# 06 - Diane Tremblay, Full Precision Selling Conversation

## Purpose

Test the full Precision Selling arc with a CFO who is the economic buyer and will not trust claims without numbers.

## Setup

- Persona: Diane Tremblay - Financial Gatekeeper
- Scenario: Full Precision Selling Conversation
- Expected recommendation fit: recommended

## Scenario Context

The managing partner asked Diane to evaluate pension options after a peer firm presented at a conference. Diane has not sent a recommendation because a past deferred-compensation mistake hurt her credibility with partners. She needs hard numbers, contract language, and a path that will not create a new problem on the managing partner's desk.

## Language Policy

Do use:

```text
cost per head
balance sheet impact
contract language
methodology
partner confidence
```

Do not use:

```text
innovative
modern approach
seamless
no risk
guaranteed
```

## Optional Rep Prep

Purpose: Understand Diane's approval criteria and earn a finance-specific next step.

Outcome: Agreement to review a diligence package and schedule a finance-led follow-up.

Structure: POST, discovery, pivot, targeted story, shield resistance, action plan.

Timing: 30 minutes.

SMARTER objective: By the end of the call, define Diane's top approval criteria and book a finance follow-up within 10 business days.

Likely hooks: Partner confidence, clean audits, cost discipline, not repeating a consultant-led mistake.

Question funnels: Why now? What happened with past benefit programs? How will partners judge the recommendation? What numbers are non-negotiable?

Likely resistance: "I will not put my name on something unless I can model the downside."

Intended action plan: Rep sends finance diligence pack with source documents. Diane identifies required contract or cost questions before the follow-up.

## Rep Lines

1. Diane, I want to set context before we get into substance. My purpose is to understand what would make a pension option financially defensible for you, not to push you through a generic benefits pitch. If we do this well, the outcome is clarity on whether a finance diligence package is worth your time. Does that structure work for 30 minutes?

2. What prompted the managing partner to ask for a recommendation now?

3. When you think about putting your name on this, what would make the recommendation feel risky?

4. What did the deferred-compensation issue change about how you evaluate outside advice?

5. What are the hard numbers partners will expect: cost per head, balance sheet impact, contribution rate, implementation cost, or something else?

6. Let me pivot and check accuracy. The hooks are partner confidence, no surprises, hard numbers, and language you can defend. You are open to evaluation, but only if the methodology and contract implications are clear. What am I missing?

7. Of those, which would block progress first if it was not answered?

8. The story I would tell is this: CAAT is not a "modern approach" to benefits. It is a structured pension option that has to stand up to finance diligence. The potential reason to say yes is not novelty. It is whether the employer contribution model, governance documents, and implementation path create a better retention answer without creating an unmodelled liability.

9. What concerns does that still leave unresolved for you?

10. Of those concerns, realistically, which ones need to be solved before you would allow a second conversation?

11. A modified next step could be this: I send a finance diligence pack with cost, contribution, governance, and contract-language source materials. You mark what is insufficient. Then we use a follow-up to close only those gaps, not restart the pitch. I can send it by Thursday. Would that be a responsible next step?

## Expected Evaluation

Strong performance should show:

- POST is explicit.
- Discovery comes before story.
- Pivot summarizes and prioritizes.
- Story is finance-specific and avoids prohibited language.
- Resistance is handled through shield questions.
- Agreement includes owner and timing.