Context Clarity: Your Edge to Winning Technical Deals in the AI Era

‍

The Context Gap in Technical Sales

Most technical opportunities don't fall over because of a missing feature.

They fall over because the real business trigger was never fully understood. Because internal politics and budget mechanics were misread. Because the proposal solved a technical requirement but missed the decision-maker's actual concern. Because the customer couldn't clearly explain internally why your approach was safer, faster, or more strategic.

AI makes this problem sharper, not softer.

This is what a deal might look like in most CRMs:

• Industry: Financial services
• Scope: Data protection + DR + cyber recovery
• Size: 500TB
• Value: $2.4M
• Status: Commit

That's enough for a forecast - but it tells you almost nothing about how to win.

When we talk about 'deal context', we mean the intelligence that drives better decision-making which ultimately helps you close more pipe.

Today, most of this lives in a presales engineer's notebook, someone's head, or scattered across call recordings, Slack threads, and email chains. The information exists - but not with the clarity needed to align a team, shape a strategy, or make AI tools useful.

‍

7 Lenses for Capturing Deal Context: A Practical Framework

There's no shortage of deal qualification frameworks - but most are useful only for answering one question: Is this deal real and worth pursuing?

Context clarity goes further - into the politics, the priorities, the positioning, the plan.

What follows is a set of 7 lenses - structured prompts and questions that help you surface what actually matters with clarity - and actually contributes to you closing more pipe, not just pipeline management.

Whatever technical solutions you’re selling - storage, cloud, security, managed services - the underlying dynamics are the same. Use it to sharpen your own thinking, align your team, or pressure-test your next big deal.

The 7 Context Lenses - Executive Summary:

1. The Burning Platform: Is this deal real, and why now? What's the consequence of inaction, and who bears personal accountability?
2. Strategic Deal Value: Beyond the headline number, what's this deal actually worth to you? What's the opportunity cost of pursuit?
3. Customer Objectives & Priorities: What are they asking for vs. what do they actually want? What trade-offs are they genuinely willing to make?
4. Competitive & Decision Landscape: What does the deal playing field look like? Who are you really up against? What does the decision process look like?"
5. Relationship Dynamics: What motivates the key stakeholders? Whose career is tied to the outcome? Who really drives this decision? Who can quietly kill it?
6. Plan to Win: What's your thesis for why you'll be selected? What positioning and proof points will you deploy?
7. Risks & Assumptions: What could derail this, and how are you preparing?

‍

#1. The Burning Platform - Is This Deal Real, and Why Now?

This lens separates painkillers from vitamins. Vitamins are nice-to-have initiatives that can slip another quarter without consequence. Painkillers have a concrete trigger, timeline, and consequences with clear ownership that forces action. Knowing which you're dealing with changes everything - how you qualify, how you resource, and whether you should be in the deal at all.

Capture:

• The triggering event (outage, acquisition, regulation, major competitor move, vendor end-of-life (EOL) announcement)
• Consequence of inaction (regulatory, financial, reputational)
• Who bears personal accountability for the outcome
• Hard deadlines vs. aspirational timelines

Example - DR for manufacturer warehouse consolidation (NetApp + Azure):

'Customer consolidating 2 distribution centers into a new $45M flagship warehouse. Go-live in 11 months. Current DR replicates data between existing sites - when both close, DR capability disappears. New warehouse becomes single point of failure from Day 1. Infrastructure Manager raised this 4 months ago; deprioritized until GM Supply Chain escalated to the executive team last month. CEO now personally tracking.'

Compare this to what typically lands in a CRM: 'DR project, Q2 close, $600K.' Same deal, completely different ability to act on it.

‍

#2. Strategic Deal Value - How Much Attention Is This Deal Worth?

Presales capacity is finite. Every hour your best engineer or architect spends on a transactional deal is an hour they're not spending on the opportunity that could define your year. This lens forces the trade-off into focus - distinguishing strategic plays from solid but transactional work. Which deals warrant your sharpest people, and which should simply run the standard playbook?

Capture:

• Total contract value and realistic margin
• Follow-on potential (land-and-expand, adjacent business units)
• Logo and reference value (industry, geography, use case)
• Strategic fit (capability showcase, partnership leverage, market entry)
• Opportunity cost of pursuit

Example: 'Estimating $650K-$720K infrastructure resell, $100K-$130K services, $180K/year managed services on 3-year term. High renewal likelihood given customer's lean IT team (4 FTE).  Potential follow-on: network refresh for new site, aging storage at 3 regional branches. Estimating $2.0M-$2.4M total addressable.

Strong vertical entry point. Customer supplies major hardware chains nationally, strong brand presence in building materials. Manufacturing broadly facing same challenge: legacy DR built on site-to-site replication, now consolidating facilities for cost reasons. Seen similar triggers at 3 other manufacturing prospects in last 6 months. Win here, and we have a repeatable story.'

Used properly, this lens shows you where your top operators can create outsized impact versus just incremental revenue.

‍

#3. Customer Objectives & Priorities - What Do They Actually Want?

What they asked for is in the RFP. What they'll actually buy is the solution that maps to the outcomes someone's name is attached to. This lens uncovers the difference - the metrics they'll be measured against, the trade-offs they're genuinely prepared to make, and the definition of 'done' that lives in their head, not the requirements document.

Capture:

• Stated requirements vs. underlying business objectives
• Success metrics that anchor the executive presentation or their performance review (OpEx reduction, go-live date, uptime SLA, resolution time)
• Priority stack (speed vs. cost, control vs. simplicity, features vs. risk)
• Timeline drivers (fiscal year, board commitments, external deadlines)
• Definition of 'done' for each stakeholder (CFO needs budget certainty, CIO needs risk transfer, COO needs minimal disruption)

Example: 'Stated: DR solution operational Day 1 of new warehouse go-live. Actual: GM Supply Chain needs seamless transition - if WMS (Warehouse Management System) fails during cutover, inventory counts break and orders stop shipping. Estimating $180K-$250K daily revenue at risk during peak periods, plus downstream penalties from major retail customers (Bunnings, Mitre 10) for missed delivery windows.

Timeline certainty and implementation risk are non-negotiable. Operational manageability is high priority - customer IT team (4 FTE) is stretched, prefers partner who operates, not just implements. Cost medium priority - but competing SI likely 10-15% cheaper. Overall, customer buying risk reduction, not technology. Win on delivery credibility, not price or features.'

This is what you align your team around - so everyone from solution architect to exec sponsor is solving for the same outcome. It's also what gives AI tools something to work with: explicit trade-offs, not just a list of requirements.

‍

#4. Competitive & Decision Landscape - What Does the Deal Playing Field Look Like?

You're never just competing against other vendors. You're competing against the status quo, internal politics, budget reallocation, and organizational inertia. This lens maps the real ‘decision physics’: who wins and loses internally, where the hidden vetoes sit, and what would have to be true for you to be selected.

Capture:

• True alternatives (incumbent renewal, internal build, do nothing, other vendors)
• Political winners and losers (who gains or loses influence, budget, headcount)
• Hidden veto points (security, architecture review, procurement, legal)
• Budget status (committed, allocated, or aspirational)
• Evaluation process and criteria (stated vs. actual)

Example: 'Competing consultancy pitching Pure Storage for new warehouse primary, bundling DR. Customer CIO prefers single-vendor simplicity. Pure likely 10-15% cheaper on hardware due to aggressive new-logo pricing; their weakness is DR maturity - Pure's cloud replication product is 18 months old vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP with 5+ years production.

Two paths. Path A: win both primary storage and DR - requires displacing Pure on price or proving DR not production-ready. Propose NetApp AFF A400 - proven platform, existing familiarity from customer's legacy FAS environment, lower retraining cost for IT team. Path B: win DR only, position as storage-agnostic.

Budget sits within $45M warehouse capital allocation - less scrutiny than standalone IT project. Procurement through warehouse PMO, not IT channels. No formal RFP. Decision in 8 weeks to meet design freeze.'

Now it's clear why a 'technically superior' solution might still lose.

‍

#5. Relationship Dynamics - What Motivates the Key Stakeholders?

Org charts show reporting lines; this lens maps influence. It makes explicit who is driving the change, who quietly prefers the status quo, and whose opinion carries more weight than their title suggests. You're not selling to a company. You're navigating a room full of people with different agendas, concerns, and their own reasons to support, or quietly kill your deal.

Capture:

• Real champion(s): who is pushing for change and why it matters personally
• Key players and their motivations: economic buyer, technical authority, users, influencers - what each stands to gain or lose (visibility, influence, credibility, headcount)
• Risk appetite: who wants a visible win vs. who just needs to not get blamed
• Relationships and politics: alliances, tensions, history, existing ties to competitors or incumbent
• Decision process: who weighs in first, whose opinion anchors the rest, who has the final word
• Your access: who gives you unfiltered information vs. staged meetings - and gaps to address

Example: 'Entry point: dormant relationship from $80K branch refresh 2 years ago. Re-engaged 3 months ago; Infrastructure Manager mentioned warehouse project.

GM Supply Chain - project sponsor, owns warehouse success. Warehouse is his legacy project - retiring in 18 months, wants clean handover not a crisis. Risk-averse on anything threatening go-live.

CIO - economic buyer. Knows us, no complaints, no strong advocacy. Cautious; 3 years in role, comfortable, won't back something that fails publicly. Has Pure/competing SI relationship. We're safe, not preferred.

Infrastructure Manager - technical authority. Frustrated DR was ignored for months despite his warnings - wants vindication. NetApp-familiar, our strongest advocate. Ambitious; sees this project as visibility opportunity if it succeeds. Junior in org; influence is technical credibility, not political weight.

Competitor access: CIO relationship gives competing SI leverage. Technical team leans our way but not strongly.'

Deals are won by people, for people - which means the relationship map matters as much as the solution design.

‍

#6. Plan to Win - What's Our Thesis, and Execution Path?

This lens turns context into strategy. Everything you've captured so far - urgency, value, objectives, competition, relationships - now becomes a specific thesis for why you'll be selected, what proof points you'll land, and how you'll differentiate against the realistic alternatives. It's the story your entire team rallies around - guiding every conversation from prospecting to close.

Capture:

• Win thesis in a few sentences (what the customer cares about most, how we're positioning to that, why us vs. the best alternative or status quo)
• Proof points for key differentiators: products, demos, PoCs, references, commercial model
• Critical moves and dependencies: executive sponsorship, workshops, partner alignment

Example: 'Win thesis: safest path to Day 1 DR without adding complexity to $45M construction program. Angle is trust and reliability - customer doesn't need another risk, needs partner who's done this before.

Pricing: Competing SI with Pure likely 10-15% cheaper. Won't win on cost. Strategy is shifting criteria from price to risk - quantify DR failure ($180K-$250K/day) against hardware premium. If customer fixates on price, deploy Microsoft: Azure credits and FastTrack support offset $50K-$80K. Request NetApp MDF if pursuing primary storage displacement.

Key actions: Dulux reference - same scenario, on-time delivery. Request Dulux team (James, Priya). Position Pure DR as immature. Align to warehouse milestones so Project Director sees we understand his world. Joint planning session before design freeze. Architecture walkthrough for CIO with live failover demo. Microsoft CAM co-sell letter and credits commitment.'

This is what keeps 10 people working one deal from pulling in 10 different directions.

‍

#7. Risks & Assumptions - What Could Derail This, and How Are We Preparing?

The goal isn't a long list of generic risks - it's clarity on the key events that could actually derail this deal, what your early warning signals are, and how you might respond. This is an area where real deal experience matters. Your best operators have seen these patterns before so lean on them.

Capture:

• Top 2-3 risks & assumptions that could derail the deal (political, commercial, competitive, timing)
• Early warning indicators and mitigation actions
• Qualification red flags and walk-away criteria

Example: 'Risk 1: Single-vendor mandate. Project Director simplifies accountability by mandating one vendor. We lose regardless of merit. Early warning: Infrastructure Manager excluded from storage evaluation. Mitigation: position DR as storage-agnostic; escalate to GM Supply Chain with vendor lock-in risk. This is the kill shot - if it happens, deal is lost.

Risk 2: Competing SI bundles DR at zero margin. They protect primary win by giving away DR. Customer takes path of least resistance. Early warning: customer stops engaging on DR-specific conversations. Mitigation: force proof-of-concept; Pure's DR hasn't been tested in this scenario.'

Best-run pursuits don't have fewer risks - they surface them earlier.

‍

How to Embed This in Your Team's Ways of Working

This Is Not Another CRM Project

This is where the gap between theory and practice usually appears.

Teams feel the pain, buy into the idea of 'better deal intelligence'… and then turn it into another CRM project - more fields, more admin, more things that don't get updated. You’ve added friction without changing how anyone thinks about a deal.

The real shift is getting your team to see why context matters - not as extra work, but as the thing that actually helps them win. It's less about new tooling and more about how people think, talk, and hand off deals day to day.

3 Places to Start Now:

1. Redesign handoffs around context, not tasks: Before any handoff, anchor on one question: If I disappeared tomorrow, what would someone need to know to run this deal without me? A stack of forwarded emails isn't a handoff. Context is.
2. Capture context while it's fresh: After key meetings, AE and presales answer one question - in writing, within 24 hours: What did we learn that changes our understanding of the trigger, the dynamics, or what the customer actually cares about?
3. Let your best operators lead the way: Your top operators already do some version of this in their heads - they'll see the value immediately. Ask what mental models they use. Let them run deal reviews through these lenses. Pair them with new joiners on pursuits. Culture shifts through people, not process decks.

‍

Why Context Matters More Than Ever in the AI Era

Your competitors can copy your tools, your vendors, even your slide templates. What they can’t easily copy is the sharpness of your thinking about each deal - and that shows in customer interactions.

Context clarity is what keeps your team aligned when deals get messy, and turns AI from a nice-to-have into real operational advantage.

AI systems can already draft proposals, summarize calls, and generate content. Feed it generic CRM data and you get generic results. Feed it relevant and specific context - the trigger, the decision dynamics, what the customer actually cares about - and you get something actually useful.

Context clarity has always been the edge. AI is now amplifying it for some teams - and exposing its absence in others.

‍