Robert D.

Interesting framing. The real differentiator will be whether the verdict shifts rep behavior, not just diagnoses deal health. Are you scoring structural factors (economic buyer access, decision criteria clarity, timeline authority) or mostly engagement signals?

At $299/mo, the critical question is CAC tolerance relative to payback window. Before expanding budget, I’d pressure-test: • Target ICP specificity (who feels acute pain vs general interest) • Clear acquisition channel hypothesis (outbound, content, community, partnerships) • Target payback period (ideally <6 months at that price point) I’d focus the first $10k on validating one repeatable acquisition motion before scaling to $200k.

Agreed — diffusion is the consistent failure mode we see as well. The scoring layer becomes useful precisely because it forces that counterfactual ownership to exist before the renewal window. Without a quantified risk signal, escalation rarely triggers early enough. Have you seen teams formalize that escalation rule successfully, or does it usually remain informal?

Strong point. We’ve seen the same dynamic — renewal leakage often isn’t just utilization, it’s unclear ownership of the “stop” decision before auto-renewal defaults kick in. The utilization data typically just surfaces where governance gaps exist. Curious — in your experience, does renewal ownership usually sit with GTM leadership, finance, or shared accountability?

Appreciate that, Jessie. We’re seeing most GTM teams lack a structured renewal risk model — it’s usually reviewed only once contracts are already close to renewal. Would be curious how your team currently approaches it.

Benchmarks are great, but the real cost often isn’t seat price — it’s leakage from unused seats + workflow friction. Before renewal, I’d map out utilization and tie it to revenue impact. From ~$10k–$50k+, I often see $10–30k “lost” because seats stay active by inertia, not necessity. Happy to DM with a quick way to estimate true ROI before you commit.