[Client] — Discovery brief — [Topic / call date]
About this document (Brainforge)
Internal conventions for how this file works in the repo. Strip or export without this section when sharing with a client.
Titling and filename
Use [Client] — Discovery brief — [Topic or call date] for the document title. Examples: Acme — Discovery brief — Omnichannel revenue (2026-04-15) · LMNT — Discovery brief — Supply chain follow-on.
Filename: {client}-discovery-brief-{date}.md under knowledge/sales/leads/{client}/discovery/.
When to use this template
Use this after a discovery call with a prospect or client to capture what was learned, what the client needs, and what the next step is. This brief feeds directly into SOW writing — a well-written discovery brief makes the SOW write itself.
Do not use this template when:
- profiling a new data source (use the Data Discovery Memo)
- introducing a new Brainforge service (use the Campaign Brief)
- drafting the actual SOW (use the SOW template)
Document metadata
Status: [Draft / Reviewed / SOW in progress / Closed]
Client: [Company name]
Source of opportunity: [Inbound / Outbound / Partner referral / Existing client expansion]
Call date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Brainforge participant(s): [names]
Client participant(s): [names and titles]
Prepared by: Brainforge
Last updated: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Related artifacts
| Artifact | Link / path | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Lead Play (if exists) | [path] | Pre-call lead play for this account |
| HubSpot deal record | [deal URL] | CRM deal tracking |
| SOW (when drafted) | [path] | SOW that follows from this discovery |
1. What the client told us
1.1 The problem (in their words)
[2–4 sentences. What the client said their problem is. Use their language, not Brainforge terminology.]
1.2 What success looks like to them
[2–4 sentences. What outcome would make this engagement a success from their perspective. Concrete, measurable if possible.]
1.3 What they’ve tried before
[What they've already done to solve this problem. What worked, what didn't, why they're talking to us now.]
2. Decision criteria
| Criterion | Detail |
|---|---|
| Decision-maker(s) | [Names and titles] |
| Evaluation process | [How they will decide: by committee, single exec, competitive process, etc.] |
| Timeline | [When they need an answer, when they want to start] |
| Budget signal | [Any budget range mentioned, or "no signal yet"] |
| Competing vendors (if known) | [Names] |
| Deal obstacles | [Known objections, concerns, or hurdles] |
3. Brainforge assessment
3.1 Fit
[How well does Brainforge's offering match the client's problem? 1–3 sentences.]
3.2 Recommended approach
[What Brainforge would do. 2–4 sentences. This is the seed of the SOW executive summary.]
3.3 Risks
[Risk]—[Mitigation or watch point]
4. Next steps
| Step | Action | Owner | Target date |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [e.g., Share pricing estimate] | [name] | [date] |
| 2 | [e.g., Schedule follow-up to review SOW draft] | [name] | [date] |
| 3 | [e.g., Intro to internal champion] | [name] | [date] |
Appendix — Pre-handoff QA checklist
- Problem is stated in the client’s language, not Brainforge’s
- Decision criteria captured (who decides, how, when)
- Budget signal is noted (even if “no signal”)
- Recommended approach is directional enough for SOW writing
- Next steps are specific, owned, and dated
- Lead Play or HubSpot deal record is linked
- No internal jargon that would confuse a new team member reading this brief cold