Qualify the job before the account
A promising course platforms lead needs more than a company in the right sector. Confirm the job: the educator can deliver videos but cannot see whether learners complete the promised practice. Identify adult learners completing lessons and assignments as the possible user group, then find who can authorize a pilot; the working buyer hypothesis is an independent educator selling a defined learning outcome.
Ask about the current workaround, video links, email submissions, and a completion spreadsheet, 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 learner submission shows progress toward the advertised outcome? | The person cannot describe a recent instance of the problem. |
| Product fit | Can you run one lesson and practice submission with a consenting adult test learner? | buyers needing unsupported accreditation, guaranteed income, or unmanaged collection of children's data |
| Timing | a live pilot course is moving into a repeatable cohort | The proposed change has no confirmed date or relevance. |
| Implementation | What feedback must the educator provide before a learner can continue? | hosting lessons and demonstrating learning are different capabilities |
| Value | the learner submits the intended work and receives actionable feedback | The buyer and user disagree on what success looks like. |
Work through an illustrative assessment
Suppose the source says: “I ran the first cohort over calls and email. Before repeating it, I need a clear place for assignments and completion feedback.” 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 creator seeks passive-income promises without a course or intended learner. 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 buyers needing unsupported accreditation, guaranteed income, or unmanaged collection of children's data. 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: hosting lessons and demonstrating learning are different capabilities. Evaluate the pilot through a real observation that the learner submits the intended work and receives actionable feedback, 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 .