SolutionsWorking the deal
You are selling to one person. Seven will decide.
The opportunity has one contact on it. The purchase needs an economic buyer who controls the budget, a security review you have not started, a legal pass nobody has scheduled, and at least two users who will be asked whether they actually want this. Single-threaded deals do not lose at the end. They lose the whole way through, invisibly.
01What is really happening
The org chart is not the power structure.
Enterprise purchases are decided by a group that assembles itself for the occasion, and it never matches the reporting lines. The person who can stop the deal is often junior, rarely on the opportunity, and usually appears for the first time in week eleven with an objection nobody prepared for.
- Titles predict authority poorly and veto power worse.
- The people who block are the last to be engaged, if ever.
- A deal with one contact has one point of failure.
02What Adrata reads
The committee this deal needs against the one you have.
Adrata builds the buyer group for the account (the people, their role in this decision, and the relationships between them) and compares it against the committee a purchase of this shape actually requires. What is missing is reported as a named risk rather than left as an empty field.
- Economic buyer, champion, technical evaluator, gatekeeper, user: identified and assessed.
- The gap that matters most, ranked ahead of the ones that do not.
- Who inside the room can introduce you to the person you are missing.
03The move
Close the gap that costs the deal.
Not "multithread more": a specific introduction to a specific person, sourced from someone already in the room, with a reason that person should care. Coverage is assigned as a matching problem, so two touches never quietly compete for the same stakeholder.
- The single highest-cost gap, named first.
- The warm path to close it, from inside the account.
- A deal review that can be inspected instead of narrated.
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.
Stable matching
Given limited attention, who should reach whom?
Assigning outreach across a buyer group is a matching problem with preferences and capacity on both sides. Adrata solves it with deferred acceptance (the Gale–Shapley algorithm), so the assignment is stable rather than greedy, and no two touches quietly compete for the same person.
Calibrated timing
When will this actually close, and how sure can you be?
Deal timing is modelled with competing risks: won, lost, and stalled are different fates, not one binary. The intervals come from conformal prediction, which produces ranges with a stated coverage guarantee rather than a single confident date.
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