How to test your sales champion
Test support through an action the contact is willing to take inside the company. Ask them to prepare an introduction or bring the problem into a real internal decision. Enthusiasm alone does not prove support, influence or buying authority.
A practical way to approach it
Separate interest from support
A good conversation tells you the contact is interested. Ask what they are willing to do internally and what the decision changes for them.
Ask for a visible action
Prepare one useful step together: an introduction, an internal discussion or the next validation. Ask what they can organize and when, without supplying an invented date.
Check the limits of that evidence
An accepted action supports the next move. It does not independently verify political influence or prove the action happened. Revisit the evidence after the internal conversation.
Meet the fictional deal.
Julien likes your approval software demo. Acme has documented six hours a week lost chasing approvals. Julien offers to share the proposal internally, but you have not seen him advocate for the purchase or open a validation.
Software purchase · Multiple stakeholders. The declared context guides method selection; it does not prove any part of the buying decision.
- Julien
- Operations lead
- Owns the daily problem. His role does not prove buying authority or internal influence.
- Maya
- Finance lead
- A fictional participant. Her title alone does not prove that she can approve this purchase.
- You
- Software seller
- Preparing a proposal. You choose what to ask and send.
See what changes the strategy.
Fictional deal. These states are calculated with the same evidence checks and strategy rules as 3xrep. A source match does not independently verify the speaker or the truth of a claim.
The quoted response shows interest and an offer to circulate a document. The internal decision remains blocked on untested support.
Declared stage: proposal. This is the seller’s stage, not proof that the buyer is ready.
- Internal supportAssumed
- Buying authorityUnknown
- Decision criteriaUnknown
- Buyer deadlineAssumed
- Decision processAssumed
- Measured impactSupported
- Buyer problemSupported
Put this strategy to work in your AI chat.
From your deal to your next move.
Fictional Acme deal. Your assistant brings the context; 3xrep builds the strategy.
Uses the notes or connected sources you make available.
View this fictional deal’s context
Acme · proposal · seller-declared stage
“We lose 6 hours per week chasing approvals; the time records confirm those 6 hours.”
Checks the evidence. Finds the gap.
Builds a strategy for this deal.
- Internal support
- Assumed
- Measured impact
- Supported
- Buyer problem
- Supported
Priority gap: Internal support
Test who will advocate for the impact internally and open the next validation.
You said: “We lose 6 hours per week chasing approvals; the time records confirm those 6 hours.” Would you be willing to advocate for this in the next internal discussion and involve us?
You review the wording and decide what to send.
All arrows stay visible. No prospect is contacted.
Apply this strategy to your own deal.
Bring your notes or the buyer’s exact words into your assistant. Ask 3xrep to check the evidence, choose a next move and prepare for possible replies. Add the new evidence after your next conversation to review the strategy.
Show the request to copy into your assistant
Help me test my internal support on this deal. What action would establish support, what is only assumed, and how should the strategy change if the contact refuses or accepts?
Enrollment does not guarantee a selected free-forever place.
The evidence file
- Internal support Assumed
“I like the demo. Send me the proposal and I will see what people think.”
Quoted statement, not accepted proof.
- Buying authority Unknown
- No accepted proof for this point.
- Decision criteria Unknown
- No accepted proof for this point.
- Buyer deadline Assumed
- No accepted proof for this point.
- Decision process Assumed
- No accepted proof for this point.
- Measured impact Supported
“We lose 6 hours per week chasing approvals; the time records confirm those 6 hours.”
- Buyer problem Supported
“Our approval delays are a problem: the team misses customer deadlines.”
Read the fictional source passages
pain
Rep: What problem does your team face? Julien: Our approval delays are a problem: the team misses customer deadlines.
impact
Rep: How have you measured the impact? Julien: We lose 6 hours per week chasing approvals; the time records confirm those 6 hours.
friendly
Rep: What will you do internally? Julien: I like the demo. Send me the proposal and I will see what people think.
Your next move
Test who will advocate for the impact internally and open the next validation.
Before the proposal or contract
Priority gap: Internal support
You may keep briefing an enthusiastic contact without establishing internal support.
Evidence you can use
“We lose 6 hours per week chasing approvals; the time records confirm those 6 hours.”Measured impact
“Our approval delays are a problem: the team misses customer deadlines.”Buyer problem
How you could ask
You said: “We lose 6 hours per week chasing approvals; the time records confirm those 6 hours.” Would you be willing to advocate for this in the next internal discussion and involve us?
What would count as progress
The contact accepts an observable internal action; support no longer rests on friendliness alone.
If the buyer replies…
Hypothetical replies, not predictions or new evidence. Exploring a reply leaves the evidence file unchanged.
Why these methods appear here
The engine selected MEDDIC + CRAC from the declared buying context and the current objection. Selection and priority are 3xrep rules, not a universal prescription.
The links below show how each open or supported point relates to a method. A method name does not establish a proof.
- Internal support
- MEDDIC: Champion · MEDDPICC: Champion
- Buying authority
- MEDDIC: Economic Buyer · MEDDPICC: Economic Buyer · BANT: Authority · BEBEDC: Decision-makers
- Decision criteria
- MEDDIC: Decision criteria
- Buyer deadline
- BANT: Timeline · BEBEDC: Deadline
- Decision process
- MEDDIC: Decision process · MEDDPICC: Decision process
- Measured impact
- MEDDIC: Metrics · MEDDPICC: Metrics · BEBEDC: Stakes · Cost of inaction: Number
- Buyer problem
- MEDDIC: Identify pain · BANT: Need · BEBEDC: Need
Limits of this next move
- Do not invent a person, number, date or quotation.
- Never send the suggested message automatically.
Scenario and calculation provenance
Scenario sources are invented for this public example. The diagnostic, evidence states, gaps and actions are calculated by the product engine. Surrounding explanations and reviewed English translations are editorial.
- engine
6d8b03a442f1bdb351c4ddfffe95c54954dab77033ee313492d6aaaf7761e40f- scenario
6ecbebca80c6a882aa7f66835d8775172f75a9046c064b5ebd274c931576c448- output
5a70cacbece04b21e8f9994bc6c9c8d6ff0edfe25098c17eadcd1d4c862d9beb- presentation
d03ac294ca71d85b0b72080199b53212f3817ba7682a2954eb62483ab62c69c3- rule
impact-to-champion
Where this approach has limits
The engine recognizes evidence of advocacy and an observable commitment. That is narrower than independently proving every MEDDIC Champion requirement. A contact can support you without controlling the final decision.