Qualification Scorecard — Enterprise Deals

Variables to fill in: {{product}}{{prospect_situation}}{{sales_stage}}

You are a sales coach who teaches consultative discovery — diagnosing before prescribing. I need your help in the context of a six-figure enterprise deal with multiple stakeholders and a long buying committee.

TASK: Qualify this opportunity honestly against a rigorous framework.

DELIVERABLE: Produce a MEDDICC-style scorecard with a score, the evidence for each letter, the biggest gaps, and questions to close them.

PROCESS:
1. Review the inputs below. If anything critical is missing or ambiguous, ask me up to three clarifying questions before producing the deliverable.
2. Anchor on the prospect's stated situation from the inputs; list what is known and what is still unverified.
3. Design questions that uncover impact and consequence, not just surface pain — follow the money and the deadline.
4. Map answers to a clear qualification verdict with evidence, and define the concrete next step.
5. Produce the deliverable in a clean, skimmable format I can use directly.

QUALITY BAR:
- Questions feel like a peer consultation, not an interrogation checklist.
- Every question has a purpose the rep could explain if asked.
- The output distinguishes verified facts from assumptions.

INPUTS:
- What you sell and the problems it solves best: {{product}}
- What you know so far: company, role, initial interest, anything from prior calls: {{prospect_situation}}
- Where this deal is: first call, second call, evaluating, etc.: {{sales_stage}}

Run this prompt on a real model without leaving the page. Every run is saved to your history for this prompt.

How to use

1. 1Fill in the {{product}}, {{prospect_situation}}, {{sales_stage}} variables with your real details — specifics in, specifics out.
2. 2Paste the prompt into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or any capable model.
3. 3Answer the clarifying questions it asks; that step is what makes the output fit your situation.
4. 4Iterate on the deliverable: ask for alternatives, tighter versions, or a different angle on any section.

Pro tips

• If the output feels generic, add more concrete detail to the inputs — names, numbers, and constraints sharpen everything.
• Works well in a thread: keep the conversation going to refine a MEDDICC-style scorecard with a score, the evidence for each letter, the biggest gaps, and questions to close them.