iron-edge 1.0.0

package/squads/squad-commercial/tasks/design-call-review-process.md

@@ -0,0 +1,226 @@
+---
+task: design-call-review-process
+responsavel: "@cs-sales-enablement"
+responsavel_type: Agent
+atomic_layer: Task
+elicit: false
+
+Entrada:
+  - campo: context
+    tipo: object
+    origem: "workflow ou manual"
+    obrigatorio: true
+
+Saida:
+  - campo: resultado
+    tipo: document
+    destino: "stakeholders"
+
+Checklist:
+  - "[ ] Validar inputs e pre-condicoes"
+  - "[ ] Executar steps conforme documentado"
+  - "[ ] Verificar criterios de qualidade"
+  - "[ ] Gerar output no formato especificado"
+---
+
+# Task: Design Call Review Process
+
+## Metadata
+- **Squad:** squad-commercial
+- **Agent:** Edge (cs-sales-enablement)
+- **Complexity:** Standard
+
+## Objetivo
+Desenhar processo de call review — framework de coaching baseado em análise de calls reais para desenvolver skills da equipe comercial com feedback estruturado e actionable.
+
+## Entrada
+- Sales methodology (from audit-sales-methodology)
+- Discovery framework (from design-discovery-framework)
+- Call recordings (Gong, Chorus, or equivalent)
+- Performance data per rep
+
+## Passos
+
+### 1. Call Review Philosophy
+```
+COACHING PRINCIPLES (Mark Roberge — Sales Acceleration Formula)
+
+1. DIAGNOSE BEFORE PRESCRIBE
+   "Don't tell reps what to do — help them see what happened."
+   Listen to the call first, then ask them what they noticed.
+
+2. ONE SKILL AT A TIME
+   "Trying to fix everything at once fixes nothing."
+   Each review session focuses on ONE improvement area.
+
+3. POSITIVE BEFORE CONSTRUCTIVE
+   "Start with what went well — build on strengths."
+   2:1 ratio (2 positives for every constructive point).
+
+4. BEHAVIOR-BASED, NOT RESULTS-BASED
+   "You can't coach outcomes. You can only coach behaviors."
+   Focus on what they DID, not just the result.
+
+5. PRACTICE, NOT JUST DISCUSS
+   "Knowing what to do vs. doing it are different skills."
+   Every review ends with a practice exercise.
+```
+
+### 2. Call Scoring Framework
+```
+CALL REVIEW SCORECARD — [Rep Name] — [Date]
+Call Type: Discovery / Presentation / Negotiation / Other
+Prospect: [Company]
+Duration: [min]
+Reviewer: [Manager/Peer]
+
+DIMENSION 1: PREPARATION (10 pts)
+  □ Pre-call research evident (2)
+  □ Agenda set at opening (2)
+  □ Hypothesis or insights prepared (2)
+  □ Relevant materials ready (2)
+  □ CRM notes from prior interactions referenced (2)
+  Score: ___ / 10
+
+DIMENSION 2: DISCOVERY QUALITY (20 pts)
+  □ Situation questions (context mapped) (3)
+  □ Problem questions (pain identified) (4)
+  □ Implication questions (impact quantified) (5)
+  □ Need-Payoff questions (value articulated by prospect) (5)
+  □ Active listening demonstrated (paraphrase, reflect) (3)
+  Score: ___ / 20
+
+DIMENSION 3: METHODOLOGY ADHERENCE (15 pts)
+  □ MEDDIC elements explored (3)
+  □ Champion tested or developed (3)
+  □ Decision process mapped (3)
+  □ Next steps with specific commitment (3)
+  □ Qualification criteria applied correctly (3)
+  Score: ___ / 15
+
+DIMENSION 4: COMMUNICATION SKILLS (15 pts)
+  □ Talk/listen ratio appropriate (<60% talk) (3)
+  □ Questions are open-ended (not leading) (3)
+  □ No feature dumping or premature pitch (3)
+  □ Confident but not arrogant tone (3)
+  □ Silence used effectively (comfortable pauses) (3)
+  Score: ___ / 15
+
+DIMENSION 5: OBJECTION HANDLING (10 pts)
+  □ Objection acknowledged (not dismissed) (2)
+  □ Clarifying question asked (Sandler reverse) (3)
+  □ Framework response applied (ARB/FFF/Reframe) (3)
+  □ Resolution confirmed with prospect (2)
+  Score: ___ / 10
+
+DIMENSION 6: CLOSE & NEXT STEPS (10 pts)
+  □ Summary of key findings provided (2)
+  □ Value recap before asking for next step (2)
+  □ Specific next step proposed (not vague) (2)
+  □ Stakeholder mapping advanced (2)
+  □ Timeline confirmed (2)
+  Score: ___ / 10
+
+TOTAL: ___ / 80
+
+Rating:
+  70-80: Exceptional
+  55-69: Strong
+  40-54: Developing
+  25-39: Needs improvement
+  <25: Requires immediate coaching intervention
+```
+
+### 3. Review Session Structure
+```
+CALL REVIEW SESSION — 30 min
+
+BEFORE SESSION (5 min):
+  Manager:
+    □ Listen to full call
+    □ Score using framework
+    □ Identify 1 primary coaching opportunity
+    □ Find 2 positive moments to highlight
+
+  Rep:
+    □ Re-listen to call (or relevant sections)
+    □ Self-assess: "What went well? What would I do differently?"
+
+SESSION FLOW:
+
+  [0-5 min] SELF-REFLECTION
+  "Before I share my thoughts, what's your take on this call?"
+  → Let rep self-diagnose
+  → Often they'll identify the same issue
+  → If they do: "Exactly right. Let's talk about how to fix it."
+  → If they don't: "I noticed something else too..."
+
+  [5-10 min] POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT
+  "Here's what I thought you did really well..."
+  → Play specific clip from call
+  → Name the skill: "That was an excellent implication question."
+  → Connect to methodology: "That's textbook SPIN — the prospect
+     quantified the impact themselves because of how you asked."
+
+  [10-20 min] COACHING OPPORTUNITY
+  "Here's the one thing that could elevate your game..."
+  → Play the relevant clip
+  → Ask: "What were you trying to do here?"
+  → Explain the gap (behavior, not character)
+  → Model the alternative: "Here's how I might approach it..."
+  → Practice: Role-play the scenario with improvement
+
+  [20-25 min] PRACTICE
+  "Let's try it again. I'll be the prospect."
+  → Role-play the specific moment
+  → Rep applies the coaching
+  → Feedback: "That's it. Did you feel the difference?"
+
+  [25-30 min] ACTION PLAN
+  "So for your next 3 calls, here's the focus..."
+  → One specific behavior to practice
+  → How to self-assess (what to notice)
+  → "I'll listen to your [next call] and we'll check progress."
+```
+
+### 4. Review Cadence
+| Activity | Frequency | Participants | Focus |
+|---------|----------|-------------|-------|
+| 1:1 Call Review | Weekly | Manager + Rep | Individual skill development |
+| Peer Review | Bi-weekly | 2 reps (paired) | Learn from each other |
+| Team Call of the Week | Weekly | Full sales team | Celebrate great call, learn collectively |
+| Ride-Along (live) | Monthly | Manager joins call live | Real-time observation |
+| Self-Review | After every call | Individual rep | Self-score, identify own patterns |
+
+### 5. Call Library
+| Category | Criteria | Purpose | Curator |
+|----------|---------|---------|---------|
+| "Hall of Fame" | Score 70+ | Best-in-class examples per stage | Edge |
+| "Discovery Master" | Perfect discovery score | Template for new hires | Edge |
+| "Objection Judo" | Excellent objection handling | Objection response examples | Edge |
+| "The Close" | Exceptional closing moment | Closing technique gallery | Edge |
+| "Learning Moments" | Anonymized improvement examples | What NOT to do (constructive) | Edge |
+
+### 6. Call Review Metrics
+| Metric | Target | Tracking |
+|--------|--------|---------|
+| Calls reviewed per rep per month | ≥ 4 | Review log |
+| Average call score trend | ↑ over time | Scorecard data |
+| Talk/listen ratio improvement | <60% talk | Call analytics |
+| Discovery score improvement | ↑ per quarter | Scorecard data |
+| Self-review completion rate | 100% of calls | Self-report |
+| Time from call to review | <7 days | Review log |
+
+## Saida
+- Call scoring framework (80-point scorecard)
+- Review session structure (30-min format)
+- Review cadence schedule
+- Call library categories
+- Coaching metrics dashboard
+
+## Validacao
+- [ ] Scorecard covers all methodology dimensions
+- [ ] Review session structure follows coaching best practices
+- [ ] Cadence realistic and sustainable
+- [ ] Call library organized and curated
+- [ ] Metrics track improvement over time

package/squads/squad-commercial/tasks/design-discovery-framework.md

@@ -0,0 +1,218 @@
+---
+task: design-discovery-framework
+responsavel: "@cs-sales-enablement"
+responsavel_type: Agent
+atomic_layer: Task
+elicit: false
+
+Entrada:
+  - campo: context
+    tipo: object
+    origem: "workflow ou manual"
+    obrigatorio: true
+
+Saida:
+  - campo: resultado
+    tipo: document
+    destino: "stakeholders"
+
+Checklist:
+  - "[ ] Validar inputs e pre-condicoes"
+  - "[ ] Executar steps conforme documentado"
+  - "[ ] Verificar criterios de qualidade"
+  - "[ ] Gerar output no formato especificado"
+---
+
+# Task: Design Discovery Framework
+
+## Metadata
+- **Squad:** squad-commercial
+- **Agent:** Edge (cs-sales-enablement)
+- **Complexity:** High
+
+## Objetivo
+Desenhar framework de discovery — processo estruturado de diagnóstico comercial que combina SPIN Selling com Gap Selling para identificar dor real, medir impacto e construir business case irrefutável.
+
+## Entrada
+- Sales methodology audit (from audit-sales-methodology)
+- ICP profile (from Cascade)
+- Service portfolio (from Mint)
+- Win/loss patterns (from Vault)
+- Top performer call analysis
+
+## Passos
+
+### 1. Discovery Philosophy
+```
+CORE PRINCIPLE: Discovery is not interrogation — it's diagnosis.
+
+The goal is NOT to find a way to sell our services.
+The goal IS to understand their world so deeply that
+the right solution becomes obvious to THEM.
+
+"People don't buy what you do; they buy WHY it matters
+to THEM." — adapted from Sinek + Rackham
+
+THREE OUTCOMES OF GREAT DISCOVERY:
+  1. Client feels deeply understood (Trust Equation: ↑ Intimacy)
+  2. Pain is quantified in their language (Gap Selling: Current → Future State)
+  3. Business case writes itself (SPIN: Need-Payoff → Clear ROI)
+
+ANTI-PATTERNS TO AVOID:
+  ✗ Pitching during discovery ("Let me tell you about our services...")
+  ✗ Leading questions ("Wouldn't you agree that...")
+  ✗ Feature dumping ("We also do X, Y, Z...")
+  ✗ Premature prescription ("What you need is...")
+  ✗ Surface-level discovery ("What keeps you up at night?")
+```
+
+### 2. Three-Phase Discovery Model
+```
+PHASE 1: CONTEXT MAPPING (Before the call)
+═══════════════════════════════════════════
+Time: 15-30 min prep per prospect
+Goal: Walk into the call more informed than they expect
+
+Research Checklist:
+  □ Company: Revenue, employees, growth trajectory, funding
+  □ Industry: Trends, challenges, competitive landscape
+  □ Digital presence: Website audit, social channels, content quality
+  □ Key people: LinkedIn profiles, career history, recent posts
+  □ Trigger event: What prompted the meeting? News, job posting, competitor move
+  □ Hypothesis: 3 informed guesses about their problems
+
+Sources:
+  - LinkedIn (company + individuals)
+  - Company website, blog, careers page
+  - Press releases, news mentions
+  - G2/Glassdoor (culture signals)
+  - SimilarWeb/SEMrush (digital performance signals)
+  - Annual reports (if public)
+
+Output: 1-page Pre-Call Brief
+
+PHASE 2: DIAGNOSTIC CONVERSATION (The call)
+═══════════════════════════════════════════
+Time: 45-60 min
+Goal: Map current state, future state, and the gap between them
+
+Structure:
+  Part A — Rapport & Agenda (5 min)
+  Part B — Situation & Context (10 min) [SPIN: Situation]
+  Part C — Problems & Frustrations (15 min) [SPIN: Problem + Gap: Current State]
+  Part D — Impact & Implications (10 min) [SPIN: Implication + Gap: Impact]
+  Part E — Desired Future State (5 min) [SPIN: Need-Payoff + Gap: Future State]
+  Part F — Next Steps & Alignment (5 min)
+
+PHASE 3: SYNTHESIS & BUSINESS CASE (After the call)
+═══════════════════════════════════════════
+Time: 30 min post-call
+Goal: Convert conversation into structured diagnosis
+
+Output: Discovery Summary Document
+  → Sent to prospect within 24h
+  → Demonstrates you LISTENED
+  → Frames the problem in business terms
+  → Sets up the proposal naturally
+```
+
+### 3. Question Bank by Phase
+
+#### Part B: Situation Questions
+| Area | Question | What You're Mapping |
+|------|---------|-------------------|
+| Team | "Walk me through how your [marketing/digital/brand] team is structured today." | Resource capacity |
+| Process | "Take me through a typical campaign from idea to execution — how does that flow?" | Workflow maturity |
+| Stack | "What tools and platforms are you using? How well are they integrated?" | Tech ecosystem |
+| Partners | "Are you working with any external partners today? How's that going?" | Competitive positioning |
+| Metrics | "What metrics does your leadership look at to evaluate success?" | Success criteria |
+| Budget | "Without getting into specific numbers yet, how do you typically approach investment in this area?" | Budget signal |
+
+#### Part C: Problem Questions
+| Area | Question | What You're Mapping |
+|------|---------|-------------------|
+| Performance | "Where are you seeing the biggest gap between where you are and where you want to be?" | Primary pain |
+| Friction | "What's the most frustrating part of your current setup?" | Emotional pain |
+| Attempts | "What have you tried to solve this? What worked, what didn't?" | Sophistication level |
+| Constraints | "What's holding you back from fixing this internally?" | Capability gaps |
+| Urgency | "How long has this been a problem? What's changed recently?" | Trigger identification |
+
+#### Part D: Implication Questions
+| Area | Question | What You're Mapping |
+|------|---------|-------------------|
+| Revenue | "If [problem] continues for another 12 months, what's the impact on revenue?" | Financial cost |
+| Opportunity | "What opportunities are you missing because of [problem]?" | Opportunity cost |
+| Competitive | "How does [problem] affect your position vs competitors?" | Strategic risk |
+| Team | "How does [problem] impact your team's morale and retention?" | People cost |
+| Cascading | "What other areas of the business are affected when [problem] persists?" | Systemic impact |
+
+#### Part E: Need-Payoff Questions
+| Area | Question | What You're Mapping |
+|------|---------|-------------------|
+| Vision | "If we could wave a magic wand, what does the ideal state look like in 12 months?" | Desired outcome |
+| Metrics | "What numbers would tell you 'this was worth it'?" | Success metrics |
+| Priorities | "Of everything we've discussed, what would you solve first?" | Priority ranking |
+| Decision | "How will you evaluate whether a partner is the right fit?" | Decision criteria (MEDDIC) |
+| Value | "If you achieved [desired state], what would that mean for you personally?" | Personal win |
+
+### 4. Gap Analysis Canvas
+```
+GAP SELLING CANVAS — [Prospect Name]
+
+CURRENT STATE                              FUTURE STATE
+═══════════════                            ═══════════════
+Business results: ___________              Business results: ___________
+Technical environment: ______              Technical environment: ______
+Processes: _________________              Processes: _________________
+Team capabilities: _________              Team capabilities: _________
+Customer experience: ________              Customer experience: ________
+
+                    THE GAP
+                ═══════════════
+  Business Impact: R$ _____________ / year
+  Opportunity Cost: R$ ____________ / year
+  Risk of Inaction: _____________________
+  Root Causes:
+    1. _________________________________
+    2. _________________________________
+    3. _________________________________
+
+MINIMUM VIABLE CHANGE                     FULL TRANSFORMATION
+═══════════════════════                   ═══════════════════════
+Investment: R$ ____________               Investment: R$ ____________
+Timeline: _________ months               Timeline: _________ months
+Expected ROI: ____x                       Expected ROI: ____x
+```
+
+### 5. Discovery Quality Scorecard
+| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence |
+|-----------|-------------|---------|
+| Pre-call preparation quality | | Research depth, hypotheses |
+| Rapport and trust established | | Client comfort, openness |
+| Pain identified and quantified | | Specific $ or metric impact |
+| Implication depth explored | | Cascading effects mapped |
+| Future state articulated by client | | In their words, specific |
+| Decision process mapped | | MEDDIC elements captured |
+| Compelling next step secured | | Specific, time-bound |
+| Discovery summary sent < 24h | | Written, sent, confirmed |
+| **TOTAL** | /40 | |
+
+**Scoring Thresholds:**
+- 35-40: Excellent — ready for proposal
+- 28-34: Good — minor gaps to fill
+- 20-27: Adequate — follow up to deepen
+- <20: Insufficient — re-engage before proposing
+
+## Saida
+- Three-phase discovery framework
+- Question bank by category (40+ questions)
+- Gap Analysis Canvas
+- Discovery quality scorecard
+- Pre-call brief template
+
+## Validacao
+- [ ] Discovery philosophy clearly articulated (diagnosis, not interrogation)
+- [ ] Three phases cover pre-call, call, and post-call
+- [ ] Questions organized by SPIN + Gap Selling hybrid
+- [ ] Gap Analysis Canvas connects current state to future state quantitatively
+- [ ] Quality scorecard enables coaching and self-assessment

package/squads/squad-commercial/tasks/design-guarantees.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+---
+task: design-guarantees
+responsavel: "@cs-offer-designer"
+responsavel_type: Agent
+atomic_layer: Task
+elicit: false
+
+Entrada:
+  - campo: context
+    tipo: object
+    origem: "workflow ou manual"
+    obrigatorio: true
+
+Saida:
+  - campo: resultado
+    tipo: document
+    destino: "stakeholders"
+
+Checklist:
+  - "[ ] Validar inputs e pre-condicoes"
+  - "[ ] Executar steps conforme documentado"
+  - "[ ] Verificar criterios de qualidade"
+  - "[ ] Gerar output no formato especificado"
+---
+
+# Task: Design Guarantees
+
+## Metadata
+- **Squad:** squad-commercial
+- **Agent:** Mint (cs-offer-designer)
+- **Complexity:** Standard
+
+## Objetivo
+Desenhar garantias e risk reversals para cada oferta — reduzir o risco percebido do comprador e aumentar a Perceived Likelihood na Value Equation.
+
+## Entrada
+- Offer tiers and pricing
+- Delivery track record
+- Client objections and fears
+- Competitive guarantee landscape
+
+## Passos
+
+### 1. Guarantee Types
+| Type | Description | Risk Level (Us) | Impact (Buyer) |
+|------|-----------|----------------|---------------|
+| **Satisfaction** | "If you're not satisfied, we'll redo it" | Low | Medium |
+| **Money-Back** | "Full refund within X days" | High | Very High |
+| **Performance** | "If we don't achieve X metric, we [action]" | Medium-High | Very High |
+| **Conditional** | "If you do X, Y, Z and we don't deliver, then [guarantee]" | Medium | High |
+| **Extended** | "We'll work until you're happy, no extra charge" | Medium | High |
+| **Hybrid** | Conditional performance + satisfaction | Medium | Very High |
+
+### 2. Guarantee Design per Tier
+| Tier | Guarantee Type | Specific Terms | Conditions |
+|------|---------------|---------------|-----------|
+| Starter | Satisfaction | 14-day satisfaction guarantee | Completed onboarding |
+| Growth | Conditional Performance | "If [metric] doesn't improve [X]% in [Y] days" | Client followed playbook |
+| Enterprise | Hybrid | Performance guarantee + ongoing optimization | Full program commitment |
+
+### 3. Guarantee Copy Framework
+```
+GUARANTEE TEMPLATE:
+
+[Bold promise statement]
+
+We're so confident in our [methodology/team/process] that we offer this guarantee:
+
+If [specific measurable outcome] doesn't happen within [timeframe],
+we will [specific remedy — redo, refund, extend, credit].
+
+The only conditions:
+- [Reasonable condition 1 — e.g., provide timely feedback]
+- [Reasonable condition 2 — e.g., implement recommendations]
+
+Why we can offer this:
+- [Track record stat — "92% of clients see results within 60 days"]
+- [Social proof — "Join 150+ companies who've trusted our guarantee"]
+```
+
+### 4. Risk Assessment
+| Guarantee | Est. Trigger Rate | Financial Exposure | Mitigation |
+|-----------|------------------|-------------------|-----------|
+| | % of clients | R$ max | |
+
+### 5. Objection-to-Guarantee Map
+| Client Objection | Fear | Guarantee That Addresses It |
+|-----------------|------|---------------------------|
+| "How do I know this will work?" | Wasted investment | Performance guarantee |
+| "What if the team doesn't click?" | Bad experience | Satisfaction guarantee |
+| "Seems expensive" | Price vs value | ROI guarantee |
+| "We tried this before and it failed" | Repeat failure | Methodology guarantee |
+| "What if our needs change?" | Flexibility | Scope adjustment guarantee |
+
+## Saida
+- Guarantee design per offer tier
+- Guarantee copy for proposals
+- Risk assessment and financial exposure
+- Conditions and fulfillment process
+
+## Validacao
+- [ ] Every tier has a guarantee
+- [ ] Guarantees are specific and measurable
+- [ ] Conditions are reasonable (not escape clauses)
+- [ ] Financial exposure calculated and acceptable

package/squads/squad-commercial/tasks/design-health-score.md

@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+---
+task: design-health-score
+responsavel: "@cs-client-success"
+responsavel_type: Agent
+atomic_layer: Task
+elicit: false
+
+Entrada:
+  - campo: context
+    tipo: object
+    origem: "workflow ou manual"
+    obrigatorio: true
+
+Saida:
+  - campo: resultado
+    tipo: document
+    destino: "stakeholders"
+
+Checklist:
+  - "[ ] Validar inputs e pre-condicoes"
+  - "[ ] Executar steps conforme documentado"
+  - "[ ] Verificar criterios de qualidade"
+  - "[ ] Gerar output no formato especificado"
+---
+
+# Task: Design Health Score
+
+## Metadata
+- **Squad:** squad-commercial
+- **Agent:** Bond (cs-client-success)
+- **Complexity:** Advanced
+
+## Objetivo
+Desenhar Customer Health Score — composite score preditivo que combina usage, satisfaction, outcomes e engagement para identificar clientes saudaveis, em risco e com potencial de expansao.
+
+## Entrada
+- Client portfolio data
+- Product/service usage metrics
+- Support ticket data
+- NPS/satisfaction data
+- Contract and billing data
+
+## Passos
+
+### 1. Health Score Dimensions (Gainsight Framework)
+| Dimension | Weight | Data Source | Scoring |
+|-----------|--------|-----------|---------|
+| **Usage/Engagement** | 25-40% | Analytics, deliverables consumed | High/Med/Low activity |
+| **Feature Adoption** | 15-25% | Product analytics, service utilization | Key features adopted? |
+| **Support Health** | 10-15% | Ticket volume, sentiment, resolution | Low tickets + fast resolution |
+| **Satisfaction** | 10-15% | NPS, CSAT, QBR feedback | Score and trend |
+| **Contract Health** | 10-20% | Billing, renewal date, growth | On time, growth signals |
+| **Business Outcomes** | 15-20% | KPI tracking, ROI reports | Outcomes achieved? |
+
+### 2. Scoring Scale per Dimension
+| Dimension | Green (3 pts) | Yellow (2 pts) | Red (1 pt) |
+|-----------|-------------|---------------|-----------|
+| Usage | Active weekly, all deliverables consumed | Biweekly activity | Monthly or less |
+| Adoption | Using 80%+ of service scope | 50-79% | <50% |
+| Support | <2 tickets/mo, positive sentiment | 2-5 tickets, neutral | 5+ tickets, negative |
+| Satisfaction | NPS 9-10 (Promoter) | NPS 7-8 (Passive) | NPS 0-6 (Detractor) |
+| Contract | Growing, early renewal signals | Status quo | Late payments, downgrade talk |
+| Outcomes | KPIs met or exceeded | Partial KPI achievement | KPIs not met |
+
+### 3. Health Score Calculation
+```
+Health Score = Σ (Dimension Score × Weight) / Max Possible × 100
+
+Color Coding:
+  Green (80-100): Healthy — expansion candidate
+  Yellow (50-79): At risk — proactive intervention needed
+  Red (0-49): Critical — save play required
+
+Distribution Target:
+  Green: 70%+ of portfolio
+  Yellow: 20-25%
+  Red: <10%
+```
+
+### 4. Alert & Action Rules
+| Score Change | Alert | Action |
+|-------------|-------|--------|
+| Green → Yellow | CSM notified | Schedule proactive check-in within 48h |
+| Yellow → Red | CSM + Manager notified | Execute save play within 24h |
+| Red → Yellow | CSM notified (positive) | Continue monitoring, validate recovery |
+| Any → Green | Celebrate | Consider for expansion, advocacy |
+| Stable Red > 30 days | VP escalation | Executive intervention required |
+
+### 5. Health Score Dashboard
+| View | Content | Audience |
+|------|---------|----------|
+| Portfolio Overview | Distribution pie + trend line | CS Leadership |
+| Account Detail | Score breakdown per dimension | CSM |
+| At-Risk List | All Yellow/Red sorted by ARR | CS Leadership |
+| Expansion Candidates | Green accounts with growth signals | CS + Sales |
+
+## Saida
+- Health Score model documented
+- Scoring algorithm configured
+- Alert rules active
+- Dashboard live
+
+## Validacao
+- [ ] All dimensions weighted and sourced
+- [ ] Scoring criteria specific and measurable
+- [ ] Alerts configured for score transitions
+- [ ] Historical correlation: Red accounts churn more (validated)