---
name: negotiation-prep
version: 2.0
description: "Principled negotiation prep based on 'Getting to Yes'. Builds a complete negotiation brief by pulling deal data, call transcripts, competitive intel, and buyer signals — then structures them into BATNA/ZOPA analysis, interest mapping, concession strategy, and CFO objection playbook."
---

# Negotiation Prep v2.0

## When to Use This vs Proposal-Prep

| Scenario | Use This Skill | Use `proposal-prep` |
|----------|:-:|:-:|
| Buyer is pushing back on price | X | |
| Building the initial proposal / quote | | X |
| CFO or procurement meeting prep | X | |
| First proposal, no pushback yet | | X |
| Renewal with discount request | X | |
| Constructing business case for EB | | X |
| Champion says "we need to talk pricing" | X | |
| Competitive displacement pricing | X | |
| SVF not yet completed | | X |
| Deal desk review required | X | |

## Role

You're the negotiation strategist preparing a rep (or yourself) for a high-stakes deal conversation. Your job: build a data-driven negotiation brief grounded in Fisher & Ury's principled negotiation framework. No positional haggling — interests, options, objective criteria.

## Core Framework: Getting to Yes

Every output is structured around the four principles:

1. **Separate People from Problem** — Map stakeholders, their emotional states, relationship history, and communication preferences. Never conflate tough procurement stance with personal hostility.
2. **Focus on Interests, Not Positions** — Decode what each stakeholder actually needs behind their stated demand. A "lower the price" position may hide budget-cycle timing, risk aversion, or internal credibility needs.
3. **Invent Options for Mutual Gain** — Generate creative deal structures: term trades, scope adjustments, value-adds, pilots, ramp deals, contingency clauses.
4. **Insist on Objective Criteria** — Anchor on benchmarks, published ROI data, analyst frameworks, peer outcomes — not willpower or threats.

Plus: **BATNA/ZOPA analysis** — Know your walk-away, estimate theirs, find the zone.

## Inputs

Ask for:
1. **Account or Opportunity name** (required — to pull data)
2. **What's the negotiation about?** (pricing, renewal, expansion, competitive displacement, procurement pushback)
3. **Who are you negotiating with?** (CFO, procurement, champion, legal — or "not sure")
4. **What's your timeline?** (call tomorrow, deal needs to close this quarter, early stage)

## Steps

### Step 1: Intelligence Gathering (run in parallel)

Pull everything available. Speed matters — launch these simultaneously:

**A. Deal Data (Salesforce)**
```
salesforce_query:
  soql: "SELECT Id, Name, Amount, StageName, CloseDate, Discount__c,
         List_Price__c, Type, LeadSource, Description,
         Account.Name, Account.Industry, Account.NumberOfEmployees,
         (SELECT Contact.Name, Contact.Title, Role, IsPrimary
          FROM OpportunityContactRoles)
         FROM Opportunity
         WHERE Account.Name LIKE '%{account}%'
         AND IsClosed = false
         ORDER BY Amount DESC LIMIT 5"
```

**B. Deal Health (Clari)**
```
clari_get_opportunities:
  opportunityIds: ["{opp_id}"]
```
> AI deal score, forecast category, trend direction. A slipping deal changes your posture.

**C. Presales Intel (Luci) — THE GOLD MINE**
```
luci_search_presales:
  query: "objections pricing budget competitors timeline concerns"
  accountId: "{sf_account_id}"
```
> Surfaces every objection, competitive mention, and qualification signal from discovery.

```
luci_search_customer_voice:
  query: "pricing budget discount cost ROI value"
  accountId: "{sf_account_id}"
```
> Filters to ONLY what the buyer said. Their exact words about budget, timeline, concerns.

**D. Call Transcript Mining (Avoma)**
```
avoma_search_meetings:
  fromDate: "{90_days_ago}"
  toDate: "{today}"
  isInternal: false
```
Then for each relevant meeting:
```
avoma_search_transcript:
  meetingId: "{meeting_id}"
  keyword: "pricing|budget|discount|competitor|timeline|concerns|procurement"
```
> Pull exact quotes. "The CFO said X" is 10x more powerful than "we think they care about Y."

**E. Firmographics & Intent (ZoomInfo)**
```
zoominfo_enrich_company:
  companyName: "{account}"
```
> Revenue, employee count, funding, tech stack — establishes ability to pay.

```
zoominfo_enrich_scoops:
  companyName: "{account}"
```
> Trigger events: funding rounds, leadership changes, expansions. Timing leverage.

**F. Competitive Intel & Battle Cards (Graph + GTM Buddy + UserEvidence)**

First, pull win/loss data and competitive analytics from the relationship graph:
```
graph_competitive_intel:
  account: "{account}"
```
> Win/loss data, competitive displacement patterns, positioning insights. This is the primary source for competitive analytics.

Then pull sales enablement content and battle cards:
```
gtmbuddy_search_documents:
  query: "battle card {competitor} negotiation playbook pricing objection"
```
> Battle cards, competitive playbooks, and sales enablement content only. Do NOT use `gtmbuddy_ask_buddy` for competitive analytics — use `graph_competitive_intel` above.

Then pull proof points:
```
userevidence_search_assets:
  query: "{prospect_industry} ROI results competitive displacement"
```
> Peer outcomes, case studies, and quantified proof points for value anchoring.

**G. Historical Deal Patterns & Discount Benchmarks**

Account-specific deal history (Salesforce):
```
salesforce_query:
  soql: "SELECT Name, Amount, Discount__c, CloseDate, StageName
         FROM Opportunity
         WHERE Account.Name = '{account}'
         AND IsClosed = true
         ORDER BY CloseDate DESC LIMIT 10"
```
> Past deals with this account. Discount precedent matters.

Segment/industry discount benchmarks (Snowflake):
```
snowflake_query:
  query: "SELECT industry, segment,
            AVG(discount_pct) as avg_discount,
            MEDIAN(discount_pct) as median_discount,
            MIN(discount_pct) as min_discount,
            MAX(discount_pct) as max_discount,
            COUNT(*) as deal_count
          FROM analytics.deal_metrics
          WHERE industry = '{prospect_industry}'
            AND is_closed_won = true
            AND close_date >= DATEADD(month, -12, CURRENT_DATE())
          GROUP BY industry, segment"
```
> Governed discount benchmarks by segment and industry. Use these as objective criteria in negotiation — "our median discount in your segment is X%."

**H. Relationship Intelligence (Graph)**

Champion and stakeholder movement:
```
graph_champion_movers:
  account: "{account}"
```
> Former champions now at the prospect = warm introduction leverage. Champions who left mid-deal = risk signal requiring new sponsor identification.

Full relationship network:
```
graph_account_network:
  account: "{account}"
```
> Shared contacts, meeting history, org chart connections. Use to enrich the stakeholder interest map — who knows whom, who has influence, where are relationship gaps.

### Step 2: Interest Mapping

Build a stakeholder interest map from the data gathered:

| Stakeholder | Title | Stated Position | Underlying Interests | What They Fear | What Success Looks Like | Source |
|------------|-------|----------------|---------------------|---------------|------------------------|--------|
| [Name] | CFO | "Too expensive" | Budget discipline, ROI accountability, board optics | Shelf-ware, career risk, unplanned spend | Measurable ROI <12 months, predictable cost | Avoma call 1/15, Luci presales |
| [Name] | Procurement | "Need 20% off" | Demonstrating value capture, benchmarking | Overpaying vs. market | Favorable terms vs. comparables | Avoma call 2/1 |
| [Name] | Champion | "Need it now" | Team productivity, personal recognition | Losing momentum, looking bad | Quick deployment, visible wins | Luci customer voice |
| [Name] | IT/Security | "Integration concerns" | Data protection, workload | Breach, extra work | Clean integration, SSO, SOC 2 | Meeting notes |

Enrich with `graph_account_network` data: add columns for relationship strength, last meeting date, and mutual connections where available.

**Key behavioral economics insight** (from B2B pricing research):
- 95% of purchasing decisions are subconscious
- Groups are MORE risk-averse than individuals (57% of B2B deals stall on consensus)
- Status quo wins not because it's better, but because agreeing on nothing is easier

### Step 3: BATNA & ZOPA Analysis

**Step 3A: BATNA/ZOPA**

```
## BATNA Analysis

### Our BATNA (if this deal doesn't close)
- Pipeline alternatives: [other deals that could fill the gap]
- Strategic value of this logo: [high/medium/low — does this set pricing precedent?]
- Cost of a bad deal: [margin erosion, precedent for future negotiations]
- BATNA strength: [strong/moderate/weak]

### Their BATNA (if they don't buy from us)
- Competitor alternatives: [who else are they evaluating? From graph_competitive_intel/Luci/Avoma intel]
- Build in-house: [feasible? What's the cost? From ZoomInfo tech stack]
- Do nothing: [what's the cost of inaction? Quantify from business case]
- BATNA strength: [strong/moderate/weak]

### ZOPA Estimate
- Our floor: $[minimum acceptable — below this, walk away]
- Their ceiling: $[maximum they'd pay — estimate from signals]
- Zone: $[floor] — $[ceiling]
- If no ZOPA exists: [what would need to change to create one?]
```

**Critical insight**: A 1% price increase = 6-14% profit uplift (McKinsey & Co., "The Power of Pricing," 2003; corroborated by Simon-Kucher & Partners). A 5% price drop requires 21% volume increase to break even. Protect price aggressively.

**Step 3B: SVF Readiness Gate**

Before building a concession strategy, verify the value case is locked. Score against this checklist:

| # | Readiness Check | Status | Source |
|---|----------------|--------|--------|
| 1 | Solution phase identified (which pain, which use case) | Yes/No | SF Opportunity, Luci presales |
| 2 | Value driver quantified with prospect's actual numbers (not generic) | Yes/No | Avoma transcripts, business case doc |
| 3 | EB has agreed to the business case / success criteria | Yes/No | Avoma call notes, SF activity |
| 4 | SVF field completed in Salesforce | Yes/No | SF Opportunity record |
| 5 | Proof point matched to prospect's industry/use case | Yes/No | UserEvidence search results |

**Scoring:**
- **5/5** — Proceed to concession strategy. Value case is airtight.
- **4/5** — Proceed with caution. Note the gap and address it during the negotiation.
- **<4/5** — **STOP.** Do not negotiate price without a locked value case. Chain to `proposal-prep` to build the business case first. Negotiating without a value anchor = pure price haggling.

### Step 4: Concession Strategy

Build a trade menu — **never give without getting**:

| What We Could Give | Cost to Us | Value to Them | What We Ask For | When to Offer |
|-------------------|-----------|--------------|----------------|---------------|
| Extended onboarding/CSM | Low | High | Multi-year commitment | When they push on price |
| Ramp pricing (lower Y1, full Y2) | Medium | High | 3-year term + case study | Budget-cycle objection |
| Pilot with success criteria | Medium | High | Executive sponsor + defined decision date | "Need more time" objection |
| Deferred payment start | Medium | Medium | Larger initial scope | Q4 budget exhaustion |
| Quarterly EBRs with exec | Low | Medium | Reference/case study commitment | Building champion's internal case |
| Volume discount on expansion seats | Low-Med | Medium | Expansion commitment with dates | Procurement benchmarking |
| Custom integration support | Medium | High | Multi-year + expanded use case | IT/Security blocking |

**Ground rules:**
- Never concede on price without changing scope, term, or commitment
- Package concessions — don't give one at a time (each one resets expectations)
- Use reciprocity: first concession triggers reciprocal behavior (UC Davis research)
- Late first offers lead to more creative deals (Harvard PON)

### Step 4B: Procurement Counter-Tactics

When procurement is involved, expect these plays. Recognize and counter:

| Tactic | What It Looks Like | Counter |
|--------|-------------------|---------|
| **Anchoring Low** | "We've budgeted $X" (far below list). Opens with a number designed to pull you down. | Do not counter-anchor immediately. Reframe: "Let's first align on scope and outcomes, then find the right price for that value." Cite Snowflake discount benchmarks as objective criteria. |
| **Cherry-Picking** | "We only want Module A at full discount." Takes highest-value component, demands lowest price. | Price modules as a platform. Show TCO advantage of the bundle. "Module A delivers 40% of the value only in combination with B and C." |
| **Artificial Deadline** | "We need final pricing by Friday or we go with [competitor]." Manufactured urgency to prevent deliberation. | Test the deadline: "I want to get you the best package. If we need until Monday to structure something that works for both sides, is that workable?" Real deadlines don't move. Fake ones do. |
| **Good Cop / Bad Cop** | Champion says "I love it" while procurement says "it's a non-starter." Creates emotional whiplash. | Address both roles directly. To champion: "Help me understand procurement's specific concerns." To procurement: "What criteria would make this a yes?" Refuse to negotiate through intermediary telephone. |
| **Nibbling** | After terms are agreed: "Oh, one more thing — we'll need free training / extra seats / extended support." Death by a thousand cuts. | Reopen the full package: "Happy to discuss that. It changes the scope, so let me revise the full proposal to include it." Makes the cost of nibbling visible. |
| **The Flinch** | Visible shock or silence after you state the price. Designed to make you second-guess and immediately concede. | Say nothing. Let the silence sit. Then: "I understand — let me walk you through how we arrived at that number." Present objective criteria (benchmarks, ROI, peer pricing). Never fill silence with a discount. |

### Step 4C: Multi-Year Deal Structures

When trading on term length, use these structures:

| Structure | How It Works | When to Use | Watch-Outs |
|-----------|-------------|-------------|------------|
| **Flat Rate** | Same price all years. Simple. | Customer wants budget predictability. Low-risk accounts. | No protection against inflation or rising costs. |
| **Annual Escalator** | 3-7% increase each year built into contract. | Standard for multi-year. Protects margin over time. | Buyer may push back on escalator %. Benchmark against industry norms (3-5% typical). |
| **Ramp Deal** | Discounted Y1, full price Y2+. | Budget-constrained buyer, new logo, POC-to-production. | Must have contractual commitment for full years. Risk: buyer cancels after cheap Y1. Include early termination clause. |
| **True-Up** | Start with estimated seats/usage, reconcile quarterly or annually to actual. | Usage-based or seat-based pricing where buyer can't predict volume. | Requires clear measurement methodology agreed upfront. Buyer may resist true-up shock. Cap increases at X% per period. |
| **Co-Term** | New products/expansions align to existing contract end date. | Existing customer adding products mid-contract. | Pro-rated first period can look expensive. Show annualized rate. Simplifies future renewals. |

**Discount Guardrails by Term Length:**

| Term | Standard Band | Max (Deal Desk Required) | What You Get |
|------|--------------|-------------------------|-------------|
| 1 Year | 0-5% | 10% | Baseline |
| 2 Year | 5-10% | 15% | Predictable revenue + reduced churn risk |
| 3 Year | 10-15% | 20% | Logo lock-in + case study + expansion commitment |

> Reference Snowflake discount benchmarks from Step 1G for the prospect's specific segment. Never exceed max without Deal Desk approval.

### Step 5: CFO Objection Playbook

For each anticipated CFO objection, structure the response using principled negotiation:

**Objection: "It's not in the budget"**
- *Interest behind it:* Budget discipline, fiscal responsibility, not setting precedent for unplanned spend
- *Principled response:* "Which existing budget line could this fit under? Can we structure payments to align with your fiscal calendar?"
- *Options to invent:* Deferred start, ramp pricing, pilot from innovation/departmental budget, replace existing tool cost
- *Objective criteria:* Show how similar companies reallocated budget from tools this replaces

**Objection: "We need to see clear ROI"**
- *Interest:* Accountability, career risk, fiduciary duty
- *Response:* Co-develop ROI model using THEIR actual numbers (not generic). Use Forrester TEI or Nucleus Research framework
- *Options:* Paid pilot with defined success metrics + automatic conversion. Performance-based pricing
- *Objective criteria:* Peer outcomes in their industry from UserEvidence. Cost of delay calculation
- *Warning:* Value calculators relate to LOWER-value won deals (Terho et al., 1,193 meetings). BE the ROI calculator through discovery, don't just hand them a spreadsheet

**Objection: "Your price is higher than [competitor]"**
- *Interest:* Fair value, due diligence, not overpaying
- *Response:* TCO comparison (not just license). Include implementation time, training, time-to-value, admin burden, integration cost
- *Options:* Price-per-outcome model instead of per-seat. Value milestones tied to pricing
- *Objective criteria:* Analyst reports, G2 data, comparable TCO analysis. Reference `graph_competitive_intel` win/loss data for positioning.
- *Landmine:* "What's your estimated cost to integrate and maintain [competitor]? How many FTEs does that require?"

**Objection: "We've been burned by software before"**
- *Interest:* Risk aversion, fear of shelf-ware, desire for accountability
- *Response:* Acknowledge genuinely. Propose structured success milestones, QBRs, adoption guarantees
- *Options:* Contractual exit clause tied to utilization. Phased rollout (one BU first)
- *Objective criteria:* Adoption/utilization data from comparable customers. 3rd-party validation
- *Key stat:* Over 50% of SaaS licenses go unutilized — address this head-on

**Objection: "We need more time to evaluate"**
- *Interest:* Thoroughness, fear of wrong decision, lack of internal alignment
- *Response:* "What specific information would close the gap? Let me get you exactly what you need."
- *Options:* Structured evaluation framework with clear timeline and decision criteria
- *Objective criteria:* Cost of delay = $[X]/month in unrealized savings. Quantify it
- *Key stat:* 57% of B2B processes stall on consensus. Help your champion reduce the consensus burden by making the decision "safe"

**Objection: "Can you do better on price?"**
- *Interest:* Fiduciary duty, demonstrating negotiation skill to their board
- *Response:* Never split the difference immediately. Understand what "better" means
- *Trade framework:* "I can explore pricing flexibility if we discuss [multi-year / expanded scope / case study / earlier close]"
- *Objective criteria:* "Our pricing is benchmarked against [industry standard]. Here's cost-per-outcome." Reference Snowflake discount benchmarks from Step 1G.

### Step 6: Scenario Planning

```
## Scenario Planning

### Best Case (Aspire)
- Terms: [price, term, scope, timing]
- What needs to happen: [specific actions]

### Target Case (Realistic)
- Terms: [price, term, scope, timing]
- Most likely path: [sequence of events]

### Walk-Away Point (Floor)
- Terms below which no deal > bad deal
- Signals we're approaching this: [behaviors to watch]

### Their Likely Opening
- Expected first ask: [based on Luci/Avoma intel]
- Prepared response: [mapped to interests, not just rebuttal]
```

### Step 7: Communication & Sequencing Plan

```
## Communication Plan

### Pre-Meeting
- Send champion: [materials to arm them for internal selling]
- 3x more likely to close when champion is armed with info (Gartner)
```

**Generate Champion Arming Deck** using `leandata-slides`:
```
leandata-slides:
  template: "champion-arming"
  slides:
    - type: cover
      title: "[Account] — Business Case for [Solution]"
      subtitle: "Prepared for [Champion Name]"
    - type: three_stats
      title: "Cost of Delay"
      stats:
        - label: "Monthly Cost of Inaction"
          value: "$[X]"
        - label: "Projected ROI (12 mo)"
          value: "[X]%"
        - label: "Peer Benchmark"
          value: "[X metric from UserEvidence]"
    - type: two_col
      title: "Current State vs Future State"
      left_header: "Today"
      left_content: "[Pain points, manual process, risk]"
      right_header: "With [Solution]"
      right_content: "[Outcomes, automation, measurable improvement]"
    - type: one_col
      title: "Implementation & Time to Value"
      content: "[Phased rollout plan, milestones, go-live timeline]"
    - type: quote_slide
      quote: "[UserEvidence proof point — exact customer quote]"
      attribution: "[Customer Name, Title, Company]"
      logo: "[customer logo]"
    - type: big_text
      text: "Recommendation: [specific ask — approve, sign, proceed]"
      subtext: "[Next step + deadline]"
```
> 5-7 slides max. Champion should be able to present this in a 10-minute internal meeting without you in the room.

```
### Meeting Sequencing
- Lead with: [their interest, not our pitch]
- Present: [multiple scenarios — do nothing / partial / full]
- Anchor on: [objective criteria before discussing price]
- Hold back: [concessions to trade — don't lead with them]

### Post-Meeting
- Follow up with: [business case document in their language]
- Provide champion: [internal justification slides, ROI model with their numbers]
```

### Step 8: Team & Escalation Plan

Know who to bring in and when:

| Resource | When to Engage | Trigger |
|----------|---------------|---------|
| **Deal Desk** | Discount exceeds standard band for term length (see Step 4C guardrails) | Any discount above segment median from Snowflake benchmarks, or above max band |
| **Legal** | Custom contract terms, non-standard SLA, liability caps, indemnification | Buyer redlines MSA or requests custom data processing terms |
| **Security / Compliance** | SOC 2 questionnaire, DPA review, GDPR/CCPA requirements, pen test results | IT/Security stakeholder raises data handling concerns or requests audit documentation |
| **Executive Sponsor** | Deals above $[threshold] ARR, strategic logos, competitive displacement from incumbent | EB requests peer-level conversation, or deal requires C-suite alignment to close |
| **VP Sales** | Walk-away decisions, precedent-setting terms, exceptions to pricing policy | Deal is at or below floor, buyer demands terms that would set dangerous precedent |

**Escalation rules:**
- Escalate BEFORE the negotiation meeting, not during. Surprises in-meeting = lost leverage.
- Brief the escalation contact with: deal context, what's been tried, specific ask, recommended path.
- Never promise something that requires approval you don't have. "Let me confirm that with our team" is always acceptable.

## Output Format

```
# Negotiation Brief: [Account] — [Deal Name]

**Deal:** $[Amount] | **Stage:** [X] | **Close Target:** [Date]
**Negotiating With:** [Name, Title] | **Our Rep:** [Name]
**Brief Type:** [Pricing / Renewal / Expansion / Competitive Displacement]
**SVF Readiness:** [X/5] — [Proceed / Proceed with Caution / STOP — chain to proposal-prep]

---

## 1. Intelligence Summary
[2-3 bullet summary of key findings from data pull]
- **Deal health:** [Clari score + trend]
- **Buyer signals:** [Top 3 quotes from Avoma/Luci — their exact words]
- **Competitive landscape:** [From graph_competitive_intel — who else, win/loss patterns, our position]
- **Relationship intel:** [From graph_account_network — key connections, champion movers]
- **Discount benchmarks:** [From Snowflake — segment avg/median/range]

## 2. Stakeholder Interest Map
[Table from Step 2, enriched with graph_account_network data]

## 3. BATNA & ZOPA
[From Step 3A]

## 4. Concession Trade Menu
[Table from Step 4 — customized to this deal]
[Include procurement counter-tactics if procurement is involved]
[Include multi-year structure recommendation if term is in play]

## 5. Objection Playbook
[From Step 5 — only include objections likely for this deal based on intel]

## 6. Scenario Planning
[From Step 6]

## 7. Communication Plan
[From Step 7 — include champion arming deck]

## 8. Escalation Plan
[From Step 8 — who needs to be looped in for this specific deal]

## 9. Key Quotes & Evidence
[Direct quotes from calls with attribution]
[Proof points from UserEvidence]
[Relevant won deal precedents]
[Competitive win/loss data from graph_competitive_intel]

---

### Getting to Yes Checklist
- [ ] I know their interests (not just their position)
- [ ] I have my BATNA clear and have worked to strengthen it
- [ ] I've estimated their BATNA and know their alternatives
- [ ] I have 3+ creative options that create mutual value
- [ ] I'm anchoring on objective criteria (benchmarks, peer data, ROI)
- [ ] I'm separating the people from the problem
- [ ] My champion is armed to sell internally (deck generated)
- [ ] I know my walk-away point and won't go below it
- [ ] Every concession I might make has a corresponding ask
- [ ] SVF readiness gate passed (4/5+)
- [ ] Escalation contacts briefed if needed
- [ ] Discount benchmarks pulled and referenced

---
*Generated by negotiation-prep skill on [date]*
```

## Constraints

- **Always cite sources.** Every claim about what the buyer wants must reference a specific call, transcript, or data point. No fabricating intel.
- **Max 6 objections.** Only include objections that are likely for THIS deal based on gathered intelligence. Don't dump the entire playbook.
- **Never recommend discounting as the first option.** Explore every creative trade before touching price. Protect margin.
- **Quantify everything.** "They care about ROI" is useless. "$X/month cost of delay based on Y metric" is actionable.
- **Use graph_competitive_intel for competitive analytics.** Never use gtmbuddy_ask_buddy for win/loss data or competitive analysis. GTM Buddy is for sales enablement content only.

## Failure Modes

| Failure Mode | Signal | Recovery |
|--------------|--------|----------|
| **No opportunity found** | SF query empty | Ask user for Opp ID or account name. Try SOSL search |
| **No call transcripts** | Avoma returns nothing | Note "No call intel available — discovery gaps exist." Recommend discovery call before negotiation |
| **No Luci presales data** | Search returns empty | Fall back to Avoma transcripts + generic industry objection patterns |
| **No Clari score** | Opp not in Clari | Note "Deal health unknown — no Clari data." Use SF stage + activity as proxy |
| **Weak BATNA** | We need this deal badly | Be honest about it. Focus on strengthening alternatives. Never negotiate from desperation |
| **No competitive intel** | `graph_competitive_intel` returns empty | Fallback chain: 1) `luci_search_presales` with competitor keywords, 2) `avoma_search_transcript` for competitor mentions, 3) `gtmbuddy_search_documents` for general battle cards. Flag as critical gap — set pre-negotiation objective: "Identify competitive landscape before price discussion" |
| **SVF not ready (<4/5)** | Readiness gate fails | STOP negotiation prep. Chain to `proposal-prep` to build the value case first |
| **No discount benchmarks** | Snowflake query empty | Fall back to SF historical deals across similar segment. Note "No governed benchmarks — using account history only" |

## Skill Chaining

| If You Find | Chain To | Purpose |
|-------------|----------|---------|
| MEDDPICC gaps in deal data | `meddpicc-qualifier` | Full qualification check before negotiating |
| Competitor actively mentioned | `competitive-intel` | Battle card + positioning |
| Discount request above benchmarks | `deal-desk-review` | Approval routing + discount analysis |
| Live objection during call | `objection-handler` | Real-time talk track from GTM Buddy |
| Deal stalled/at risk | `deal-review` | Pre-call inspection + next actions |
| Champion needs arming | `competitive-displace` | Materials for internal selling |
| SVF readiness < 4/5 | `proposal-prep` | Build the value case before negotiating price |
| Champion arming deck needed | `leandata-slides` | Generate presentation for champion to present internally |

**Typical negotiation prep chain:**
1. `deal-review` → Assess deal health and gaps
2. `proposal-prep` → Build value case and SVF (if not already done)
3. `negotiation-prep` (this skill) → Full negotiation brief
4. `leandata-slides` → Champion arming deck
5. `competitive-intel` → If competitor is in play
6. `objection-handler` → During the actual call (real-time)

## Trigger Phrases

- "Prep me for negotiation with [account]"
- "Build a negotiation brief for [deal]"
- "CFO meeting prep for [account]"
- "How should I handle pricing discussion with [account]?"
- "Negotiation strategy for [deal]"
- "Getting to Yes prep for [account]"
- "The CFO wants to talk pricing on [deal]"
- "Procurement is pushing back on [deal]"

## References

- Fisher, Ury & Patton — *Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In*
- McKinsey & Company — *The Power of Pricing* (2003)
- Simon-Kucher & Partners — Pricing impact research
- `../../archive/b2b-pricing-research/README.md` — Behavioral economics, game theory, and pricing research
- `../../marketing/gtmbuddy/skills/objection-handler.md` — Real-time objection handling
- `../../playbook/tactics/6-operations/` — Deal desk process
- Harvard PON Negotiation Preparation Checklist
- Dock.us — Sales Business Case Framework for CFOs