Potrebujem več od obstoječih strank.
Odhod opazite pred klicem za podaljšanje.

Renewal Radar — demo run

Input: sample-accounts.csv, 8 accounts. Renewal Radar scores one account at a time — this run works through all 8 to show the gate landing on three different verdicts for genuinely different reasons, not defaulting to one answer.

---

1. Northfield Devices Co. — Healthy

Verdict: Healthy, plainly. Every axis points the same direction and there's no hard trigger to weigh against them. This reads more like an expansion candidate than a renewal risk.

Honesty check: all fields populated, no gaps.

---

2. Anders & Cole Logistics — At Risk

Verdict: At Risk on two independent hard triggers — champion departure with no replacement identified, and an unexplained 35% usage decline. Either one alone would be enough; both together means this is not a "let's see how the call goes" renewal.

Renewal call should open with: finding the new decision-maker before discussing terms. There is currently nobody at the account who owns this relationship — that's the actual problem, not price or product fit.

Honesty check: no CSAT/support-sentiment data on file for this account — the support axis is a placeholder score, not a real read. If this account renews, start logging ticket sentiment.

---

3. Thistlewood Analytics — At Risk

Verdict: At Risk on a single hard trigger: an unresolved escalation that has sat open for 55 days and is now visibly damaging the champion's internal standing. Usage and relationship both look fine — this is not a broad relationship problem, it's one unresolved bug that needs to get fixed before the renewal conversation happens at all.

Renewal call should open with: don't open with renewal. Open with a resolution date for the export bug. Nothing else in this account is at risk except this.

Honesty check: all fields populated. Clean read.

---

4. Bramwell & Voss Insurance — Healthy

Verdict: Healthy. The usage dip looks like it should worry someone at first glance, but it's the same pattern this account showed at the same point last year, confirmed against actual historical data rather than taken on the champion's word alone. No hard trigger, and only one axis is even slightly below full marks.

Honesty check: all fields populated. The seasonal read leans on last year's usage export existing and matching — worth re-confirming in Feb that usage actually recovers as expected, since the explanation is currently a prediction, not yet an observed fact.

---

5. Fenwick & Loame Legal Tech — Watch

Verdict: Watch, not At Risk. Two axes (relationship, support) sit at or below 5, but neither clears the hard-trigger bar: the champion has gone quiet, not dark — no evidence of departure, no unanswered renewal-specific outreach, and the ticket trend is a direction, not an unresolved escalation. This is a "warm the relationship back up" account, not a fire drill.

Honesty check: all fields populated. Worth a direct check-in call in the next two weeks — if the champion is still unresponsive after that, this should be re-scored and will likely move to At Risk.

---

6. Corrigan Outdoor Retail — Healthy

Verdict: Healthy. This is the account the gate exists for: a raw ticket count that would spook a naive read is, on inspection, a fast-resolved onboarding wave with excellent sentiment attached to it, on an account that's growing. Volume is not the same as friction.

Honesty check: all fields populated. Clean read.

---

7. Vaughn Marchetti Wealth Partners — At Risk

Verdict: At Risk on a single hard trigger, and it's the one that matters most: explicit stated intent to evaluate a competitor, straight from the economic buyer. Usage and relationship metrics look fine precisely because nothing has broken yet — this account is a live commercial negotiation now, not a churn-signal read.

Renewal call should open with: this is a pricing/retention conversation, not a check-in. Whoever owns commercial terms needs to be in the room before the champion's warmth becomes irrelevant.

Honesty check: all fields populated. This is the clearest example in the set of why usage and relationship health alone would have missed something — the buying signal was said out loud, not inferred from behavior.

---

8. Silverlake Municipal Services — Watch

Verdict: Watch, not At Risk. The champion transition is a genuine handoff — someone is there and responding — so it doesn't meet the hard-trigger bar for departure. But an unexplained 22% usage decline plus an overdue QBR is two soft signals stacking on a relationship that's only three weeks into a handoff. Worth a proactive QBR before the gap gets explained by a bigger event.

Honesty check: no explanation on record for the usage decline — that's the one fact that would resolve this either up or down. Get it on the next call.

---

Summary

Honesty check (overall)

• 3 Healthy, 3 At Risk, 2 Watch — the gate did not default to a middle verdict for anything. Two of the three Healthy accounts (Bramwell & Voss, Corrigan) had a data point that looks concerning on the surface — an 18% usage dip, a 45-ticket quarter — and both cleared because the underlying explanation actually held up against evidence, not because the rubric averaged the ugly number away.
• The three At Risk accounts have three different hard triggers (champion departure, an unresolved escalation, and an explicit competitive threat), which is the point of scoring three axes separately instead of one blended number — a single "risk score" would have buried Vaughn Marchetti's real risk under otherwise-healthy usage and relationship numbers.
• What to start capturing for sharper output next time: a support- sentiment field independent of ticket count (Anders & Cole had no CSAT data at all, which forced a neutral placeholder score rather than a real read), and a structured field for "stated competitive intent" so that signal doesn't depend on it surfacing in free-text QBR notes.

Cross-Sell Finder — demo run

Input: sample-input.md — Meridian Outbound Partners' footprint (owns The Whale Finder, 11 months) against DEVENTA's own USE/PERFORM catalog.

Axis reads

• Usage intensity (current product): 10/10. Eleven manual re-runs over five months is not casual use of a report tool — it's a recurring workflow the team has built a habit around. The support ticket asking whether it can "refresh automatically" is a direct request for exactly what the PERFORM version of this product does.
• Adjacency pain signal: 9/10. One specific, quotable remark — "we don't have any way to see which of our clients' accounts are wobbling until the client tells us on the call" — names a real problem, in a different division (GROW), stated in the customer's own words. Scored 9 rather than 10 because it surfaced once, in passing, in an unrelated support thread — real and specific, but not yet a repeated or emphasized concern.
• Commercial readiness: 8/10. Team headcount tripled (4 → 11) over the ownership period, invoices paid on time, no discount ever requested. This doesn't drive a recommendation on its own, but it removes "can they afford it" as an objection to either candidate below.

Recommended next purchase(s)

1. DEVENTA / FIND — Whale Watch (FIND, PERFORM, €799)

Cleared on a strong single-axis case (usage intensity, 10/10). Meridian has re-run The Whale Finder eleven times in five months on a recurring manual cadence, and explicitly asked support whether the refresh could happen automatically. Whale Watch is that exact product — the same scoring they're already running by hand, kept current without someone remembering to re-upload the export every two weeks. This is a ladder-up within a division they already trust, not a new pitch.

2. Renewal Radar (GROW, USE, €149)

Cleared on a strong single-axis case (adjacency pain, 9/10). The rep's own words — worried about losing renewals this quarter, no visibility into which client accounts are wobbling before the client says so on the call — is close to a verbatim description of what Renewal Radar does. This is a real cross-division signal, not an inferred one.

Recommend leading with Whale Watch first (the stronger, repeated behavioral signal) and raising Renewal Radar as the second conversation, framed against the specific remark on file — a rep can open with "you mentioned being worried about seeing renewal risk before the client tells you" and it will land, because it's their own sentence coming back to them.

Considered and passed over

• DEVENTA / GROW — Expansion Engine (€1,199, PERFORM) — this is the bigger version of the Renewal Radar signal (renewal + cross-sell risk across Meridian's entire client base, continuously), and it's tempting to recommend it directly since it's "more" of the same signal. Passed over deliberately: Meridian has never owned a GROW product, and the evidence is one passing remark, not an established pattern across multiple accounts. Recommending a €1,199 continuous system off a single comment is the kind of overreach this tool exists to prevent. Renewal Radar first, on one client, is the honest next rung — Expansion Engine becomes the right recommendation once that's proven, the same way Whale Watch only makes sense after Whale Finder was actually used hard.
• Signal Reader / Competitor X-Ray (KNOW, €79 / €129) — category-adjacent to FIND, and a naive "customers also buy" pass would suggest these next. No note, ticket, or usage detail ever mentions wanting account briefs, funding/hiring signals, or competitor teardowns. No signal, no recommendation.
• The Objection Library / Pitch Pressure-Test (WIN, €59 / €149) — nothing in the footprint touches objection handling or pitch prep. Pass.
• Next-Best-Action / Deal Autopsy (CLOSE, €99 / €69) — nothing about deal-stage guidance or loss analysis on record. Pass.
• Forecast Reality Check / The CRM Confessional (RUN, €129 / €49) — no forecasting or CRM-hygiene complaints anywhere in the footprint. Pass.
• DEVENTA / KNOW — Account Brain, DEVENTA / WIN — Coach, DEVENTA / CLOSE — Deal Intelligence, DEVENTA / RUN — Forecast Engine — all PERFORM-tier products with no corresponding USE-tier ownership or usage signal behind them. Recommending a PERFORM product with zero adoption history in that division isn't a cross-sell, it's a cold pitch wearing a report's clothing. Pass.

Honesty check

• The footprint had real behavioral detail to work with — a usage log (re-run count, cadence) and two specific quotes — rather than just a purchase date. That's what made two grounded recommendations possible instead of one guess dressed up as two.
• The weaker of the two signals (Renewal Radar) rests on a single remark in an unrelated support thread. It cleared the gate because the remark is specific and directly maps to the product, but a rep should confirm it's still live before leading a pitch with it — passing comments six weeks old can go stale.
• What to start capturing for sharper output next time: a structured "feature request" or "stated pain" field on the support ticket system, instead of relying on a comment surfacing in an unrelated billing thread. That's the difference between this run finding the Renewal Radar signal by luck versus by design.