Rework a standard proposal around what one buyer actually said in discovery

I have a standard proposal or deck outline for a mid-market inventory forecasting platform. Current sections, in order: Company overview, product features, case studies, pricing, implementation timeline.

Here's what this specific buyer, Marcus Webb at Bramwell Retail Group, told me in discovery:
- Their stated success metric: cutting stockouts on their top 200 SKUs by half before peak season
- Their decision criteria, what they said they're evaluating options against: ease of integration with their existing ERP, and time-to-first-value
- Who else is involved in the decision and what they likely care about: the CFO, who will care about implementation cost and payback period
- Budget or timeline signals: {{budget_timeline_signal}}
- Competing option, if any: {{competing_option}}

Rework the proposal for this buyer specifically, not as a generic best-practices reshuffle:

1. REORDER — move the section matching ease of integration with their existing ERP, and time-to-first-value to right after the opening, regardless of where it currently sits in Company overview, product features, case studies, pricing, implementation timeline. If nothing in the current outline actually addresses ease of integration with their existing ERP, and time-to-first-value directly, say so and tell me what new section needs to be added rather than pretending an existing section covers it well enough.

2. SECTION-BY-SECTION CALL — for each section in Company overview, product features, case studies, pricing, implementation timeline, tell me plainly: keep as-is, cut entirely, or rewrite. If rewrite, give the new framing in one sentence using Marcus Webb's own language from cutting stockouts on their top 200 SKUs by half before peak season, not generic feature language — a section reframed around "cutting stockouts on our top 200 SKUs by half" reads completely differently to this buyer than the same section framed around "advanced inventory optimization."

3. STAKEHOLDER PARAGRAPH — write one paragraph addressing the CFO, who will care about implementation cost and payback period directly, focused on the concern they'd raise that Marcus Webb alone can't fully answer for them. This paragraph should read as if it anticipates being read by someone who wasn't in the discovery calls and has their own separate priorities, not as an extension of the pitch to Marcus Webb.

4. FAIR COMPETITIVE CONTRAST — if {{competing_option}} is filled in, write one paragraph drawing a fair contrast without naming or disparaging them directly; frame it around what matters to this buyer's ease of integration with their existing ERP, and time-to-first-value, not a feature-for-feature comparison table. If {{competing_option}} is empty, skip this section entirely rather than inventing a generic "why choose us" paragraph with nothing real to contrast against.

GROUNDING CHECK
Flag anywhere the rewrite tailors language to a criterion or priority that wasn't actually confirmed in discovery — don't let a plausible-sounding inference get written as if it were something the buyer stated directly. Overclaiming fit based on an educated guess is the single most common way a "tailored" proposal quietly stops being honest, and it's the kind of gap that surfaces badly if the buyer asks a follow-up question the proposal implied was already answered.

OUTPUT FORMAT
1. The new section order.
2. The keep/cut/rewrite call per section, with the one-sentence new framing for each rewrite.
3. The stakeholder paragraph.
4. The competitive contrast paragraph, or an explicit note that it was skipped and why.
5. The grounding-check flags, if any.