+  tags: [sales, objections, procurement, negotiation, enterprise, advanced]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're an Enterprise AE at "SecureCloud" (cloud security platform,
+  $90M ARR). Your champion loves the product, the technical team
+  approved it, and the budget is allocated. Then the deal goes to
+  procurement. Everything changes.
+
+  The procurement manager, Patricia, has 15 years of experience and
+  her job performance is measured by how much she saves. She sends
+  you an email:
+
+  "Thank you for your proposal. We have several concerns:
+  1. Your pricing is 25% above the competitive benchmark we've
+     established. We need you to match market rate.
+  2. We require a 90-day payment term, not your standard 30-day.
+  3. We need the right to terminate with 30-day notice, not the
+     annual commitment in your proposal.
+  4. We expect a 3-year price lock with no more than 2% annual
+     increases.
+  5. Your liability cap of 12 months' fees is insufficient. We
+     require 24 months.
+  6. We need source code escrow in case your company goes bankrupt."
+
+  Context: Some of these are legitimate (payment terms, price lock).
+  Some are aggressive negotiation tactics (25% reduction demand,
+  30-day termination on annual contract). Some are risk management
+  (liability, escrow). You need to know the difference.
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. Categorize each of Patricia's 6 demands: is it a legitimate
+     business requirement, a standard negotiation tactic, or a
+     risk management provision? For each, write the response that
+     protects your position while maintaining a collaborative tone.
+     Identify which items you'd concede, which you'd negotiate, and
+     which you'd hold firm.
+
+  2. Write the "Procurement Playbook" — 5 rules for handling
+     professional procurement buyers that differ from handling
+     business stakeholders. Include the psychology of procurement
+     (they're measured on savings, they use standardized tactics,
+     they test your willingness to concede).
+
+  3. Your champion calls you panicked: "Procurement is making this
+     impossible. They always do this." Write the coaching script
+     for your champion — help them navigate internally by explaining
+     which procurement demands are standard (they'll always ask),
+     which are serious (you need to address), and how to advocate
+     for you without undermining procurement's role.
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Categorization is accurate — correctly identifies the 25% discount demand and 30-day termination as negotiation tactics, payment terms and price lock as legitimate business requirements, and liability/escrow as risk management, with appropriate responses for each"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Accurate demand categorization"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Procurement playbook captures real dynamics — explains that procurement is measured on savings (not value), uses standardized playbooks, will always ask for more than they expect, and requires different rapport-building than business buyers"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Real procurement dynamics"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Champion coaching is strategic — helps the champion understand procurement's role (not adversarial), identify which demands are routine vs. serious, and advocate effectively without creating internal conflict between champion and procurement"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Strategic champion coaching"

package/courses/objection-handling/scenarios/level-4/ai-objection-intelligence.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+meta:
+  id: ai-objection-intelligence
+  level: 4
+  course: objection-handling
+  type: output
+  description: "Leverage AI and conversation intelligence for objection handling — use technology to analyze, predict, and coach on objection handling at scale"
+  tags: [sales, objections, AI, conversation-intelligence, technology, prediction, expert]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're the Director of Revenue Operations at "InsightCo"
+  (conversation intelligence platform, $70M ARR). Your company
+  sells AI-powered call analysis, and you use your own product
+  internally. You have unprecedented data on how your 50 reps
+  handle objections.
+
+  AI-generated insights from your platform (last quarter):
+  - 3,200 calls analyzed, 9,800 objections detected
+  - AI identified 23 distinct objection "clusters"
+  - Objection sentiment analysis shows:
+    * 34% of objections are delivered with high confidence (genuine)
+    * 41% are delivered with uncertainty (testable)
+    * 25% are delivered with resignation (brush-off)
+  - Timing analysis:
+    * Objections raised in the first 10 minutes: 65% are brush-offs
+    * Objections raised after 20 minutes: 78% are genuine
+    * Objections raised after prospect asks 3+ questions: 90% genuine
+  - Response effectiveness scoring:
+    * Responses that start with a question: 52% resolution rate
+    * Responses that start with acknowledgment: 44% resolution rate
+    * Responses that start with a statement: 23% resolution rate
+  - Predictive model: AI can predict with 73% accuracy whether an
+    objection will be resolved based on the first 15 seconds of the
+    rep's response
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. Using this AI-generated data, write the "Objection Intelligence
+     Report" that translates these insights into 5 specific behavior
+     changes for your team. Each insight should have: the data
+     finding, why it matters, the old behavior, the new behavior,
+     and how to measure adoption.
+
+  2. Design the "AI-Assisted Objection Coaching" system. How would
+     you use real-time AI during calls to help reps handle objections
+     better? Include: what the AI would display (suggested responses,
+     sentiment analysis, talk track cues), what it would NOT display
+     (to avoid cognitive overload), and the privacy/ethical
+     considerations.
+
+  3. Your CEO asks: "Can AI replace the need for objection handling
+     training entirely?" Write the balanced response that shows
+     where AI adds value (pattern recognition, coaching, prediction)
+     and where human skill remains essential (empathy, creativity,
+     relationship judgment). Include your recommendation for the
+     optimal human-AI division.
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Intelligence report translates data to behavior — 5 insights each connect specific data findings to actionable behavior changes with measurement plans, not just presenting data and hoping reps draw conclusions"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Data-to-behavior translation"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "AI coaching system is thoughtful about UX — balances real-time helpfulness with cognitive load management, shows the right information at the right moment, and addresses ethical considerations (consent, recording, AI bias)"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Thoughtful AI coaching design"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Human-AI balance is nuanced — avoids both extremes (AI replaces everything vs. AI adds nothing), identifies specific strengths of each (AI: pattern recognition, scale, consistency; Human: empathy, creativity, context) with a practical recommendation"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Nuanced human-AI balance"

package/courses/objection-handling/scenarios/level-4/channel-partner-objections.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+meta:
+  id: channel-partner-objections
+  level: 4
+  course: objection-handling
+  type: output
+  description: "Handle objections through channel partners — enable partners to handle objections on your behalf when you don't control the customer conversation"
+  tags: [sales, objections, channel, partners, indirect, enablement, expert]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're the VP of Channel Sales at "NetSecure" (network security,
+  $110M ARR). 45% of your revenue comes through 200 channel partners
+  (MSPs, VARs, and SIs). The problem: your partners sell 15-20
+  different vendors' products, and when a customer objects to
+  NetSecure, partners often switch to recommending a competitor
+  instead of handling the objection.
+
+  Partner performance data:
+  - Partners who can handle NetSecure objections: close rate 38%
+  - Partners who can't handle objections: close rate 11%
+  - Most common objections partners encounter:
+    1. "Why NetSecure over Palo Alto?" (52% of partner deals)
+    2. "NetSecure is too expensive for our size" (44%)
+    3. "We've never heard of NetSecure" (37%)
+    4. "Does NetSecure integrate with our existing Cisco stack?" (31%)
+  - When partners hear objection #1, 60% recommend Palo Alto instead
+
+  Partner types with different needs:
+  - MSPs (80 partners): Sell managed services, need simple objection
+    handles they can use in 5-minute conversations
+  - VARs (90 partners): Sell products, need competitive positioning
+    and technical depth
+  - SIs (30 partners): Sell solutions, need strategic business case
+    materials and integration architecture
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. Design the "Partner Objection Enablement Program" — how do you
+     equip 200 partners to handle NetSecure objections when you
+     can't be on every call? Include: materials for each partner
+     type, training approach (they won't attend long sessions), and
+     the incentive structure that rewards objection handling over
+     product switching.
+
+  2. Create the "Quick Objection Card" for MSPs — a one-page
+     reference card that addresses the top 4 objections in 2-3
+     sentences each. This is what an MSP sales rep looks at during
+     a customer call when they hear "why not Palo Alto?"
+
+  3. Design the "Partner Escalation Protocol" — when should a
+     partner escalate an objection to your direct sales team vs.
+     handle it themselves? Include: the escalation criteria, the
+     handoff process (warm transfer, not cold), and how you avoid
+     undermining the partner relationship when you step in.
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Enablement program is differentiated by partner type — MSPs get simple quick-reference tools, VARs get competitive depth, SIs get strategic business case materials, with training approaches that respect each type's time constraints"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Partner-type differentiated enablement"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Quick objection card is genuinely usable — one page, 2-3 sentence responses per objection that a busy MSP rep can read during a customer call, with language that sounds natural rather than scripted"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Genuinely usable quick card"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Escalation protocol is partnership-preserving — clear criteria for when to escalate, a warm handoff process that keeps the partner involved, and guardrails against undermining the partner relationship when direct sales steps in"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Partnership-preserving escalation"

package/courses/objection-handling/scenarios/level-4/complex-enterprise-objections.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+meta:
+  id: complex-enterprise-objections
+  level: 4
+  course: objection-handling
+  type: output
+  description: "Handle complex enterprise objections — navigate multi-threaded deals with conflicting stakeholders, political dynamics, and organizational resistance"
+  tags: [sales, objections, enterprise, complex, multi-stakeholder, politics, expert]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're an Enterprise AE at "DataForge" (enterprise data platform,
+  $150M ARR). You're working on a $1.2M deal with NationalBank
+  (15,000 employees). The deal involves 8 stakeholders across 4
+  departments. After 6 months, the deal is stuck — not because of
+  your product, but because of organizational dynamics.
+
+  The stakeholder map:
+  1. CTO (Power: decision authority, Stance: supportive)
+     "DataForge is technically superior. I want this."
+  2. CISO (Power: veto authority, Stance: cautious)
+     "I need 6 more months of security review. We can't rush this."
+  3. CFO (Power: budget authority, Stance: skeptical)
+     "Show me why $1.2M is better than investing in our internal
+     team."
+  4. COO (Power: operational authority, Stance: neutral)
+     "I'll support whatever IT recommends, but my ops team's needs
+     must be prioritized."
+  5. Head of Data (Power: champion, Stance: enthusiastic)
+     "I've been driving this for months. If it falls apart, my
+     credibility is shot."
+  6. VP of Compliance (Power: regulatory authority, Stance: opposed)
+     "Our regulators won't approve a third-party data platform
+     without a 12-month assessment."
+  7. Head of IT Infrastructure (Power: technical influence, Stance:
+     threatened)
+     "If DataForge handles data infrastructure, what does my team
+     do?"
+  8. CEO (Power: ultimate authority, Stance: uninformed)
+     Has not been briefed on the deal. Will hear about it only if
+     it reaches executive committee.
+
+  The blockers:
+  - CISO's 6-month security review is unnecessary (you already
+    passed their technical assessment) but she uses it as a delay
+    tactic because she's cautious by nature.
+  - VP of Compliance is genuinely concerned about regulatory timeline
+  - Head of IT Infrastructure is actively working against the deal
+    because he sees DataForge as a threat to his team
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. Write the "Stakeholder Alignment Strategy" — how do you get
+     8 people with conflicting priorities aligned? Include: which
+     stakeholders to focus on (you can't give equal attention to
+     all 8), the sequence of conversations, and the key message
+     for each aligned to their individual concerns.
+
+  2. Address the 3 blockers specifically:
+     a) CISO delay tactic: How do you accelerate the review without
+        making her feel overridden?
+     b) VP of Compliance regulatory concern: How do you satisfy a
+        legitimate regulatory timeline while keeping deal momentum?
+     c) Head of IT Infrastructure threat: How do you neutralize
+        opposition from someone who sees your product as a career
+        threat?
+
+  3. Write the "Executive Committee Brief" — a 1-page document that
+     your champion (Head of Data) would present to the CEO and
+     executive committee. It must address the concerns of ALL
+     stakeholders in a unified narrative.
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Alignment strategy is realistically prioritized — focuses effort on the 3-4 most influential stakeholders, sequences conversations strategically (e.g., get CTO and COO aligned first, then use them to influence CISO), and tailors messages to each person's self-interest"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Realistically prioritized alignment"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Blocker strategies are nuanced — CISO approach respects her caution while creating urgency, Compliance approach addresses real regulatory needs, IT Infrastructure approach acknowledges the career threat and repositions DataForge as complementary rather than replacement"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Nuanced blocker strategies"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Executive brief is concise and unified — one page that tells a coherent story addressing security (CISO), ROI (CFO), operations (COO), compliance (VP), and strategic value (CEO) without reading like a list of compromises"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Concise unified executive brief"

package/courses/objection-handling/scenarios/level-4/expert-objection-shift.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+meta:
+  id: expert-objection-shift
+  level: 4
+  course: objection-handling
+  type: output
+  description: "Shift simulation combining expert techniques — navigate an organizational objection handling transformation across teams, regions, and executive levels"
+  tags: [sales, objections, simulation, transformation, organizational, expert]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're the newly hired CRO at "VelocityCloud" (cloud infrastructure,
+  $180M ARR, 150 sales reps). The board hired you because win rates
+  have dropped from 32% to 22% in 18 months. After 60 days of
+  analysis, you've identified that objection handling is the single
+  biggest factor — your reps are consistently losing deals at the
+  objection stage.
+
+  Your analysis:
+  - 150 reps across 5 segments (SMB, Growth, Mid-Market, Enterprise,
+    Strategic)
+  - Average objection handling score: 4.2/10 (industry avg: 6.2)
+  - Bottom 50% of reps have NEVER had objection handling training
+  - No standardized objection playbook exists
+  - Managers don't coach on objections (they coach on pipeline only)
+  - Sales enablement team has 2 people — overwhelmed
+  - Call recording exists but nobody reviews it systematically
+  - Competitive intelligence is outdated (last updated 14 months ago)
+  - Reps report that most objections they face are "new" — they
+    haven't seen them before (analysis shows 85% are actually
+    variations of the same 20 objections)
+
+  Budget: $500K for objection handling improvement
+  Timeline: Board wants measurable improvement in 2 quarters
+  Constraints: Can't replace more than 10% of reps, must use
+  existing tech stack
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. Write the "90-Day Transformation Plan" that takes objection
+     handling score from 4.2 to 6.0+ within 2 quarters. Include:
+     Phase 1 (Days 1-30): Quick wins and foundation
+     Phase 2 (Days 31-60): Systems and training
+     Phase 3 (Days 61-90): Coaching and measurement
+     For each phase, specify: activities, owners, budget allocation,
+     and measurable milestones.
+
+  2. Present the business case to the board. They gave you $500K
+     and want to see ROI. Write the "Objection Handling ROI Model"
+     that shows: current revenue leak from poor objection handling,
+     projected improvement from the program, expected revenue impact,
+     and payback period. Use the company's real numbers ($180M ARR,
+     150 reps, 22% win rate target 32%).
+
+  3. Write the "First All-Hands Email" to your 150 reps announcing
+     the objection handling transformation. The tone must be:
+     honest about current performance without blaming individuals,
+     inspiring about the opportunity, specific about what changes,
+     and clear about expectations. Reps who've been failing at
+     objections need to feel supported, not threatened.
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "90-day plan is phased and realistic — Phase 1 delivers quick wins (playbook, top 20 objections catalog), Phase 2 builds systems (training, call review, enablement), Phase 3 embeds coaching and measurement, with specific owners, budgets, and milestones per phase"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Phased realistic transformation plan"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "ROI model is credible — uses real numbers ($180M ARR, 150 reps, 22%→32% win rate) to calculate revenue impact of objection handling improvement, shows payback period, and presents the math in a way that would satisfy a board"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Credible ROI model"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "All-hands email strikes the right tone — honest about the gap without blaming, inspiring about the opportunity, specific about changes, and supportive rather than threatening to struggling reps, creating buy-in rather than fear"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Right-toned all-hands email"

package/courses/objection-handling/scenarios/level-4/global-objection-standardization.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+meta:
+  id: global-objection-standardization
+  level: 4
+  course: objection-handling
+  type: output
+  description: "Standardize objection handling across global sales teams — balance consistent methodology with cultural and market-specific adaptation"
+  tags: [sales, objections, global, standardization, localization, scale, expert]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're the Global VP of Sales Enablement at "UniCloud" (unified
+  communications platform, $300M ARR). UniCloud has 200 reps across
+  5 regions: North America (80 reps), EMEA (50 reps), APAC (40 reps),
+  LATAM (20 reps), and Middle East/Africa (10 reps). Each region
+  handles objections differently, and there's no consistent approach.
+
+  Current state:
+  - North America: Uses LAER framework, aggressive about handling
+    objections in real-time, strong on competitive responses
+  - EMEA: Mix of approaches, UK team is similar to NA, DACH team
+    is very technical/direct, Southern Europe is relationship-first
+  - APAC: Japan team avoids direct objection handling (cultural),
+    Australia is similar to UK, India team negotiates heavily on
+    price
+  - LATAM: Brazil team is enthusiastic but lacks structure, Mexico
+    team follows NA playbook loosely
+  - MEA: Small team, no formal methodology, relies on relationship
+    selling
+
+  Problems identified:
+  - 15 different objection handling approaches across regions
+  - No shared language for discussing objection handling in QBRs
+  - Enterprise deals spanning multiple regions have inconsistent
+    customer experiences
+  - New hire onboarding differs dramatically by region (NA: 2 weeks,
+    APAC: 0 days, EMEA: 1 week)
+  - Global accounts report conflicting messages from different
+    regional reps
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. Design the "Global Objection Handling Framework" — a unified
+     methodology that works across all 5 regions. It must have: a
+     core methodology (non-negotiable, same everywhere), regional
+     adaptations (how the core bends for cultural context), and local
+     autonomy zones (what each region decides for itself).
+
+  2. Write the change management plan for rolling this out to 200
+     reps across 5 regions. Address: regional resistance (APAC will
+     push back on Western frameworks), training sequencing (who goes
+     first?), success metrics by region, and the leadership alignment
+     process (getting 5 regional VPs to agree).
+
+  3. Design the "Global Account Consistency Protocol" — for deals
+     that span multiple regions, how do you ensure the customer gets
+     a consistent objection handling experience? Include: the
+     handoff process, shared deal language, and escalation procedures
+     when regional approaches conflict.
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Framework balances consistency and adaptation — clearly separates non-negotiable core methodology from culturally adapted delivery and regionally autonomous elements, avoiding both rigid standardization and chaotic inconsistency"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Balanced global framework"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Change management plan is culturally sensitive — addresses regional resistance (especially APAC cultural considerations) thoughtfully, sequences rollout strategically, and includes realistic metrics that account for regional differences"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Culturally sensitive change management"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Global account protocol solves the consistency problem — provides practical handoff processes, shared language for multi-region deals, and escalation procedures that prevent conflicting customer messages"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Practical global account protocol"

package/courses/objection-handling/scenarios/level-4/objection-content-strategy.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+meta:
+  id: objection-content-strategy
+  level: 4
+  course: objection-handling
+  type: output
+  description: "Build a content strategy around objections — create marketing and sales content that preemptively addresses top objections before prospects even raise them"
+  tags: [sales, objections, content, marketing, preemptive, thought-leadership, expert]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're the VP of Marketing at "FinanceAI" (AI-powered financial
+  planning platform, $65M ARR). Your Head of Sales comes to you
+  with a request: "We keep hearing the same 5 objections. Can
+  marketing create content that handles these before they reach us?"
+
+  The top 5 objections sales encounters:
+  1. "AI can't replace human financial advisors" (43% of prospects)
+  2. "What about data privacy and regulatory compliance?" (38%)
+  3. "We tried AI tools before and they didn't work" (29%)
+  4. "Our advisors will resist using AI" (25%)
+  5. "The ROI of AI in wealth management is unproven" (21%)
+
+  Current content gap:
+  - Blog has 200+ articles, zero specifically address objections
+  - Case studies exist but don't frame stories around resolved
+    objections
+  - Webinars are product-focused, not objection-focused
+  - Sales has zero content to share when these objections arise
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. Design the "Objection-Driven Content Calendar" — a 6-month
+     content plan where every piece of content maps to one of the
+     5 objections. Include: content format (blog, case study, white
+     paper, webinar, social, video), topic and angle, target persona
+     (who needs to see this), and which stage of the buyer journey
+     it serves. At least 3 pieces per objection.
+
+  2. Write one complete content piece: a 500-word blog post titled
+     to address objection #1 ("AI can't replace human financial
+     advisors"). The post should reframe the narrative from
+     "replacement" to "augmentation" with specific examples and data.
+     It must be useful content, not a product pitch.
+
+  3. Design the "Sales-Marketing Objection Feedback Loop" — how does
+     sales communicate new objections to marketing, and how does
+     marketing's content get into reps' hands at the right moment?
+     Include: the submission process, prioritization criteria, content
+     distribution to sales, and measurement of content's impact on
+     objection resolution.
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Content calendar is comprehensive and strategic — maps all 5 objections to multiple content formats, targets the right persona for each, aligns with buyer journey stages, and provides genuine value rather than thinly veiled product promotion"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Strategic content calendar"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Blog post is genuinely useful — reframes AI from replacement to augmentation with specific examples and data points, reads as thought leadership rather than a sales pitch, and would actually change a skeptic's perspective"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Genuinely useful blog post"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Feedback loop is operationally realistic — provides a clear process for sales to submit objections, marketing to prioritize and create content, and content to reach reps at the right moment (in CRM, as battlecard links, etc.) with impact measurement"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Realistic feedback loop"