# 04 - Wei Zhang, Inbound Campaign Finance Model

## Purpose

Test an inbound campaign conversation with an analytical VP Finance who needs data he can model, not benefit philosophy.

## Setup

- Persona: Wei Zhang - Analytical VP Finance
- Scenario: Inbound Campaign Conversation
- Expected recommendation fit: recommended

## Scenario Context

Wei registered for a campaign landing page called "DB plan evaluation inputs for finance teams." He downloaded a funding-ratio and employer-cost checklist. His CFO asked him to model three board scenarios for Q3: current DC, enhanced DC, and a DB option.

## Language Policy

Do use:

```text
methodology
source documents
model inputs
public disclosure
employer contribution rate
```

Do not use:

```text
approximately
trust us
proprietary
guaranteed
simple decision
```

## Optional Rep Prep

Purpose: Understand what Wei needs to model CAAT credibly.

Outcome: Agree on the exact disclosure documents and assumptions required for his board model.

Structure: Confirm campaign trigger, ask model-input questions, pivot to prioritized data gaps, offer a document-based next step.

Timing: 20 minutes.

SMARTER objective: By call end, identify the top three missing model inputs and send source documents within two business days.

Likely hooks: NPV, cost per FTE, funding ratio, administrative cost per member, no surprises.

Question funnels: What model is he building? Which assumptions matter? What public disclosure is sufficient? What board questions will the CFO ask?

Likely resistance: "I cannot use vendor claims in a board model."

Intended action plan: Rep sends document links and a model-input checklist. Wei confirms whether the inputs are usable.

## Rep Lines

1. Wei, I saw you downloaded the finance-team checklist. What part of the board model are you trying to solve right now?

2. When you compare current DC, enhanced DC, and a DB option, which inputs are the hardest to make apples-to-apples?

3. What would make a source usable for your model: public disclosure, contract language, contribution-rate methodology, or something else?

4. Let me check the priority. You do not need a benefits overview. You need model inputs you can source, defend, and hand to the CFO without surprises. Is that fair?

5. If we focused the follow-up on three items, would you prioritize employer contribution rate, funding-ratio disclosure, or administrative cost per member?

6. The useful story here is narrow: CAAT may be worth modelling if the public disclosure and contribution methodology are clean enough for your board process. The next step should not be a testimonial. It should be source documents and assumptions.

7. I can send the funding, contribution-rate, and admin-cost source materials by Wednesday. If they are usable, would you be open to a follow-up where we test the assumptions against your board-model format?

## Expected Evaluation

Strong performance should show:

- Campaign response used to understand finance intent.
- High specificity around model inputs.
- Avoids vague claims and prohibited language.
- Strong pivot from data needs to action plan.
- Evidence that the rep respects Wei's technical buyer role.