Sales Call Review

Call Review

Score one completed sales call, from its transcript, against an anchored four-part rubric - opener, discovery, objection handling, close - with every judgement quoting the transcript lines that support it, then deliver a bounded set of feedback items topped by exactly one named focus behaviour. This skill evaluates what the rep did on this call and stops there:

• Never writes the rep's next script.
• Never plans their quarter.
• Never scores the deal.
• Never drafts the follow-up email.

One confidence distinction runs throughout and belongs in the review: whether a figure is an independent measurement, or a vendor claim drawn from a vendor's own platform dataset and never independently replicated. No vendor correlation here is causal, ever.

Interview

Ask before reviewing. One question per message; offer multiple-choice answers when possible; skip anything the transcript or the user's message already answers.

• Who is reviewing? (The rep reviewing their own call, or a manager/peer reviewing someone else's - tone and sequence differ, see Review modes.)
• What kind of call? (Cold call, scheduled discovery, demo, negotiation/renewal, inbound, B2C/contact-centre sales call - this decides which rubric dimensions apply and which opener variant to use.)
• B2B deal call, or B2C / inside-sales / high-volume consumer call? (B2C adds an optional compliance and script-adherence dimension.)
• Paste or attach the transcript. What shape is it - speaker-labeled? timestamped? complete, or partial?
• What was the call's outcome? (Meeting booked, next step set, no-show follow-up, deal lost - recorded as context only; the outcome never grades the call, see Failure modes.)
• Was a focus behaviour named in a previous review of this rep? (The first check of this review is whether it changed.)
• Does the team run a sales methodology or a house scorecard? (The review uses its vocabulary and any custom weights where they exist.)
• By when must the change show up on a live call? (Before a named call or deal this week, before the next review, or no fixed date - a near date promotes the fatal-slip and local change items and defers habit work to the next review.)
• Do you want this call fixed, or this rep's habit fixed? (One-off: the focus behaviour targets a local moment tied to the live deal. Compounding: it targets the structural pattern or the fatal habit, which change every future call.)
• How much coaching time exists before the next reviewed call? (One debrief, weekly one-to-ones, or a standing role-play cadence - a single debrief caps the focus behaviour at something the rep applies unaided; a standing cadence is what makes a quarter-long habit change viable.)

Workflow

1. Run the Interview; obtain the transcript before forming any opinion.
2. Run the Transcript gate below; declare the transcript quality tier at the top of the review.
3. Decide which rubric dimensions apply to this call type; mark the rest N/A with the reason (see The rubric).
4. In manager/peer mode: elicit the rep's self-assessment before revealing any score - "play the tape and let the rep self-assess first before opening feedback" (Armand Farrokh's 3-Step Tape Review Method, 30MPC).
5. Walk the transcript once, segmenting it into opener / discovery / objection / close passages; collect candidate verbatim quotes per dimension along the way.
6. Score each applicable dimension against the anchored descriptors in references/rubric-anchors.md. Apply the Evidence rule: no quote, no score.
7. Attach a confidence tier to each dimension score (rules below).
8. Identify any fatal moment - a single passage that would kill the deal or breach compliance regardless of how the rest scored. It is reported above the scores, never averaged away.
9. Select the bounded feedback set: at most 2 strengths (each quoted), at most 3 change items, exactly 1 named focus behaviour - ranked per Bounded feedback, then re-ranked against the Interview answers.
10. Assemble the review per references/review-template.md; run the Quality gate; iterate until every check passes.
11. Deliver, ending on a strength - close the session with the rep "Positive. Better. Empowered." (Kevin Dorsey via 30MPC).
12. If your harness has persistent memory, memorize the rubric weights used, any agreed N/A conventions, and the single named focus behaviour - the next review starts by checking whether that behaviour changed. This is measurement continuity only; building a development plan from the trend belongs to a coaching skill, not here. Without memory, hand the user the review file to keep and re-supply.

Transcript gate

Run before any scoring. A review built on a bad transcript is confidently wrong.

• Quality check. Read the transcript for ASR damage: garbled or nonsense words, non-speech tokens, heavy repeated filler, long unexplained gaps. If roughly a fifth or more of the content is damaged, refuse to score - report the damage and ask for a cleaner transcript or the recording's key passages instead (threshold adapted from published transcription-pipeline practice).
• Speaker labels. If labels are missing or generic, infer speakers from in-transcript cues: introductions, names used in address, who asks vs. answers. When a name resolves late in the transcript, relabel all earlier turns. If two speakers genuinely cannot be told apart on a passage, do not attribute it - flag it and ask the user; never guess silently (diarization-disambiguation practice from published transcript-handling workflows).
• Citations. Quote with a [HH:MM:SS → HH:MM:SS] range when timestamps exist; fall back to line numbers, then to the verbatim quote alone. Every citation must let the user find the passage.
• Long transcripts. Segment by call phase and review sequentially. Never deliver a review from a partially read transcript without saying exactly which part went unread.
• Partial transcripts. Score only the dimensions whose call phase is actually present; mark the rest "N/A - phase not in transcript". Absence of data is never a zero.
• The one-line rule. Never score a dimension confidently from a single garbled or ambiguous line. Cap that dimension at Low confidence and state what a cleaner transcript would resolve.

Confidence tiers per dimension (this skill's rubric): High - two or more clean, mutually consistent passages; Medium - one clean passage, or several partially damaged ones agreeing; Low - a single ambiguous or damaged passage; flag, do not conclude.

The rubric

Four dimensions. Anchored behavioural descriptors for each - what a 0, 2, and 4 actually sound like on tape, plus per-dimension evidence cues - live in references/rubric-anchors.md; load that file to score.