Chapter 5:
Prove it’s Worth Solving

Building on diagnosis, this chapter focuses on uncovering the evidence that reveals the true severity and urgency of the customer’s problem. Gavin teaches the team how to connect the diagnosed pain to quantifiable business impacts and personal consequences, moving the issue from merely ‘acknowledged’ to ‘critical’ in the buyer’s mind by proving it’s worth solving now.

Morning Huddle: The Sound of Silence

During the mid-week morning huddle, the energy felt slightly muted again. Updates were standard: good news scarce, KPIs mostly flat, priorities centered on chasing unresponsive prospects. When Chris spoke about Pacifica Industries, his frustration was palpable, a distinct edge to his usual deadpan delivery.

“Update on Pacifica,” he started, skipping the good news preamble. “Still stalled. Discovery call, applying the diagnostic questions from last week, felt great. Uncovered real pain around their complex, manual onboarding process for new suppliers – got them explicitly acknowledging it’s ‘clunky’ and ‘inefficient’.” He sighed, running a hand through his hair. “Demo went well last week too – seemed engaged, asked sharp questions. Then… radio silence. Complete ghosting.” He looked at Gavin. “They agree it’s a problem, Gavin. But there’s no heat. It’s just sitting there. Blockers? I have absolutely no idea why they went dark after clearly admitting the problem exists.”

Taylor leaned forward thoughtfully, tapping her pen. “Chris, thinking about that Pacifica call… when they acknowledged the onboarding issue, did they sound engaged and agree it was a problem, or did they explicitly say something like, ‘Yes, this specific complexity is causing significant delays impacting our Q4 vendor contracts, and it’s a critical priority we need to solve now’?”

Chris hesitated, replaying the conversation in his mind. “They definitely agreed it was clunky and inefficient. They clearly acknowledged the problem exists… but did they quantify the impact in terms of lost productivity or contract delays?” He shook his head slightly. “Did they commit to urgency based on that impact? Thinking back… maybe not explicitly. I focused so hard on getting the diagnosis right, maybe I didn’t push hard enough to uncover the actual consequences – didn’t sufficiently explore the evidence proving it was worth solving right now versus all their other priorities.”

“Acknowledging a problem exists isn’t the same as owning the urgency to solve it,” Gavin interjected quietly but firmly, seeing the lightbulb go on for Chris and others. The Pacifica situation wasn’t isolated. Deals often evaporated after good diagnosis because the evidence revealing the severity and consequences of inaction hadn’t been fully surfaced and understood by the customer.

Transition: From Acknowledged Pain to Urgent Priority

As the huddle concluded, Gavin lingered by the whiteboard. Chris’s Pacifica stall was a perfect illustration of the next necessary skill. The team was getting better at diagnosis. But they weren’t consistently translating that diagnosis into undeniable proof, grounded in evidence, that the problem warranted immediate action over other competing priorities. Prospects acknowledged the headache but hadn’t yet fully grasped the severity revealed by the symptoms. We’ve diagnosed the illness, Gavin thought, but we haven’t fully uncovered the evidence that shows how severe it truly is. Unless they see the fever chart, they might not take the medicine. Friday’s focus would be clear: teaching the team how to collaboratively uncover the evidence that proves a problem is worth solving.

Friday Training: Beyond Diagnosis – Uncovering Evidence of Severity and Urgency

Friday afternoon, the team gathered, the Pacifica stall fresh in their minds. Gavin stood by the whiteboard, ready to build upon their diagnostic skills.

“Alright,” he began, his tone constructive but direct. “We’ve gotten much better at diagnosing the real problems beneath the surface symptoms using those core questions. But as Chris experienced with Pacifica, discovery and diagnosis alone aren’t always enough to drive action. Deals stall when the prospect agrees intellectually but hasn’t connected the problem to significant, tangible consequences.”

He glanced at Chris supportively. “A prospect can agree they have a headache. They can acknowledge it exists. But unless we help them explore the evidence showing it’s actually a debilitating migraine costing them dearly every single day, they might just keep taking aspirin and living with it because other things feel more urgent. Our job isn’t just to find the headache; it’s to help them uncover and understand the evidence that reveals its real cost.”

He turned to the whiteboard and drew a line branching from the pen in the Strategy quadrant, linking it clearly to the diagnostic work they’d already discussed.

PROVE IT’S WORTH SOLVING

“After diagnosis,” Gavin continued, “our next strategic step is to guide the customer in assessing the true severity of the problem based on evidence. We need to understand, alongside them, where it truly sits on their priority list.” He outlined the first part of the framework:

DETERMINE SEVERITY

CRITICAL: Must Solve Now

IMPORTANT: Is it Escalating?

INTERESTING: Budget: $0

“Think of problems falling into three tiers based on the evidence,” Gavin explained. “Interesting problems might get nods, but they lack significant impact evidence and get zero budget. They’re ‘nice-to-haves.’ Important problems have some supporting evidence, get attention, maybe some questions. They’re on the list, but often the key question is, is the evidence showing the impact is escalating? If not, they can often wait. Critical problems are backed by strong evidence of significant impact or risk. They have budget allocated, or budget gets found because the evidence shows the cost of inaction is too high. Our goal is to collaboratively examine the evidence to determine if the diagnosed problem is truly Critical, or if the current evidence only supports it being Important or Interesting in the customer’s reality.”

“How do we do that?” he asked rhetorically. “We don’t just assert severity; we guide them to Find the Evidence.” He added the next crucial section:

FIND EVIDENCE

Impact on Cost / Revenue / Risk: (Quantified business impact)

Impact on Them / Team / Customers: (Specific stakeholder pain/gain)

What Breaks if They Wait?: (Tangible cost of inaction)

“We need to guide the conversation, using focused questions, to uncover specific proof points across these three areas,” Gavin coached. “First, the Quantified Impact: What evidence shows how this problem tangibly affects their bottom line – increasing costs, decreasing revenue, introducing measurable risk? Explore the numbers. Second, the Specific Stakeholder Impact: Who feels the pain personally? What evidence demonstrates the impact on their job, their team’s morale, their customers’ experience? Connect it to their world. Third, and critically, the Cost of Inaction: What evidence suggests what specifically breaks or gets significantly worse if they wait another quarter, another six months? What opportunity is missed based on current trends? This evidence often unlocks the understanding of urgency.”

Gavin stepped back, letting the structure register. He then added the final reinforcing thought:

REAL PAIN CREATES REAL URGENCY.

“Remember this mantra,” Gavin stated firmly, his tone confident. “If the evidence we uncover together doesn’t prove the problem is causing significant, measurable pain now and will likely get worse – real pain revealed by real evidence – then genuine urgency won’t exist. Real Pain Creates Real Urgency. Our job is to guide the discovery of proof points that make that pain, and therefore the urgency, undeniable based on their reality.”

Workshop: Uncovering the Evidence

“Let’s workshop this,” Gavin shifted gears. “Think about a deal that stalled after you thought you had agreement on the problem. Why did it lose heat? Applying this framework, what evidence were you missing that might have revealed its true severity?”

Jamie immediately jumped in, thinking about a logistics deal that fizzled. “Okay, OptiLogistics. They agreed their routing was inefficient. That was the diagnosis.”

“Good start,” Gavin prompted. “Severity level based on the evidence you uncovered?”

“Probably just ‘Important’ in their minds,” Jamie admitted. “They asked questions, but didn’t act. The evidence wasn’t compelling enough.”

“Okay, so what evidence might have revealed a higher severity?” Gavin asked the group.

Taylor suggested, “Did you explore evidence quantifying the cost of that inefficiency? Fuel waste reports? Late delivery penalty invoices?” (Quantified Impact)

Chris added, “And was there evidence about who personally felt the pain? Did the VP of Ops mention getting hammered by the CEO over costs in performance reviews? Were driver turnover rates increasing due to frustration?” (Stakeholder Impact)

“And critically,” Gavin added, “what evidence pointed to the Cost of Inaction? Was there a specific contract renewal at risk due to service levels, or market share reports showing a competitor gaining advantage because they delayed fixing the routing?”

Jamie winced slightly. “Uh oh. Pretty sure I focused mostly on explaining how our software could make routing efficient, rather than guiding them to find the evidence showing why their current inefficiency was actively costing them and potentially getting worse. I didn’t help them see how real the pain was.”

“Exactly,” Gavin affirmed. “You described the potential cure but didn’t sufficiently explore the evidence proving the severity of the disease. Your job isn’t to pressure them; it’s to collaboratively explore the evidence that reveals the true impact of the pain that already exists.”

Real-World Application: Taylor Re-Engages Sterling Corp

The following Tuesday, Taylor had her follow-up call with Anna, the Marketing Director at Sterling Corp. Anna had previously acknowledged her team’s “murky” campaign attribution data but seemed resigned, treating it as merely ‘Important,’ not ‘Critical.’ Taylor consciously focused on guiding Anna to find evidence that might reveal a higher severity.

Taylor (Starting with language): “Anna, thanks for making time. Last time, you described the campaign attribution as ‘a bit murky’…”

Anna (Passively): “Yeah, still not ideal, but we manage.” (Signals ‘Important’ at best)

Taylor (Finding Evidence – Stakeholder/Quantified Impact): “…Understood. When your team has to ‘manage’ through that murky data, what does that actually involve day-to-day? What’s the rough impact on their time trying to piece together ROI stories?”

Anna (Revealing Quantifiable Cost & Team Impact): “Honestly? It’s easily 20+ hours a month across the team, chasing data, manually building reports… It’s frustrating, and yes, we actually lost headcount approval last quarter partly because justifying marketing’s contribution was difficult with the current data.” (Evidence surfaces: quantifiable cost + team impact)

Taylor (Finding Evidence – Personal Impact): “…That sounds incredibly frustrating. How does that lack of clear ROI data impact you personally when you’re in those budget review meetings with the CMO?”

Anna (Revealing Personal Pain/Status Risk): “Stressful. It makes me feel like I’m guessing sometimes, constantly on the back foot defending budget instead of proactively proposing new initiatives. It definitely impacts my credibility.” (Evidence surfaces: connects to personal risk)

Taylor (Finding Evidence – Cost of Inaction): “…Looking ahead to the Q4 planning cycle starting next month, what’s the tangible risk if this attribution clarity isn’t sorted beforehand? What potentially breaks or gets worse if decisions are based on the same murky data?”

Anna (Connecting Evidence to Critical Urgency): “The risk… the risk is we make the same budget allocation mistakes again, funding things that don’t work, missing opportunities. We might not get the resources approved for the new channels we need to explore… Okay.” A clear shift in her tone as she processed the evidence. “You’re right. This isn’t just murky; the evidence shows it’s hindering our ability to plan effectively. We need to address this before Q4 planning kicks off.” (Evidence reveals the problem as CRITICAL)

By guiding Anna to uncover and articulate specific evidence related to business cost (lost headcount, time), personal pain (credibility, stress), and the cost of inaction (Q4 planning risk), Taylor successfully helped Anna see the problem’s true severity based on her own reality.

Coaching Session Reflection

The contrast between curiosity and assumption was becoming clearer. Gavin captured the change while it was fresh.

What Went Well:

• Chris’s Pacifica stall was a strong anchor – Grounding the session in a real, current team frustration made the framework immediately relevant.
• Severity Tiers (I/I/C) provided clarity – The team seemed to grasp the distinction and the need to push beyond ‘Interesting’ or ‘Important’.
• Finding Evidence framework resonated – The three categories (Quantified, Stakeholder, Inaction Cost) felt actionable. The workshop discussion applying it to Jamie’s OptiLogistics deal was effective.
• Taylor’s Sterling application was key – Having her share that real-world success story later significantly reinforced the framework’s practical value.
• Mantra landed well – “Real Pain Creates Real Urgency” felt like a strong takeaway principle.

What Didn’t Go Well / Opportunities:

• Initial confusion between diagnosis and proving severity – Had to clarify that this step follows diagnosis (Ch 4), focusing on uncovering impact evidence, not just identifying the problem itself.
• Quantifying impact remains a challenge – Reps understand the concept but struggle with how to guide prospects to specific numbers or metrics. Need more practice on questioning techniques here.
• Balancing empathy with digging for pain – Some hesitation around pushing on consequences (‘What Breaks If They Wait?’). Need to ensure they frame this collaboratively, not confrontationally.
• Connecting stakeholder pain to urgency – Need to better link personal impact (stress, credibility) for the champion to their motivation to act now.

Action Items:

• Review Pacifica situation with Chris 1:1 – Help him map out specific evidence-finding questions for Cost of Inaction if he decides to re-engage.
• Workshop Quantified Impact questions – Dedicate time in a future session or 1:1s to specifically practice questions that help prospects quantify cost, revenue, or risk evidence.
• Share Taylor’s Sterling questions – Anonymize and share the specific questions Taylor used effectively with Anna as examples for the team.
• Check CRM notes for ‘Evidence’ – In upcoming pipeline reviews, look for explicit notes capturing evidence related to Quantified Impact, Stakeholder Impact, and Cost of Inaction, not just the diagnosed problem.
• Reinforce link to Ch 16 (Gut Buys First) – Explicitly connect how uncovering Stakeholder Impact/Pain evidence taps into the buyer’s emotional drivers.

Debrief: Connecting Pain to Consequences

Taylor shared the Sterling Corp update with Gavin, clearly pleased. “It worked! Focusing on guiding her to find the evidence – the lost headcount, the hours wasted, her personal stress, the Q4 planning risk – that revealed the urgency. She booked the follow-up herself for Thursday.”

Chris, listening nearby, tapped his notebook thoughtfully. “Okay. Pacifica. I diagnosed the pain, but didn’t guide them to uncover the evidence showing why it was critical now. Especially the Cost of Inaction – what breaks if they wait? Need to focus there if I try to re-engage.”

Gavin replied to Taylor, keeping his tone encouraging but analytical: “Exactly. You didn’t just diagnose; you guided her to find the evidence that revealed the severity and urgency based on her reality. That’s how you prove it’s worth solving.”

Taylor nodded. “Takes discipline though, guiding them to that evidence instead of just telling them the problem is big.”

“It does,” Gavin agreed. “But that discipline moves deals from the backlog to the priority list because the customer owns the severity, based on their own evidence. Remember the mantra: Real Pain Creates Real Urgency.” He made a mental note to circle back with Chris about Pacifica later. If Chris could re-engage and successfully guide the prospect to frame the cost of delay using uncovered evidence, it would demonstrate true internalization. Maybe that deal wasn’t dead after all. It depended on whether the evidence showed the pain was real and undeniable.

✦ ✦ ✦

Coaching Plan: Prove It’s Worth Solving

Session Focus

• Bridge from Diagnosis (Ch 4) to revealing Urgency based on evidence.
• Introduce Severity Tiers (Interesting, Important, Critical) as assessment outcome.
• Teach reps to guide customers to Find Evidence (Proof Points): Quantified Impact, Stakeholder Impact, Cost of Inaction.
• Emphasize making the pain undeniable through collaborative discovery of evidence.

Talking Points

• “Diagnosed pain isn’t enough. We need to help them uncover the evidence showing why it’s urgent now.”
• Severity Tiers: Help prospects categorize the problem based on the evidence they share.
• Proof Points: Guide them to find the evidence; don’t just assert it. Focus on Cost/Rev/Risk, Personal/Team Impact, and What Breaks If They Wait.
• “No one buys just because it’s interesting. They buy when the evidence shows waiting is riskier or more painful than acting.”
• “Your job is to help them see the true volume of the existing pain by examining the evidence together.” (Collaborative discovery).
• Mantra: Real Pain Creates Real Urgency. (Deliver with conviction).

Questions to Ask the Team

• “Think about a deal where the prospect agreed with the problem but didn’t act. Which tier of severity (Interesting, Important, Critical) did the evidence you uncovered actually support?”
• “Which of the three Proof Point categories (Quantified, Stakeholder, Inaction Cost) is typically hardest to find concrete evidence for? Why?”
• “How can we practice phrasing questions to guide prospects to uncover the ‘Cost of Inaction’ evidence themselves?”
• “How does uncovering evidence of severity connect back to validating ‘Real Problem’ and ‘Real Win’ from our Intention framework?”

During the Meeting

• Watch if reps grasp the shift from ‘amplifying’ pain to ‘uncovering evidence’ of severity.
• Listen during the workshop: Are they correctly identifying gaps in evidence? Is anyone struggling to guide towards quantified impact or stakeholder pain evidence?
• Note any tendency to jump to solutions before the severity evidence is fully explored and acknowledged by the ‘prospect’ in role-play.
• Look for “aha” moments when reps connect this framework to their own stalled deals (like Chris with Pacifica).

Where I Might Need to Step In

• Clarify the distinction between Important (evidence shows impact, but is it escalating?) and Critical (evidence shows high impact/risk now).
• Provide concrete examples of guiding questions for each Proof Point category, tailored to our product/market.
• Role-play how to handle a prospect who struggles to find or articulate the evidence of impact or cost of inaction.
• Reinforce that this is about building a shared understanding of severity based on their reality and evidence. Connect to Advisor Integrity (upcoming).
• Ensure the Mantra lands as a principle for focusing discovery on evidence, not just a slogan.