SolutionsWorking the deal
Silence is information. Read it.
Three good calls, a demo that landed, and then nothing. The close date on the board has not moved because nobody has been willing to move it. The deal is not slow. Something happened in a room you were not in, and the only question worth asking is which room.
01What is really happening
A champion who stops replying has usually lost an argument.
Silence after momentum rarely means disinterest. It means your champion took your case into a room and it did not survive contact with a competing priority, a budget freeze, a security objection, or a rival with a better internal sponsor. Following up asks them to relive a loss.
- The fifth follow-up costs you the relationship, not just the reply.
- The deal is stalled at a person, not at a stage.
- Nobody updates a close date they cannot explain.
02What Adrata reads
Who is still moving, and what changed around them.
Adrata looks past the one dead thread to the rest of the room: who else at the account is still engaging, who has joined or left, what changed in the business since the last good call, and how deals in this shape have actually resolved once the causal noise is stripped out.
- Everyone in the buyer group and their current state, not just your contact.
- Departures, arrivals, and reorganisations since the deal went quiet.
- The bottleneck stated as a sentence, with the evidence behind it.
03The move
Route around, not through.
The recommendation is usually a different person and a different reason: a lateral introduction, an executive touch, or proof aimed at the objection that actually killed it. Where the honest answer is that the deal is dead, Adrata will say so, which is worth more than a sixth follow-up.
- The specific person to reach instead, and who can introduce you.
- What to lead with, given what the silence implies.
- A defensible call on whether the date should move.
The model behind it
You should be able to argue with the recommendation.
A move you cannot interrogate is a move you will ignore the first time it is wrong. These are the models doing the work in this scenario.
Causal uplift, not correlation
Did the action cause the outcome, or did the good deals just get more attention?
Treatment effects are estimated with propensity weighting and doubly-robust estimators, adjusting for deal size, buyer-group size, whether the deal was intro-sourced, whether it was an existing customer, and known competitive pressure. Estimates that have not been adjusted for confounders are quarantined so they can never be presented as a cause.
Break-in probability
Of every possible way into this account, which one actually opens?
Each candidate route is scored on seven components: relationship strength, how relevant the connector is to the target, freshness, consent safety, social cost, evidence quality, and expected lift. A calibrated model converts them into the probability that the route breaks in, with each component’s contribution visible.
The right to say nothing
Is there enough evidence here to justify a recommendation at all?
Learned components stay inert until they beat the simple heuristic on held-out data, and every model has a floor below which it abstains rather than guessing. On a new workspace the honest answer is often "not yet", and the system is built to say so instead of manufacturing confidence.
Where it runs
The surfaces this scenario uses.
Who this is for