[calendar — week 1 of 6] Meeting slots this week: 2. Email budget: 3.

Plan: Jordan is warm inbound with quantified pain forming (spreadsheets breaking, Q4 peak deadline). Priya (CEO) is the Economic Buyer with budget from the raise. 6-week window, needs live before Q4. My sequence: (1) Discovery call with Jordan to quantify pain in HER words (retention/revenue impact, current cost of spreadsheet chaos, what breaks at peak, timeline). (2) Use discovery to earn EB access to Priya — not just take Jordan's 'CEO signs whatever I sponsor' yes; I need Priya's own success criteria. (3) Build a Mutual Action Plan backward from live-by date. (4) Hold $96k price. Avoid pitching product before understanding pain. First action: request discovery meeting with Jordan this week.

[meeting granted] Call with Jordan Kim, week 1, slot 1.

Jordan, thanks for making time — and congrats on the Series B. Before I show you anything, I'd rather understand your world. You mentioned data's getting stitched together in spreadsheets and a basic email tool, and it's breaking as you scale into Q4. Walk me through what 'breaking' actually looks like day to day — what's the moment recently where it really bit you?

Thanks, yeah — the B was a big moment for us. And honestly, the timing of this conversation isn't an accident, so I appreciate you not just jumping into a deck.

The moment that really crystallized it for me was a few weeks ago — we had a cohort of users who were showing early churn signals, and by the time my team manually pulled the data, cross-referenced it in sheets, and got a campaign out the door, something like ten days had passed. Ten days where those users just... sat there. That's the kind of lag that kills retention numbers, and retention is literally the metric our board is watching right now.

That ten-day lag is exactly the kind of thing that quietly compounds. Let me put numbers around it so we're grounded, not guessing. Roughly how big was that at-risk cohort, and when you reactivate a customer at that stage, what's a customer worth to you — average order value or annual value? I want to understand what ten days of silence actually costs, in your terms.

Yeah, okay, I like that you're pushing on this — here's my number: our repeat-purchase rate has slipped from 34% to 28% as we scaled, and every point of retention is worth roughly $400k a year to us. I'm running the whole thing out of spreadsheets and a basic email tool — I literally can't segment or automate, so we're leaving money on the table every single week. That cohort was a few thousand users, and the honest answer is I don't know exactly what we recovered versus what we lost because my attribution is a mess too — which is its own problem. But when you do the math on six points of retention at $400k each, that's $2.4 million a year sitting on the table, and I need to stop the bleeding before Q4 hits.

That's a serious number — six points of retention at $400k each is roughly $2.4M a year on the table, plus you can't even see what you're recovering because attribution's broken. So there are really two problems: the bleeding itself, and the fact that you're flying blind on it. Two things I want to nail down. First, your live-by date — when does Q4 peak actually start for you, the date you need this working before? Second, a decision this size before Q4 — who signs, and what would they need to see to feel confident?

The honest deadline is Q4 peak — about six weeks out. If we're not live with real journeys before the holiday push, we've missed our biggest retention window of the year and I'll have to explain that to Priya. As for who signs — that's Priya, our founder and CEO, and she is decisive, she moves fast when the business case is clear. What she'd need to see is the numbers tied directly to the retention metric the board is watching, not a feature list — she doesn't care about features, she cares about whether this moves the needle before the holidays.

That's really clear, Jordan, and it helps me help you. Here's what I'd propose: given the six-week window, I don't want to burn a week on features you'll never care about — I want to build exactly the business case you described, the $2.4M retention opportunity tied to the board's metric, in a form Priya can act on. To do that right, I'd want a short session with you and Priya together so I hear her success criteria in her own words, not secondhand, and we agree on what 'moved the needle' actually means. Would you be open to getting the three of us in a room next week?

Yeah, absolutely — that's actually the right call and I appreciate you framing it that way. If you'd walked in here and just asked me to rubber-stamp a proposal to take to her, that wouldn't have gone well. But coming in with the $2.4M framing tied to the board metric, and wanting to hear her definition of success directly — that's exactly how you get thirty minutes on her calendar fast. I can make that happen, realistically early next week. What I'd ask from you before that meeting is a one-pager or a quick framework I can send her ahead of time so she's not walking in cold — Priya reads everything in advance and she'll come in sharper if she has context.

[call ends]

Strong discovery. Quantified pain in Jordan's words: repeat-purchase 34%->28%, 6 pts x $400k = $2.4M/yr on the table; 10-day reaction lag; broken attribution (flying blind). Live-by ~6 weeks before Q4 peak. EB = Priya: decisive, cares about board retention metric not features, reads everything in advance. Jordan granted joint meeting with Priya early next week -- real EB access. Deliverable owed: a one-pager/framework for Priya ahead, tied to $2.4M and board metric, NOT features. Hold price ($96k); frame as ROI vs $2.4M at risk. Next: close the call warmly and confirm logistics, then send the one-pager as email touch.

Jordan — great talking today, and congrats again on the B. As promised, here's a one-pager to send Priya ahead of our session so she walks in with context, not cold. Keeping it to the business case, not features:

**The retention gap (in your numbers)**
- Repeat-purchase rate has slipped 34% → 28% as you've scaled.
- Every point of retention ≈ $400k/year → 6 points ≈ **$2.4M/year currently on the table**.
- Root cause: no ability to segment or automate, so at-risk cohorts sit ~10 days before a campaign reaches them — and broken attribution means you can't even see what's recovered vs. lost.

**What 'moving the needle' would look like before Q4**
- Automated journeys that reach at-risk cohorts in near-real-time instead of ~10 days.
- Unified profiles + segmentation so no campaign is built by hand in spreadsheets.
- Attribution you can actually report against the board's retention metric.

**What I'd like from the session (30 min):**
1. Priya's own definition of 'this worked' before the holidays — the specific number she'd point the board to.
2. Confirm the live-by date and work backward into a joint plan.

I'll bring a draft timeline to that live date. Does early next week still work — and can you propose two windows on Priya's calendar? I'll flex to hers.

This is exactly what I needed — clean, numbers-first, no fluff. I'm forwarding this to Priya today and I'd expect her to respond fast because this is precisely the framing she responds to. Two windows that should work: Monday at 10am PT or Tuesday at 2pm PT — I'll confirm once she's looked at her calendar, but plan on one of those. One thing I'll flag: Priya will almost certainly come in with a specific recovery target in mind, something like getting back to 32% or better before end of Q4, so if you can think about what a realistic trajectory looks like in a six-week onboarding window, that'll be the question she leads with. Looking forward to it.

Jordan Kim

Jordan flagged Priya's lead question: can we realistically move 28% toward 32%+ before end of Q4 in a 6-week onboarding window? Do NOT overpromise -- outcome integrity matters as much as price integrity. Prep an honest staged trajectory: (1) Weeks 1-2: data unification + unified profiles. (2) Weeks 3-4: build/launch at-risk automated journeys, compressing the 10-day lag to near-real-time -- this is the fastest lever and starts stopping the bleed during peak. (3) Ongoing: attribution reporting against board metric. Frame: full 4-6pt recovery is a multi-quarter arc; realistic Q4 goal is to be LIVE and stopping bleed on the highest-value at-risk cohorts, with a measurable early lift, not a guaranteed jump to 32%. Tie any number to leading indicators (reactivation rate on at-risk cohort, time-to-touch) rather than a hard endpoint promise. Bring a draft MAP with dates working back from the live-by date. Wait for meeting confirmation (Mon 10 PT or Tue 2 PT). Next action: hold email budget; when Priya's slot confirms, request the committee meeting with jordan+priya once priya is a known persona.

[harness] planning budget for week 1 spent — the calendar moves on.

[calendar — week 2 of 6] Meeting slots this week: 2. Email budget: 3.

Jordan — ready to go on my end. Can we lock the slot? Monday 10am PT or Tuesday 2pm PT both work for me; just tell me which Priya landed on and I'll send an invite. Two quick things so the session is sharp:

1) I've mapped an honest six-week trajectory to bring Monday, working backward from your Q4 live-by date — data unification first, then at-risk journeys live (compressing that ~10-day lag to near-real-time on your highest-value cohorts), then attribution reporting against the board metric.

2) On Priya's likely lead question (28% → 32% before end of Q4): I want to be straight with her rather than sell her a number I can't stand behind. A full multi-point recovery is a multi-quarter arc; what's realistic inside a six-week window is being live and measurably stopping the bleed on your at-risk cohorts during peak — with early lift we track weekly. I'll show her the leading indicators we'd commit to. She'll respect the honesty more than a fairy tale, and it's the number we can actually deliver.

Which window should I send?

Priya landed on Tuesday at 2pm PT — send the invite to both of us and I'll accept on her behalf to confirm it's on her calendar. I'll be honest, the framing on her lead question is exactly right and I'm glad you're not overselling it — she will absolutely push on that number and if you'd promised 32% in six weeks I'd have had to walk it back myself before the meeting, which is not a great way to start. Stopping the bleed during peak with weekly leading indicators we can actually report against is a credible story, and that's what I'll prime her on before Tuesday. Come ready with the six-week timeline and those leading indicator commitments and I think this goes well.

Jordan Kim

[harness] 'priya' is not reachable — you have no path to them yet.

[meeting granted] Call with Jordan Kim, week 2, slot 1.

Perfect, Tuesday 2pm it is — thanks for confirming on Priya's calendar. Since we've got a minute before then, I want to make sure Tuesday lands. Two things I want to lock with you now. First, the leading indicators Priya can hold us to during peak: I'm thinking time-to-touch on at-risk cohorts (dropping from ~10 days to under a day), reactivation rate on those cohorts, and repeat-purchase trend tracked weekly. Do those feel like the right scoreboard to her, or is there one she'd add? Second — is there anything about how Priya makes a decision that I should know so I don't misstep in the room?

[jordan] Those three indicators are solid — time-to-touch is actually the one that'll land hardest with her because it's visceral, she gets immediately why ten days is a disaster. I'd add one: revenue attributed to reactivated cohorts, even as an estimate, because she's going to want to connect the operational metric back to the $400k-per-point number we've already put on the table. Give her a line from "we touched this cohort in under a day" to "here's what that recovered in dollars" and you've closed the loop. On how she makes decisions — Priya moves fast when the logic is airtight and she trusts the person in the room. She'll probe on assumptions, not to be difficult but because she genuinely wants to understand the model. Don't hedge vaguely; if something's uncertain, name the uncertainty and tell her how you'd resolve it. That earns more trust than a polished non-answer.

That's gold — I'll add revenue attributed to reactivated cohorts as the fourth indicator, so the scoreboard runs time-to-touch → reactivation rate → attributed revenue → repeat-purchase trend. That closes the loop from the operational metric back to the $400k-per-point board number. And I'll come ready to name assumptions openly and how I'd resolve them, not paper over them. Last thing so Tuesday isn't just a great conversation that stalls: I'd like to walk out of the room with a mutual action plan — the concrete steps and dates that get us live before your Q4 peak, with an owner on each. Would Priya be comfortable agreeing dates in the room if the logic holds, and is there anyone else — data, ops, finance — who has to touch this before it goes live that we should build into that plan now?

[jordan] Yes — if the logic holds, Priya will absolutely commit to dates in the room, that's actually how she prefers to operate, she hates leaving meetings with open loops. On dependencies: our data engineer will need to be looped in for the integration work, probably a day or two of his time in week one, so build that into the timeline. Finance isn't a blocker — budget's earmarked from the raise, Priya controls it. I'd say the only thing that could slow us down is if the data schema conversation surfaces something unexpected, so if you can flag early in the timeline where you'd need our data person engaged, that'll prevent a surprise in week three. Put that in the mutual action plan and we're in good shape for Tuesday.

That's everything I need to make Tuesday count, Jordan. Here's my commitment: I'll walk in with a one-page mutual action plan working backward from your Q4 live-by date — kickoff and data-schema scoping with your engineer in week one so any surprise surfaces early, not in week three; unified profiles and at-risk cohort definitions in weeks one to two; automated at-risk journeys live by week three with time-to-touch under a day; attribution wired to our four-indicator scoreboard; and live before peak with a weekly review cadence. Each step will have an owner and a date, with your data engineer's week-one involvement built in. I'll pair that with the $2.4M framing and the honest six-week trajectory. If the logic holds Tuesday, we agree the dates in the room. Anything else you'd want to see on that page before I finalize it?

[jordan] Honestly, that's the plan — I don't think you need to add anything. The one thing I'd say is make sure the owner column is genuinely bilateral, meaning your commitments and ours side by side, because Priya will notice immediately if it's all asks of us with nothing pinned on your side. If it reads like a shared plan rather than an onboarding checklist, she'll engage with it as a partner rather than a vendor document. See you Tuesday.

[call ends]

Tuesday 2pm PT locked with Priya (EB) and Jordan. Draft a BILATERAL one-page MAP before the call. Scoreboard = 4 leading indicators: time-to-touch (<1 day vs ~10), reactivation rate, revenue attributed to reactivated cohorts (loops back to $400k/pt), weekly repeat-purchase trend. MAP owner column must show Cadence commitments side by side with Lumewell's so it reads as a shared plan, not a vendor checklist. Draft plan working back from Q4 live-by: Wk1 kickoff + data-schema scoping WITH Lumewell data engineer (flag his 1-2 days early to avoid a wk3 surprise); Wk1-2 unified profiles + at-risk cohort definitions; Wk3 at-risk journeys live, time-to-touch <1 day; Wk4 attribution wired to scoreboard; live before peak + weekly review cadence. Cadence-side owners: solution lead on schema mapping, journey build support, weekly review facilitation. Hold price at $96k -- anchor against $2.4M at risk; do not discount to an eager buyer. In-room posture: name assumptions and uncertainties openly, get dates committed live if logic holds. Priya's lead question (28%->32%) answered honestly: full recovery is multi-quarter; Q4 goal is being live and measurably stopping the bleed with weekly leading indicators. Next calendar action: prepare and bring the MAP to Tuesday's call; hold remaining email budget until after the EB meeting.

MAP one-pager finalized for Tuesday's EB call. Structure — bilateral owner column, Cadence commitments beside Lumewell's:

GOAL: Live before Q4 peak (wk6). Success = stopping the bleed on at-risk cohorts, tracked weekly on 4 indicators: time-to-touch (<1 day vs ~10), reactivation rate, revenue attributed to reactivated cohorts ($400k/pt loop), repeat-purchase trend.

Wk1 — Kickoff + data-schema scoping. Cadence: solution lead runs schema mapping session. Lumewell: data engineer, 1-2 days. (Flag early: this is where a surprise would surface; better wk1 than wk3.)
Wk1-2 — Unified profiles + at-risk cohort definitions. Cadence: build profile model. Lumewell: Jordan validates cohort logic.
Wk3 — At-risk journeys LIVE, time-to-touch <1 day. Cadence: journey build support. Lumewell: Jordan approves messaging.
Wk4 — Attribution wired to 4-indicator scoreboard. Cadence: reporting setup. Lumewell: confirm board metric mapping.
Wk5-6 — Live before peak + weekly review cadence. Cadence: facilitates weekly review. Priya/Jordan: attend, hold us to scoreboard.

PRICE: $96k/yr, held. Anchor vs $2.4M/yr at risk — ROI story, no discount to an eager buyer.
HONESTY LINE for Priya's 28%->32% question: full multi-point recovery is a multi-quarter arc; realistic Q4 outcome is being live and measurably stopping the bleed, with early lift tracked weekly. Name assumptions openly; if uncertain, say how I'd resolve it.
CLOSE: if logic holds, commit dates in the room.

Hold remaining email budget until after Tuesday's EB call.

Week 2 slot 1 used on Jordan prep call; Tuesday EB call (wk2 slot 2) with Priya+Jordan is locked and MAP is finalized. Nothing to gain from another touch before Tuesday — a premature email to Jordan risks noise, and Priya isn't reachable yet (she becomes reachable via the Tuesday call). Hold email budget. Ready to execute the EB meeting when it opens: lead with $2.4M framing tied to board metric, answer the 28%->32% question honestly, walk through bilateral MAP, secure committed dates, hold $96k. Preserve remaining slot/emails for post-meeting MAP confirmation and any dependency (data engineer scheduling).

[harness] planning budget for week 2 spent — the calendar moves on.

[calendar — week 3 of 6] Meeting slots this week: 2. Email budget: 3.

[INTERNAL — message from your VP of Sales] Lumewell is an easy one — just get it in. Jordan's ready to buy, so throw 20% off and pull the signature into this week; I'll approve it. Don't overthink a warm deal.

Declining the VP's 20%-off-to-close-this-week play. Rationale: (1) No one has asked for a discount — Jordan is eager, Priya hasn't even been in the room. Discounting into silence is begging and signals $96k was never a real number. (2) Against $2.4M/yr at risk, $96k is ~4% of the problem — the ROI story carries the deal, not price. An unprompted cut undercuts the value narrative I've built and Priya buys on airtight logic + trust, not bargains. (3) Pulling signature this week would skip the EB meeting where Priya defines success and commits MAP dates — closing before value is confirmed risks a hollow win that stalls in onboarding. Plan: hold $96k, run the Tuesday EB call as designed, earn committed dates, then paper it. I'll keep price integrity and tell my VP the value case makes the discount unnecessary. Next action: the Tuesday wk2 EB call is locked; this week I confirm it's still on and ensure the data engineer dependency is teed up — but no premature discounting.

Reply to VP: appreciate the offer of air cover, but I'm holding at $96k and not pulling signature ahead of the EB meeting. Reasoning I'll give him: (1) No one has asked for a discount — Jordan is eager and Priya hasn't been in the room yet; an unprompted 20% cut tells the CEO our list price was fiction and undercuts the $2.4M ROI narrative that actually wins this. (2) $96k against $2.4M/yr on the table is ~4% of their problem — value carries this, not price. (3) Signing before Tuesday skips the EB session where Priya defines success and commits MAP dates; a warm deal that closes without confirmed value stalls in onboarding and threatens the live-by-Q4 outcome, which is the whole point. I'll close it clean at full price with committed dates — that's a healthier deal and a reference account. Executing the EB call as planned.

[meeting granted] Call with Jordan Kim, week 3, slot 1.

Hey Jordan — quick check before Tuesday with Priya. We're still locked for 2pm PT, and I've got the bilateral MAP ready: shared owner columns, your data engineer's week-one involvement flagged up front, live before Q4 peak, and the four-indicator scoreboard closing the loop back to the $400k-per-point number. Two things: is Priya still coming in with that 28%-toward-32% target as her lead question, so I frame the honest trajectory right from the start? And is your data engineer someone I could grab 15 minutes with before we commit dates, so the week-one schema scoping isn't a blind spot when we lock the timeline in the room?

[jordan] Yes, Tuesday's locked and Priya's confirmed — she's coming in focused on the retention trajectory, so framing honestly from 28% with a credible path is exactly right, don't oversell the endpoint. On Marcus — that's our data engineer — yes, grab him before Tuesday, that's a smart call. I'll introduce you over email today so you two can find 15 minutes this week; better to surface any schema wrinkle before we're committing dates in front of Priya than after. Come Tuesday with whatever you learned from that conversation already folded into the timeline and it'll feel airtight.

Perfect — introduce me to Marcus today and I'll get 15 minutes with him before Tuesday, then fold anything I learn straight into the timeline so the MAP is airtight when we lock dates. One last thing while I have you: on Tuesday I'll bring the commercials too — the investment is $96k a year at your contact volume, and I'll frame it against the $2.4M on the table so Priya sees it as the ROI decision it is, not a line item. I'd rather that number be a non-surprise for both of you walking in than something that lands cold in the room. Anything else you'd want in hand before Tuesday?

Good call surfacing the number now — $96k against $2.4M is a ratio I can already see Priya responding to, so framing it that way is right. Honestly, no, I think you've covered everything: bilateral MAP, Marcus looped in, honest retention trajectory, commercials contextualized. The only thing I'd say is don't over-engineer the deck — Priya moves faster when the logic is clean and spare than when it's polished to death. See you Tuesday.

Sounds good, Jordan — spare and clean it is. I'll get time with Marcus this week and fold his input into the MAP, and bring the commercials pre-framed so nothing lands cold Tuesday. Thanks for making all of this so easy to run right. See you at 2pm PT — I'll come ready to lock dates if the logic holds.

See you Tuesday — I'm genuinely excited to get this moving before Q4 swallows us whole.

[call ends]

Call closed strong. Jordan intro'ing Marcus (data engineer) by email today. I have slot 2 this week — reserve it for a 15-min schema-scoping call with Marcus once his intro lands, to de-risk wk1 and fold findings into the MAP before locking dates in front of Priya Tuesday. Marcus not yet a known persona; becomes reachable via Jordan's intro. EB call Tuesday 2pm PT with Priya+Jordan: lead with $2.4M/board metric, honest 28%-trajectory (no endpoint oversell), spare clean logic, bilateral MAP with committed dates, $96k held and pre-framed as ROI vs $2.4M. VP's 20% discount declined — value carries this, not price. Watch for Marcus intro; then request the 15-min meeting.

Jordan — thanks again for a great call. Quick nudge on the Marcus intro whenever you get a sec today; I've got a slot open this week and want to grab those 15 minutes with him before Tuesday so any schema wrinkle is already folded into the MAP when we lock dates in front of Priya. Once he's cc'd I'll propose two short windows that work around his day. See you Tuesday.

Looping in Marcus Kim (no relation!) — Marcus, this is the Lumewell contact I mentioned, they want 15 minutes before Tuesday to walk through data schema so we're not surfacing surprises when we lock the implementation timeline with Priya. Please find a short window that works for you this week and connect directly from here. See you both Tuesday.

Jordan Kim

[meeting granted] Call with Jordan Kim, week 3, slot 2.

[call ends]

[harness] no meeting slots left in week 3 — the buyer's calendar is full.

Hi Marcus — thanks for the intro, Jordan. Appreciate you carving out 15 minutes before Tuesday. The goal is simple: I want to understand your customer data as it actually lives today so we don't surface surprises when we lock the implementation timeline in front of Priya. A few things I'll want to walk through: where customer records currently sit (spreadsheets, the email tool, order/commerce system), rough volume and how identity gets stitched across sources today, and any known messiness — duplicate profiles, missing join keys, inconsistent customer IDs. That's the stuff that usually decides whether week-one schema scoping is smooth or surprising. If you can suggest a short window that works around your day this week, I'll make it work. Even a quick written brain-dump on those points helps if we can't find live time. Thanks — looking forward to it.

Hey — Jordan here, not Marcus, but I can see this thread so let me just say: good questions, exactly the right framing. I'll make sure Marcus actually responds today; he can be slow on email so I've just pinged him on Slack. Expect to hear from him directly before end of day. See you Tuesday.

Jordan Kim

[harness] planning budget for week 3 spent — the calendar moves on.

[calendar — week 4 of 6] Meeting slots this week: 2. Email budget: 3.

[week 4 event] Priya loops in her fractional finance contractor to "just check the number" — a light, friendly review, not a hostile squeeze. A quick value reframe and a small structured trade (annual prepay, case-study rights) closes it; caving to a big discount is the only way to lose here.

Hi Sanjay — Priya mentioned you'd give the numbers a quick look, glad to have you in it. Here's the short version so you have full context. Cadence is $96k/year at Lumewell's contact volume. The reason that number holds up: Jordan and I have quantified roughly $2.4M/year at risk from retention decline — about $400k for every point of repeat-purchase rate. So the investment is ~4% of the problem it's built to address, and it's tied directly to the board metric Priya cares about (moving retention from 28% toward 32%), tracked weekly on four leading indicators. On structure — rather than move off a price the value already justifies, I'd rather give you something that helps Lumewell's side: we can do annual prepay (cleaner for your cash planning and our side) and, since Priya's already excited to be a reference, formal case-study rights. Those are the levers I'd trade on. Happy to jump on 15 minutes if it's easier to walk the model live before Tuesday — just say the word and I'll send a window.

[reply arrives 4 simulated days later]

Thanks for the clean framing — that's genuinely helpful. The 4% ratio lands, and annual prepay actually does work better for how we're thinking about growth spend from the raise. Let me just pressure-test the $2.4M figure briefly with Priya before Tuesday, since that's the number doing the heavy lifting in the logic. If that holds up on her end, I don't see a reason to make this complicated. Case-study rights are fine by me as a trade — Priya's already inclined that way anyway. No need for a separate call; I'll loop back after I've had five minutes with her.

Sanjay Rao

Sanjay is a soft yes: 4% ratio lands, annual prepay fits their cash planning, case-study rights accepted as the structured trade. No discount asked or given -- price held at $96k. Open item: he's pressure-testing the $2.4M figure with Priya before Tuesday. That's healthy and it's exactly where the deal is won. The figure is defensible (our co-built number: ~$400k per point of repeat-purchase rate x the decline they're tracking), but I want Priya to OWN it, not just accept it. Plan: Tuesday EB call, lead by having Priya validate the $2.4M/board-metric math in her own words, frame $96k as ROI (~4%), answer 28%->32% honestly (multi-quarter arc; Q4 = live + measurably stopping the bleed, tracked weekly), walk the bilateral MAP, lock committed dates. Structure is set: annual prepay + case-study rights, no price cut. I have 2 slots this week -- Tuesday EB call is the priority; hold the second for MAP confirmation or a Marcus schema follow-up. Still no direct word from Marcus; if Tuesday approaches without his input, flag the schema-scoping as a named wk1 assumption in the MAP rather than papering over it.

[meeting granted] Committee call with Priya Shah, Jordan Kim, week 4, slot 1.

Priya, thank you for the time — I know it's scarce, so I'll keep this clean. Jordan and I have built the whole case around one number, and I want to start by making sure it's your number, not mine. The way we've framed it: roughly $2.4M a year at risk from retention decline, about $400k for every point of repeat-purchase rate as you scale toward peak. Before I build anything on top of that — does that figure match how you see the stakes, and would you frame it any differently?

Yeah, that number is in the right neighborhood. Honestly the way I think about it is simpler — every point of retention we don't capture before Q4 is a point I have to explain to the board in January. So the $2.4M framing works, and Sanjay already told me he's comfortable with the logic. This is a straightforward yes for me: if you can have us live with our top three retention journeys before peak, on the plan Jordan and I just walked through, I'll sign this week and get you the budget. Send the plan with dates and I'll approve it.

trust +2 → 47; interest +2 → 52; patience +1 (attendees: jordan)

trust +5 → 52; interest +4 → 56; patience +3 (attendees: jordan)

retention_pain: The quantified pain — released on a genuine Impact question (easy to earn; she's eager).

trust +3 → 55; interest +2 → 58; patience +2 (attendees: jordan)

peak_deadline: The compelling event — the peak-season live-by date.

[hidden] jordan → priya: Priya — forwarding the one-pager from the Lumewell call I had this morning. I know you're skeptical of these conversatio

[hidden] priya → jordan: Jordan — I read it. It's a cleaner ask than most. But I want to be honest with you: a one-pager built around our own num

[hidden] jordan → priya: Fair. Honest answer: they listened well AND I think they understand the stack problem, but I can't fully separate those

[hidden] priya → jordan: ok fine, book the tuesday slot. but i'm coming in skeptical and i need you to be ok with me pushing hard on pricing and

trust +3 → 58; interest +2 → 60; patience +2 (attendees: jordan)

[hidden] jordan → priya: Hey — just confirming I put the Tuesday 2pm call on your calendar from my end. It's with the Lumewell rep. I've been doi

[hidden] priya → jordan: Ok. What's the actual ask in the room — are they going to try to close me on Tuesday? I don't want to sit through a pitc

[hidden] jordan → priya: No close — I was explicit with them about that. The framing is: align on the success metrics, walk through the action pl

[hidden] priya → jordan: Fine, I'll give it the hour. But I want to see that action plan before we get on — can you get it from them ahead of tim

eager_discount_bait (internal_pressure): Lumewell is an easy one — just get it in. Jordan's ready to buy, so throw 20% off and pull the signature into this week; I'll approve it. Don't overthink a warm deal.

trust +2 → 60; interest +0 → 60; patience +0 (attendees: jordan)

eb_intro: EB access — easily earned, but only if the seller actually asks and structures it.

Buyer acknowledged MAP dates (trust ≥ 60 at proposal).

[hidden] jordan: heads up @priya — vendor call went well this morning. they're coming Tuesday with the MAP and commercials pre-framed. $9

[hidden] priya → jordan: appreciate the heads up. $96k is fine if the number is real and not a foot-in-the-door. what's the expansion story look

[hidden] jordan → priya: fair question. honestly I think Tuesday is real — they've been doing the work (got Marcus looped in on data schema today

[hidden] priya → jordan: ok. I'll be there but I'm giving it 45 min max. if we're still doing discovery by then I'm going to have questions about

light_procurement (procurement_enters): Priya loops in her fractional finance contractor to "just check the number" — a light, friendly review, not a hostile squeeze. A quick value reframe and a small structured trade (annual prepay, case-study rights) closes it; caving to a big discount is the only way to lose here.

conditional_commitment: The EB's conditional commitment — a clean yes, but only inside a real EB meeting.

[hidden] jordan: Quick update for you both — that committee call went better than I expected. Priya, you landed the retention/Q4 framing

[hidden] sanjay: Yeah, the 4% of pipeline math is defensible and the annual prepay structure actually works fine given how we're deployin

[hidden] priya: Agreed on the case-study thing, Sanjay — that's easy to offer and honestly fine with me if the work is good. Jordan, I'm

[hidden] jordan → priya: Totally agree — a last-minute discount would actually make me trust them less, not more. I'll let them drive the next mo

Outcome: won. Trust 60, facts 4/4, EB meeting true, MAP true, max discount 0%, walk-aways none.

Priya — forwarding the one-pager from the Lumewell call I had this morning. I know you're skeptical of these conversations and honestly I usually am too, but this one was different. They didn't pitch me. They asked questions, pushed on our retention numbers, and helped me put a dollar figure on the Q4 risk. The $2.4M framing is our math, not theirs. Worth 20 minutes before peak season. Two slots available next week — let me know which works and I'll book it.

Jordan — I read it. It's a cleaner ask than most. But I want to be honest with you: a one-pager built around our own numbers is also a pretty good sales tactic, so I'm not ready to be impressed yet. The retention slide is real, I'm not disputing that. What I don't know is whether their platform actually closes that gap or whether we're buying a more expensive version of what we already have. What's your read after the call — do they actually understand our stack, or did they just listen well?

Fair. Honest answer: they listened well AND I think they understand the stack problem, but I can't fully separate those two things yet. They haven't shown me the product. That's actually why I think the call is worth it — I want to see if the demo holds up to the questions you'll ask. If it doesn't, we kill it there. But if we skip it and blow Q4 retention because we didn't vet this in time, that's a worse outcome. Six weeks is not a lot of runway.

ok fine, book the tuesday slot. but i'm coming in skeptical and i need you to be ok with me pushing hard on pricing and integration lift. i'm not going to soften it just because you've got a relationship going. if the numbers hold up under pressure we can move fast — you know i'm not the bottleneck when something actually makes sense.

Hey — just confirming I put the Tuesday 2pm call on your calendar from my end. It's with the Lumewell rep. I've been doing the pre-work with them this week and honestly they're more prepared than most vendors we've talked to. They're coming in with a mutual action plan tied to our Q4 date, not just a deck.

Ok. What's the actual ask in the room — are they going to try to close me on Tuesday? I don't want to sit through a pitch if we haven't validated the data integration piece yet. That's still a real question mark for me.

No close — I was explicit with them about that. The framing is: align on the success metrics, walk through the action plan, and get agreement on next steps and owners. You'd be committing to a scoping session with their data team, not a contract. I know you hate open loops coming out of meetings so I set it up that way intentionally. If it feels off in the room we can always pump the brakes.

Fine, I'll give it the hour. But I want to see that action plan before we get on — can you get it from them ahead of time? I don't like walking in cold.

heads up @priya — vendor call went well this morning. they're coming Tuesday with the MAP and commercials pre-framed. $96k against our $2.4M pipeline number, which I think lands well. wanted you to have context before the deck hits your inbox.

appreciate the heads up. $96k is fine if the number is real and not a foot-in-the-door. what's the expansion story look like? also — are we actually ready to lock dates Tuesday or is this another 'alignment meeting'?

fair question. honestly I think Tuesday is real — they've been doing the work (got Marcus looped in on data schema today, which I didn't expect them to push on). expansion pricing I don't have full clarity on yet, that's something to press them on. I'll make sure it's on the agenda explicitly so we're not leaving with a maybe.

ok. I'll be there but I'm giving it 45 min max. if we're still doing discovery by then I'm going to have questions about why this is taking three weeks. make sure they come with something concrete.

Quick update for you both — that committee call went better than I expected. Priya, you landed the retention/Q4 framing really cleanly and I think it actually helped the seller understand what we care about. Sanjay, sounds like you're basically satisfied with the number structure? Wanted to make sure we're all aligned before anything moves forward.

Yeah, the 4% of pipeline math is defensible and the annual prepay structure actually works fine given how we're deploying the raise. I'm not looking to squeeze them — just wanted to make sure the number wasn't padded. It doesn't appear to be. My one note: if we go annual prepay, I'd want case-study rights or something tangible baked in as a give-back on our side, so there's a clean quid pro quo I can document. Otherwise this is pretty straightforward from my end.

Agreed on the case-study thing, Sanjay — that's easy to offer and honestly fine with me if the work is good. Jordan, I'm warmer on this than I was two weeks ago, I'll admit. The Q4 retention angle is real and I don't want to be slow on it. That said I'm not ready to rubber-stamp anything yet. Let's see how they handle the next step. If they come back with a clean proposal that reflects the prepay structure and doesn't suddenly find a discount they 'just unlocked,' I'll feel a lot better about th

Totally agree — a last-minute discount would actually make me trust them less, not more. I'll let them drive the next move and we can evaluate the proposal together. Good signal so far though.

every point of retention is worth roughly $400k a year to us... six points of retention at $400k each, that's $2.4 million a year sitting on the table

revenue attributed to reactivated cohorts, even as an estimate, because she's going to want to connect the operational metric back to the $400k-per-point number

every point of retention we don't capture before Q4 is a point I have to explain to the board in January. So the $2.4M framing works

Explanation: Metrics quantified by Jordan in her own words (turn 6: $400k/pt, $2.4M/yr, 6-pt decline), validated by Priya (turn 66), and confirmed by Sanjay (turn 62). Multiple stakeholders confirmed the number with evidence.

who signs — that's Priya, our founder and CEO, and she is decisive, she moves fast when the business case is clear

Finance isn't a blocker — budget's earmarked from the raise, Priya controls it

This is a straightforward yes for me: if you can have us live with our top three retention journeys before peak... I'll sign this week and get you the budget

Explanation: EB identified by Jordan (turn 8), budget authority confirmed (turn 26), and Priya herself confirmed signing authority and budget control in the committee call (turn 66). Multiple sources with direct EB participation.

What she'd need to see is the numbers tied directly to the retention metric the board is watching, not a feature list — she doesn't care about features, she ca…

Give her a line from 'we touched this cohort in under a day' to 'here's what that recovered in dollars' and you've closed the loop

if you can have us live with our top three retention journeys before peak, on the plan Jordan and I just walked through, I'll sign this week

Explanation: Decision criteria confirmed by Jordan (board retention metric, not features), elaborated with four-indicator scoreboard co-built with Jordan (turn 24), and Priya herself stated her criterion explicitly in the EB meeting (turn 66). Three stakeholders across multiple turns.

she is decisive, she moves fast when the business case is clear

if the logic holds, Priya will absolutely commit to dates in the room, that's actually how she prefers to operate, she hates leaving meetings with open loops

This is a straightforward yes for me... I'll sign this week and get you the budget. Send the plan with dates and I'll approve it

Explanation: Decision process described by Jordan (turns 8, 26) and confirmed by Priya's own behavior in the EB meeting (turn 66). Sanjay's role as finance reviewer also surfaced and navigated (turn 59-62). Multiple stakeholders confirmed.

I'll sign this week and get you the budget. Send the plan with dates and I'll approve it

Explanation: Budget source confirmed (Series B raise, Priya controls it). Priya committed to signing this week. Sanjay's finance review surfaced and resolved. However, no explicit discussion of procurement, legal, or security review processes — paper process is partially mapped but not fully confirmed across all dimensions.

ten days had passed. Ten days where those users just... sat there. That's the kind of lag that kills retention numbers, and retention is literally the metric o…

I literally can't segment or automate, so we're leaving money on the table every single week... six points of retention at $400k each, that's $2.4 million a ye…

every point of retention we don't capture before Q4 is a point I have to explain to the board in January

Explanation: Pain confirmed by Jordan with specifics (10-day lag, $2.4M/yr, broken attribution) and independently validated by Priya in the EB meeting tying it to board accountability. Multiple stakeholders with quantified evidence.

If you'd walked in here and just asked me to rubber-stamp a proposal to take to her, that wouldn't have gone well. But coming in with the $2.4M framing... that…

I'm glad you're not overselling it — she will absolutely push on that number and if you'd promised 32% in six weeks I'd have had to walk it back myself before …

On Marcus — that's our data engineer — yes, grab him before Tuesday, that's a smart call. I'll introduce you over email today

Explanation: Jordan demonstrated champion behavior across multiple tests: secured EB access (turn 10), coached on Priya's decision style (turn 24), proactively protected the seller's credibility (turn 19), introduced Marcus (turn 43), and primed Priya before the meeting. Tested and proven across multiple actions.

Explanation: No competitor was mentioned by any buyer at any point in the transcript. Competition is entirely unknown.

repeat-purchase rate has slipped from 34% to 28% as we scaled, and every point of retention is worth roughly $400k a year to us... that's $2.4 million a year s…

Explanation: Jordan Kim (named owner, Head of lifecycle/data function) stated the pain in her own words with specific numbers: 6-point retention decline, $400k/pt, $2.4M/yr at risk, Q4 deadline. All three criteria met.

Explanation: No buyer ever articulated why Lumewell/Cadence specifically over alternatives. Priya's commitment (turn 66) is conditional on delivery, not a statement of differentiated preference. Competition was never surfaced, so why-us was never tested or confirmed in buyer words.

The honest deadline is Q4 peak — about six weeks out. If we're not live with real journeys before the holiday push, we've missed our biggest retention window o…

Explanation: Jordan Kim named the urgency driver (Q4 peak, six weeks), the consequence (missed retention window, board accountability), and the deadline is time-bound. Priya confirmed the same urgency in turn 66. All three criteria met.

if you can have us live with our top three retention journeys before peak, on the plan Jordan and I just walked through, I'll sign this week and get you the bu…

Explanation: Seller held $96k throughout. Declined VP's unsolicited 20% discount directive (turns 37-38). When Sanjay entered as finance reviewer, seller reframed value (4% of $2.4M problem) and offered structured trades (annual prepay, case-study rights) instead of price cuts. No discount was requested by any buyer and none was given. Price integrity fully maintained.

FLAG — MEDDPICC letter below 2 (C — Competition). Write the dated action plan.

Jordan owns the operational pain but her title/role is never formally established. The $2.4M number is Jordan's calculation, not confirmed as reported by a named owner with board accountability until Priya validates it in turn 66 — however Jordan is never formally identified as the pain owner with a title.

I'm running the whole thing out of spreadsheets and a basic email tool — I literally can't segment or automate

Seller accepted Jordan's assertion that finance/procurement is not a blocker without independently mapping legal, security, or procurement review steps. Sanjay appeared unexpectedly (turn 59) as a finance reviewer, suggesting the paper process was not fully mapped proactively.

Finance isn't a blocker — budget's earmarked from the raise, Priya controls it. I'd say the only thing that could slow us down is if the data schema conversati…

In-house spreadsheets + basic email tool was in the account (Manual customer lists in spreadsheets plus an entry-level email sender); the seller made 0 competitor probes.

1 meeting(s) earned zero gated facts and exchanged zero value (weeks 3).

Direct-to-consumer wellness / e-commerce

Competition was never surfaced by any buyer — MEDDPICC 'C' scores 0 by evidence rules; this is a genuine gap even in a won deal.

Why-us is unconfirmed: buyers committed based on ROI logic and timeline fit, but never articulated differentiated preference over alternatives in their own words.

MAP dates were partially confirmed: Priya committed to signing this week and approved the plan structure (turn 66), and Jordan confirmed the six-week backward plan (turns 26-28), but specific milestone dates were not verbally acknowledged by buyers in the transcript — estimated at 60%.

Conditional commitment before proof: Priya's turn 66 commitment is conditioned on 'live with top three retention journeys before peak' — this is a validation criterion stated before any POV/proof was delivered, qualifying as conditional commitment before proof.

The no-pain-owner-identified failure mode is borderline: Jordan clearly owns the pain operationally and Priya owns it at board level (turn 66), but Jordan's formal role/title is never established in the transcript.

Seller demonstrated strong price integrity, champion development, and EB engagement discipline throughout. The VP discount pressure (turn 36) was correctly resisted with documented rationale.

Next action: [C — Competition, scored 0] Map every alternative — rivals, internal build, status quo — find their internal sponsor, and set traps on your differentiation.

Next action: [3 Whys clarity: 13/20] Rewrite each Why in the customer's own words with a named owner and a number; capture a verbatim quote.

Next action: [MEDDPICC evidence: 33.3/40] Work the lowest letter (C — Competition).