Evidence-Based Opportunity Risk Assessment
Separate confirmed deal risks from possible risks and CRM gaps using only supplied opportunity evidence.
Customise & copy
Add the context you have. The prompt updates as you work.
Paste the stage, amount, close date, forecast category, current status, and any other opportunity fields.
Paste discovery notes, call excerpts, requirements, decision criteria, business impact, timeline statements, and objections.
Paste stakeholder roles, engagement, authority, proposal history, objections, competitors, procurement details, and dependencies.
Paste recent meetings, tasks, contact activity, CRM updates, email summaries, and any contradictory or stale records.
Live prompt
4 fieldsAssess the sales opportunity using only the supplied information. Do not invent facts, motives, stakeholders, timelines, competitors, or outcomes. Distinguish negative evidence, lack of evidence, and contradictory evidence. Do not treat missing CRM fields or generic sales heuristics as proof of risk. Opportunity data: {{opportunity_data}} Discovery notes and call transcripts: {{discovery_notes}} Stakeholder, proposal, objection, competitor, and procurement information: {{stakeholder_commercial_data}} CRM activity and recent communication history: {{crm_activity}} Check specifically for missing decision criteria, weak business impact, single-threaded relationships, unclear authority, unconfirmed timelines, inactive stakeholders, unresolved objections, competitive threats, procurement dependencies, forecast or close-date inconsistencies, and other deal-specific evidence of weakness. Return exactly this format: Overall assessment: [2–4 sentences covering deal health, the most important evidence, and whether the opportunity should be maintained, intervened on, requalified, or given a focused next step.] Prioritized risk table: | Priority | Section | Risk statement | Impact | Evidence | Evidence type | Confidence | AE validation question or resolution action | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1 | Confirmed risks / Possible risks / CRM-data gaps | ... | High/Medium/Low | Identify the specific supplied note, activity, statement, contradiction, or missing data. Use “No deal-specific evidence supplied” where appropriate. | Confirmed / Possible / Missing / Contradictory | High/Medium/Low | Give one precise question or concrete action. | Include separate rows or clearly separated subsections for Confirmed risks, Possible risks, and CRM-data gaps. Prioritize high-impact and actionable risks first. Include only risks supported by the supplied information or clearly labeled gaps. For every high-impact risk, provide specific evidence and a question or action that could validate or resolve it. If a category has no items, write “None identified from supplied information.” Next three validation or resolution actions: 1. [Specific action, target evidence or stakeholder, and purpose] 2. [Specific action, target evidence or stakeholder, and purpose] 3. [Specific action, target evidence or stakeholder, and purpose] Keep the response concise, evidence-based, and usable after one light edit.
Proof before you use it
A real example
Tested on gpt-5.6-luna on 2026-09-08
{
"crm_activity": "Last customer meeting was 12 May. Two follow-up tasks are overdue. The opportunity was updated on 1 May. No executive meeting, completed security review, or procurement milestone is recorded. The close date has not changed despite the missing review.",
"discovery_notes": "The VP Operations described a target to reduce manual scheduling by 30%. Evaluation criteria were discussed, but no quantified cost of delay or documented final approval process exists. The customer wants implementation before the next planning cycle.",
"opportunity_data": "Stage: Negotiation; Amount: $85,000 ARR; Close date: 30 June 2025; Forecast category: Commit; Current status: Proposal submitted; Next step: Security review.",
"stakeholder_commercial_data": "Primary contact is an Operations Manager who attended three meetings. The VP Operations joined one discovery call. CFO and IT Security have not engaged. Procurement requires a security questionnaire and prefers annual terms. The buyer mentioned evaluating a competitor but provided no comparison."
}A small ritual that works
How to use it
- 01Paste the stage, amount, close date, forecast, status, and other opportunity fields into Opportunity data.
- 02Add discovery notes and call transcripts, including requirements, business impact, decision criteria, timelines, and objections.
- 03Add stakeholder, proposal, objection, competitor, procurement, and dependency information.
- 04Add CRM activity and recent communication history, then review the prioritized risks and next actions.
Why it works
This prompt gives the model a clear evidence boundary: it must use only the supplied opportunity, discovery, stakeholder, commercial, and CRM information. Its instructions to distinguish negative, missing, and contradictory evidence help separate confirmed risks from information gaps. The required risk table makes each concern actionable by pairing evidence with confidence, impact, and a validation question or resolution action. The three closing actions also turn the analysis into a practical next-step plan.
Where it fails
The prompt can still encourage overinterpretation when the supplied information is ambiguous or silent. In the demonstrated output, an absent competitor record was described as “No competitor,” and missing objection information was treated as evidence that no objections were documented in a way that implied a stronger conclusion than the source supported. The prompt’s many requested risk areas may also lead to repetitive CRM-gap entries when the inputs are sparse.
Customisation tips
Define the intended meaning of each evidence type more explicitly, especially the difference between Missing and Confirmed. Add a rule that silence must never be phrased as a factual negative: use “not supplied” or “not documented” instead of “none,” “no,” or “does not exist.” If the output is used for a particular sales methodology, add its preferred definitions for deal health, forecast treatment, qualification stages, and escalation thresholds. You can also specify a maximum number of rows per risk section to keep the response concise when many gaps are present.
Watch-outs
- Require every statement about competitors, objections, stakeholders, approval, or timing to identify whether it is supplied evidence or an information gap.
- Do not let “no record of” become “there is no.” The source may only show that the information was not provided.
- Keep forecast concerns tied to explicit contradictions between opportunity fields and supplied deal evidence rather than generic sales assumptions.
- The prompt asks for concise output while also requesting broad coverage, detailed evidence, and three actions; sparse inputs may still produce a long or repetitive response.
Works in
Was this useful?
Submit your variation
If your version helps, it may be published with your name and a link back to you.
Want to make AI useful across your team? Explore Atul's training.