Verified against ChatGPT · 2026-08-08
Run a deal desk-style risk audit on a late-stage opportunity before it goes to forecast
Turns raw CRM notes and rep commentary on a late-stage deal into a structured risk audit that surfaces the gaps a manager would catch in a live deal review, before the deal is committed to forecast.
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
You are acting as a deal desk reviewer auditing a single late-stage opportunity before it gets committed to this quarter's forecast. Your job is to find the gaps a skeptical sales manager would find in a live deal review, not to restate the rep's optimism back at them. DEAL SUMMARY Mid-market logistics company, 8-week eval, champion is the ops director who ran the pilot and says the team loves it, VP of ops has been looped on email but hasn't joined a call. STAGE AND CLOSE DATE Stage: Negotiation. Close date: end of this month. KNOWN CHAMPION AND DECISION PROCESS Champion is the ops director; procurement process requires sign-off from finance and the VP of ops, neither of which has a scheduled meeting yet. OBJECTIONS OR OPEN RISKS THE REP HAS FLAGGED Champion mentioned budget is 'probably fine' but hasn't confirmed it's in this year's approved spend. COMPETING PRIORITIES OR ALTERNATIVES Prospect ran a parallel eval with one competitor six weeks ago; no confirmation that eval has formally ended. AUDIT RULES Work stage by stage through MEDDIC-style checkpoints (metrics, economic buyer, decision criteria, decision process, identified pain, champion) but do not just print the framework as a checklist — for each checkpoint, state what evidence in the deal summary actually supports it being true, and separately state what is merely assumed because the rep believes it. Treat anything not confirmed by a specific quote, email, or documented next step as unconfirmed, even if the rep's narrative treats it as settled. Flag the single biggest risk to the stated close date specifically — not a generic list of risks — and explain the mechanism by which it could slip the date, not just that it exists. If the economic buyer has never been on a call or in a written exchange, say so plainly rather than inferring their support from the champion's account of internal conversations. WHAT NOT TO DO Do not soften an unconfirmed assumption into a hedge like "likely true" — either it's evidenced or it's a gap, stated as a gap. Do not recommend killing the deal or downgrading its stage yourself; a deal desk audit surfaces risk for a human to decide on, it doesn't unilaterally reclassify the opportunity. OUTPUT FORMAT 1. A one-line current-state verdict: on track, at risk, or needs immediate escalation, with the single deciding reason. 2. A MEDDIC-style table: checkpoint, evidenced or assumed, supporting detail. 3. The single biggest risk to the close date and the mechanism by which it could slip. 4. Two to three specific next actions the rep should take before the next forecast call, each tied to closing a named gap above.
Customize
Optional — swap in your own details for the highlighted parts above.
Why this works
The prompt works by forcing a structural separation between evidenced and assumed facts, which directly counters a known failure mode of asking a model to just 'review this deal': left unconstrained, GPT-5.1 tends to mirror the tone and confidence level of the input text back to the user, so an optimistic rep narrative produces an optimistic-sounding review even when the underlying facts don't support it. Anchoring the audit to MEDDIC-style checkpoints but explicitly banning a bare checklist print-out forces the model to do the harder cross-referencing work of matching each checkpoint against a specific piece of evidence in the deal summary rather than accepting the rep's framing at face value — this is the same discipline a skeptical sales manager applies in a live deal review, and it's the part that generic 'summarize this deal' prompts skip. Explicitly instructing the model not to downgrade the deal's stage itself matters because a model given open latitude will sometimes overstep into a recommendation that isn't its call to make — a deal desk audit's value is in surfacing risk clearly enough for a human to decide, and blurring that boundary makes the tool feel like it's making calls above its authority, which erodes trust in the output faster than an incomplete audit would. Requiring the single biggest risk and its mechanism, rather than a flat list of risks, forces prioritization instead of hedge-everything output, which is what actually gets acted on in a five-minute forecast conversation.
What you get back
Verdict: At risk — economic buyer has never engaged directly. MEDDIC table: Economic Buyer marked 'Assumed' (VP of ops only on email CC, no direct confirmation of support). Biggest risk: if finance sign-off surfaces a budget gap the champion hasn't verified, the deal could slip past close date with no fallback plan in motion. Next actions: (1) get VP of ops on a call this week, (2) have champion confirm budget line item in writing, (3) ask directly whether the competing eval has formally closed.
Verified against
ChatGPT GPT-5.1 · 2026-08-08
Changelog
- 2026-08-08 — Initial publish, verified against ChatGPT GPT-5.1.
Need this built into your business?
If a prompt isn't enough — Google Ads management, built and maintained for you — that's Scult's day job.
EXPLORE GOOGLE ADS MANAGEMENT
