Revenue & Execution Systems Diagnostic
A short, focused diagnostic to identify where revenue, execution, or automation efforts are breaking down — and redesign the decision logic underneath.
This is an engagement that applies the Decision Architecture Audit method to one revenue decision.
Is this the right starting point?
This audit is designed for teams where work is entering the system, activity is high, but conviction is low.
It is most useful when:
Marketing generates volume, but Sales does not trust the quality
High-quality signals slip through while edge cases consume attention
Qualification rules exist, but are inconsistently applied or overridden
Revenue forecasting feels fragile because prioritization is unclear
Humans are compensating for unclear logic with judgment calls and meetings
If people are busy, but no one can confidently explain why certain requests receive attention and others do not, this audit is usually the right intervention.
The problem it addresses
Most companies believe they have a qualification problem. In many cases, the deeper issue is that this decision is absorbing disproportionate attention because it sits inside an implicit, unexamined set of competing revenue decisions.
Qualification logic often lives across:
implicit assumptions in people’s heads
legacy scoring models no one fully trusts
CRM rules layered on over time
manual overrides that feel necessary but go unexplained
The result is not a lack of data, but a lack of shared clarity about what actually matters. This audit makes that decision explicit.
Who this diagnostic is for
This diagnostic is best suited for:
Series A–C SaaS or technology-enabled companies
Founders, COOs, Heads of Growth, RevOps, Sales, or Operations
Teams with real demand but inconsistent execution
Organizations experimenting with automation or AI without clear ROI
Leadership teams sensing structural issues but lacking a concrete way to diagnose them
If execution feels busy but outcomes feel fragile, this is typically the right starting point.
What the diagnostic produces
This engagement produces concrete artifacts teams can actually operate from — not strategy decks that expire after a meeting.
You will walk away with:
A documented map of how the qualification decision actually operates today
Clear ownership, escalation paths, and decision criteria
A prioritized view of which signals matter, which do not, and why
A reusable decision artifact that lives inside existing systems
A shared reference point teams can align around and revisit
Even if nothing else changes, the decision becomes visible and discussable instead of implicit and political.
Used to:
Auto-advance clear-fit requests to Sales with an SLA
Route edge cases into a review queue with named ownership
Track overrides and review thresholds monthly
Where it lives: CRM fields + routing workflows + a shared reference doc (Notion/Confluence) + a monthly review cadence.
Example output (redacted): Decision Map
This is what “making the decision explicit” looks like: inputs → criteria → thresholds → owners → routing.
What happens during the diagnostic
The diagnostic focuses on one decision only:
Which inputs deserve attention, and why?
Over a short, time boxed engagement, we work through four steps.
1. Decision mapping
We document the current qualification decision as it actually happens, not as it is described. We also look at how this decision competes with other revenue decisions for attention, escalation, and override.
This includes:
who is involved
what inputs are considered
where judgment enters
where escalation or override occurs
2. Failure mode identification
We identify where the decision breaks down, including:
false positives that waste time
false negatives that stall revenue
conflicting criteria across teams
points where humans compensate for unclear logic
3. Criteria clarification
We separate:
signal from noise
inputs that should influence prioritization
inputs that should not
thresholds that are missing or implicit
This step often reveals that teams disagree less than they think.
They simply lack a shared structure.
4. Reusable decision artifact
We translate the clarified logic into a concrete artifact the team can reuse.
Depending on the context, this may be:
a scoring model
a qualification flow
an intake structure
a routing rule
or a clear governance decision about what remains human owned
The artifact is designed to live inside existing systems.
What you walk away with
At the end of the audit, you will have:
A clear view of how this decision fits within the broader set of revenue decisions competing for attention
A documented map of your qualification decision
Clear ownership and decision criteria
A reusable artifact that makes prioritization consistent
Guidance on what should be automated versus human judgment
A shared reference point teams can align around
Even if nothing else changes, the decision becomes visible and discussable instead of implicit and political.
For example, teams often walk away with a simple qualification model that makes explicit which signals actually trigger sales attention, which disqualify leads early, and which require human review. This replaces ad hoc judgment calls with a shared reference point that lives inside existing systems and can be revisited as conditions change.
What this is not
This audit is not:
a CRM reimplementation
a sales process redesign
a generic consulting engagement
a long term retainer
It is a focused diagnostic designed to reduce uncertainty and stabilize one high impact decision.
Why this approach works
When qualification logic is unclear, organizations compensate with people. When the logic is clear, automation and execution become easier and safer. This audit does not replace judgment. It makes judgment legible.
Next step
If lead prioritization feels expensive, political, or fragile, this audit is usually the right place to start. If it is not useful, you keep the artifacts and we part cleanly.