Ten questions, one at a time — your diagnosis forms live as
you answer. Then, optionally, a short second act puts a
conservative dollar range on what’s in play. How the result
is read is spelled out below, ungated.
DEAL ECONOMICS · optional — powers the dollar range
˟ based on sales-activity research
THE DOMAINS · WHAT EACH MEASURES
Three domains, one machine.
SCORED /6
Outbound wiring
Whether interest survives contact: replies routed to their owner, sending domains that protect your primary, campaigns attributed to the deals they produce.
Weak looks like: Replies waiting on forwards, sends riding the main domain, and nobody able to say which campaign closed the last deal.
Each answer scores 0–2. A domain under half its points is
weak; 50–79% is mixed; 80% and up is strong. “We don’t run
cold outbound” isn’t scored at all — it just narrows the
Outbound scale.
CRM + DATA WEAK, AI WEAK
CRM + Data Foundation first. Grounding AI on
data you don’t trust won’t help until the data layer is sound.
OUTBOUND WEAK, CRM + DATA WEAK
CRM + Data Foundation first, then the Lead-Gen
Stack. Attribution can’t work without a trustworthy
record layer underneath it.
OUTBOUND WEAK ONLY
Lead-Gen Stack. The wiring is the gap; the record layer can carry it.
AI WEAK ONLY, DATA SOUND
AI Grounding. The foundation holds — connect the tools you license to it.
DATA IN SPREADSHEETS, OR SPLIT ACROSS CRMS
CRM + Data Foundation, regardless of scores.
A net-new implementation or a consolidation-with-history is
the first move — the questions alone can’t size it.
NO AI YET
Data layer before grounding. The readiest
teams arrive at AI with a record layer it can stand on —
unless yours is already sound, that’s the first build.
FEWER THAN TWO QUOTA CARRIERS
Honestly: earlier than these builds pay off.
The wiring multiplies a team. Until there’s a team — one CRM,
every deal logged from day one, founder-led conversations
over automation. The standalone audit
exists if you want the diagnosis on paper.
The dollar range, shown working.
Answer the optional deal-economics questions and the result adds
what’s in play on your own numbers. Every link in that chain is
either your input or a cited figure — inside the tool each cited
figure carries a single ˟ mark, and this is where those marks
resolve. Your inputs: deals per month and typical deal value
(banded — the band midpoint carries the arithmetic, the band’s
low end the conservative edge), the shape of your reps’
non-selling week, and your own estimate of what recovered time
converts to — never our assumption. The cited figures: reps
spend roughly 60% of the week on non-selling work (Salesforce,
State of Sales, 7th Ed., 2026); how that time divides —
CRM upkeep, account research, inbox and follow-up, internal
meetings — is consistent across published sales activity
studies, including Forrester’s sales activity study of 3,031
reps, and the week-shapes the tool offers are built on those
shares, each summing to 100% of non-selling time; published
automation research marks roughly 30–50% of that work
automatable (McKinsey puts it at more than 30% of sales
activities, 2020); and B2B contact data decays at roughly 22.5%
a year (HubSpot, database-decay research). Meeting time is
visible in every week-shape and is never counted as recoverable
— no build fixes internal meetings, and we say so.
The low end of every range is additionally cut by a
conservative 0.6 haircut, and both edges are rounded hard —
wide reads honest, precise reads fabricated. The range is
always what’s in play: never a loss claim, never a
savings projection, never a number attributed to a build’s
outcome. Skip the economics questions — or tell us time isn’t
your constraint — and no dollar figure renders at all; the
result falls back to capacity framing. Fewer than two quota
carriers: no range, just the honest guidance above.
THE FULL BREAKDOWN
OPTIONAL · THE ONE-PAGER
Want the full breakdown?
What good looks like in each domain, the warmup
schedule, and the wiring diagram — as a one-pager. Leave an
email. No sequence, and no gate on anything above.