# 09 - Slide and Language Policy Test

## Purpose

Test image upload, persona visual reaction, and evaluator scoring for slide use plus campaign language policy.

## Setup

- Persona: Priya Nair - Commercial HR Leader
- Scenario: Inbound Campaign Conversation
- Expected recommendation fit: recommended

## Scenario Context

Priya attended a campaign webinar on benefits harmonization after acquisition. She is under a 60-day PE board deadline and is managing multiple integration workstreams. She needs fast evaluation, low administrative drag, and a way to explain the benefit strategy to technical staff.

## Language Policy

Do use:

```text
benefits harmonization
retention risk
implementation path
board-ready summary
workforce scalability
```

Do not use:

```text
slow
complex implementation
requires dedicated administration
guaranteed
no-brainer
```

## Slide to Upload

Create or export a simple PNG slide with this content:

```text
Benefits Harmonization Options

Current DC plan
- 3% match
- inconsistent legacy business-unit rules
- low differentiation for senior technical talent

Enhanced DC
- easier to explain
- higher recurring cost
- retention impact uncertain

DB-style evaluation
- stronger long-term value story
- needs implementation clarity
- needs board-ready risk summary
```

Upload the slide after the persona responds to your first or second question.

## Optional Rep Prep

Purpose: Understand whether the campaign topic maps to Priya's integration deadline.

Outcome: Agree on a fast evaluation path and the materials needed for her PE board update.

Structure: Confirm webinar trigger, ask about integration pressure, share slide, invite reaction, pivot to priorities, propose next step.

Timing: 20 minutes.

SMARTER objective: Identify the top two board-ready evaluation criteria and agree to send a one-page implementation-path summary within three business days.

Likely hooks: Retention of senior technical talent, benefits harmonization, speed, low administration, PE board credibility.

Question funnels: What caught attention? What deadline is driving this? Which population matters most? What would create admin drag?

Likely resistance: "I cannot add another implementation workstream."

Intended action plan: Rep sends implementation-path summary. Priya confirms whether it fits the board package.

## Rep Lines

1. Priya, I saw you joined the benefits-harmonization webinar. What part of that topic connected to the integration work you are doing right now?

2. With the PE board deadline, what would make an option useful rather than just interesting?

3. I am going to share a simple comparison slide. I do not want to pitch from it. I want to see whether it reflects the trade-offs you are actually weighing.

After uploading the slide, say:

4. Looking at that slide, where is it accurate, and where does it miss how your board or technical leaders would think about this?

5. Let me check the hooks. You need benefits harmonization, retention risk addressed for senior technical talent, and an implementation path that does not add another heavy workstream. Is that right?

6. Which one is the priority for your board package: retention risk, implementation path, or cost narrative?

7. The story I would make board-ready is this: the question is not whether one option sounds richer. It is whether the option helps with workforce scalability and retention without creating integration drag. CAAT only deserves more evaluation if we can make that implementation path clear.

8. Would it help if I send a one-page implementation-path summary in three business days, using the criteria you just named, so you can decide whether it belongs in the board package?

## Expected Evaluation

Strong performance should show:

- Persona comments on the uploaded visual.
- Evaluator includes slide use in `Slide and visual context`.
- Rep asks Priya to react to the slide rather than presenting it as proof.
- Language policy is respected.
- Campaign context and board deadline shape the next step.