Qualify the job before the account
A promising agency reporting lead needs more than a company in the right sector. Confirm the job: reporting time is spent reconciling exports instead of explaining what changed. Identify account managers combining results from client channels as the possible user group, then find who can authorize a pilot; the working buyer hypothesis is an agency account director responsible for client reporting.
Ask about the current workaround, channel exports pasted into a recurring slide deck, and what would make changing it worthwhile. Do not assign a budget or procurement timeline from company size, funding, or job title alone.
Use a category-specific qualification rubric
Use the calculator below to organize your judgment after reading the source. Unknown evidence should remain unknown. Its weights are a transparent prioritization convention, not a prediction of purchase probability.
| Dimension | Evidence to seek | Reason to pause |
|---|---|---|
| Problem | Which number causes the most disagreement with clients, and how is it defined? | The person cannot describe a recent instance of the problem. |
| Product fit | Can you rebuild one client's agreed report using traceable source exports and explicit metric definitions? | agencies expecting unsupported channel data or guaranteed marketing performance |
| Timing | the agency adds clients with different reporting definitions | The proposed change has no confirmed date or relevance. |
| Implementation | Can a reviewer trace a chart back to the original source and date range? | connector freshness, attribution windows, and client-specific definitions matter more than visual polish |
| Value | an account manager explains a reported change and reconciles its source totals | The buyer and user disagree on what success looks like. |
Work through an illustrative assessment
Suppose the source says: “Every Friday we rebuild client reports from exports, then argue about why the totals differ. How do you keep definitions consistent?” That supports investigating the problem, but it does not yet settle purchasing authority or technical compatibility. A reviewer should ask the two discovery questions above and preserve the answers beside the source.
Compare that with: A request for a prettier chart without access to the underlying data. This weaker example should not receive the same pain or timing score. A relevant public topic is not evidence of a current evaluation.
Even a strong problem signal should be rejected when the need belongs to agencies expecting unsupported channel data or guaranteed marketing performance. Qualifying out prevents a misleading promise and preserves time for a prospect the product can help.
Create a reviewable handoff
A qualified opportunity should contain the original evidence, a summary of the job, confirmed and unknown constraints, the buyer/user distinction, and an agreed next step. Keep a score attached to those facts so another teammate can challenge the conclusion.
Propose a pilot only when the critical gap is addressed: connector freshness, attribution windows, and client-specific definitions matter more than visual polish. Evaluate the pilot through a real observation that an account manager explains a reported change and reconciles its source totals, and keep that observation separate from the initial qualification score.
About these playbooks and examples
Prepared by DemandBolt with AI assistance as practical planning resources for people building and selling software. The category scenarios and message examples are illustrative, not quotations from real prospects or claims of customer results. Adapt the hypotheses to your product, verify original sources, and review capabilities before making an offer.
The workflow follows our first-customer guide and buying-signal review method. Our PyInvesting and Rae records distinguish actual internal work from targets. Published .