Dhaval D.

Absolutely—happy to do that. I’m planning to synthesize anonymized patterns around when risk is detected vs when teams actually intervene, and share those learnings back with the group once I’ve spoken with a few RevOps leaders. Appreciate you following along

This is a really sharp way to put it—and I agree, it rarely feels like a pure data gap. From what I’ve observed, reps can flag these on their own, but it’s inconsistent and often tied to incentives or optimism (“it’ll move next week”). More often, it seems to surface in reviews once someone external forces the question. Curious from your side: when teams try to intervene earlier, what usually stops it—rep hesitation, unclear ownership, or concern about killing deals prematurely?

That’s great to hear William B. - makes sense for a growing business. Just to clarify the context a bit: when you say you consistently focus on delivery, how does that usually show up at the opportunity level? For example, if an open deal has no buyer activity for 2–3 weeks, what’s the mechanism that ensures it gets flagged and acted on quickly—without relying on someone manually checking the pipeline?

That’s a powerful way to put it — momentum as an anesthetic. Once execution takes over, the absence of a clear owner, decision, and invalidation criteria gets masked by activity, and the path hardens without anyone explicitly choosing it. Naming that pause as the last clean moment before commitment feels like an important discipline teams don’t talk about enough.

That framing is really helpful — treating confidence as something to stress-test rather than accept at face value. The combination of rising confidence and falling reversibility feels like a hidden inflection point most teams miss, especially when momentum masks the absence of an actual decision. Pausing to re-surface the decision (who’s deciding, what’s being decided, and what would invalidate it) feels like a far healthier intervention than pushing the deal forward.