# 07 - Tyler Barker, Custom Alberta CFO Scenario

## Purpose

Test the custom scenario path and regional skepticism with an Alberta CFO who resists anything that sounds like an Ontario export.

## Setup

- Persona: Tyler Barker - Alberta CFO
- Scenario: Custom Practice Scenario
- Expected recommendation fit: not necessarily recommended, but should work because custom context is the source of truth.

## Custom Scenario Context

Tyler is joining a 15-minute call because his COO asked whether retirement benefits are costing the company field supervisors. Two senior field supervisors declined offers last quarter and both cited a competitor's retirement benefits. Tyler has never heard of CAAT and is skeptical of anything that sounds designed for a Toronto office workforce. The rep's objective is not to sell CAAT. The objective is to learn whether a pension evaluation is worth modelling for an Alberta field workforce.

## Language Policy

Do use:

```text
Alberta field workforce
labour cost
cash flow impact
model the floor
retention cost question
```

Do not use:

```text
Toronto
Bay Street
Ontario office
soft benefit
no risk
```

## Optional Rep Prep

Purpose: Determine whether Tyler sees retirement benefits as a measurable retention cost problem.

Outcome: Permission to send a model-input checklist, not a proposal.

Structure: Open with the COO trigger, explore field-supervisor retention economics, test regional fit concerns, summarize, propose a model-first next step.

Timing: 15 minutes.

SMARTER objective: Before time expires, agree on whether the declined-offer issue is worth a simple cash-flow and retention-cost model.

Likely hooks: Cash flow, labour cost, field supervisor retention, family owners' confidence.

Question funnels: What is the real retention cost? Which workforce segment matters? How would he model the floor? What would make this feel irrelevant to Alberta?

Likely resistance: "This sounds like something designed somewhere else."

Intended action plan: Rep sends model inputs. Tyler decides whether the numbers justify another 20 minutes.

## Rep Lines

1. Tyler, I know we only have 15 minutes. I am not going to ask you to evaluate a pension today. I want to understand whether the declined-offer issue is a measurable retention cost question for your Alberta field workforce. Is that a fair use of the time?

2. When the two supervisors declined, what did that cost you in recruiting, downtime, or wage pressure?

3. Is this isolated to two people, or is it showing up as a pattern in field-supervisor roles?

4. If you were to model this, what would you need to understand first: labour cost, cash flow impact, contribution floor, or administrative burden?

5. Let me check the filter. If this sounds like an Ontario office solution, you are out. If it can be tested as a field-workforce retention cost question, you might model it. Is that right?

6. The only story worth telling is a numbers story. Better retirement benefits may or may not pencil out. The reason to look is whether the cost of doing nothing is now visible in offer declines and supervisor turnover.

7. I can send a one-page model-input checklist: contribution assumptions, workforce segment, cash flow questions, and retention-cost inputs. You can decide whether it deserves another 20 minutes. Should I build it around field supervisors only?

## Expected Evaluation

Strong performance should show:

- Custom context governs the call.
- Regional skepticism is respected without using prohibited regional triggers.
- Rep asks business-cost questions, not philosophy questions.
- Next step is model-first and low pressure.