SolutionsAfter the close
The person who bought you just changed jobs.
The executive who signed, defended the budget, and explained internally why you were worth it has moved on. Their replacement inherited a contract they did not choose and a vendor they have no reason to protect. Nothing about the account has changed except everything.
01What is really happening
You did not lose a contact. You lost the internal argument for your own budget.
Sponsorship is the case for why the spend continues, and it lives in one person’s head. When they leave, the case leaves with them. What remains is a line item on a budget the new owner is being asked to justify, defended by nobody in the building.
- The successor inherits the cost and none of the conviction.
- Usage does not argue for itself in a budget meeting.
- By the time anyone schedules the conversation, the decision is often made.
02What Adrata reads
What survived the departure.
Champion departures are detected as a signal in their own right rather than noticed later. Adrata separates the relationship you lost from the value the account still gets: who else has been engaged, who is picking up the remit, and which of your team’s relationships extend past the person who left.
- The departure, caught when it happens rather than at the next review.
- Every remaining relationship, ranked by how much weight it can carry.
- The route to the successor that is not a cold email.
03The move
Rebuild sponsorship early, while it is still a relationship problem.
The recommendation is an introduction and a proof point, aimed at whoever now owns the remit, timed early enough to matter. Treat the departure as the trigger. Waiting for the commercial conversation means arriving after the argument has already been had without you.
- Who to reach, through whom, and what to bring.
- The outcome evidence that persuades someone who was not there.
- An honest read on how much of the relationship actually survived.
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.
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.
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
The people who live in this moment.
After the close