The outcome-matched win-loss record
Record the outcome, account, evidence, and next test as different objects.
| Field | Record | Confidence | What it can support | What it cannot support |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome | Won, lost, or canceled, with close date and status history | Observed in CRM, or unresolved | Comparisons between defined outcome groups | A causal reason by itself |
| Buyer account | Stated problem, alternatives, constraints, and decision path | Reported, with participant and date | A buyer-side explanation to compare with the seller account | The claim that the buyer account is complete or universally true |
| Seller account | Explanation, owner, date, and role | Reported, with wording preserved | A hypothesis about the selling process | A verified cause merely because it is internal |
| Process evidence | Proposal, price, timing, competitor, interaction, or approval record | Corroborated, disputed, or absent | Support for or against an account | Proof that one document caused the outcome |
| Reason code | Versioned classification of the account | Coded, disputed, or unknown | Consistent review and question selection | A substitute for evidence or counterfactual testing |
| Follow-up | Next test, process change, owner, and date | Planned or completed | Learning from a changed process | Proof that the prior review was correct |
Swipe or scroll horizontally if the table is wider than your screen.
Reference & Evidence
Source: Framework synthesis grounded in Friend, Curasi, Boles, and Bellenger (2014), Virtanen, Parvinen, and Rollins (2015), and Friend, Ranjan, and Johnson (2019).
Each line is a claim from the register this journal publishes against, resolved from the register at build time.
- B A three-state outcome design can keep won, lost, and canceled leads visible in a B2B CRM review Author translation grounded in Virtanen, Parvinen and Rollins (2015) ·
WLA27-C1 - B A buyer-side post-mortem can add evidence that is distinct from the seller's account of a failed proposal Author translation grounded in Friend, Curasi, Boles and Bellenger (2014) ·
WLA27-C2 - B Failing fast is a resource-allocation decision, not a guaranteed performance improvement Author translation grounded in Friend, Ranjan and Johnson (2019) ·
WLA27-C3 - B A CRM outcome is an observation, while a reason needs a source and confidence state before interpretation Author framework ·
WLA27-C4 - B Buyer and seller accounts should be preserved as separate evidence layers Author framework grounded in Friend et al. (2014) ·
WLA27-C5 - B Canceled opportunities should not be folded into competitive losses without a defined rule and evidence Author translation grounded in Virtanen et al. (2015) ·
WLA27-C6 - B A review needs a stopping rule covering outcome, perspective, support, confidence, and next test Author framework ·
WLA27-C7
Grades: A, verified against the printed page of the primary source · B, primary source, text layer only · C, authoritative secondary · D, reported.
Related exhibits
-
The synthetic forecast-category state table
From the essay What are forecast categories? Names need stable decision rules
-
The revenue-process handoff matrix
From the essay What is a revenue process? The handoffs that make the funnel measurable
-
The CRM field-quality register
From the essay What is CRM data governance? Revenue control before reporting