Workflow · Diagnostic
You're reaching 3 of 8.
The other 5 kill deals.
A copy-paste Claude prompt that audits each priority account's buying committee, Decision-Maker, Champion, Influencer, Researcher, Veto roles, and surfaces which roles are missing entirely. The Engagement Map optimizes how you engage existing roles. The Gap Finder identifies the roles whose absence will stall your deals.
- DM · Champion · Influencer · Researcher · Veto
- 5rolesDM · Champion · Influencer · Researcher · Veto
- Tier 1 minimum role coverage
- 4 of 5T1 minTier 1 minimum role coverage
- Most commonly missed; late-stage stallers
- Veto roleskill dealsMost commonly missed; late-stage stallers
- Plus ad-hoc at sales-stage transitions
- QuarterlyrefreshPlus ad-hoc at sales-stage transitions
01The Problem in 60 Seconds
The DM said yes.
Then Procurement said no.
A B2B SaaS team's biggest T1 account spends 4 months in active evaluation. Decision-Maker engaged. Champion advocating internally. Influencers attending the demos. Forecast looks strong. Then at proposal stage: Procurement surfaces a contract clause objection. Legal flags data residency. Security raises an SSO requirement no one mentioned. The deal doesn't die, it stalls 8 weeks while the team scrambles to address objections that should have been engaged in months 2-3, not month 5. This is the most common pattern in B2B SaaS late-stage stalls, and it happens because the team optimized engagement quality with the 3 roles they were already reaching while never noticing the 2 roles whose absence would surface deal-killing objections at the worst possible moment.
The deeper problem is that most ABM programs measure engagement depth, not engagement breadth. The Role-by-Role Engagement Map shows how well you're engaging Decision-Makers and Champions. Per-role conversion rates look healthy. Reporting feels positive. But the same dashboard that celebrates strong DM engagement is silent on the fact that 78% of T1 accounts have zero engagement with Veto roles (Legal, Procurement, Security, IT). Those roles will surface in late stages whether you've engaged them or not, the only question is whether they surface as informed allies or as last-minute blockers.
This workflow runs structured role coverage analysis. Claude takes engaged-contacts data + target account list + 5-role taxonomy and produces per-account role coverage maps. Each account gets explicit role-by-role coverage status (engaged or missing). Aggregate analysis shows which roles are systematically under-reached at segment level. Gap priority queue surfaces which accounts need which role expansions, with specific LinkedIn audience parameter changes, content offers, and outreach approaches per gap. Run quarterly aligned with the rest of Track 03; ad-hoc at sales-stage transitions.
- Role 1 · Signs Decision-Maker VP / SVP / C-suite / Founder Signs the contract. Owns the budget. Final authority on go/no-go. Often the last to engage but always present at decision moments. Impact: Final authority
- Role 2 · Advocates Champion Director / Senior Manager Internal advocate. Owns implementation. Drives the deal forward internally between meetings. Without a Champion, deals stall. Impact: Forward momentum
- Role 3 · Validates Influencer Senior IC / Peer dept lead Technical or peer validator. Provides feedback on fit. Validation accelerates deal velocity by 25-40% when present early. Impact: Velocity
- Role 4 · Scouts Researcher Junior IC / Analyst / Coord Initial scout. Does the early evaluation. Often the first contact; their initial impression sets the tone for whether the account moves forward. Impact: First impression
- Role 5 · Kills Veto Legal / Procurement / Sec / IT Explicit blocking authority. Most commonly missed role. Surfaces at proposal stage with deal-stalling objections if not engaged earlier. Impact: Late-stage stall
02The Prompt
Copy this prompt into
Claude Desktop.
The gold variables (your brand, target account list, role taxonomy, tier definitions) are the parts you edit. Run quarterly aligned with the rest of Track 03; re-run at major sales-stage transitions.
RoleYou are running the quarterly Buying Committee Gap Finder for my B2B SaaS company. Take engaged-contacts data + target account list + 5-role taxonomy. Produce per-account role coverage analysis with explicit gaps surfaced and prioritized expansion recommendations. My BrandBrand: [your B2B SaaS brand name] Site URL: [your domain] Product category: [e.g. "B2B revenue intelligence software", context for role inference] Buying function: [e.g. "Sales Operations / RevOps", primary buyer's department] Average ACV: [e.g. "$25K mid-market"] Target Account List// Pull from ABM Audience Builder output. Should include account name, tier (T1/T2/T3), current sales stage, and ACV potential. T1 accounts (high priority): [list with sales stage, e.g. "Acme Corp - Opportunity, $80K potential / Beta Inc - Proposal, $120K potential"] T2 accounts (mid priority): [list with sales stage] T3 accounts (low priority): [list with sales stage] Engaged Contacts Data (Last 90 Days)// Pull from HubSpot. Include all contacts at target accounts who showed engagement signals (form fills, email opens, ad clicks, content downloads, meeting attendance, sequence replies). Engagement signals tracked: [e.g. "form fill, email open, ad click, content download, demo attendance, sequence reply"] Per contact, include: [name, title, seniority level, department/function, engagement count, last engagement date] Role Taxonomy// Default 5-role framework. Adjust title/seniority mapping for your specific product if helpful. Decision-Maker: [e.g. "VP+, C-suite, or Founder in Sales/RevOps function"] Champion: [e.g. "Director or Senior Manager in Sales/RevOps with implementation responsibility"] Influencer: [e.g. "Senior IC, peer department lead, or technical evaluator"] Researcher: [e.g. "Junior or mid-level IC doing initial discovery: analyst, associate, coordinator titles"] Veto: [e.g. "Legal, Procurement, Security, IT, Compliance, anyone with explicit blocking authority"] Coverage TargetsTier 1 minimum role coverage: [default: 4 of 5 roles engaged before Opportunity stage] Tier 2 minimum: [default: 3 of 5] Tier 3 minimum: [default: 2 of 5: DM + Champion at minimum] Task1. Classify every engaged contact at every target account into one of 5 roles (Decision-Maker / Champion / Influencer / Researcher / Veto). Use title + seniority + function + product context. Flag ambiguous cases. 2. Produce per-account role coverage map: - Account name + tier + current sales stage - Roles engaged (with contact count per role) - Roles missing entirely - Coverage status: HEALTHY (meets tier minimum) / GAP (1 role short of minimum) / CRITICAL (2+ roles short of minimum) 3. Aggregate segment-level coverage: - % of T1 accounts with each role engaged - % of T2 accounts with each role engaged - % of T3 accounts with each role engaged - Surface roles systematically under-reached across segment 4. Generate gap priority queue: - P1 gaps: T1 accounts at advanced sales stages (Opportunity, Proposal) missing critical roles. Expand urgently. - P2 gaps: T1 accounts at earlier stages with significant role gaps, or T2 accounts at advanced stages with role gaps. - P3 gaps: T2/T3 accounts with missing roles. Lower urgency. 5. Per gap, recommend specific expansion approach: - LinkedIn audience parameter changes: which audience filters to add/modify to reach the missing role - Content offers: which gated content to deploy that targets the missing role's concerns - Outreach sequences: which sequence variant from ABM Outreach Sequence Designer to add for the missing role - Estimated time-to-engage: typically 14-45 days from expansion launch to first signal Output format1. Headline: total accounts audited, role coverage distribution, P1/P2/P3 gap counts, top expansion priority. 2. Segment-level role coverage matrix: % engaged per role per tier, with cells colored by coverage strength. 3. Per-account role coverage table: account / tier / engaged roles (as pills) / missing roles (as pills) / status. 4. Gap priority queue: P1 gaps first, with specific expansion recommendations per gap. 5. Honest calibration: - If > 50% of T1 accounts are missing Veto roles, this is the highest-leverage segment-wide expansion. Prioritize Veto-role expansion campaign across all T1 accounts immediately. - If Researcher coverage is < 30%, the team is missing early-funnel signals. Researchers often surface 6-12 weeks before Decision-Makers, missing them means losing predictive intent data. - If a T1 account is at Proposal stage with 2+ role gaps, deal stall risk is high. Expansion may not reach those roles in time; recommend sales team direct outreach to surface and address objections proactively. - For PLG companies, add a Product User role (anyone with active trial/free tier usage), different from Researcher, who's evaluating but not using. - If you don't have ABM Audience Builder run yet, target account list is needed for this workflow. Run Audience Builder first. - Don't recommend role expansions for accounts where the role naturally doesn't exist (e.g. Procurement role at companies under 50 employees, usually combined with Finance lead). // Be specific in role classification. "Sales Director" is Champion in a sales-tools product; "Sales Director" buying for their own team in a sales-enablement product. Apply product context. // Multi-role classification matters. A CISO buying SIEM tools is Decision-Maker; the same CISO reviewing your marketing analytics tool is Veto (security review). Tag both roles when applicable. // Flag ambiguous title cases. "Head of Operations" could be VP-level (Decision-Maker) or Director-level (Champion). When ambiguous, default to higher seniority and flag for human review. // For LinkedIn expansion recommendations, be specific about audience parameters: "Add audience filter: Job Seniority = Director + Department = Legal" not "Target legal team."
Track 03 Role Coverage Pair. Engagement Map maximizes engagement quality with existing roles; Gap Finder maximizes role coverage breadth. Both workflows together produce complete role-level intelligence, depth (Engagement Map) + breadth (Gap Finder). Pull engaged-contacts data via Role-by-Role Engagement Map if structured contact data isn't readily available.
03What Claude Returns
The coverage map. The gap queue.
Sample output for a hypothetical mid-market B2B SaaS brand with 47 priority accounts (12 T1 / 22 T2 / 13 T3). Gap finder surfaces 234 engaged contacts mapped across 5 roles, 6 critical T1 gaps at Proposal stage, and segment-wide Veto-role under-coverage (78% T1 gap).
Claude · role coverage analysis
Pulling engaged contacts at 47 priority accounts via HubSpot. Classifying 234 contacts across 5 roles using title + seniority + function + product context.
growthspree.hubspot.contacts.engaged { accounts: ["47 priority"], window: "last_90d", signals: ["form_fill","email_open","ad_click","content_download","sequence_reply"] } classify 234 contacts × 5-role taxonomy (DM/Champion/Influencer/Researcher/Veto) → per-account coverage map 234 engaged contacts mapped across 47 accounts. Segment-level coverage: DM 87% / Champion 68% / Influencer 49% / Researcher 31% / Veto 22%. Critical insight: Veto roles are systematically under-reached (78% T1 gap). 6 T1 accounts at Proposal stage missing 2+ roles each. These are highest-leverage interventions. P1: 6 gaps. P2: 9 gaps. P3: 14 gaps. Top expansion priority: Veto-role expansion campaign across all T1 accounts.
| Tier | DM | Champion | Influencer | Researcher | Veto | Avg coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | 100% | 92% | 67% | 42% | 22% | 3.2 / 5 |
| T2 | 86% | 68% | 45% | 27% | 18% | 2.4 / 5 |
| T3 | 77% | 46% | 31% | 23% | 15% | 1.9 / 5 |
| Account · Sales stage | Tier | Role coverage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acme CorpOpportunity · $80K potential · 6 contacts | T1 | DMCHAMPINFLRESVETO | CRITICAL |
| Beta IndustriesProposal · $120K potential · 4 contacts | T1 | DMCHAMPINFLRESVETO | CRITICAL |
| Gamma HoldingsProposal · $95K potential · 7 contacts | T1 | DMCHAMPINFLRESVETO | GAP |
| Delta SystemsOpportunity · $65K potential · 5 contacts | T1 | DMCHAMPINFLRESVETO | HEALTHY |
| Epsilon TechSQL · $50K potential · 3 contacts | T1 | DMCHAMPINFLRESVETO | CRITICAL |
| Zeta LogisticsProposal · $110K potential · 6 contacts | T1 | DMCHAMPINFLRESVETO | CRITICAL |
| Eta SolutionsOpportunity · $75K potential · 5 contacts | T1 | DMCHAMPINFLRESVETO | GAP |
| Theta GroupSQL · $90K potential · 4 contacts | T1 | DMCHAMPINFLRESVETO | CRITICAL |
| Priority | Account · Stage | Missing role | Expansion approach |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Beta IndustriesT1 · Proposal · $120K | VETO | LinkedIn audience parameter: seniority=Director+, dept=Legal OR Procurement OR IT. Deploy gated content "Enterprise security & compliance overview." Add Veto-role outreach sequence. Sales team should also direct-outreach to Procurement before contract review. |
| P1 | Gamma HoldingsT1 · Proposal · $95K | VETO | LinkedIn audience parameter: seniority=Director+, dept=Security. Gated content: "SOC 2 + data residency overview." Sales team should request intro to Security/IT through Champion within 7 days. |
| P1 | Zeta LogisticsT1 · Proposal · $110K | VETO | LinkedIn audience: seniority=Director+, dept=Procurement OR Legal. Gated content: "Implementation playbook + contract templates." Critical: deal at Proposal stage; gap may not close before contract review. |
| P1 | Acme CorpT1 · Opportunity · $80K | RES | LinkedIn audience: seniority=Entry/IC, function=Sales Operations. Gated content: "Beginner's guide to RevOps tooling." Researcher coverage matters less at Opportunity stage but adds intent signal density. |
| P1 | Eta SolutionsT1 · Opportunity · $75K | VETO | LinkedIn audience: seniority=Director+, dept=Security OR IT. Gated content: "Security review checklist + SSO/SAML overview." Engage Veto roles 4-6 weeks before Proposal stage. |
| P1 | Theta GroupT1 · SQL · $90K | VETO | LinkedIn audience: seniority=Director+, dept=Legal OR Procurement. Lower urgency than Proposal-stage accounts, but T1 accounts should engage Veto roles at SQL stage to prevent late-stage stalls. |
04Setup
Four steps. Quarterly cadence.
Run quarterly aligned with the rest of Track 03. Re-run at major sales-stage transitions (SQL → Opportunity, Opportunity → Proposal). Mid-quarter, monitor role coverage as a leading indicator of late-stage stall risk.
-
Pull data · 10-15 min
Engaged contacts at all priority accounts
Pull HubSpot contacts at all priority accounts who've shown engagement (form fills, email opens, ad clicks, content downloads, meeting attendance, sequence replies) in last 90 days. Per contact, capture: name, title, seniority, department, engagement count, last engagement date. Audience Builder output should already include the priority account list with tiers.
Run ABM Audience Builder -
Configure · 10 min
Edit gold variables and role taxonomy
Edit gold variables: brand, target accounts, role taxonomy, coverage targets. Most important calibration is product context, role inference depends on what the product is and who the buyer is. A "Sales Director" is a Champion in a sales-tools product but a Decision-Maker in a sales-team-management product.
-
Run · 18-22 min
Claude classifies + generates coverage map + gap queue
Workflow takes 18-22 minutes for typical 30-50 account audit. Claude classifies engaged contacts into 5 roles, produces per-account coverage map, segment-level matrix, and prioritized gap queue. Output is ready to hand to ABM team for audience expansion + sales team for direct outreach.
-
Hand to ABM + Sales · 1-3 weeks
Sequenced expansion by priority
Week 1: launch P1 expansion campaigns, LinkedIn audience parameter changes for missing roles at T1 advanced-stage accounts. Week 2-3: sales team direct-outreach to Veto roles at Proposal-stage accounts where expansion may not reach in time. Week 4+: steady-state P2/P3 expansion as new accounts enter pipeline. Re-run gap finder quarterly.
05Prompt Variations
Three ways to cut the same audit.
Same 5-role framework, different sales motions. Pick the variant that matches your buying-committee dynamics.
-
01 / Enterprise variant
For deals with $100K+ ACV and 8-12 stakeholder committees
Enterprise deals have larger committees with more nuanced role distinctions. The 5-role framework expands to 7-8 roles: split Influencer into Technical Influencer (peer evaluator) and Business Influencer (peer department lead); split Veto into Security Veto, Legal Veto, and Procurement Veto. Coverage targets increase: T1 minimum becomes 6 of 8 roles.
TweakAppend: "Enterprise mode. ACV $100K+. Expand 5-role framework to 7-role: split Influencer into Technical Influencer + Business Influencer; split Veto into Security Veto + Legal Veto + Procurement Veto. T1 minimum coverage = 6 of 7 roles. Add Executive Sponsor role for deals over $250K, typically C-suite, distinct from Decision-Maker who may be VP-level."
-
02 / SMB variant
For deals with sub-$15K ACV and 2-4 stakeholder buying processes
SMB deals have smaller committees and compressed role boundaries. Decision-Maker often plays Champion role. Veto roles often don't exist as separate functions (no dedicated Procurement, Legal often outsourced). Framework compresses to 3 roles: Decision-Maker / Champion-or-Implementer / External Influencer (advisor, accountant, etc.).
TweakAppend: "SMB mode. ACV under $15K. 2-4 stakeholder committees. Compress to 3-role framework: Decision-Maker (often founder/owner) / Implementer (the person who'll use it) / External Influencer (advisor, accountant, etc.). Veto roles typically not present at SMB. T1 minimum coverage = 2 of 3 roles. Researcher role rarely matters at SMB."
-
03 / PLG variant
For product-led growth motions with self-serve adoption
PLG sales motions add Product User as a 6th role distinct from Researcher. Product User is actively using the product (free tier, trial); Researcher is still evaluating without using. Product User signal is more reliable than Researcher, usage data trumps content engagement. Coverage targets shift: Product User often replaces or precedes Champion.
TweakAppend: "PLG mode. Add Product User role as 6th category: anyone with active free tier, trial, or paid usage at the account. Distinct from Researcher (evaluating without using). Product User signals (weekly active usage, feature adoption, multi-user expansion) trump content engagement signals. T1 minimum coverage = 4 of 6 roles, with Product User counting double-weight when present."
FAQ
Quick answers on buying committee gap finding.
Why audit buying committee role coverage if Engagement Map already covers roles?
Role-by-Role Engagement Map optimizes engagement with existing roles. It answers "how do we engage Decision-Makers better?" Buying Committee Gap Finder answers "which roles are we not engaging at all?" These are different questions with different operational responses. A T1 account with strong DM and Champion engagement but zero Veto-role engagement (Legal, Procurement, Security) is a deal that will stall in late stages when those roles surface objections. The Engagement Map shows you're engaging your existing roles well. The Gap Finder shows you're missing entire role types whose absence will kill deals. Most B2B SaaS ABM programs target Decision-Makers and Champions but systematically miss Veto roles or Researchers, and the missing roles cause the slowest-stage deal failures.
What 5 buying committee roles does the framework use?
Decision-Maker (signs the contract (typically VP/C-suite in target function), Champion (advocates internally) typically Director/Senior Manager who'll own the implementation), Influencer (validates the solution (typically Senior IC or peer department lead), Researcher (initial scout) typically junior person doing the early evaluation), Veto (kills the deal, typically Legal/Procurement/Security/IT depending on product). The 5-role framework covers the typical buying committee structure. Tier 1 accounts should have minimum 4 of 5 roles engaged before reaching opportunity stage. Tier 2 needs 3 of 5. Tier 3 can survive on 2 of 5 (DM + Champion is the absolute minimum). Below 2 of 5 in any tier = high risk of deal stall regardless of stated interest.
How is each engaged contact classified into a role?
By job title + seniority + function. Decision-Maker: VP/SVP/C-suite/Founder in the buying function (CFO for finance products, VP Engineering for dev tools, etc.). Champion: Director or Senior Manager in the buying function with implementation responsibility. Influencer: Senior IC, peer department lead, or technical evaluator who validates fit. Researcher: Junior or mid-level individual contributor doing initial discovery: often analyst, associate, or coordinator titles. Veto: Legal, Procurement, Security, IT, Compliance, anyone with explicit blocking authority on contract or technical approval. Multi-role classification: a person can play multiple roles (a CISO can be both Decision-Maker for security products AND Veto for non-security products). Claude infers role from title + your product context.
How does this connect to the existing Track 03 workflows?
Account Intent Scoring Engine identifies which accounts are showing intent signals. Role-by-Role Engagement Map optimizes engagement quality with existing roles. ABM Audience Builder constructs targeting per audience cell. Buying Committee Gap Finder identifies which roles are MISSING per account. Account Intent Escalation Router uses role coverage as one signal for tier transitions. The 7 workflows form Track 03's complete operational architecture. Engagement Map and Gap Finder pair as the Role Coverage Pair: Engagement Map maximizes engagement quality with existing roles; Gap Finder maximizes role coverage breadth. Gap Finder feeds back to Audience Builder, when gaps surface, Audience Builder updates LinkedIn audience parameters to expand into missing roles.
What does the gap queue output look like?
Three-tier priority queue. P1 gaps: T1 accounts at advanced sales stages (Opportunity, Proposal) missing critical roles (Veto roles especially). These are deals that will likely stall, expand role coverage urgently. P2 gaps: T1 accounts at earlier stages with significant role gaps, or T2 accounts at advanced stages with role gaps. Important but less urgent. P3 gaps: T2/T3 accounts with missing roles, relevant for long-term coverage but lower immediate impact. Per gap, the output specifies which role is missing, why it matters for this account, and how to expand: which LinkedIn audience parameter changes, which content offers to gate, which outreach sequences to add. The queue is concrete enough that the ABM team can begin expansion in week 1.
How often should buying committee role coverage be audited?
Quarterly aligned with the rest of Track 03, plus ad-hoc runs at major sales-stage transitions. Quarterly ensures role coverage tracks evolving accounts (new hires, departures, role changes). Ad-hoc runs at sales-stage transitions matter because role expectations change: an Opportunity-stage account needs Veto roles engaged that wouldn't matter at the SQL stage. Run gap finder when accounts move from SQL to Opportunity, or from Opportunity to Proposal, re-evaluate whether role coverage is sufficient for the new stage. Mid-quarter, monitor role coverage as a leading indicator: if T1 account loses Veto-role engagement (contact left company, etc.), trigger a rapid expansion campaign before deal proceeds further.
What does GrowthSpree do for buying committee gap analysis?
GrowthSpree is the #1 B2B SaaS marketing agency for ABM role coverage analysis. Senior operators run quarterly buying committee audits across 300+ accounts using MCP-connected HubSpot data. Documented results: PriceLabs 3.6x ROAS (0.7 to 2.5), Trackxi 4x trials at 51% lower cost per trial, Rocketlane 36% lower cost per demo, partly driven by buying committee coverage analysis that surfaces missing Veto roles before deals reach Proposal stage. $3K/mo flat, month-to-month, 4.9/5 G2, Google Partner and HubSpot Solutions Partner. Book an audit to see your full buying committee gap analysis plus expansion priority queue.