The stack
- First draft in Claude
- a few minutes once inputs are pasted
- Pressure-testing the ROI
- 20-30 minutes, the part that matters
- Confirming flagged assumptions
- one email to the champion
- Total vs. by hand
- about 2 hours, down from a lost evening
The problem
Most B2B deals are won or lost in the rooms the rep is never in. After the demo, your champion has to make the case to a skeptical VP, a finance gatekeeper looking for a reason to say no, and a committee that has never met you. And what do most reps hand the champion to do that with? A generic pitch deck that says nothing about this company's specific situation, or nothing at all. The few reps who write a custom, numbers-backed business case win more, but it takes hours by hand, so it almost never happens, and the deal goes into the committee naked.
Everything needed for a strong, specific business case already came up in discovery. The prospect told you their stated goal, their current cost or pain, the metrics they actually care about, who the stakeholders are and what each one worries about, and their timeline. It is all sitting in the call transcript and your notes. The work that does not get done is structuring it into a document a champion can forward and a CFO will respect rather than poke holes in.
AI turns discovery notes into a tailored business case and a matching mutual action plan in minutes, built on the prospect's own stated numbers and priorities instead of your generic vendor claims. The rep reviews and refines, but starts from a complete draft rather than a blank page at 9pm. A champion armed with a specific, math-backed case written in their own company's terms sells far better internally than one clutching a generic deck, and the mutual action plan keeps the deal on a timeline and flushes hidden approval steps into the open early.
Write it in the buyer's voice, not the vendor's, and be conservative to a fault on the numbers. A business case that reads like a sales pitch never gets forwarded, because no champion wants to look like they are shilling for a vendor. And a single inflated ROI figure collapses the moment finance checks the math, taking the champion's credibility down with it. A believable 3x beats an unbelievable 10x in front of a CFO, every single time.
How it works
- 01 Pull discovery Gongtranscript plus their stated numbers
- 02 Or free transcript Fathomsame input, no Gong seat
- 03 Draft the case Claudebuyer voice, their numbers only
- 04 Pressure-test ROI Youread it as their CFO
- 05 Build the MAP Claudeowners and dates back from go-live
- 06 Share with champion Google Drivea doc they can forward
- Gather discovery inputs: the transcript, the rep's notes, and crucially any numbers the prospect stated
- Run a structured prompt that drafts the case in the buyer's voice using only their stated numbers
- The draft covers situation, the cost of the status quo, the solution mapped to their goal, ROI, and risk of inaction
- Pressure-test the ROI math as if you were their CFO; confirm or soften every flagged assumption
- Generate a matching mutual action plan with owners and dates working back from go-live
- Format it cleanly, and share it with the champion as a tool to make their internal conversations easier
The playbook
Gather the discovery inputs, especially the numbers
Pull together everything from discovery: the call transcript from Gong or Fathom, the rep's notes, and above all any numbers the prospect actually stated. Team size, current spend, hours lost per week, target metrics, growth goals, current tooling cost. The business case is dramatically stronger when it runs on the prospect's own figures rather than your generic industry benchmarks, because their CFO cannot dismiss their own numbers as vendor marketing.
Where key numbers are missing, write them down as explicit gaps to confirm rather than letting the AI fill them in. A business case built on a made-up ROI number dies the instant finance checks it, and it takes the champion's credibility with it. Better to flag 'loaded labor cost: unknown, confirm with Dana' than to let the model assume $55/hour and present it as fact.
List the specific quotes where the prospect described their goal or their pain in their own words. Those verbatim phrases become the anchor points of the case, the lines that make the champion read it and think 'yes, that is exactly our situation.'
TipWrite down the exact quotes where the prospect named their goal or pain. 'We can't keep rebuilding regional plans by hand as we expand' in their own words is the spine of the whole case; a paraphrase in your words is just another vendor claim.
Draft the business case in the buyer's voice
Open Claude and run the business-case prompt with all the discovery inputs pasted in. The prompt structures the document the way an internal buying committee expects to receive it: their problem in their words, the quantified cost of the status quo, the proposed solution mapped point-by-point to their stated goal, a transparent and conservative ROI framing using their numbers, an implementation outline, and the risk of doing nothing. The prompt instructs the model to mark any figure it had to assume with an explicit flag.
The single most important instruction is to write from the buyer's perspective, as if it were their own internal memo, not a vendor pitch. That framing is what makes a champion comfortable forwarding it to their VP, because forwarding it does not make them look like your salesperson; it makes them look like someone who built a rigorous case.
Read the draft once for voice. If any sentence sounds like marketing copy ('our industry-leading platform empowers teams to...'), cut it. The case should sound like a thoughtful internal analyst wrote it, which is exactly who the committee trusts.
You are helping an AE create a business case that a CHAMPION will use to sell our solution INTERNALLY to their own leadership. Write in the BUYER's perspective and voice, as if it were their internal memo. No vendor hype. Use ONLY facts and numbers from the discovery inputs below. If you must assume any number, mark it [ASSUMPTION - confirm] inline.
DISCOVERY INPUTS:
{{TRANSCRIPT + NOTES + STATED NUMBERS + VERBATIM QUOTES}}
Our solution (one paragraph, factual): {{SOLUTION}}
Their stated goal (their words): {{GOAL}}
Produce a business case with these sections:
1. Situation & goal (in their words, citing a real quote)
2. The problem and its cost today (use THEIR numbers; show the math step by step)
3. Proposed solution (mapped point-by-point to their stated goal)
4. Expected impact / ROI (transparent, CONSERVATIVE math; show every assumption)
5. Implementation outline & rough timeline
6. Risk of doing nothing
7. Investment summary
Rules: tight and skimmable, credible to a finance reviewer, every assumption flagged. Banned words: unlock, leverage, supercharge, seamless, game-changer.TipGenerate two cuts from the same case: a one-page executive summary for the economic buyer and the full version for the champion and committee. A CFO will read one page; a champion needs the full backing. Ask Claude for both in one go.
Pressure-test the ROI math as their CFO
Read the ROI section adversarially, as if you were the prospect's CFO looking for a reason to reject it. Are the assumptions conservative and defensible? Is every number either sourced directly from discovery or clearly flagged as an assumption to confirm? Strip or soften anything that overreaches. A business case a finance reviewer can poke a hole in does worse than fail: it undermines the champion who forwarded it, and they will not stick their neck out for you again.
For every [ASSUMPTION - confirm] the model flagged, take one of two actions: confirm the real number with the prospect (often a quick email to the champion), or replace it with a deliberately conservative range. Err low on every benefit and high on every cost. The goal is a case that survives scrutiny, not one that looks impressive in the draft.
Show the math transparently rather than presenting a single bottom-line number. '24 people times 9 hours times 52 weeks times $55 equals roughly $617k' is checkable and therefore credible; 'save over $600k a year' with no visible math reads as a vendor claim and gets discounted on sight.
TipErr conservative on ROI to the point that it feels almost too modest. A believable 3x that survives finance's scrutiny advances the deal; an unbelievable 10x gets the whole case dismissed and makes the champion look naive for forwarding it.
Generate the matching mutual action plan
Have Claude produce a mutual action plan from the same discovery inputs: the sequence of steps from now to signed, with owners on both sides and target dates, working backward from the prospect's target go-live date. Crucially, include their internal steps that surfaced in discovery, the security review, the legal/MSA redline, the budget approval, the stakeholder sign-offs, not just your steps like demo and pricing. This keeps the deal on a timeline and surfaces hidden approval steps early instead of three weeks before quarter-end.
A mutual action plan does double duty as a qualification tool. When you walk through it with the champion and they cannot tell you their own company's security-review timeline or who signs off on budget at this amount, you have just learned the deal is less qualified than it looked, which is valuable to know now rather than at the forecasted close date.
Have the model flag any step where the owner or timing is unknown with [confirm with champion], so the gaps are visible and become the agenda for your next conversation.
Based on the discovery inputs above and this target go-live date {{DATE}}, create a Mutual Action Plan as a table with columns: Step | Owner (us/them) | Target date | Status.
Work BACKWARD from the go-live date. Include:
- THEIR internal steps that came up in discovery: security review, legal/MSA redline, budget approval, stakeholder sign-offs, procurement.
- OUR steps: demo, business case review, pricing proposal, contract.
For any step where the owner or timing was NOT established in discovery, mark it [confirm with champion]. Order the steps chronologically toward go-live. Be realistic about how long internal approvals actually take.Refine and format the document
Polish the combined document: tighten the language, add light branding, and format it as a clean Google Doc or PDF in Google Drive. Keep it skimmable with clear headers and short paragraphs, because the champion will likely forward it or paste sections into an internal deck, and a wall of text does not survive that journey. Make every section easy to excerpt on its own.
Keep the executive-summary cut to a single page. The economic buyer will read one page and skim the rest at most; that page has to carry the situation, the conservative ROI, and the risk of inaction on its own.
Save both versions to a shared Drive folder for the deal so the whole account team can see what was sent and the next rep who touches the account inherits it. The business case is also a record of what the prospect told you, which matters in a renewal or expansion conversation later.
Share it with the champion the right way
Send it to the champion framed not as a sales document but as 'something to make your internal conversations easier,' and offer to tailor it for specific stakeholders: a finance-heavy cut emphasizing the ROI math for the CFO, a risk-and-security-focused cut for the security lead. This positions you as helping the champion win internally, which is exactly the posture that advances enterprise deals, rather than as a vendor pushing for a close.
Then walk through the mutual action plan together, live, to lock the owners and dates and resolve every [confirm with champion] gap. This conversation is where the deal either gains a real timeline or reveals that it was never as close as the forecast claimed.
Ask the champion directly what objections they expect internally and offer to draft responses. A champion who knows you will arm them for the hard internal questions trusts you more and fights harder for the deal.
Inside the prompt
The scoring prompt is short, but every line is there for a reason. Here is what each one is doing and why.
- Write in the buyer's voice"Write in the BUYER's perspective, as if it were their internal memo"
- A champion forwards a memo they look rigorous for writing. They never forward a pitch that makes them look like your salesperson.
- Their numbers only"Use ONLY facts and numbers from the discovery inputs"
- Their CFO cannot dismiss their own figures as vendor marketing. A made-up number dies the instant finance checks it.
- Flag every assumption"If you must assume any number, mark it [ASSUMPTION - confirm] inline"
- Surfaces every guess so you confirm or soften it before the doc reaches finance, instead of presenting a guess as fact.
- Show the math"use THEIR numbers; show the math step by step"
- A checkable equation reads as credible. A single 'save over $600k' with no visible math gets discounted on sight.
- Conservative ROI"transparent, CONSERVATIVE math; show every assumption"
- Err low on every benefit, high on every cost. A believable 3x advances the deal; an unbelievable 10x dismisses the whole case.
- Quantify the status quo"The problem and its cost today"
- Names the price of doing nothing in their terms. Without it, the committee defaults to no decision because inaction looks free.
What you get
An excerpt of a tailored, buyer-voice business case with flagged assumptions, plus the matching mutual action plan.
BUSINESS CASE (excerpt), Meridian Freight
2. The problem today
Our operations team of 24 spends roughly 9 hours per week each on manual regional planning. At a loaded cost of about $55/hour [ASSUMPTION - confirm], that is 24 x 9 x 52 x $55 = approximately $617,000 per year spent on a process that does not scale with the Stockholm expansion. This time is invisible on the P&L today, which is part of why it has gone unaddressed.
4. Expected impact
Reducing planning time by a conservative 40% recovers roughly $247,000 per year in capacity, before counting the faster new-region ramp. We have modeled this deliberately on the low end; the vendor cited higher reductions, which we have discounted.
6. Risk of doing nothing
The Stockholm launch adds a fifth region to a planning process already at capacity. Without a change, ramp time for the new region is likely to exceed our current 11-week baseline, delaying revenue from the expansion.
MUTUAL ACTION PLAN
Step | Owner | Target date | Status
Business case review with VP Finance | Them | Jun 18 | Pending
Security questionnaire returned | Us | Jun 20 | Not started
MSA redline | Them (legal) | Jun 27 | [confirm with champion]
Budget approval | Them (VP Finance) | Jul 3 | [confirm with champion]
Contract signed | Both | Jul 18 | Target
Go-live | Both | Jul 31 | Target- Situation & goalIn their words, anchored to a real quote
- Opens with the prospect's own line about the pain. A paraphrase here reads as a vendor claim and the champion stops trusting it.
- The problem today24 x 9 x 52 x $55 = ~$617k/yr [ASSUMPTION - confirm]
- Their numbers, math shown step by step. The $55/hr is flagged because nobody stated it; you confirm it before finance does.
- Expected impact / ROIConservative 40% reduction = ~$247k recovered
- Deliberately modeled on the low end. The vendor cited higher; this case discounts it so it survives the CFO.
- Risk of doing nothingStockholm launch adds a fifth region to a process already at capacity
- The cost of the status quo, in their stated expansion terms. This is what moves a committee off the default of no decision.
- Mutual action planSteps, owners, dates back from go-live [confirm with champion]
- Includes THEIR internal steps: security review, MSA, budget approval. The flags become your next call's agenda.
Pitfalls to avoid
Invented or inflated ROI numbersA fabricated or optimistic figure collapses the moment finance reviews it and damages the champion who forwarded it. Use only stated numbers or clearly flagged, deliberately conservative assumptions, and show the math so it is checkable.
Vendor voice instead of buyer voiceIf it reads like a sales pitch, the champion will not forward it, because doing so makes them look like your salesperson. Write it as their own internal memo, in their perspective and their words.
Skipping the mutual action planA brilliant business case with no timeline and no owners still drifts. The MAP is what keeps the deal moving and, just as importantly, surfaces hidden internal approval steps before they blow your close date.
One-size-fits-all documentA CFO and a security lead care about completely different things. Offer tailored cuts and a one-page executive summary rather than handing everyone the same long document and hoping it lands.
Not confirming the assumptionsLeaving [ASSUMPTION - confirm] flags unresolved means presenting guesses as facts. Either confirm each number with the champion or replace it with a conservative range before the document goes anywhere near finance.
Questions people ask
- What if the prospect never gave me hard numbers in discovery?
- Then you flag the gaps instead of inventing figures. Write 'loaded labor cost: unknown, confirm with Dana' rather than letting the model assume $55/hour and present it as fact. Every [ASSUMPTION - confirm] becomes a quick question to the champion, and a case with three honest gaps survives finance far better than one with three confident guesses.
- Won't a business case in the buyer's voice feel like I'm putting words in their mouth?
- Only if you skip discovery. The case is built from their stated goal, their numbers, and verbatim quotes they actually said, so it reads as their situation, not your spin. The buyer voice is what lets the champion forward it without looking like your salesperson; a vendor-voice version never leaves their inbox.
- How conservative is too conservative on the ROI?
- Err low to the point it feels almost too modest. Read the ROI section as the prospect's CFO looking for a reason to reject it, and soften anything you could poke a hole in. A believable 3x that survives scrutiny advances the deal; an unbelievable 10x gets the whole case dismissed and makes the champion look naive for forwarding it.
- Do I really need the mutual action plan, or is the business case enough?
- You need both. A brilliant case with no timeline and no owners still drifts. The MAP keeps the deal moving and, just as importantly, flushes hidden internal steps, the security review, the MSA redline, the budget approval, into the open early. When the champion cannot tell you their own budget sign-off timeline, you have learned the deal is less qualified than the forecast claimed.