Verified against ChatGPT · 2026-08-12
Turn raw discovery call notes into a sales proposal that argues the business case before the price
Converts messy discovery notes into a structured sales proposal that builds the case for change from the prospect's own stated problem before presenting the offer, instead of leading with a feature-and-price sheet.
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
Turn my discovery notes into a sales proposal draft. This needs to read as a business case built from what this specific prospect told me, not a standard feature-and-pricing sheet with their logo pasted on top. RAW DISCOVERY NOTES Client said their support team is manually tagging tickets, takes ~3 hrs/day across 4 reps, backlog grows every Monday, wants to hit same-day resolution by Q3. WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING Auto-tagging and routing tool integrated with their existing helpdesk, deployed in two weeks with no migration required. PRICING STRUCTURE $1,800/month for up to 10 agents, annual contract, first month free as pilot. WHO WILL READ THIS PROPOSAL The support director who did discovery, plus the VP of CX who wasn't on the call and controls the budget. COMPETING OPTIONS THEY'RE CONSIDERING (IF KNOWN) Evaluating one competitor and also considering hiring a fifth support rep instead. Structure the proposal in this order: first, the situation as the prospect described it in their own terms — restate their problem back accurately enough that they'd recognize it as their own words, not a generic pain-point paragraph. Second, the cost of the status quo — what continuing as-is actually costs them, in their own stated terms (time, risk, missed goal), not a generic "the cost of inaction" boilerplate section. Third, the proposed approach, connected explicitly back to the situation section point by point. Fourth, pricing, presented only after the case for change has been made, never as the opening move. If a reader on the list wasn't part of the original discovery call, add one framing sentence early in the proposal that briefly orients them, since they won't have the context the original stakeholder does. If competing options are known, address the comparison honestly and specifically rather than a vague "unlike other solutions" swipe. Do not fabricate a statistic, timeline, or outcome claim that isn't grounded in what I've given you — mark anything that needs a real number as "[CONFIRM: specific figure]". Output as a structured proposal document with clear section headers, written for a business reader, not internal engineering language.
Customize
Optional — swap in your own details for the highlighted parts above.
Why this works
Sequencing pricing after the case for change, rather than allowing it near the top, corrects for the default structure most proposal templates and models alike gravitate toward — a summary, feature list, then pricing table — which frontloads the number before the reader has been given a reason to care what it costs relative to; a price without an established cost-of-status-quo has no anchor, so it reads as an isolated ask rather than a comparison against something worse. The instruction to restate the prospect's situation in language they'd recognize as their own, drawn directly from the discovery notes rather than paraphrased into generic pain-point language, is what makes a proposal feel bespoke instead of templated — a model given loose notes and told to "write a proposal" will smooth the specificity out into generic business prose unless explicitly told to preserve it, and that specificity is the single biggest signal to a prospect that this document was built for them rather than adapted from a boilerplate. The reader-orientation rule for stakeholders who weren't on the original call addresses a structural blind spot in most AI-drafted proposals: they're written as if every reader shares the context of whoever gave the discovery notes, but a VP seeing this cold needs a bridge sentence the original stakeholder doesn't, and without that instruction the document silently fails its secondary audience while looking complete to the primary one. Explicitly flagging fabricated-figure risk with a "[CONFIRM]" marker matters because a proposal is a document that gets sent to a real buyer as a basis for a real financial decision, making an invented statistic here materially riskier than in almost any other sales-copy context.
What you get back
The Situation: Your support team is manually tagging and routing tickets — roughly three hours a day across four reps — and the backlog compounds every Monday, pushing same-day resolution further out of reach as volume grows. The Cost of Continuing As-Is: at current pace, hitting your stated Q3 same-day-resolution goal would require either absorbing the growing backlog manually or adding headcount [CONFIRM: current backlog trend/volume] before the automation gap is addressed at all.
Verified against
ChatGPT GPT-5.1 · 2026-08-12
Changelog
- 2026-08-12 — 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
