From the Nutan blog
Evidence Over Opinion: Rethinking Deal Health
What if deal stages were derived from evidence instead of declared by reps?
Every Monday, the same ritual plays out in sales organisations worldwide. A manager asks: "How's the Acme deal?" A rep answers: "Looking good. Should close this quarter."
But what does "looking good" actually mean? Has budget been explicitly confirmed or just implied? Is the champion genuinely pushing internally or just being polite? Has legal been engaged or is that still a complete mystery?
In most organisations, deal health is a narrative, not a measurement. Reps report what they believe. Or what they want to believe. Managers apply their gut feel. Forecasts aggregate optimism.
What if instead, every claim about a deal was tagged by its evidence level?
- Verified: Budget approved by CFO (said in meeting, confirmed in email) - Assumed: Champion has authority to sign (seems likely based on title, never confirmed) - Weak: Competition isn't a factor (prospect hasn't mentioned it, but hasn't been asked)
Now the same deal looks very different. Three "verified" signals and two "weak" ones tells a completely different story than five "looking good" signals.
This is evidence-based deal health. Not what the rep thinks. Not what the manager hopes. What actually happened, tagged by how much you can trust it.
The technology to do this exists today. AI can listen to a conversation and classify every statement by its evidence strength. It can track whether a signal was verified in a later meeting or remained unconfirmed. It can flag when assumptions have been sitting unverified for too long.
The question isn't whether this is possible. It's whether your organisation is ready to see reality instead of narrative.