# Buyer-selection workbook

Use this reference to turn an ICP discussion into a repeatable account-review process. The PumpGTM example is a provisional hypothesis built for illustration; it is not a verified customer profile.

## Full brief template

### Subject and evidence boundary

**Offer being sold:** PumpGTM itself or the customer's named product.

**Commercial context:** known pricing basis, delivery model, prerequisites, and constraints. Mark unknowns.

**Material reviewed:** customer notes, deal records, product documents, and public sources with dates.

**Working buyer definition:** a role or buying group in a specific situation with a job the offer can plausibly help accomplish.

### Segment cards

For each materially different segment, fill in:

| Field | Required substance |
|---|---|
| Situation | A specific operating condition, not a demographic label alone |
| Job | The progress the buyer needs to make |
| Friction | The obstacle in the current workflow |
| Consequence | Observed or reported impact, with attribution |
| Current alternative | Tool, manual process, service, or no action |
| Offer fit | Why the offer might resolve the job, with current capability evidence |
| Timing | An event and date that could increase relevance |
| Exclusions | Conditions under which pursuing the account is inappropriate or unproductive |
| Proof needed | Evidence required before recommending commitment |
| Confidence | Strength of support and the main unresolved assumption |

Do not force several segments if the evidence supports only one. Do not merge different buying processes simply to create a broad addressable market.

## Qualification rulebook

| Rule | Type | Accepted evidence | Research location | Unknown treatment | Review outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Example rule types:

- Required fit: the account actually performs the job the offer supports.
- Useful signal: a public professional discussion concerns a relevant workflow.
- Timing indicator: a recent operating change could increase the job's importance.
- Exclusion: a stated product prerequisite cannot be met.
- Discovery question: the account's current process or willingness to change remains unknown.

Keep rule wording observable. "Ambitious team" is not a reliable qualification condition. "Publicly describes an active outbound motion" is reviewable when a source exists, although it still does not establish dissatisfaction or purchasing intent.

## Account review sheet

| Account | Segment hypothesis | Fit evidence and date | Timing evidence and date | Exclusion check | Unknowns | Status | Reason for next action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Use supported fit, possible fit, or insufficient evidence. A status expresses the state of the review, not a probability of conversion. An account can have supported problem fit while still having unknown authority or commercial readiness.

## Buying-group worksheet

| Role in decision | Likely job title or function | Concern | Evidence they need | Known or inferred | How to verify |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day-to-day user | Derive from the actual workflow | Task effort and usability | A relevant workflow demonstration | Mark status | Ask who does the work now |
| Internal advocate | Derive from supplied deal context | Credibility and internal coordination | Material they can explain to colleagues | Mark status | Ask who is proposing the change |
| Budget approver | Do not assume from seniority alone | Value, cost, and competing priorities | A supportable commercial case | Mark status | Ask how comparable purchases are approved |
| Operational reviewer | Include only if relevant | Adoption and implementation requirements | Actual requirements and ownership | Mark status | Ask who reviews a workflow change |

One person may occupy several roles. Leave named individuals out unless supplied or verified from relevant professional sources.

## Objection handling worksheet

| Stated objection | Possible underlying concern | Discovery question | Evidence required | Supportable answer | Remaining gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Illustrative handling:

- "We already have a process": ask where it works well and where it becomes costly. Do not assume the incumbent process must be replaced.
- "We cannot take on another tool": determine implementation ownership and workflow burden. Do not promise instant setup without proof.
- "The value is unclear": identify the outcome they care about and what would count as evidence. Avoid invented ROI.
- "The timing is wrong": ask what condition would change priority if a conversation is authorized. Do not manufacture urgency.

## Provisional PumpGTM example

**Known context:** supplied project notes position PumpGTM around finding buyers and starting conversations, with founders and GTM practitioners as an intended audience.

**Segment hypothesis:** a founder or GTM operator personally responsible for choosing accounts and initiating relevant commercial conversations.

**Proposed job:** decide which accounts deserve attention and prepare a relevant reason to start a conversation.

**Possible friction:** research and message preparation may be disconnected, causing repeated work or weak context. This is an untested hypothesis, not a customer finding.

**Possible alternative:** manual research and a separate outreach process. Confirm through actual interviews or deal notes.

**Required discovery:** whether the account performs this job, experiences meaningful friction, can use the current product, and can justify a workflow change.

**Possible public signal:** a professional post discussing difficulties with account research. Inspect the full context and date. The post supports that the author discussed the topic; it does not prove available budget or interest in PumpGTM.

**Exclusion examples to evaluate:** the account does not perform the relevant job, the requested workflow is outside confirmed product capabilities, or the team reports no meaningful problem. These are proposed criteria pending actual product and customer evidence.

**Conversation draft:** "You mentioned checking several sources before choosing accounts. Which part of that process is hardest to keep consistent?"

Use the opening only when the person actually made that statement in a relevant context. It tests a problem hypothesis without claiming to know their internal workflow.

**Next action:** manually review a batch sized to the team's capacity, then compare which fit assumptions survive relevant conversations. Determine pricing fit and actual buying roles from evidence rather than inserting them into this example.

## Search and channel worksheet

| Buyer question | Candidate source or channel | Evidence the buyer uses it | Research use | Conversation use | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Build search phrases from the job, workaround, and outcome. Label them as query ideas until search data is available. Do not claim search volume or audience demographics without a source. A place useful for listening is not automatically appropriate for promotion.

## Revision log

| Version date | Rule or hypothesis changed | New evidence | Previous assumption | New interpretation | Next verification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Revise the model when the underlying job, product delivery, or buying process changes. Preserve the reasoning so another operator can distinguish learning from arbitrary targeting changes.

## Failure modes to catch

Do not use funding as a substitute for pain, a title as a substitute for authority, social engagement as a substitute for buying intent, or silence as proof of poor fit. Avoid invented names, lifestyle details, aspirations, and demographics that do not change the buying situation. If a field cannot be supported, leave it unknown and specify the observation that would resolve it.