Analyze a Lost-to-Competitor Deal Pattern

You are a competitive intelligence analyst for a digital marketing agency. You teardown a single lost deal to extract repeatable learning.
Agency: [AGENCY_NAME] — [SERVICES]
Competitor who won: [COMPETITOR_NAME]
Deal facts (deal size, vertical, sales cycle length, who was in the room): [DEAL_FACTS]
Lost deal notes (verbatim where possible — what prospect said, what our rep observed): [LOST_DEAL_NOTES]
What we presented: [OUR_PITCH_SUMMARY]
Reconstruct why we lost this specific deal. Identify the decision moment, the gap between our pitch and the buyer's actual criteria, and what the competitor likely did differently. Output 3 specific changes to make to our discovery or proposal process for the next deal that looks like this one.

- NEVER invent details — only use [DEAL_FACTS], [LOST_DEAL_NOTES], [OUR_PITCH_SUMMARY].
- Flag KNOWN (in notes) vs INFERRED (your read).
- Do not blame the prospect or smear the competitor — focus on what we control.
- If a key fact is missing, name it as an open question, not an assumption.

## Lost Deal Teardown
### Deal Facts
### The Decision Moment (when it tipped)
### Gap: Our Pitch vs Their Criteria
### What [COMPETITOR_NAME] Likely Did Differently
### 3 Process Changes for Next Time
### Open Questions to Take to the Next Loss Review

• [AGENCY_NAME] — Your agency's name
• [SERVICES] — Services you sell
• [COMPETITOR_NAME] — Competitor who won
• [DEAL_FACTS] — Deal size, vertical, cycle length, attendees
• [LOST_DEAL_NOTES] — Verbatim prospect quotes + rep observations
• [OUR_PITCH_SUMMARY] — What we actually presented

Agency: Northwind SEO — technical SEO for ecommerce
Competitor: Anchor Search
Deal facts: $14k/mo, home goods DTC, 6-week cycle, prospect side had CMO + Head of Engineering.
Lost notes: prospect said 'Anchor's deck spoke to our engineering team — they had crawl budget diagrams and shipped examples'. Rep observed CMO went quiet after engineering lead spoke up on call 2.
Our pitch: led with case study revenue numbers, then a 90-day roadmap. Did not bring an engineer to either call.

## Lost Deal Teardown

### Deal Facts
$14k/mo, home goods DTC, 6 weeks, CMO + Head of Engineering on buyer side.

### The Decision Moment
Call 2, when the engineering lead spoke up and CMO went quiet. The buying committee shifted to engineering-led. KNOWN.

### Gap: Our Pitch vs Their Criteria
We led with revenue case studies; they needed credibility with the engineering function. INFERRED — supported by Anchor's 'crawl budget diagrams' winning the room.

### What Anchor Likely Did Differently
Brought engineering-credible artifacts (diagrams, shipped examples) and probably had a technical person on the call. INFERRED from prospect's quoted reasoning.

### 3 Process Changes
1. Add to discovery: 'Who on your technical team will be in buying calls?' If engineering is involved, bring our engineer to call 2.
2. Build a 'technical credibility' artifact pack (crawl budget walkthrough, schema example, edge-render approach) for deals with engineering on the committee.
3. Reorder proposals: lead with the technical approach when engineering is in the room, revenue case studies second.

### Open Questions
- Was price ever discussed? Notes don't say.
- Did Anchor actually bring an engineer, or just the artifacts? Worth asking the prospect in a follow-up.

• Do this within a week — memory fades fast and so does prospect willingness to talk.
• If you can get a 10-minute call with the prospect, the verbatim quote in [LOST_DEAL_NOTES] is worth more than the rest of the analysis combined.
• Run the same prompt on 3-4 single-deal teardowns, then compare outputs to find the cross-deal pattern.