Competitive Response Prep

Prepares account-specific competitive response materials when a threat is detected. Assembles value evidence, switching cost analysis, and response framework. Part of the Commercial Motion pillar.

This is a preparation and evidence assembly skill. It arms the CSM with data and structure. The response strategy, conversation execution, and relationship management are entirely human-led.

When to Run

• Triggered: When CSM acknowledges a competitive signal from bi-competitive-intel and requests preparation
• On-demand: When a CSM knows a competitive threat exists and needs materials
• Triggered: By lo-renewal-manager when a renewal is At Risk or Critical with a competitive signal present

Core Execution Logic

Step 1: Assess the Competitive Situation

From the bi-competitive-intel signal and CSM input, classify:

Step 2: Assemble Retention Evidence

Value already delivered (the strongest retention argument):

• ROI metrics from pa-value-reporter -- quantified outcomes the customer has achieved
• Usage depth from pa-adoption-tracker -- show how embedded the product is in their workflows
• Time invested in configuration, integrations, and training -- this is sunk cost the customer may not have quantified

Switching cost analysis (for internal CSM use -- not customer-facing):

Total switching cost estimate: express in both time (weeks/months) and cost (estimated labour hours * loaded cost per hour) if possible.

Competitive differentiation:

• Feature comparison on the specific capabilities the customer cares about (not a generic feature matrix)
• Areas where your product is objectively stronger for this customer's use case
• Areas where the competitor may be stronger -- acknowledge these honestly. The CSM loses credibility if they dismiss legitimate competitor advantages

Step 3: Build Response Framework

The framework provides structure for the conversation, not a script.

By evaluation stage:

By trigger:

Step 4: Generate Materials

{
  "account_id": "string",
  "competitive_situation": {
    "competitor": "Competitor X",
    "scope": "full_displacement",
    "evaluation_stage": "active_evaluation",
    "trigger": "product_gap",
    "trigger_detail": "Customer needs custom reporting that current tier does not support"
  },
  "retention_evidence": {
    "value_delivered": {
      "headline": "340 hours saved in Q1, 2847 automated workflows",
      "roi_estimate": "3.2x return on annual investment"
    },
    "switching_cost": {
      "integrations_at_risk": 3,
      "trained_users": 47,
      "configured_workflows": 23,
      "estimated_migration_time": "4-6 months",
      "estimated_productivity_loss": "6-8 weeks",
      "total_estimated_cost": "$120k-180k in labour and lost productivity"
    },
    "differentiation": {
      "stronger": ["Workflow automation depth", "Integration ecosystem", "Customer support response time"],
      "comparable": ["Core reporting", "User management", "API access"],
      "weaker": ["Custom dashboard builder -- this is the trigger gap"]
    }
  },
  "response_framework": {
    "approach": "Address the product gap directly. If custom reporting is available on a higher tier, present the upgrade case with value context. If it requires product development, provide timeline and interim workaround.",
    "key_message": "We understand the reporting gap is real. Here is what we can do about it -- and here is the full picture of value you would be walking away from.",
    "do_not": "Do not dismiss the competitor. Do not panic. Do not offer a discount before understanding the full situation.",
    "escalation_recommended": true,
    "escalation_reason": "Product gap is the trigger. Product team should weigh the competitive urgency against roadmap."
  },
  "commercial_flexibility": {
    "csm_authority": "10% discount on tier upgrade without approval",
    "requires_approval": "Larger discounts, extended terms, or contract restructuring",
    "non_negotiable": "Do not discount without tying it to a commitment. Free months or trials create precedent"
  },
  "requires_csm_review": true
}

Handoff to Human

Confidence and Limitations

• High confidence for evidence assembly -- value data, switching cost analysis, and feature comparison are factual
• Medium confidence for evaluation stage assessment -- the CSM's read on how far the evaluation has progressed is more reliable than the agent's inference from data signals
• Medium confidence for differentiation analysis -- feature comparisons are objective, but the relevance of each differentiator to this customer requires human judgment
• Low confidence for response strategy -- how to handle a competitive threat depends entirely on relationship dynamics, evaluation stage, and customer politics that the agent cannot assess
• Cannot determine whether the competitor has made a specific commercial offer
• Cannot assess the customer's internal decision-making timeline with precision
• Switching cost estimates are approximations. Actual migration cost depends on factors specific to the customer's implementation (data volume, integration complexity, internal technical resources)

Dependencies

Required:

• bi-competitive-intel (competitive signal that triggers the preparation)
• pa-value-reporter (value evidence for the retention case)
• CRM API (contract data, account context)

Strongly recommended:

• pa-adoption-tracker (adoption depth for switching cost context)
• bi-account-brief (full account context)
• ra-stakeholder-mapper (who is involved in the evaluation decision)

References

• references/competitive-response-frameworks.md -- Response templates by evaluation stage, differentiation analysis structure, and escalation decision criteria