Meddpicc Scorecard

MEDDPICC Scorecard

Score one described deal against the eight MEDDPICC elements and say plainly what is missing, what is assumed rather than validated, and what the rep should go validate next.

The largest field study available (Ebsta x Pavilion 2023 benchmark, 3.2M opportunities across 364 companies) found:

• 61% of methodology-adopting companies chose MEDDPICC.
• Only 15% of opportunities were fully qualified.
• Only 5% of companies scored confidence per criterion.

The acronym is everywhere; the discipline is rare - that gap is "MEDDPICC theatre", and this scorecard is built to prevent it.

The whole scorecard runs on one axis: evidence, not presence. A letter is never scored on whether the rep can name something; it is scored on whether the buyer has done something observable to prove it.

The skill scores one deal at a time, gathers no new information itself, and grades only what the user reports, then tells them what to go validate next.

Two confidence distinctions run throughout and belong in the output:

• Whether a rule is published by the methodology or set by this skill.
• Whether a figure is an independent measurement or a vendor claim, a vendor's own correlational number never independently replicated.

Interview

Ask questions under these constraints:

• One question per message.
• Multiple-choice answers wherever possible.
• Skip anything the deal description already answers.

Two rounds:

Deal frame (right-sizing inputs, always first):

1. B2B, or considered high-ticket B2C (real estate, automotive, solar, remodel, private education, financial advisory - not impulse retail)?
2. Rough deal size (contract value or ACV), and how many people on the buying side are involved?
3. What stage is the deal at, how long has it been open, and who set the expected close date - the buyer or the rep?
4. Does the buyer's side involve formal procurement, security review, or legal redlines?
5. Does your team mandate its own MEDDPICC definitions or scale (second C, Implicate vs. Identify, weighting)? If yes, use theirs and note the mapping in the output.
6. By what date must this scorecard change something - this week's forecast call, the next deal review, or nothing dated?
7. Do you want a one-off read on this deal, or a re-scored record that compounds across reviews?
8. What is your effort ceiling before that date: how many buyer asks you can make, and how much of your champion's internal credit you can spend?

Questions 6-8 re-rank the next actions, not the scoring; which answer moves which action is in Closing the biggest gap.

Evidence collection (only for elements that survive right-sizing), one element per message:

1. For this element: what do you know, and what buyer-side artefact or event backs it - an email, a recorded call, a document you have seen, an intro that was made, a date or number the buyer supplied? "The buyer seems positive" is an answer; it scores accordingly.

Workflow

1. Run the deal-frame interview questions before any element questions.
2. Right-size (next section). Confirm the element list with the user before scoring anything.
3. Collect, per scored element, the rep's claim and the buyer-side evidence behind it.
4. Score each element on the 0-3 evidence ladder (Scoring section).
5. Challenge every 2 and 3: which artefact or event justifies it? No artefact named → drop the score to 1 and record why. Apply this anti-inflation rule without exception - self-scoring optimism is the documented failure the rule corrects - score levels need objective definitions, or an optimist and a pessimist grade the same deal differently.
6. Apply the two gates, compute the total, band the deal.
7. Name the single biggest gap: a failed gate first; otherwise the gap that buys the most verdict change per unit of effort (Closing the biggest gap).
8. Attach a next action to every element below 3, ordered by that same ratio. Single out the top one, phrased as a buyer-visible test - an ask the buyer either performs or refuses, so the answer is evidence either way.
9. Run the Quality gate; iterate until it passes.
10. Deliver the scorecard using references/scorecard-template.md.
11. If your harness has persistent memory, store the scorecard, its date, and each score's justifying artefact so the next run can re-score and show deltas - deals decay, so re-score at every deal review. Otherwise, end with a short recap the user can paste into their own deal record.

If you can browse the web, you may verify public facts a score depends on (the named Economic Buyer still holds the role; the competitor cited still sells the product); otherwise rely on the user's report and mark those facts "user-reported".

Right-size before scoring

Full MEDDPICC on every deal is over-engineering; scoring the wrong list is the first inflation. Which letters survive is itself a ranked menu - what scoring the letter costs against the verdict information it returns:

• value on a small deal (verdict change per letter scored): Champion > Implicate the Pain == Metrics > Decision Process > Competition > Decision Criteria > Paper Process
• effort (rep time plus the buyer questions the letter costs, most expensive first): Paper Process > Decision Process > Decision Criteria > Competition > Metrics == Implicate the Pain == Champion

Drop from the low-value, expensive end inward: Paper Process leaves first (the first element dropped in lightweight practice), then Decision Criteria, then Competition.

• Pain == Metrics: they are one answer from two directions: the costed consequence and the number the buyer owns arrive in the same sentence.
• Metrics, Pain and Champion tie at the cheap end and never drop: on a small deal each is a single question, and any two of them are unreadable without the third.
• Economic Buyer sits on neither line: it is a gate, and on small deals it merges into Champion instead of being dropped.

Fit bands:

• Roughly $100K+ contract value, 5+ stakeholders, formal procurement/security/legal path: score all 8.
• ~$25K-$100K, 2-5 stakeholders: drop Paper Process, unless procurement is known to be involved.
• Below ~$25K, 1-2 deciders, no procurement: Metrics + Implicate the Pain + Champion, adding Decision Process if any multi-step approval exists. Here the Economic Buyer and Champion usually collapse into one person - score them as one letter and say so.
• High-ticket B2C: see the B2B and B2C section; right-size aggressively.

Never score an element that was right-sized out; the denominator shrinks with the element list, and a dropped element earns no next action either.

The eight elements and their evidence bar