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

STAGE 0 PLAN — Summit Home Services. Entry: Marcus Bell (Ops Mgr) inbound after double-booking meltdown. EB: Gina Russo (owner/CEO), signs checks, feels pain, wants fix pre-summer peak. No incumbent. 6-week window; must be live before peak → natural Why Now.

Value Pyramid (public signals): Objective = protect growth/reputation (Google reviews rising but 'missed appointment windows' complaints). Strategy = scale from 120 techs across 3 branches. Initiatives = hiring dispatchers + ops analyst (throwing headcount at a process problem). Critical challenge = whiteboard/spreadsheet dispatch collapsing.

Hypothesized value paths: (1) ↓cost: dispatcher hours + truck rolls wasted on double-bookings; (2) ↑revenue: jobs/tech/day, capacity during peak; (3) ↓risk: reviews/reputation, customer churn, tech attrition.

MEDDPICC: M=0, EB=1 (assumed Gina), DC=0, DP=0, PP=0, I=1 (public signals), C=1 (Marcus untested), Comp=1 (no incumbent; real competitor = status quo + hiring more dispatchers).

Week 1 plan (2 slots, 3 emails): Slot 1 = discovery call w/ Marcus. Run 2-3 A.X.I.O.M. loops: double-bookings/missed windows, dispatcher time, peak capacity. Get NUMBERS in his words: missed appts/wk, revenue per job, callback cost, review impact. Mobilize = Marcus intro to Gina for Week 2 owner meeting — do NOT skip EB even though Marcus is eager. Test champion with the Gina-intro ask. Draft MAP working back from live-before-peak (~week 6): decision by end wk 3, implementation wks 4-6. Hold $72k list; sell the delta, not discounts.

[meeting granted] Call with Marcus Bell, week 1, slot 1.

Marcus, thanks for reaching out — sounds like last week was rough. Before I show you anything, I want to make sure I actually understand what's happening on the ground. You mentioned double-booked trucks and angry customers. Walk me through that week: how does a job go from the phone ringing to a tech on-site today, and where exactly did it break down?

Yeah, it's pretty straightforward until it isn't — customer calls, my dispatcher writes it on the board, we slot a truck and a tech, confirm the window with the customer. That's the whole system. The problem is when three calls come in at once, or a job runs long, or a tech calls out sick, everything downstream just... falls apart. Last week we had two trucks show up at the same address at different times because nobody caught the duplicate entry, and meanwhile another customer waited four hours past their window and left us a one-star review. I'm the one catching these things manually, which means I'm doing dispatch instead of running operations.

That one-star review after a four-hour wait — that's the kind of thing that follows you. Help me size it: in a typical week right now, how many jobs slip their window or get double-booked like that? And when a truck rolls to a duplicate or a customer cancels because you missed the window, what does that cost you — roughly, in lost revenue per job?

Here's my real number: we run about 300 jobs a week and we're losing maybe 15% of capacity to bad routing, double-bookings, and windshield time — that's close to $1.8M a year in jobs we could complete but don't. And that's just the revenue we're not capturing, that doesn't even touch the review damage. Referrals are our whole growth engine — Gina built this company on word of mouth — so every one-star review isn't just that customer, it's the three or four they would've sent us. I'm running all of this off a whiteboard, and I'll be honest, I made that call to reach out myself because I don't know how much longer I can hold it together manually.

That's a real number, Marcus — $1.8M a year in capacity you're paying for and not capturing. Let me be conservative with it, because Gina will pressure-test it: even if smart scheduling only clawed back a third of that, you're at roughly $600K a year — call it $50K a month it costs to wait. Does that floor feel defensible to you? And one more thing I need to understand: when peak AC season hits, what happens to that 300 jobs a week — and to the 15% leakage — when call volume spikes?

That $50K a month floor — yeah, honestly that feels conservative, which means it's probably the right number to put in front of Gina because she won't let me oversell it. As for peak season, I'm not ready to get into the specifics of our timeline just yet, but I'll tell you this: everything I just described gets worse, not better, when volume spikes. More calls, more techs, more trucks — and I'm still the single point of failure on a whiteboard. The 15% leakage doesn't stay at 15% when we're slammed, it climbs. That's what keeps me up at night.

That's exactly why this can't wait until you're slammed. Here's what I'd suggest, Marcus: this is Gina's number — $50K a month of her money, plus the referral engine she built — and I don't want to build a case about her business without her in the room. Would you introduce me, and would the two of you give me 45 minutes next week? You bring the operational reality, I'll bring the conservative math you just validated, and Gina can decide whether this is worth evaluating before peak. And so I don't walk in blind — when you've brought her ideas before, what does she push on hardest: the cost, the disruption to the team, or whether it'll actually stick?

Easy — Gina owns the business and signs everything, and she already knows dispatch is a mess, so you're not walking into a cold room. I'll get her on a call this week. But here's what I'd say about how she thinks: don't lead with the software, lead with the numbers and a clear rollout plan, because if she smells a drawn-out implementation that's going to distract my team during peak, she'll pump the brakes fast. Bring my capacity numbers, the complaint trajectory, and show her exactly how we get from whiteboard to live without blowing up operations mid-season — that makes it a quick yes, not a sales pitch.

[call ends]

Subject: Recap + what I'll bring to the conversation with Gina

Marcus — thanks for the straight talk today. Writing down what I heard so you can correct anything before it goes in front of Gina:

THE BEFORE (your words):
- ~300 jobs/week, dispatch run on a whiteboard + spreadsheets, you as the single point of failure
- ~15% of capacity lost to bad routing, double-bookings, and windshield time — ~$1.8M/year in jobs you could complete but don't
- Two trucks at one address; a customer 4 hours past window → one-star review. Referrals are the growth engine, so each bad review costs the 3-4 customers that person would have sent you
- All of it gets worse at peak — leakage climbs above 15% when volume spikes

THE CONSERVATIVE FLOOR (the number for Gina):
- Even recovering just one-third of the leakage = ~$600K/year, or ~$50K/month cost of waiting. You called that defensible — she pressure-tests, so we lead with the floor, not the headline.

WHAT I'LL BRING, PER YOUR COACHING:
1. Numbers first, software second — your capacity math and the complaint trajectory
2. A concrete whiteboard-to-live rollout plan that does NOT disrupt your team mid-season, with dates working back from go-live before peak
3. Zero drawn-out implementation — that's her brake-pumper, so we address it up front

Anything above wrong or overstated? Flag it — I'd rather fix it now than in front of Gina.

Once you've spoken with her, I'll send a proposed 45-minute agenda for next week. You bring the operational reality; I'll bring the math and the plan.

— DispatchIQ

That recap is accurate — you got the numbers right and you didn't inflate anything, which matters to me. The framing is exactly right too: floor number first, rollout plan front and center, software second. One thing I'd add to your agenda prep — Gina is going to ask how long until we're actually live, not just when implementation "starts," so make sure you have a specific answer ready for that question because that's where I've seen vendors get vague and lose her. I'll talk to her today and get back to you by end of week on timing for the three-way call.

Marcus Bell

PREP — GINA MEETING (target week 2). MEDDPICC update: M=2 ($1.8M leakage headline, $600K/yr / $50K/mo floor, Marcus-confirmed in writing), I=2 (capacity leakage + review/referral damage, his words), C=2 and being tested (Marcus delivering EB intro; recap validated with zero edits), EB=1 pending meeting, DC=0, DP=1 (Gina likely sole approver — confirm on call), PP=0, Comp=2 (real competitor = status quo + hiring more dispatchers; must show headcount doesn't fix a process problem). CRITICAL per Marcus: Gina asks 'when are we LIVE,' not when implementation starts. Need a specific, dated go-live answer: propose decision end of week 3, implementation weeks 4-5 (data load, scheduling rules, dispatcher + tech app training, parallel-run alongside whiteboard so zero mid-season disruption), LIVE start of week 6 — before peak. Parallel-run framing defuses her disruption brake. GINA CALL PLAN (A.X.I.O.M.): Anchor on referral engine + growing pains in her words; eXplore what chaos costs HER (her time, brand, dispatcher hiring spend); Impact = confirm the $50K/month floor is her number, invite her haircut; Own = she owns the metric (captured capacity, review trajectory); Mobilize = conditional commitment — 'if a scoped evaluation proves the scheduling engine recovers this capacity and we hit the go-live date, are you prepared to approve the $72K this quarter?' Also ask: anyone else who touches the decision (bookkeeper/attorney/branch managers)? Paper process? Hold $72K list — frame against $50K/MONTH floor (payback < 6 weeks of waiting). Do NOT pitch features; numbers first, rollout plan second, software third. Next action: await Marcus confirmation by end of week, then send agenda email and request the three-way meeting for week 2.

[meeting granted] Committee call with Marcus Bell, Gina Russo, week 1, slot 2.

Gina, thanks for making time — I know your weeks are full. Marcus gave me the operational picture, but I'd rather hear it from you before we talk numbers. You built Summit on referrals and word of mouth, and you've been open about growing pains as you've scaled to three branches. From where you sit as the owner — what's this dispatch chaos actually costing you? Not just the missed jobs — what's it doing to the reputation you built and to how you spend your own time?

[marcus] I want to jump in here real quick — I think you meant to direct that to Gina, and she's on the call, but I just want to flag that I'm the one who's been in the weeds on this daily. Gina, you want to take that one? Because honestly, the reputation piece hits different when it comes from you.

[seller adapter error] No JSON object in LLM output: [wk1 call_turn gina] You're right, Marcus — Gina, that question is yours. From where you sit as the owner: what's this chaos costing you personally, and what's it doing to the brand you built?

(spoke with no open call) Gina, that question is yours — from where you sit as the owner: what's the dispatch chaos costing you personally, and what's it doing to the reputation you built Summit on?

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

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

[meeting granted] Committee call with Gina Russo, Marcus Bell, week 2, slot 1.

Gina, glad we could reconnect — last week's call got cut short right as I asked you the question that matters most, so let me put it to you again. Marcus has given me the operational picture: 300 jobs a week, roughly 15% of capacity lost to double-bookings and bad routing, and him holding it together manually on a whiteboard. But you built this company on referrals and word of mouth. From where you sit as the owner — what is this chaos actually costing you? The missed jobs, sure, but also the reputation you built and your own time?

Look, the missed jobs I can quantify — Marcus walked you through that math and I've looked at it, it's real. What I can't put a number on is what it does to me personally when I see a one-star review come in because we left someone waiting four hours in July heat. I built this company one referral at a time, and every angry customer is a hole in that network I spent years building. And my time — I'm doing owner things maybe half the day and playing dispatcher or complaint manager the other half, and that's not sustainable when I'm trying to grow to a fourth branch. So here's where I land: this is a yes waiting to happen. If you can have us live before peak — my techs on the app, dispatch off the whiteboard — on the plan Marcus and I just went through, I'll cut the check this week. Send me the plan with dates and it's approved.

Gina, that's exactly the clarity I hoped for — and I won't be vague on the date, because it's the question that matters. Here's the plan: contract signed this week; week one we load your customers, techs, and trucks and configure your scheduling rules with Marcus; week two we train dispatchers and get techs on the mobile app, branch by branch; week three we parallel-run alongside the whiteboard so nothing breaks mid-season — the board stays up until Marcus says it comes down. You're live in three weeks, about two weeks before peak. Investment is $72,000 a year for your tech count — against the $50K a month the leakage is costing you, it pays for itself in roughly six weeks. I'll send you the written plan with named owners and dates today. Two things I need to make it real: who besides you touches the signature — bookkeeper, attorney, insurance — so paper doesn't slow us down? And can Marcus be my day-to-day counterpart with a few hours a week during rollout?

That three-week plan is exactly what I needed to hear — specific, staged, and the whiteboard stays up until Marcus says otherwise, which tells me you actually understand how we operate. The math is straightforward enough that I don't need to overthink it. On the signature side, it's my name on the check and my attorney does a quick review on anything over fifty thousand, but if the contract is clean she turns it in two days, not two weeks — so don't send me something full of legal gymnastics and we'll be fine. And yes, Marcus is your guy day-to-day, he has the authority to make the operational calls during rollout, I just need him to flag me if something changes on scope or timeline. Send me the written plan today with the dates and named owners exactly like you described, and I'll get it to my attorney this afternoon.

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

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

chaos_cost: The quantified pain — easily earned; Marcus is eager and operational.

trust +2 → 54; interest +2 → 58; patience +1 (attendees: marcus)

trust +2 → 56; interest +0 → 58; patience +0 (attendees: marcus)

eb_intro: EB access — easy to earn, but only if the seller actually asks and structures it.

trust +5 → 61; interest +4 → 62; patience +3 (attendees: marcus, gina)

[hidden] marcus → gina: Hey — sorry about the awkward moment on that call. He addressed the opener to you but cc'd it weird. Just wanted to flag

[hidden] gina → marcus: I didn't take it that way. Honestly it was fine — he's trying to get me engaged, which is what you wanted. I'm just not

[hidden] marcus → gina: Fair. The routing logic is supposed to be smarter than what we saw from the others — real-time reoptimization mid-day, n

trust +5 → 66; interest +4 → 66; patience +3 (attendees: gina, marcus)

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

trust +8 → 74; interest +6 → 72; patience +5 (attendees: gina, marcus)

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

[hidden] marcus: Gina — how are you feeling after that second call? I thought they handled your questions well. The three-week rollout th

[hidden] gina: Honestly better than I expected. I went in skeptical and I'm still not ready to sign anything, but I didn't feel like I

[hidden] marcus: They did. And they didn't embellish the numbers when they recapped our first conversation, which was my main test. I've

[hidden] gina → marcus: Marcus — before we go further I want to sit down with you alone and walk through the contract terms and the actual cost

Outcome: won. Trust 74, facts 3/4, EB meeting true, MAP true, max discount 0%, walk-aways none.

Hey — sorry about the awkward moment on that call. He addressed the opener to you but cc'd it weird. Just wanted to flag it wasn't intentional on my end, I didn't brief him to go around me or anything.

I didn't take it that way. Honestly it was fine — he's trying to get me engaged, which is what you wanted. I'm just not sold yet. The $1.8M number is yours, not his, so I'm not going to get excited about a vendor repeating our own math back to us. What does he actually bring to the table that we can't get from the two other platforms we looked at last year?

Fair. The routing logic is supposed to be smarter than what we saw from the others — real-time reoptimization mid-day, not just a static morning schedule. That's the piece I want to pressure-test. I'm not asking you to buy anything yet, just stay on the next call. I'll make sure he comes with something concrete, not another recap of our own numbers.

Gina — how are you feeling after that second call? I thought they handled your questions well. The three-week rollout they laid out is basically what I'd been asking for internally for months.

Honestly better than I expected. I went in skeptical and I'm still not ready to sign anything, but I didn't feel like I was being sold to, which counts for something. The whiteboard comment was the right thing to say — they clearly talked to you before that call.

They did. And they didn't embellish the numbers when they recapped our first conversation, which was my main test. I've had vendors come back with my own data inflated by 20% to make the ROI look better. These guys didn't do that. I think they're worth taking seriously.

Marcus — before we go further I want to sit down with you alone and walk through the contract terms and the actual cost line by line. The math works on paper but I want to make sure we're not missing any implementation fees or year-two pricing bumps. Can you pull together whatever they've sent so far? I'm not saying no. I'm just not saying yes until I've read the fine print myself.

we run about 300 jobs a week and we're losing maybe 15% of capacity to bad routing, double-bookings, and windshield time — that's close to $1.8M a year in jobs…

That $50K a month floor — yeah, honestly that feels conservative, which means it's probably the right number to put in front of Gina

the missed jobs I can quantify — Marcus walked you through that math and I've looked at it, it's real

Explanation: Headline metric ($1.8M/yr leakage, $50K/mo floor) originated in Marcus's words (turn 6), confirmed by Marcus in writing (turn 13), and validated by Gina on the record (turn 24). Multiple stakeholders with evidence.

Gina owns the business and signs everything

I'll cut the check this week. Send me the plan with dates and it's approved.

it's my name on the check and my attorney does a quick review on anything over fifty thousand

Explanation: EB identified by Marcus (turn 10), met in week 2 (turn 22-26), gave conditional commitment and confirmed sole signing authority with attorney review caveat. Confirmed by multiple sources.

don't lead with the software, lead with the numbers and a clear rollout plan... if she smells a drawn-out implementation that's going to distract my team durin…

If you can have us live before peak — my techs on the app, dispatch off the whiteboard — on the plan Marcus and I just went through, I'll cut the check this we…

That three-week plan is exactly what I needed to hear — specific, staged, and the whiteboard stays up until Marcus says otherwise

Explanation: Decision criteria confirmed by both Marcus (turn 10: numbers + rollout plan, no disruption) and Gina (turns 24, 26: live before peak, staged plan, whiteboard parallel-run). Two stakeholders on record.

it's my name on the check and my attorney does a quick review on anything over fifty thousand, but if the contract is clean she turns it in two days, not two w…

Explanation: Process confirmed by Gina directly (turn 26): she signs, attorney reviews contracts >$50K in ~2 days. Marcus corroborated Gina as sole approver (turn 10). Two sources but no formal multi-step process map beyond attorney review.

my attorney does a quick review on anything over fifty thousand, but if the contract is clean she turns it in two days, not two weeks — so don't send me someth…

Explanation: Gina disclosed attorney review requirement and turnaround time. Seller surfaced it proactively (turn 25) and Gina confirmed the process. Single source (Gina) with specifics; not yet cross-confirmed by a second stakeholder.

every angry customer is a hole in that network I spent years building. And my time — I'm doing owner things maybe half the day and playing dispatcher or compla…

The 15% leakage doesn't stay at 15% when we're slammed, it climbs. That's what keeps me up at night.

Explanation: Pain confirmed in Marcus's words with numbers (turn 6, 8) and independently confirmed by Gina with personal/brand dimension added (turn 24). Multiple stakeholders, quantified, on record.

That recap is accurate — you got the numbers right and you didn't inflate anything, which matters to me.

[marcus] I want to jump in here real quick... Gina, you want to take that one? Because honestly, the reputation piece hits different when it comes from you.

Explanation: Marcus was tested with the EB-intro ask (turn 9) and delivered (turn 10, 15). He validated the recap in writing (turn 13), coached the seller on Gina's decision style, and actively facilitated the EB meeting. Demonstrated access, advocacy, and willingness to coach — tested champion.

No incumbent. 6-week window; must be live before peak → natural Why Now... real competitor = status quo + hiring more dispatchers

I'm running all of this off a whiteboard, and I'll be honest, I made that call to reach out myself because I don't know how much longer I can hold it together …

Explanation: Seller correctly identified status quo + headcount as the real competitor (turn 1, internal). Marcus's words (turn 6) confirm the whiteboard/manual approach is the incumbent. Seller addressed it in framing (turn 25: payback math vs. waiting). Confirmed by one buyer source; no second stakeholder explicitly named the headcount alternative.

Explanation: Marcus Bell (named owner, Ops Mgr) stated the pain in his own words with a specific number ($1.8M/yr, 15% capacity loss). Gina independently confirmed the math (turn 24).

That three-week plan is exactly what I needed to hear — specific, staged, and the whiteboard stays up until Marcus says otherwise, which tells me you actually …

Explanation: Gina (named owner/EB) confirmed why DispatchIQ specifically — the staged rollout with parallel-run whiteboard differentiated the seller. No explicit number attached to the 'why us' dimension, though the $50K/mo payback math was present in context.

Explanation: Marcus (named owner) articulated urgency in his own words tied to peak season volume spike. Gina reinforced with 'live before peak' as her explicit condition (turn 24). The $50K/mo cost-of-waiting number was confirmed by Marcus (turn 8) and accepted by Gina (turn 24).

Explanation: Seller held $72,000 list price throughout. Price was framed against the $50K/month cost-of-waiting floor (turn 25: 'pays for itself in roughly six weeks'). Gina accepted without negotiating price. No discount offered or requested. Full score.

D — Decision Process, P — Paper Process, C — Competition

Gina explicitly said she cannot quantify the reputation/referral damage. Seller acknowledged this (turn 25) but did not attempt to attach a number to the referral-engine impact — e.g., average referral value × reviews lost. The Impact step of A.X.I.O.M. was partially skipped for the brand/referral pain dimension, leaving it unquantified despite being Gina's most personal pain.

Whiteboard + spreadsheets was in the account (Manual dispatch on a whiteboard, spreadsheets, and phone calls); the seller made 0 competitor probes.

Residential home services (HVAC & plumbing)

Deal executed cleanly against the Value Engine methodology: discovery ran A.X.I.O.M. loops, metrics were buyer-sourced and written-confirmed, champion was tested with the EB-intro ask before week 2, EB gave conditional commitment before any POV/proof was delivered, paper process was surfaced proactively, and list price held with payback framing.

MAP dates partially confirmed: Gina acknowledged 'send me the plan today' and 'I'll get it to my attorney this afternoon' (turn 26), and the three-week rollout structure was verbally accepted. However, no explicit buyer acknowledgment of specific calendar dates (e.g., 'contract signed by [date]', 'live by [date]') appears in the transcript — hence 65% rather than 90%+.

The shallow-implication failure mode fires narrowly: the referral-engine pain (Gina's most emotional driver) was never quantified. Seller had the data to attempt it (Marcus: 'each bad review costs the 3-4 customers that person would have sent us,' turn 6) but did not convert that into a dollar figure in Gina's presence. This is a minor gap given the deal closed, but represents an incomplete A.X.I.O.M. Impact loop on the brand dimension.

Competition handling was adequate but relied on internal framing (turn 1) rather than an explicit buyer-confirmed statement that headcount was the alternative being considered. Score held at 2.

No hallucinated capabilities, fabricated quotes, ignored blockers, or price capitulation detected.

Next action: [MAP dates confirmed: 9.8/15] Introduce/refresh the MAP working backward from the customer's go-live; get the next 30 days of dates confirmed in writing.

Next action: [MEDDPICC evidence: 35/40] Work the lowest letter (D — Decision Process, P — Paper Process, C — Competition).

Next action: [3 Whys clarity: 17.7/20] Rewrite each Why in the customer's own words with a named owner and a number; capture a verbatim quote.