dojo.md 0.1.0

package/courses/contract-negotiation-responses/scenarios/level-3/complex-deal-structuring.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+meta:
+  id: complex-deal-structuring
+  level: 3
+  course: contract-negotiation-responses
+  type: output
+  description: "Structure complex enterprise deals — design creative deal structures that overcome budget constraints, multi-division purchases, and phased implementations"
+  tags: [sales, contracts, deal-structuring, enterprise, creative, phased, advanced]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're a Deal Strategist at "PlatformOne" (enterprise software,
+  $180M ARR). You have 3 complex deals that can't close with standard
+  contract structures. Each needs creative deal design.
+
+  Deal 1 — "CongloCorp" (multi-division, $800K total value):
+  Challenge: 4 divisions want PlatformOne but each has separate
+  budgets, different fiscal years, and different procurement teams.
+  Division A ($250K) can sign now. Division B ($200K) budget available
+  Q3. Division C ($200K) budget in January. Division D ($150K)
+  "interested but not committed."
+  Constraints: They want enterprise pricing (quantity discount across
+  all divisions) but can't sign one contract because budgets are
+  separate.
+
+  Deal 2 — "StartupRocket" (budget-constrained, $120K value):
+  Challenge: Series B startup that needs enterprise features but only
+  has $40K in this year's budget. They'll have $120K budget next year
+  after their next funding round (highly likely — term sheet signed).
+  Constraints: They can't legally commit to spend they don't have
+  budget for. But if they start on a basic tier, they'll build
+  dependencies that make it expensive to switch.
+
+  Deal 3 — "GovAgency" (government, $500K value):
+  Challenge: Federal agency with a use-or-lose $500K budget that
+  expires September 30. But their implementation timeline requires
+  18 months. They can't deploy the full platform before the budget
+  expires, and they can't get new funding until the next fiscal year.
+  Constraints: FAR compliance, must show value for money, can't pay
+  for services not yet delivered, appropriations law restrictions.
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. For each deal, design the creative deal structure. Include: the
+     contract architecture (what agreements, what terms), the payment
+     structure (how money flows when), the risk mitigation (what
+     happens if assumptions fail — e.g., StartupRocket doesn't get
+     funded), and the approval strategy (how to get each stakeholder
+     to agree).
+
+  2. Write the "Creative Deal Structures Catalog" — 8 creative deal
+     structures AEs can propose when standard terms don't work.
+     Include: the ramp deal (start small, grow over time), the
+     enterprise license agreement (covers multiple divisions), the
+     land-and-expand (seed at low price, expand at full price), the
+     success-based pricing (pay based on outcomes), the prepaid credit
+     model (buy credits upfront, consume over time), the consortium
+     deal (multiple entities, one agreement), the phased deployment
+     (align payment to implementation milestones), and the bridge
+     agreement (temporary terms while long-term deal is negotiated).
+
+  3. Write the "Deal Structure Decision Tree" — a flowchart that
+     helps AEs identify which creative structure fits which situation.
+     Include the decision criteria: budget timing (now vs later),
+     buyer type (enterprise, SMB, government), multi-stakeholder
+     complexity, risk tolerance, and implementation timeline. Map
+     each path to the recommended structure.
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Three creative structures solve real constraints — multi-division, budget-constrained, and government deals each have feasible architecture, payment flows, and risk mitigation"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Constraint-solving creative structures"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Eight deal structures provide real options — each is clearly described with when to use it, providing a comprehensive toolkit for non-standard deal scenarios"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Comprehensive deal structure toolkit"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Decision tree maps situations to structures — clear criteria and paths that help AEs quickly identify which creative structure fits their specific deal scenario"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Situation-mapping decision tree"

package/courses/contract-negotiation-responses/scenarios/level-3/contract-automation-clm.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+meta:
+  id: contract-automation-clm
+  level: 3
+  course: contract-negotiation-responses
+  type: output
+  description: "Design contract lifecycle management processes — build CLM workflows, pre-approved clause libraries, and automated contract generation to accelerate deal velocity"
+  tags: [sales, contracts, CLM, automation, process, velocity, advanced]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're the Director of Revenue Operations at "DealFlow" ($160M ARR,
+  enterprise SaaS). Your average contract-to-signature time is 28
+  business days, and your CEO wants it under 14 days. You've been
+  tasked with building a contract lifecycle management (CLM) strategy.
+
+  Current state:
+  - 1,200 contracts processed per year
+  - Average contract-to-signature: 28 business days
+  - Legal team: 4 attorneys (1 per 300 contracts/year)
+  - 65% of contracts use standard template (no redlines)
+  - 25% require minor modifications (1-5 redlines)
+  - 10% require major negotiation (6+ redlines, custom terms)
+  - Current process: AE emails legal → legal reviews in 3-5 days →
+    sends to customer → customer redlines → legal reviews again →
+    2.8 average rounds → signature
+  - Top bottleneck: Legal review queue (avg 3.2 day wait time)
+  - Second bottleneck: Customer redline turnaround (avg 5.1 days)
+
+  Pain points from stakeholder interviews:
+  - Sales: "Legal is a bottleneck. We lose deals waiting for contracts."
+  - Legal: "AEs agree to terms they shouldn't. We're cleaning up messes."
+  - Finance: "Non-standard payment terms create AR headaches."
+  - Customer Success: "We inherit contracts with SLAs we can't meet."
+
+  Specific scenarios to address:
+  1. Standard deals (65%): Should be fully self-service for AEs
+  2. Minor modification deals (25%): Need pre-approved alternatives
+  3. Complex deals (10%): Need streamlined legal engagement
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. Write the "CLM Strategy Document" — the end-to-end contract
+     lifecycle management plan. Include: the contract workflow by
+     deal type (standard, minor mod, complex), the pre-approved
+     clause library design (what clauses, what alternatives, who
+     approves), the approval matrix (which deal terms require which
+     level of approval), the technology requirements (what a CLM
+     tool needs to do), and the implementation roadmap (phases,
+     timeline, success metrics).
+
+  2. Write the "Pre-Approved Clause Library" — the specific clause
+     alternatives that AEs can select without legal review. Include
+     10 common negotiation points: liability cap (3 alternatives),
+     indemnification scope (3 alternatives), termination provisions
+     (3 alternatives), SLA commitments (3 alternatives), payment
+     terms (3 alternatives), data protection (3 alternatives),
+     governing law (3 alternatives), limitation of liability
+     exclusions (3 alternatives), insurance requirements (3
+     alternatives), and assignment rights (3 alternatives). For each
+     alternative: the language, the risk level (green/yellow/red),
+     the approval authority, and the business impact.
+
+  3. Write the "Contract Velocity Improvement Plan" — the specific
+     actions to reduce contract-to-signature from 28 to 14 business
+     days. Include: the quick wins (achievable in 30 days), the
+     medium-term improvements (30-90 days), the long-term
+     transformation (90-180 days), the change management plan (how
+     to get sales, legal, and finance aligned), and the measurement
+     framework (what metrics to track weekly).
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "CLM strategy covers end-to-end lifecycle — workflows by deal type, clause library design, approval matrix, technology requirements, and phased implementation with success metrics"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "End-to-end CLM strategy"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Clause library provides real alternatives — 10 negotiation points with 3 alternatives each, including risk levels and approval authorities that legal teams could adopt"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Practical clause library"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Velocity plan is achievable — quick wins, medium-term, and long-term actions with change management and measurement that could realistically halve contract cycle time"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Achievable velocity plan"

package/courses/contract-negotiation-responses/scenarios/level-3/enterprise-msa-negotiation.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+meta:
+  id: enterprise-msa-negotiation
+  level: 3
+  course: contract-negotiation-responses
+  type: output
+  description: "Negotiate enterprise Master Service Agreements — handle complex MSA negotiations with Fortune 500 legal teams that have 40+ page contracts"
+  tags: [sales, contracts, MSA, enterprise, legal, complex-terms, advanced]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're a Strategic Account Executive at "EnterpriseCloud" ($200M ARR,
+  enterprise cloud platform). You've landed a $1.2M deal with
+  "MegaRetail" (Fortune 100 retailer, 150,000 employees). Instead of
+  using your standard contract, MegaRetail insists on using THEIR MSA.
+
+  Their MSA is 47 pages long. Your legal team has identified 28 issues
+  ranging from minor to deal-breaking. Key provisions of concern:
+
+  Critical (must change):
+  1. Liability: Unlimited liability for all claims (no cap whatsoever)
+  2. Indemnification: EnterpriseCloud must indemnify for "all losses
+     arising from or related to the Services" (essentially unlimited)
+  3. IP: MegaRetail claims ownership of all "work product" including
+     custom configurations and integrations built on your platform
+  4. Audit: Unlimited audit rights with 48-hour notice, including
+     access to source code and financial records
+
+  Significant (should change):
+  5. SLA penalties: Financial penalties (not credits) for SLA breaches,
+     uncapped at 100% of monthly fees
+  6. Termination: MegaRetail can terminate for convenience with 30
+     days notice; EnterpriseCloud cannot
+  7. Insurance: $25M cyber insurance, $10M professional liability,
+     $10M general liability required
+  8. Assignment: MegaRetail can assign freely; EnterpriseCloud needs
+     written consent
+
+  Desirable (try to change):
+  9-28: Various terms including governing law (their state), payment
+  terms (Net 90), force majeure exclusions, data return timelines,
+  non-compete provisions, and restrictive marketing restrictions.
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. Write the "MSA Negotiation Strategy" for MegaRetail. Include:
+     the prioritized issues list (critical, significant, desirable),
+     the recommended position for each critical and significant issue
+     (accept, counter, reject), the specific counter-proposal language
+     for issues 1-8, and the "package deal" strategy (bundling trades
+     across multiple issues).
+
+  2. Write the "Customer MSA Response Guide" — the general framework
+     for when enterprise customers insist on their paper instead of
+     yours. Include: the advantages and disadvantages of customer
+     paper, the review methodology (how to efficiently analyze a 40+
+     page MSA), the prioritization framework (which issues to fight
+     for vs concede), the multi-round negotiation strategy (which
+     issues to address in which round), and the "walk-away" criteria
+     (when the customer MSA is too one-sided to accept).
+
+  3. Write the "MSA Issue Comparison Template" — a side-by-side
+     document comparing MegaRetail's terms vs EnterpriseCloud's
+     standard terms for the 8 critical/significant issues. For each:
+     their language, your standard language, the recommended compromise
+     language, and the business risk assessment (low/medium/high/
+     critical).
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "MSA strategy handles 8 critical issues with specific counter-proposals — prioritized, with package deal strategy that addresses unlimited liability, IP ownership, audit rights realistically"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Critical-issue MSA strategy"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Customer MSA guide provides reusable framework — review methodology, prioritization, multi-round strategy, and walk-away criteria for when customers insist on their paper"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Reusable customer MSA framework"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Comparison template is precise — side-by-side language for 8 issues with compromise proposals and risk assessments that legal teams could use directly"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Precise comparison template"

package/courses/contract-negotiation-responses/scenarios/level-3/government-contract-negotiation.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+meta:
+  id: government-contract-negotiation
+  level: 3
+  course: contract-negotiation-responses
+  type: output
+  description: "Navigate government and public sector contract negotiation — handle FAR clauses, appropriations law, CLIN structures, and compliance requirements unique to federal and state contracts"
+  tags: [sales, contracts, government, federal, FAR, compliance, advanced]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're the Director of Public Sector Sales at "GovCloud" (FedRAMP
+  authorized SaaS platform, $80M ARR). You're negotiating 3 government
+  contracts simultaneously, each with unique compliance challenges.
+
+  Contract 1 — Federal Agency (Department of Commerce, $600K):
+  Vehicle: GSA Schedule (MAS). They've issued a RFQ requiring: FAR
+  52.212-4 (Contract Terms for Commercial Products), DFARS compliance
+  for CUI (Controlled Unclassified Information), Section 508
+  accessibility compliance, FedRAMP Moderate authorization (you have
+  this). Their modifications include: unlimited government audit rights,
+  data must remain in CONUS, 30-day termination for convenience (FAR
+  52.212-4(l)), government retains unlimited rights in all data.
+  Challenge: Their "unlimited rights in data" clause could mean they
+  claim rights to your IP. Their termination for convenience clause
+  provides no transition period. They want Net 30 but government
+  payment averages 45 days.
+
+  Contract 2 — State Government (California, $280K):
+  Vehicle: NASPO ValuePoint contract. Requirements: CCPA compliance
+  (state-specific), California accessibility standards (beyond Section
+  508), data residency within US, state-specific insurance requirements
+  ($5M cyber liability). Key issues: They want to use California
+  governing law (vendor-unfavorable precedents), require source code
+  escrow, want 99.99% uptime SLA (your standard is 99.9%), penalty
+  clause of 2% of monthly fees per hour of downtime beyond SLA.
+  Challenge: Their SLA penalty structure could exceed the contract
+  value in a major outage. Source code escrow has IP and security
+  implications.
+
+  Contract 3 — Municipal Government (City of Austin, $85K):
+  Vehicle: Cooperative purchasing (TIPS/TAPS). Requirements: Texas
+  Public Information Act compliance (open records), data portability
+  within 30 days of termination, local preference scoring (you're not
+  local), ADA compliance. Key issues: Contract value is small but could
+  lead to statewide rollout ($2M+). They want perpetual license to
+  any customizations, 60-day payment terms, and require on-site
+  training (3 trips).
+  Challenge: The deal economics don't work at $85K with their
+  requirements, but the strategic value is high.
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. For each contract, write: the compliance requirements analysis
+     (what's mandatory vs negotiable), the recommended contract
+     positions for each issue, the specific counter-proposal language
+     for problematic clauses (data rights, SLA penalties, termination),
+     and the risk assessment for each government-specific provision.
+
+  2. Write the "Government Contract Negotiation Playbook" — the
+     reusable framework for public sector deals. Include: the
+     procurement vehicle comparison (GSA, NASPO, cooperative, direct),
+     the FAR clause navigation guide (which FAR clauses are mandatory
+     vs negotiable), the compliance requirement matrix by government
+     level (federal, state, municipal), the pricing strategy for
+     government (how GSA pricing affects commercial pricing), and the
+     timeline management guide (government procurement cycles, fiscal
+     year deadlines, continuing resolutions).
+
+  3. Write the "Government vs Commercial Contract Differences Guide"
+     — a comparison document for AEs transitioning from commercial to
+     government sales. Include: the 10 key differences between
+     government and commercial contracts, the common mistakes commercial
+     AEs make in government negotiations, the government decision-making
+     process (how it differs from enterprise), and the relationship
+     building approach in government sales.
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Three government contract responses address real compliance requirements — FAR clauses, data rights, SLA penalties with counter-proposals that respect government procurement rules while protecting vendor interests"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Compliance-aware government responses"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Government playbook provides reusable framework — procurement vehicle comparison, FAR navigation, compliance matrix, and pricing strategy specific to public sector sales"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Reusable government playbook"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Differences guide helps commercial AEs transition — 10 key differences, common mistakes, and government-specific approaches that bridge the commercial-to-government knowledge gap"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Commercial-to-government transition guide"

package/courses/contract-negotiation-responses/scenarios/level-3/insurance-requirements-negotiation.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+meta:
+  id: insurance-requirements-negotiation
+  level: 3
+  course: contract-negotiation-responses
+  type: output
+  description: "Negotiate insurance and compliance requirements in enterprise contracts — handle cyber liability, professional liability, and compliance certifications demanded by enterprise procurement"
+  tags: [sales, contracts, insurance, compliance, risk, enterprise, advanced]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're the Head of Deal Operations at "SecureStack" ($110M ARR,
+  cloud security platform). Enterprise customers increasingly demand
+  extensive insurance coverage and compliance certifications as contract
+  requirements. You need to create a strategy for handling these demands.
+
+  Current situation:
+  Your existing insurance coverage:
+  - Cyber liability: $5M per occurrence, $10M aggregate
+  - Professional liability (E&O): $5M per occurrence
+  - General liability: $2M per occurrence
+  - Technology E&O: $5M per occurrence
+  - Workers comp: statutory limits
+  - Annual insurance cost: $380K
+
+  3 deals are stuck on insurance/compliance requirements:
+
+  Deal 1 — "FinanceGiant" ($450K ACV, financial services):
+  Requirements: $25M cyber liability, $15M professional liability,
+  $10M general liability. SOC 2 Type II (you have this), PCI DSS
+  Level 1 (you have this), but they also want ISO 27001 (you're
+  6 months from certification). They want to be named as additional
+  insured on your policy. They require certificate of insurance
+  before contract signing.
+  Challenge: Their insurance requirements are 3-5x your current
+  coverage. Getting additional coverage would cost ~$200K/year. They
+  represent 0.4% of ARR but want insurance that covers 25% of ARR.
+
+  Deal 2 — "HealthCo" ($280K ACV, healthcare):
+  Requirements: $10M cyber liability, $10M professional liability,
+  HIPAA BAA (you have this), but they also want HITRUST CSF
+  certification (you don't have, 12+ months to obtain, $300K+ cost).
+  They want the right to audit your security practices annually.
+  They require breach notification within 24 hours (your standard
+  is 72 hours per HIPAA).
+  Challenge: HITRUST certification would be valuable for the healthcare
+  vertical broadly but is expensive. Breach notification within 24
+  hours is operationally challenging.
+
+  Deal 3 — "RetailMega" ($180K ACV, retail):
+  Requirements: $5M cyber liability (you meet this), PCI DSS (you
+  have this), but they want you to indemnify them for any data breach
+  regardless of fault. They want the right to perform penetration
+  testing on your production environment. They require annual SOC 2
+  reports shared 30 days after issuance.
+  Challenge: Unlimited breach indemnification is unreasonable. Pen
+  testing of production environment is a security risk. SOC 2 sharing
+  timeline is tight.
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. For each deal, write: the analysis of which requirements are
+     reasonable vs excessive, the counter-proposals for each
+     unreasonable requirement (with specific language), the
+     compliance gap remediation plan (how to address gaps like ISO
+     27001 and HITRUST), and the cost-benefit analysis (is it worth
+     investing in additional coverage/certifications for this deal
+     and the broader market).
+
+  2. Write the "Insurance and Compliance Negotiation Playbook" —
+     the reusable framework for handling insurance/compliance demands.
+     Include: the insurance coverage benchmarks by industry and deal
+     size, the compliance certification priority matrix (which certs
+     to get and in what order based on market value), the standard
+     responses to excessive insurance demands, the additional insured
+     vs certificate of insurance guide, and the compliance roadmap
+     template (how to commit to future certifications without blocking
+     current deals).
+
+  3. Write the "Compliance Requirements Communication Templates" —
+     the responses to send when you can or can't meet compliance
+     requirements. Include: the "we meet this" confirmation template,
+     the "we're working toward this" gap acknowledgment template
+     (with timeline commitment), the "this is unreasonable" pushback
+     template (with alternative proposals), and the "let's discuss
+     the spirit of the requirement" reframing template (when the
+     customer's stated requirement doesn't match their actual need).
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Three deal analyses distinguish reasonable from excessive requirements — with counter-proposals, gap remediation plans, and cost-benefit analysis for insurance and compliance investments"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Reasonable vs excessive analysis"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Insurance playbook provides benchmarks and frameworks — coverage benchmarks by industry, certification priority matrix, and standard responses that scale across the sales organization"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Benchmarked insurance playbook"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Communication templates are ready to use — confirmation, gap acknowledgment, pushback, and reframing templates that AEs can adapt for real compliance negotiations"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Ready-to-use compliance templates"

package/courses/contract-negotiation-responses/scenarios/level-3/international-contract-negotiation.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+meta:
+  id: international-contract-negotiation
+  level: 3
+  course: contract-negotiation-responses
+  type: output
+  description: "Navigate international contract negotiations — handle multi-jurisdiction deals with GDPR, data sovereignty, local entity requirements, and cross-cultural negotiation styles"
+  tags: [sales, contracts, international, GDPR, cross-border, jurisdiction, advanced]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're the Director of International Sales at "GlobalSaaS" (enterprise
+  SaaS, $150M ARR, selling in 25 countries). You have 4 international
+  deals in contract negotiation, each with unique jurisdiction
+  challenges.
+
+  Deal 1 — Germany ($300K deal, "DeutschBank AG"):
+  Requirements: Data must stay in EU (Frankfurt data center), German
+  DPA addendum required, liability provisions must comply with German
+  Civil Code (BGB) which invalidates certain liability exclusions,
+  contract must be in both English and German (German version
+  prevails in disputes), payment in EUR.
+
+  Deal 2 — Japan ($250K deal, "NipponTech"):
+  Requirements: Local entity or partner required for invoicing,
+  contract aligned with Japanese Act on the Protection of Personal
+  Information (APPI), culturally expects 3-4 rounds of negotiation
+  (rushing is disrespectful), payment Net 60 standard in Japan,
+  strong preference for long-term relationships over short-term terms.
+
+  Deal 3 — Brazil ($180K deal, "BrazilCorp"):
+  Requirements: Must comply with LGPD (Brazil's data protection law),
+  contract in Portuguese required for enforcement, local entity may
+  be needed for tax compliance, payment in BRL with FX risk, Brazilian
+  courts have history of invalidating foreign governing law clauses.
+
+  Deal 4 — UAE ($400K deal, "DubaiEnterprises"):
+  Requirements: Data residency in UAE required by regulation, DIFC
+  (Dubai International Financial Centre) governing law preferred,
+  Sharia-compliant contract provisions may be required, payment in
+  AED, import/export licensing may apply to software.
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. For each deal, write: the jurisdiction-specific contract
+     requirements (what's legally mandatory), the recommended contract
+     structure (local paper vs global MSA with local addendum), the
+     key terms that must be adapted (data residency, governing law,
+     liability), and the cultural considerations that affect
+     negotiation approach. Flag the items requiring local legal counsel.
+
+  2. Write the "International Contract Playbook" — the reusable
+     framework for negotiating contracts across jurisdictions. Include:
+     the "global MSA + local addendum" architecture (how to maintain
+     consistency while meeting local requirements), the data protection
+     requirement matrix by region (EU, APAC, LATAM, Middle East), the
+     governing law selection guide (when to use your law vs theirs vs
+     neutral), and the currency and payment terms by region.
+
+  3. Write the "Cross-Cultural Negotiation Guide" — how negotiation
+     style differs across 4 cultures. Include: the pace of negotiation
+     (US fast vs Japan slow), the directness spectrum (Germany direct
+     vs Japan indirect), the relationship importance (Middle East and
+     Brazil high vs US and Germany task-focused), the decision-making
+     style (US individual vs Japan consensus), and specific do's and
+     don'ts for each culture in contract negotiations.
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Four deal responses address real jurisdiction requirements — mandatory legal requirements, contract structures, adapted terms, and cultural considerations specific to each country"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Real jurisdiction requirements"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "International playbook provides reusable architecture — global+local structure, data protection matrix, governing law guide, and payment terms that work across jurisdictions"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Reusable international architecture"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Cross-cultural guide reflects real differences — pace, directness, relationship focus, and decision-making across 4 cultures with specific do's and don'ts for contract negotiations"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Real cross-cultural differences"

package/courses/contract-negotiation-responses/scenarios/level-3/negotiation-analytics.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+meta:
+  id: negotiation-analytics
+  level: 3
+  course: contract-negotiation-responses
+  type: output
+  description: "Use data analytics for negotiation optimization — analyze deal patterns, discount trends, and negotiation outcomes to build data-driven negotiation strategies"
+  tags: [sales, contracts, analytics, data-driven, optimization, patterns, advanced]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're the VP of Revenue Operations at "DataDeal" ($120M ARR, 200
+  AEs). You've collected 2 years of contract negotiation data (1,800
+  deals) and need to extract insights that improve negotiation outcomes.
+
+  Dataset summary:
+  - 1,800 deals over 24 months
+  - Average ACV: $67K
+  - Average discount: 14.2%
+  - Average contract-to-signature: 22 business days
+  - Overall win rate in competitive deals: 28%
+
+  Key data points:
+  - Deals with <10% discount: 34% win rate, 18 avg days to close
+  - Deals with 10-20% discount: 31% win rate, 24 avg days to close
+  - Deals with 20-30% discount: 22% win rate, 32 avg days to close
+  - Deals with >30% discount: 15% win rate, 38 avg days to close
+  - Counterintuitive: Higher discounts correlate with LOWER win rates
+
+  Additional patterns:
+  - AEs who propose first (anchor): 26% avg discount vs 18% when
+    customer anchors first
+  - Multi-year deals: 8% avg discount but 3x LTV
+  - Q4 deals: 18% avg discount (vs 12% in Q1-Q3)
+  - Enterprise (>$100K): 19% avg discount, 32 days to close
+  - SMB (<$30K): 8% avg discount, 12 days to close
+  - Legal redline rounds: avg 2.8 rounds, each round adds 4.5 days
+  - Deals where AE involved legal early: 19 days avg close vs 28 days
+  - Top 20% of AEs by revenue: 11% avg discount, 33% win rate
+  - Bottom 20% of AEs: 19% avg discount, 21% win rate
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. Write the "Negotiation Intelligence Report" — analyze the data
+     and extract the 8 most important insights. For each: the finding
+     (what the data shows), the explanation (why this happens), the
+     recommendation (what to change), and the expected impact (how
+     much improvement). Address the counterintuitive finding about
+     discounts and win rates.
+
+  2. Write the "Data-Driven Negotiation Guidelines" — pricing and
+     terms guidance based on the data. Include: the optimal discount
+     ranges by segment (enterprise, mid-market, SMB), the timing
+     recommendations (when to offer discounts vs hold), the legal
+     engagement strategy (when to involve legal to reduce cycle time),
+     the multi-year conversion triggers (which deals to push for
+     multi-year), and the Q4 discount protection measures.
+
+  3. Write the "Negotiation Scorecard" — a tool for scoring and
+     comparing negotiation outcomes. Include: the 8 metrics that
+     define a "good" negotiation (discount percentage, time to close,
+     terms quality, expansion potential, reference obtained, multi-
+     year conversion, payment terms, total value preserved), the
+     scoring methodology, the rep ranking approach, and the coaching
+     triggers (which scores indicate an AE needs coaching).
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Intelligence report extracts real insights — 8 findings drawn from the specific data with explanations for counterintuitive patterns and specific improvement recommendations"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Data-driven intelligence insights"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Guidelines are grounded in data — optimal ranges, timing, legal strategy, and Q4 protections backed by specific data points from the 1,800-deal dataset"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Data-grounded negotiation guidelines"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Scorecard enables measurement — 8 metrics with scoring methodology that can rank AEs and trigger coaching interventions based on negotiation performance"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Measurement-enabling scorecard"