Sales Promise Handoff

Self-initiated fictional demonstration from a local independent AI test. Not customer work, legal advice, a verified CRM audit or a measured business result.

Handoff Context

• Deal: Cedar-24, version A. Internal review draft only; not a delivery authorization or contract interpretation.
• Customer goal: Reduce manual reporting (customer, S3, 2026-09-12). This is purchase motivation, not a guaranteed outcome; measurable success criteria were not supplied.
• Sources: S1, 2026-09-10, scope excerpt described by the user as signed; S2, Alex's sales email, 2026-09-11; S3, customer note, 2026-09-12; S4, Sam's delivery note, 2026-09-13. S1 is user-supplied recorded scope, not independently verified legal authority.
• Material gaps: No supplied resolution of the seat quantity, no agreed go-live date, no response to the PDF request, and no confirmed delivery capacity.

Promise Register

1. Seat Quantity

• Item and source: S1 records 10 seats; Alex says he told the customer 20 seats were included (S2).
• Evidence kind: Recorded scope (S1); sales-stated commitment (S2).
• Review state: Conflicting.
• Conditions and next check: No conditions on either quantity were supplied. The later email does not automatically supersede S1. Obtain an explicitly scoped quantity decision from the identified scope authority, whose identity is not supplied.
• Known owner/date: Resolution owner and decision date not supplied. Proposed routing: Alex and the scope authority once identified.

2. Remote Onboarding Workshop

• Item and source: One remote onboarding workshop is included (S1). Sam owns workshop coordination (S4).
• Evidence kind: Recorded scope.
• Review state: No conflict found in supplied material.
• Conditions and next check: Workshop date not supplied. Sam's coordination ownership does not establish broader delivery ownership or capacity confirmation. Capacity remains unconfirmed under S4.
• Known owner/date: Sam, coordination only; workshop date not supplied.

3. Slack Integration

• Item and source: Slack integration is explicitly excluded (S1).
• Evidence kind: Explicit exclusion.
• Review state: No conflict found in supplied material.
• Conditions and next check: Preserve the exclusion in the handoff. No contrary request or commitment was supplied.
• Known owner/date: Not supplied.

4. Conditional October 2 Target

• Item and source: Alex states an October 2 target, conditional on the customer's cleaned CSV arriving by September 25 and delivery confirming capacity (S2). S1 states no go-live date; Sam has not confirmed capacity (S4).
• Evidence kind: Sales-stated commitment, expressed as a conditional target.
• Review state: Needs confirmation.
• Conditions and next check: Retain both dependencies. CSV receipt is not supplied, and capacity is unconfirmed. October 2 is not a guaranteed or agreed go-live date; S1's silence neither approves nor excludes that date.
• Known owner/date: Customer supplies the CSV; named customer owner not supplied. Named capacity decision owner not supplied. CSV deadline: September 25; target: October 2. Proposed routing: Alex and delivery to clarify the target's status.

5. Weekly PDF Export

• Item and source: Customer asks whether a weekly PDF export can be included (S3).
• Evidence kind: Customer request.
• Review state: Needs confirmation.
• Conditions and next check: No response, inclusion decision, exclusion, or implementation commitment was supplied.
• Known owner/date: Not supplied. Proposed routing: Alex and the scope authority once identified.

Decisions Before Commitment

• Seat quantity: Who has authority to resolve 10 versus 20 seats, and what is the explicit decision for Cedar-24 A? This affects the package handed to delivery (S1/S2).
• Date dependencies: Has the cleaned CSV arrived, and has delivery confirmed capacity? Until the supplied conditions are met and the date's status is clarified, retain October 2 as conditional (S2/S4).
• PDF request: What response should be recorded for the weekly export request? It remains a request, not approved scope (S3).
• Decision owners and decision deadlines are not supplied. Routing above is proposed, not assigned.

Internal Handoff Draft

Cedar-24 A includes one remote onboarding workshop and explicitly excludes Slack integration in the supplied scope excerpt (S1). Seat quantity remains disputed: S1 records 10, while Alex stated 20 to the customer (S2). Alex's October 2 target depends on a cleaned CSV arriving by September 25 and delivery capacity confirmation; capacity has not been confirmed (S2/S4). The customer's weekly PDF export request has no supplied response and is not an established commitment (S3). Their stated goal is reduced manual reporting, without a supplied outcome guarantee (S3). Sam owns workshop coordination and explicitly has not accepted the handoff (S4).

This recap is internal and unsent.

Coverage and Acceptance

• S1: Both quantities and the workshop format are retained; Slack exclusion is explicit; absence of a go-live date is preserved.
• S2: The conflicting seat statement and both conditions on the October 2 target are retained.
• S3: Purchase motivation and the unanswered PDF request remain distinct from promises.
• S4: Sam's limited ownership, unconfirmed capacity, and non-acceptance are recorded.
• No other-deal material was supplied.
• Receiving-team acceptance: Sam explicitly has not accepted the handoff (S4); no positive receiving-team acceptance was supplied. Acceptance criteria were not supplied. This is not a whole-project readiness verdict.