Sales handoff consent ledger

An MVP, or minimum viable product, is the smallest version that your users can actually work with. It is not a cheap version of the full solution. It is a test, built to answer the questions that decide whether the rest is worth building.

1. Pick the riskiest assumption. Here: will partner referral businesses use it to solve "leads are transferred beyond agreed sharing scope"?
2. Build only what tests it. One team, one use case, a few core modules. People do the rest by hand for now.
3. Run a paid pilot. Agree the acceptance criteria, input limits and reviewer responsibilities before starting.
4. Measure, then decide. Track unapproved proposed transfers; reviewer correction minutes; buyer acceptance and repeat purchase. Then expand, change course or stop, with evidence instead of opinions.

MVP scope for this solution. Costed pilot: One organization, one defined input format and one representative pilot batch using consented referral records and partner terms. Professional judgment, physical inspections, live external actions and production certification remain outside this prototype. Start with one buyer organization and a bounded set of representative inputs. Implement the first two modules: map permitted sharing; flag missing approval. Support the third task through an assisted review queue: track accepted handoffs. Handle the remaining required functions manually until validated. Include input upload, source references, user correction, a reviewer approval step and export of reviewed referral consent register. Authentication, account isolation, deletion controls and basic operational logging are included. Specialized production certification, live write integrations and broader rollout are not included unless explicitly stated.

After the MVP. After paying customers repeatedly accept reviewed referral consent register, automate link proposed outputs to original source records; capture reviewer corrections and approval; export a versioned reviewed referral consent register. Add one tested read integration, reusable customer configuration and scheduled repeat delivery. Increase supported formats or teams only when evaluation cases and reviewer capacity cover the new scope. One organization, one defined input format and one representative pilot batch using consented referral records and partner terms. Professional judgment, physical inspections, live external actions and production certification remain outside this prototype.

What the build depends on. Explicit state definitions, owner mapping, approval rules, idempotent actions, notifications and recovery procedures. Workflow reliability matters more than fluent text. Obtain representative authorized inputs, an agreed review rubric and a buyer-side owner. Specific scope: One organization, one defined input format and one representative pilot batch using consented referral records and partner terms. Professional judgment, physical inspections, live external actions and production certification remain outside this prototype.

Pricing to test

Test USD 750-2,500 setup plus USD 200-800 monthly for one bounded workflow and team. Cap case volume and implementation scope. Larger operational integrations need separate quotes. Prices are hypotheses. For this buyer, package the first sale around prepare a sample reviewed referral consent register from a small authorized set of consented referral records and partner terms and the defined reviewed referral consent register. Record actual review effort before offering a recurring allowance. The commercial pilot fee is distinct from the platform development budget.

Message to test

Permission-bound lead transfer evidence. Demonstrate the result with prepare a sample reviewed referral consent register from a small authorized set of consented referral records and partner terms for partner referral businesses. Use a concrete before-and-after example without promising unmeasured savings.

Where to find buyers

Revenue operations communities and sales enablement partners

Lead magnet

Prepare a sample reviewed referral consent register from a small authorized set of consented referral records and partner terms

The first 30 days

1. Week 1: interview five prospective buyers from partner referral businesses and inspect how they handle leads are transferred beyond agreed sharing scope.
2. Week 2: prepare prepare a sample reviewed referral consent register from a small authorized set of consented referral records and partner terms using authorized or synthetic material.
3. Week 3: share the demonstration through revenue operations communities and sales enablement partners and seek one bounded paid pilot.
4. Week 4: measure unapproved proposed transfers; reviewer correction minutes; buyer acceptance and repeat purchase, review delivery effort and ask for a repeat purchase. This is a validation schedule, not a promise that the full product can be built in thirty days.

Paid pilot

Agree the acceptance criteria, input limits and reviewer responsibilities before starting. Run prepare a sample reviewed referral consent register from a small authorized set of consented referral records and partner terms and deliver reviewed referral consent register. Compare unapproved proposed transfers; reviewer correction minutes; buyer acceptance and repeat purchase with the buyer's current process on comparable cases; include corrections, missed issues and reviewer time. Seek payment and repeat use. Stop or revise the scope if data access, accuracy or unit economics fail.

Success metrics

Unapproved proposed transfers; reviewer correction minutes; buyer acceptance and repeat purchase

Retention and expansion

Build repeat use around reviewed referral consent register. Save approved configurations and review decisions with permission, revisit unresolved exceptions and show progress on unapproved proposed transfers; reviewer correction minutes; buyer acceptance and repeat purchase. Offer a recurring volume allowance after repeat demand; expand to adjacent tasks only when the buyer asks and delivery quality remains acceptable.

Why clients would pick it

Customer-specific workflow rules, reliable handoffs, operational history and integrations that make the service part of daily work. For this concept, accumulate permissioned examples and reviewer corrections around permission-bound lead transfer evidence. The durable asset is reliable task-specific execution and trusted customer configuration, not access to a general-purpose AI model.

Alternatives and positioning

Shared inboxes, spreadsheets, task boards and existing workflow automation products. Position this concept around permission-bound lead transfer evidence. Compare it against the customer's current process on the same representative task. This is proposed differentiation; no exhaustive competitor study or uniqueness claim has been established.

Main delivery costs

Workflow configuration, integration maintenance, model calls, notification delivery, exception support and monitoring. Initial validation additionally budgets for representative sample preparation, interviews with partner referral businesses, and buyer-side review of reviewed referral consent register. Track model usage, storage, reviewer minutes, exception handling and customer support per accepted deliverable.