LEVEL → UP
Day 2 design, built from your seven calls. Winning by Design.
With EveOS fully live, we have to transform our business and how we sell just as fast as our customers are transforming into AI-native firms. Now is when our team proves it.
Your Day 2 tagline. Everything that follows is built to earn that last sentence.
What we heard from you
New sellers
Ten to seventy reps in under ten months. Most of the room has never sold a platform, and many have never sold at all. Tenure is the thing you do not have time to wait for.
A buyer who hates change
Legacy firms, non-traditional, allergic to being sold to. The risk they feel is not missing out. It is picking wrong in front of their partners.
A platform pivot
Selling EveOS is selling a business transformation, tied to outcomes, at a price that has to be justified rather than discounted into.
Any one of these is a training problem. All three at once is a skill floor problem, and it is the reason a Fortune 500 process would not fit this room.
The buyer your reps actually meet
Who they are
Impatient, and they do not want to be sold to. A legacy firm on antiquated technology, running the practice rather than evaluating software. None of the give and take a professional enterprise buyer expects.
What they ask
What is this? What is this going to cost? How do you manage that? How are you different from your peers? Your own calls come back with the same four, plus we have seen products like this before.
This buyer does not respond to urgency you manufacture. They respond to arithmetic they helped build and a date they already had on their calendar.
We scored all seven calls
Four strong, three flagged as gaps, scored the same way, move by move. Every score carries the verbatim moment that earned it.
out of 5
on the team
on the team
best and weakest call
That last number is your eighty percent one click better, made measurable. Nobody here is bad at selling. They are unevenly good at two specific moves.
Where the gap actually sits
Discovery is fine across the board. Two rows carry the whole gap, and they are two different problems.
Finding one. Impact separates your best from your weakest.
Your strong calls, 4.1
The rep collects a baseline, converts it to hours, attaches a dollar value the client supplies, and gets the client to say the number out loud.
Your gap calls, 1.3
The rep hears a pain and opens the demo. Price gets quoted the moment it is asked for, into a room that has not sized anything. The verdict comes back as it looks very similar.
This is the good news in the data. Four of your reps already do this at a level most companies would be glad to have. The rest have never watched them work.
What good already sounds like on your team
In aggregate at scale, just found you 720 grand. And so the investment versus the ROI multiple, which in this case would be like almost 7x.
Ron, on a live call. He got there in four moves: 250 cases at 30 minutes is 125 hours. What is a case worth. Let the client correct him upward to a $48,000 average settlement. One more case per attorney per month.
Finding two. Nobody owns the date.
Scored against identifying a critical event date, the team averages 2.2 across all seven calls, and only 2.8 in the strong ones. This is the one place your best reps barely beat your weakest.
- Nearly every timeline in the seven calls was set by the rep. The seven-day pilot window, the Thursday check-in, the follow-up cadence.
- Almost none was owned by the customer. No filing deadline, no statute date, no partner meeting, no live matter already in motion.
- The openings were sitting in plain view. On one call the client mentioned discovery he was getting ready to pound out that week, and nobody claimed it as the pilot deadline.
Your best rep names the gap himself, saying he is still gray on your timing and kind of urgency. He asked once, late, and moved on.
Build the value with them.
Then take the date they already have.
Transfer what already works
Impact is in your building. The morning turns your own strongest call into a sequence the other reps can run on Monday.
Teach what is missing
The date is not in your building. No call in the set models it, so this half gets taught from zero and drilled hardest.
For this buyer, de-risk beats fear of missing out
What does not land
Your competitors are already doing this. You will fall behind. The market is moving. A firm that hates change hears all of it as pressure and slows down.
What does
Here is how you do not get this wrong. Here is what we prove in seven days, on your own case file, before you commit anything.
Lindsey brings this reframe from firms with exactly this profile. The buyer's real fear is picking wrong in front of their partners, and the rep who removes that fear wins the room.
Everyone gets riled up
at kickoff.
Almost nobody
adopts on Monday.
The fix is walking out holding something you built, on a real account, that your manager has already seen.
Proposed agenda
| Time | What happens | What they walk out with |
|---|---|---|
| 9:30a | The scoreboard | Their own calls, scored and anonymized, on the screen. The 2.5 spread. No lecture, no defending a number they can see. |
| 9:50a | The value build | The four-move sequence taught off your own strongest call. Baseline, volume, value per unit, revenue recovered. |
| 10:25a | Live practice, real account | Pairs, Claude prompt supplied. Every rep produces a value build for one open deal of their own. |
| 10:50a | Break | |
| 11:00a | Where the date hides | The five places a real deadline lives in a law firm: filing dates, statute dates, a matter already in motion, carrier timelines, partner comp cycles. |
| 11:30a | Claim it out loud | Same deal as before. Find the client's date, script the ask, say it to a partner who plays the buyer. |
| 11:55a | The change-averse room | De-risk language, and the I can already do this on Claude objection handled on consequence rather than features. |
| 12:15p | Commit | One written value build and one named date per rep, per real account. Managers collect them in the room. |
The afternoon, and what survives it
AIDA transcripts give us real Eve calls to teach from, which is why the morning can use your material instead of ours.
Your frontline managers own the scoring
The seven-call read you are holding took us two days. Your managers should be producing it every month without us.
- They sit in the customization before the event. Which calls we teach from, which objections get drilled, which reps get named as the exemplar.
- They get the scoring rubric and a working session in the afternoon, so the language in the morning becomes the language in their one-on-ones.
- They collect the commitments in the room. Every rep leaves with a value build and a date, and their manager already has a copy.
This is the part that decides whether August still matters in October.
What your managers would actually hold
Every score opens to a moment
What the customer said, what the rep said, and the line that should have replaced it. No abstract rubric, no score without the evidence under it.
One click to practice
The button loads a drill built from that rep's own call into Claude. They rehearse the replacement line out loud before the next conversation.
Names off for the room
Shown here anonymized, which is how it goes on screen during the morning. Managers see the real names in their own view.
This is the artifact behind the workshop. Built from your seven calls, and the thing your managers keep running after August.
This does not lock you into
a methodology right now
The decision ahead of you
A fuller methodology rollout in 2027, whichever way you land. Command of the Message, the MEDDPICC you are leaning toward, or something else entirely. That choice stays open.
August buys a skill floor, and skills travel. Building the value case with a client and claiming a real date are worth the same to your team whichever framework you pick next year.
The AI layer, sized to a mixed room
Claude access is uneven across your team today. The design assumes that and still works.
Prompts, not training
We hand out the prompt. They copy, paste, and work from there. No prompt skill required, no way for a first-timer to get it wrong.
Teams build together
Small mixed groups build the value case, then pressure-test how it sounds out loud. The AI drafts. The humans decide.
It lands in your stack
What they build maps into MindTickle for reinforcement, and into the same HubSpot fields AIDA already populates.
What this looks like
| Option | What is included | Ballpark |
|---|---|---|
| Core | Design and delivery of the 3-hour morning, on site in Nashville. Afternoon breakout kits and facilitator guides for your three-person team. Pre-work design. Prompt packs. Call analysis and customization from your own AIDA transcripts. | $35K |
| Core plus reinforcement | Everything above, plus post-SKO reinforcement: MindTickle module design, the manager scoring rubric and working session, and a follow-on virtual session. | $40K |
| Levers | Printed workbooks, a second on-site facilitator for simultaneous cohorts, deeper transcript customization. Add or remove to fit. | Up or down |
Directional, ahead of scoping. We would rather show you the levers than hand you one number.
Give us the green light
and we start with your managers
- Say go this week and we hold the Nashville date, then open customization sessions with your frontline managers so the content is built with them rather than handed to them.
- We build the morning from your calls. The exemplars we teach, the objections we drill, and the accounts in the practice blocks all come from your team.
- If you would rather see it first, take 30 minutes with Lindsey and me to walk the seven-call read before you decide.