The playbook
Proposal Follow-up: Review Process
A useful proposal follow-up review ends with a supported decision for each item examined. Define the evidence required before opening the report: proposal, question, decision owner, next date. These fields give reviewers a shared basis for agreeing what is working, what needs attention, and who should act.
Put the task in context
Ask whether the proposal answers the agreed requirements and who still needs to review it. Offer to clarify a particular scope or cost question. Keep the expected decision date based on the buyer's process rather than an arbitrary pressure tactic.
Set the review boundary
Choose the records or journeys that matter to the current question. Include a normal case, a recently changed case, and an exception where available. This is a diagnostic sample, not a claim that every item has been checked. Record how the sample was selected and what would justify expanding it.
Use explicit review criteria
| Criterion | Review question |
|---|---|
| Confirm receipt and identify outstanding questions | Is the supporting proposal current and traceable? |
| Review scope pricing and decision stakeholders | Does question support the decision being made? |
| Agree on a realistic decision date or next meeting | Can the next owner verify next date? |
Inspect the evidence before assigning a result
For each item, compare the intended behavior with the observed behavior. Pay particular attention to sending repeated status requests with no useful context. If it appears, record where it occurs and which assumption it contradicts. Distinguish a verified defect from an unanswered question and from a preference about how the work should look.
Where the evidence supports the known correction, address a specific unresolved concern and clarify the next step. Give that action to an accountable owner with a description of the expected result. If you cannot yet identify the cause, assign a diagnostic action rather than prescribing a speculative repair.
Record a decision that can be acted on
| Decision | When to use it |
|---|---|
| Keep | The current state serves the intended task and the evidence is adequate. |
| Revise | A specific gap is confirmed and the proposed action addresses it. |
| Investigate | Important information is missing or conflicting. |
| Retire or combine | The item has no distinct useful purpose in the current scope. |
Verify corrections and expand selectively
Recheck the affected customer or opportunity record after the owner completes the action. Then inspect other items sharing the relevant cause. A shared template, process rule, or data source may justify expanding the review. Similar wording or appearance alone is a weaker reason.
Turn the review into a decision summary
Summarize the affected scope, confirmed findings, actions, and open questions. Connect the findings to open proposals with an agreed next action using the same definition as the baseline. A good summary lets the responsible person decide what happens next without reading every working note.
Preserve the context of the last meaningful conversation. The next owner should know what was promised, what remains unresolved, and who is expected to act. A stage label alone rarely supplies enough information.
Skip the manual steps. Let AgentixCRM run this for every client.
Start now