07_Clarifying_Questions_for_Proposal_Refinement

Clarifying Questions — InstantNonprofit Engagement Proposal Refinement

Purpose: Questions that need answers before finalizing the proposal and engagement agreement. Prepared: 2026-03-16 Instructions: Review each question, select your answer (or write your own), and add any notes in the textarea. Then re-upload this document so we can finalize everything. Related: Draft Proposal | Senior Consultant Review | Business Dynamics Psychoanalysis

---

SECTION 1: Financial & Engagement Structure

---

Q1. What pricing level do you want to lead with?

Why this is being asked: The proposal currently recommends $5,000.Yourstandardrateis$175/hr, which would put 50 hours at $8,750.ButChristiandisclosed$30K cash on hand, Chapter 11 bankruptcy history for the company, and personal Chapter 7. Their real budget ceiling is $7-8K. The price you choose signals how you want to be perceived — too low says “desperate,” too high kills the deal.

Why A is recommended: $5Ksitscomfortablyinsidetheir$7-8K available budget, leaves breathing room, is high enough to be taken seriously, and positions this as a strategic investment, not a discount. The first-client case study value + testimonial + network access justifies the below-market rate.

• **A) $5,000—ORB-Lite+FunnelSprint(recommended)\ast \ast —Comfortablefortheirbudget.Effectiverate$100/hr. Below your target but defensible for first engagement + case study value. Leaves $2-3K of their budget as breathing room for unexpected needs.

• **B) $3,000—Floor/lossleader\ast \ast —Maximumdoor-opener.Butat$60/hr effective rate, this signals “cheap” rather than “strategic.” The Senior Consultant Review specifically warns against this — Christian will anchor you at this rate permanently.

• **C) $7,500—Closertomarketrate\ast \ast —Morealignedwithactualvaluedelivered.Butmaycausestickershockgiven$30K cash position and bankruptcy history. Would require a stronger pitch on ROI (Return on Investment).

• D) $5,000base+$2,500 success bonus — $5K upfront, plus a bonus if specific KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) are met (e.g., zero funnel errors for 30 days post-engagement, monitoring fully operational). Ties compensation to results. More complex but aligns incentives.

• E) Other

Your answer: ___

Additional notes:

[Enter any additional thoughts, context, or concerns here]

---

Q2. What payment structure should we use?

Why this is being asked: This is the single most important protection for a first engagement. The Senior Consultant Review was emphatic: “50% upfront, no exceptions.” This matters even MORE because Christian disclosed Chapter 11 (company) and Chapter 7 (personal) bankruptcy history. New consultants who flex on payment terms on Day 1 rarely get paid in full. The friend dynamic makes this harder but also more important to establish.

Why A is recommended: It’s industry standard, protects you from non-payment, and sets a professional precedent from Day 1. The friend dynamic makes this MORE important, not less — it establishes that this is a professional relationship with professional expectations.

• A) 50% upfront / 50% upon delivery, Net 15 (recommended) — $2,500uponsigning,$2,500 due within 15 days of readout delivery. Industry standard. Non-negotiable given the bankruptcy history. Clear, professional, and fair to both sides.

• B) 100% upfront — Eliminates all payment risk. May feel aggressive for a friend relationship, but given the bankruptcy disclosure, it’s defensible. You could frame it as: “For this first engagement, I do 100% upfront — it keeps things simple.”

• C) Three payments — 40% / 30% / 30% — Signing, mid-check, delivery. More cash flow for them, but creates 3 payment-chasing events instead of 2. Adds administrative overhead on your side.

• D) Milestone-based — Payment tied to specific deliverables (e.g., $1,500atORB-Litecompletion,$2,000 at Funnel Audit completion, $1,500 at readout). More granular but adds complexity. Could be a compromise if they push back on 50% upfront.

• E) Other

Your answer: ___

Additional notes:

[Enter any additional thoughts, context, or concerns here]

---

Q3. Should you present multiple pricing options in the proposal?

Why this is being asked: Presenting multiple options can anchor the buyer higher (the “Good/Better/Best” effect), but too many choices overwhelm a budget-constrained, stressed-out client. Christian is already juggling fundraising, broken funnels, and team management. Decision fatigue is real. The Senior Consultant Review recommends leading with ONE clear recommendation.

Why A is recommended: One clear recommendation shows confidence and makes it easy for Christian to say yes. You committed on the call to “include a couple different offers,” but you can honor that by showing the primary option + what Phase 2 could look like (not competing Phase 1 options). This way they see the path, not a menu.

• A) Primary option + Phase 2 teaser (recommended) — Lead with $5K ORB-Lite + Sprint as THE recommendation. Show Phase 2 options (retainer, data enrichment) as “here’s where this leads.” One decision now, vision for later.

• B) Primary + reduced-scope fallback — Lead with $5Kfullpackage.Iftheypushback,havea$3K “ORB-Lite Only” (assessment + deliverables, no funnel sprint) ready in your back pocket. Don’t put it in the proposal — offer it verbally if they balk.

• **C) Three tiers — Good/Better/Best ($3K/$5K/$7.5K)\ast \ast —Classicconsultingapproach.Anchorson$7.5K and makes $5K feel like a deal. But may overwhelm a budget-constrained client and invites cherry-picking the cheapest option.

• D) Two phases framed as sequential — “Phase 1A: ORB-Lite ($3K,1week)\to Phase1B:FunnelSprint($3K, 2 weeks).” Lets them buy in stages. Lower barrier but fragments the engagement and may lead to “let’s just do 1A and see.”

• E) Other

Your answer: ___

Additional notes:

[Enter any additional thoughts, context, or concerns here]

---

SECTION 2: Scope & Boundaries

---

Q4. How much of the funnel work do you actually want to own?

Why this is being asked: There’s a critical distinction between auditing funnels (assessment), fixing funnels (implementation), project managing someone else fixing funnels (PM), and actually building new pages (web dev). Christian said at [01:06:56]: “Every other step of making sure that gets done, gets done well, is thoroughly tested, etc does not need to be a marketing person. It needs to be who knows how to get projects done and has a technical eye.” He wants a technical PM, not a web developer. But scope can still creep fast here.

Why A is recommended: This is the sweet spot for a fractional CIO (fCIO). You audit, you set up monitoring, you document what needs fixing, you hand off. You DON’T become the web developer or Brandon’s manager. If you do Option C, you’re doing Brandon’s job. If you do Option D, you’re managing a team you didn’t hire.

• A) Audit + monitoring setup + recommendations (recommended) — Review all funnel pages, set up automated error detection (UptimeRobot, Clarity alerts), document issues with priority ranking, provide CRO (Conversion Rate Optimization) recommendations. Hands-off on actual fixes. Clear boundary. This is what a fCIO does.

• B) Audit only — lightest touch — Review the funnels, document issues, hand over a prioritized fix list. No monitoring setup. Someone else (Brandon or a new contractor) does everything. Lowest scope, lowest risk, but also lowest perceived value.

• C) Audit + monitoring + fix the top 3-5 critical issues — Same as A but you also roll up your sleeves on the most revenue-impacting bugs. Higher perceived value but scope creep risk — “fixing” JavaScript errors on WordPress can snowball into full-stack debugging.

• D) Full project management of the funnel rebuild — Own the funnel fix project end-to-end, including coordinating Brandon, Catherine, and the Egypt dev. Highest scope, highest risk, most likely to exceed hours. Also puts you in the middle of the Brandon tension.

• E) Other

Your answer: ___

Additional notes:

[Enter any additional thoughts, context, or concerns here]

---

Q5. How do you want to handle the Brandon situation?

Why this is being asked: Brandon is their new PPC/CRO (Pay-Per-Click / Conversion Rate Optimization) person. There’s active tension: Christian is frustrated that Brandon hasn’t delivered a plan. Jackie pushed back, saying “Brandon just onboarded” and “there was no plan to do that because the last conversation we had with him was fixing the site.” After this back-and-forth, Jackie withdrew with: “Christian, you own this project. You just, you let me know whatever you want to do.” If you step into this without clarity, you become the referee in their internal disagreement.

Why A is recommended: This is the safest play. You put it in writing that you don’t manage their contractors. You have one coordination meeting at kickoff to understand Brandon’s scope and avoid duplication. Then you stay in your lane.

• A) Acknowledge in writing + one coordination touchpoint (recommended) — State in the proposal: “This engagement does not include managing third-party contractors. Solanasis will coordinate with the client’s team at kickoff to avoid duplication but does not direct or oversee contractor work.” Then have one 30-min call with Brandon at kickoff to understand overlap.

• B) Ignore Brandon entirely — Scope your work independently. If there’s overlap, that’s their problem to sort out. Clean for you, but may create friction if your recommendations conflict with what Brandon is doing.

• C) Offer to evaluate Brandon’s plan — Include a brief assessment of whether Brandon can deliver what’s needed. Could add value but also creates political risk — if you say Brandon can’t deliver, you’re in the middle of a fight.

• D) Include Brandon coordination in the scope — Budget 3-4 hours for active coordination with Brandon throughout the engagement. More helpful but blurs the line between your scope and his.

• E) Other

Your answer: ___

Additional notes:

[Enter any additional thoughts, context, or concerns here]

---

Q6. Should any Iconic Impact work be included in Phase 1?

Why this is being asked: Jackie specifically mentioned needing support for Iconic Impact backend processes at [01:22:52]: “We might need some support on the back end there for sure of like the systems, building the processes, all that type of stuff.” Including even a small mention could win her over — she’s skeptical about this engagement and her buy-in is critical for the retainer conversation. BUT: Iconic Impact is a separate entity, pre-revenue, and could become a scope black hole. Christian’s “vaporware” sales approach means Iconic Impact deals could appear at any moment and suddenly need urgent tech support.

Why A is recommended: Keep Phase 1 clean. Iconic Impact is the carrot for Phase 2. Mention it in the “Next Steps” section of the readout to show Jackie you’re thinking about her priorities, but don’t commit any hours to it now. This also protects you legally — mixing work for two separate entities in one engagement is messy.

• A) No Iconic Impact in Phase 1 — mention as Phase 2 opportunity (recommended) — Strictly InstantNonprofit only. In the readout and 30/60/90 plan, include a section: “Iconic Impact: Recommended Next Steps” that signals to Jackie you understand her needs. This earns goodwill without scope risk.

• B) Include a 2-hour “Iconic Impact readiness assessment” — Quick review of what tech/ops infrastructure they’d need for Iconic Impact delivery. Shows Jackie you’re thinking about her world. Costs 2 hours but could be the thing that tips her from skeptic to advocate.

• C) Include shared infrastructure in the security assessment — If InstantNonprofit and Iconic Impact share any domains, hosting, or tools, include those in the ORB-Lite scope. Practical overlap that adds value without opening a separate engagement.

• D) Other

Your answer: ___

Additional notes:

[Enter any additional thoughts, context, or concerns here]

---

SECTION 3: Relationship & Dynamics

---

Q7. How do you want to address the friend-to-client boundary?

Why this is being asked: The #1 risk flag from BOTH the Psychoanalysis and Senior Consultant Review is the friend dynamic. Christian will text you at 10pm. He’ll say “hey can you just quickly look at this…” He’ll assume flexibility on scope and payment because you’re friends. The $8K loss on the previous operator engagement happened partly because boundaries weren’t clear. How you handle this from Day 1 determines the entire engagement health. This is especially critical because it’s your first engagement — the precedent you set here becomes your standard.

Why A is recommended: A brief, warm framing in the proposal normalizes the professional boundary without making it awkward. Something like: “Because we have a friendship and a professional relationship, I want to make sure we set clear expectations so BOTH thrive.” This respects the relationship while protecting you.

• A) Brief framing paragraph in the proposal (recommended) — Include a short section: “I value our friendship, and I want to make sure our professional engagement is just as strong. That means clear scope, clear communication channels, and professional accountability on both sides. All work requests go through ClickUp or email — not text or WhatsApp.” Warm but clear.

• B) Separate conversation before sending the proposal — Call Christian before sending the proposal and explicitly discuss the friend-client dynamic. More personal and courageous. Sets the tone verbally before anything is in writing.

• C) Include in the engagement agreement — Add a formal clause about communication channels, business hours, and scope boundaries. Most legally protective but also the most impersonal. Could feel heavy for a friend relationship.

• D) Don’t address it directly — set boundaries through actions — Just be professional and enforce boundaries when they’re tested. Risk: boundaries never get explicitly established and you’re always playing defense.

• E) Other

Your answer: ___

Additional notes:

[Enter any additional thoughts, context, or concerns here]

---

Q8. Who is your primary stakeholder — Christian or Jackie?

Why this is being asked: Christian is the decision-maker and the one driving this engagement. But Jackie is the operator — she said at [01:20:04] “Christian, you own this project” which means she’s positioned herself as hands-off on this specific engagement. She also asked pointed questions about your experience and explicitly said the timing is “premature.” If she doesn’t buy in, the retainer conversation dies. The Psychoanalysis found that Jackie is your “secret asset” — if you make her life easier, she becomes your advocate.

Why A is recommended: Christian writes the checks and drives the engagement. But Jackie determines whether you get the retainer. Structure deliverables and touchpoints that speak to BOTH. The readout should address one of Jackie’s pain points (Iconic Impact readiness, Autopilot optimization, or team operations) even though it’s not formally in scope — this is how you win her over.

• A) Christian as POC, Jackie as key stakeholder (recommended) — Christian is the primary contact and decision-maker. All work requests and approvals flow through him. But the readout and 30/60/90 plan should address Jackie’s priorities too (Iconic Impact backend needs, operational improvements). Include her in the kickoff and readout meetings.

• B) Christian only — He’s the CEO, he’s the POC (Point of Contact), he’s paying. Jackie can join calls if she wants. Simplest structure but risks alienating the person who evaluates whether you’re actually delivering.

• C) Both as equal stakeholders — Every communication goes to both. Every decision needs both. Risk: slower decisions, conflicting direction, and the same dynamic where they both assume the other person is handling something (like the rescheduling mishap).

• D) Other

Your answer: ___

Additional notes:

[Enter any additional thoughts, context, or concerns here]

---

SECTION 4: Risk Management & Walk-Away

---

Q9. How concerned should you be about the bankruptcy history?

Why this is being asked: Christian disclosed at [38:15] that the company went through Chapter 11 reorganization (~2020) and he personally went through Chapter 7 (~2022). This was mentioned casually in the context of explaining why they can’t get SBA loans. The Senior Consultant Review flagged this as a HIGH payment risk indicator. Combined with “only $8Kavailablefrom$30K cash,” this paints a picture of a company that has been through severe financial distress and is still in recovery mode. On the other hand, they survived bankruptcy and are still operating — that shows resilience.

Why A is recommended: 50% upfront is non-negotiable given this history. But you don’t need to treat them like a credit risk to their face — just make sure the contract protects you. The bankruptcy also means Christian is experienced with financial stress, which could mean he’s more disciplined about spending… or more likely to default if cash gets tight again.

• A) Enforce 50% upfront strictly, but don’t make it about the bankruptcy (recommended) — Your payment terms should be “this is our standard for all first engagements.” No need to reference the bankruptcy. But internally, you should know: if they miss the first payment deadline, DO NOT continue work. The $2,500 upfront is your floor — if they can’t pay that, the engagement isn’t viable.

• B) Require 100% upfront given the risk — Justifiable from a risk standpoint. Frame it as: “For sprint-style engagements, we do 100% upfront.” Some consultants do this. May kill the deal.

• C) Ask Christian directly about current financial health — Before sending the proposal, have a frank conversation: “Christian, you mentioned the bankruptcy history. Where are you guys now financially? I want to make sure we structure this in a way that works for both of us.” Courageous and honest, but could feel invasive.

• D) Reduce your exposure — split the engagement — Instead of one $5Kengagement,dotwosequentialphases:$2,500 for ORB-Lite (1 week), then $2,500 for Funnel Sprint (2 weeks) as a separate agreement. If they don’t pay for Phase 1, you never start Phase 2. More administrative but limits your downside.

• E) Other

Your answer: ___

Additional notes:

[Enter any additional thoughts, context, or concerns here]

---

Q10. What’s your walk-away threshold?

Why this is being asked: Every engagement has a point where the cost (time, energy, stress, opportunity cost) exceeds the benefit. For a $5Kengagementat50hours,youreffectiverateis$100/hr. If scope creeps to 75 hours, you’re at $67/hr.At100hours,yo{u}^{\prime }reat$50/hr — below what Catherine gets paid at $20/hr. You need to know your limits BEFORE you’re emotionally invested. Christian has a pattern of “I could rattle off 20 things” — this will test your discipline.

Why A is recommended: A 20% overrun buffer (60 hours) is generous but manageable. It gives you room for the inevitable small asks while keeping a hard line. At 60 hours, you have the escalation conversation. This is also where the “Phase 2 Backlog” document becomes your best friend — everything beyond scope goes there.

• A) 60 hours (20% over) = escalation conversation; 75 hours = hard stop (recommended) — At 60 hours: direct conversation with Christian: “We’ve exceeded the budgeted scope. Here are our options: Change Order for additional work, scope reduction, or we deliver what we have and discuss Phase 2.” At 75 hours: engagement ends regardless. Anything beyond requires a new SOW (Statement of Work).

• B) 50 hours = hard stop, no exceptions — Deliver what you can at 50 hours. Period. Most disciplined but may leave the engagement feeling incomplete, especially if the ORB-Lite assessment reveals more issues than expected.

• C) No hard cap — this is a must-win first client — You’ll do whatever it takes to make it a success for the case study. Risk: burnout, resentment, and you’ve trained Christian to expect free overruns on every future engagement.

• D) Time-based rather than hour-based — The engagement ends on Day 15 regardless of hours spent. If you’re efficient, great. If it takes more, that’s your problem to optimize. Forces you to be disciplined about what you take on.

• E) Other

Your answer: ___

Additional notes:

[Enter any additional thoughts, context, or concerns here]

---

Q11. What’s your assessment on the “vaporware” dynamic?

Why this is being asked: Christian said at [54:57]: “My expertise in fact, is selling vaporware and then building it.” This is revealing. It means he’s comfortable selling things before they exist and figuring it out after. This has two implications for you: (1) He may sell an Iconic Impact deal for $30K-$50K and suddenly need urgent tech/ops support that’s not in your scope; (2) He may apply the same “sell it then build it” approach to what you deliver — meaning he may present YOUR preliminary findings to investors before they’re finalized. How do you want to handle this?

Why A is recommended: A pre-release review clause protects you from your work being misrepresented to investors while still being collaborative. The Phase 2 backlog captures any Iconic Impact urgency without derailing Phase 1.

• A) Add a deliverable usage clause + Phase 2 fast-track option (recommended) — In the agreement: “Deliverables are draft until the readout presentation. Client agrees not to share preliminary findings externally without Solanasis’s written consent.” Then, in the proposal: “If an urgent Iconic Impact need arises during Phase 1, we can discuss a fast-track Change Order to address it without derailing the current engagement.”

• B) Ignore it — that’s his business — What Christian does with your deliverables after you hand them over is his call. Less restrictive but you lose control of how your work is presented.

• C) Address it verbally at kickoff — During the kickoff call, say: “I know you’re simultaneously fundraising. Please don’t share our preliminary findings with investors until we’ve finalized them at the readout. I want to make sure what goes out represents our best work.”

• D) Other

Your answer: ___

Additional notes:

[Enter any additional thoughts, context, or concerns here]

---

SECTION 5: Strategic Decisions

---

Q12. When and how should you ask about the case study / testimonial?

Why this is being asked: This is your FIRST engagement. A case study and testimonial from a well-connected founder like Christian (who knows David Meltzer, Marcus Lemonis, the Aspire Tour crowd) could be worth more than the engagement fee in terms of credibility-building for Solanasis. But asking too early feels transactional. Asking too late means they’ve moved on.

Why A is recommended: Including it as a standard clause in the agreement normalizes it and removes the awkwardness. Then you follow up for the actual testimonial 2 weeks post-delivery when they’ve had time to see the impact. Frame it positively: “We’d love to share our work together as a success story.”

• A) Standard clause in agreement + follow-up 2 weeks post-delivery (recommended) — Agreement clause: “With client’s written approval, Solanasis may reference this engagement in anonymized form for marketing purposes.” Then 2 weeks after readout, send a request: “Would you be open to a brief testimonial about your experience?”

• B) Ask at the readout if it went well — If they’re happy with the results, ask in person during the readout meeting. Most natural timing, but depends entirely on the readout going well.

• C) Don’t ask — earn it and wait — Focus purely on delivery. If it’s exceptional, they’ll offer. Risk: they won’t think to offer, and the window closes.

• D) Other

Your answer: ___

Additional notes:

[Enter any additional thoughts, context, or concerns here]

---

Q13. Overall go/no-go — after reviewing all analysis, should you proceed?

Why this is being asked: You’ve now seen the full Psychoanalysis, the Senior Consultant Review, the corrected financials (revenue under $2M, bankruptcy history), and Jackie’s explicit “premature” warning. The question is: knowing everything you now know, is this the right first engagement for Solanasis? The strategic value is real (case study, testimonial, retainer pipeline, network access). But so are the risks (scope creep, friend dynamic, cash-strapped client, bankruptcy history, misaligned co-founders, pattern of burning through contractors/operators).

Why A is recommended: The strategic value outweighs the financial risk IF — and only if — the guardrails are enforced. 50% upfront, hard scope, Change Order process, time caps. The $5Kyouchargeisaninvestmentinapotential$36K-$60K/year retainer + your first case study + access to Christian’s network. The downside is capped at your time investment.

• A) GO — with all guardrails from this proposal strictly enforced (recommended) — Proceed with $5K ORB-Lite + Sprint, 50% upfront, hard scope, Change Order process, and time caps. No exceptions on payment or scope. If they can’t agree to these terms, that tells you everything you need to know.

• B) GO — but reduce scope to ORB-Lite only ($3K, 1 week) — Smallest possible first engagement. See if they’re professional to work with before committing to the funnel sprint. Lower risk, lower reward, lower case study value.

• C) PAUSE — answer these clarifying questions first, then decide — Don’t send a proposal until you’ve thought through all of these questions. More deliberate but slower — and you told them you’d send it “the next day.”

• D) NO-GO — too many red flags for a first engagement — Politely decline. The bankruptcy history + cash constraints + friend dynamic + unclear scope + pattern of burning through contractors = too risky for Solanasis’s first client. Find a client with clearer needs and more budget. You can maintain the friendship without risking the business relationship.

• E) Other

Your answer: ___

Additional notes:

[Enter any additional thoughts, context, or concerns here]

---

SECTION 6: Information to Request From Christian & Jackie

---

Q14. What information should we request before sending the final proposal?

Why this is being asked: The tighter the scope, the less room for scope creep. Right now, we’re proposing to audit funnels and check security — but we don’t know exactly what we’re walking into. Getting key information upfront lets us scope more accurately and shows professionalism.

Why A is recommended: All of these items are reasonable pre-engagement requests. They also serve as a “professionalism test” — if Christian can’t provide basic information like admin access levels and funnel URLs within a few days, that tells you a lot about how the engagement will go.

• A) Request all of the following (recommended):

  1. Current Go High Level funnel URLs (so we can preview the issues before Day 1)
  2. WP Engine hosting plan details and admin access level available
  3. WordPress admin access (or confirmation it will be available Day 1)
  4. List of all active team members with their system access levels
  5. Confirmation of who the POC (Point of Contact) will be and their availability during the 15-day sprint
  6. Brandon’s current scope/plan (if any exists in writing)
  7. Their top 3 funnels by traffic volume (so we prioritize correctly)
  8. Most recent Microsoft Clarity error report (Catherine pulls these daily)
  9. Monthly website traffic and conversion data (if available)

• B) Request only the critical items (items 1, 2, 3, 5) — Minimum needed to start. Gather everything else during the engagement. Faster but less prepared.

• C) Don’t request anything — discover it during the engagement — Walk in cold and discover everything as part of the ORB-Lite assessment. Most authentic “fresh eyes” approach but less efficient.

• D) Other

Your answer: ___

Additional notes:

[Enter any additional thoughts, context, or concerns here]

---

Q15. When should you send the proposal?

Why this is being asked: You told them on the call: “I’m gonna get you guys a proposal… I’ll try to include a couple different offers.” You implied “the next day.” Speed shows professionalism and that you take their business seriously. But sending too fast might suggest you didn’t think deeply enough. Christian is also under time pressure — he said “I owe a deck that’s probably 20 minutes, 30 minutes from done” and has “15 other things that are mission critical.” Momentum matters.

Why A is recommended: You committed to “the next day.” Delivering on that commitment is a trust signal. Christian is a momentum-driven person — if you wait too long, he’ll move on to the next shiny object. The proposal is already drafted; you just need to finalize based on your answers here.

• A) Tomorrow (Tuesday) — as promised (recommended) — Send a clean, client-facing version of the proposal by end of day Tuesday. This honors your commitment and shows you operate with speed and professionalism. Christian will notice.

• B) Wednesday (48 hours) — Gives you time to polish based on these clarifying questions. Slightly late on your commitment but still fast. Send a brief note Tuesday: “Proposal is almost ready — sending tomorrow.”

• C) After they provide the requested information — Most thorough but slowest. Risk: they lose momentum, other priorities take over, and the engagement never starts. Also feels like you’re making them do homework before you’ll help.

• D) Today (same day as this analysis) — Maximum speed. But risks looking like you didn’t analyze deeply. Also, today is already the day of the call — sending same-day might feel rushed.

• E) Other

Your answer: ___

Additional notes:

[Enter any additional thoughts, context, or concerns here]

---

SECTION 7: Anything I’m Missing

---

Q16. Is there anything from the call that the transcript doesn’t capture?

Why this is being asked: Transcripts don’t capture tone of voice, facial expressions, energy levels, or the “feeling” of a conversation. You were there. I’ve analyzed the words. But there may be something — a look Jackie gave, a tone shift when Christian talked about the bankruptcy, a vibe that can’t be transcribed — that changes the picture.

Your notes:

[What did the call FEEL like? Any gut reactions? Anything that worried you or excited you
that isn't obvious from the transcript?]

---

Q17. Is there anything else you want addressed in the proposal or analysis?

Your notes:

[Any other questions, concerns, or ideas you want me to work into the final deliverables?]

---

QUICK REFERENCE: What You Committed To on the Call

From the transcript, you said you would:

1. “Shoot over a proposal for that aspect” — the funnel/website stabilization
2. “Try to scope that out as best as possible” — tight scoping
3. “Our initial test run” — framing as a test/pilot
4. “Include a couple different offers for ways that we could proceed” — options
5. “Making sure that we are not glossing over major issues” — the ORB component
6. “Setting you up to have that robustness” — operational resilience framing

This proposal draft addresses all six commitments.

---

Pro Tip: Fill these out quickly — even brief answers are better than no answers. The goal is to sharpen the proposal, not write a thesis. Once I have your responses, I’ll finalize the client-facing proposal, customize the engagement agreement, and prepare the readout framework.