Supplement to the pursuit's Notion space · [Date] · WWT internal

[Client] Pursuit Brief

Only what outside research, the posted files and the SharePoint folder added to what the team already has in Notion. Use it to adjust where the proposal goes deep and where it stays light. Client background is not repeated here.

01How to use this

[One sentence on what in the team's intel holds up.] [N] things should change how the team works this week:

[Finding.] [One line on why.] Section [n].

02What the client actually asked for

From [RFP / RFI file] and [appendix file]. Both read in full. [If the client has issued nothing yet: "No solicitation yet. What follows is what the outside evidence says they are buying."]

Proposal guidelines

Required	Note
[Item]	[Implication]

[Page limit / format / submission.]
Client's own narrative list: [their numbers, their words].

What the appendix reveals that Notion doesn't capture

[Label][Headline.]

[Evidence, quoting the client.]

[What it changes.]

03How we've sized comparable work

From #d-sow-approval and pursuit channels.

Engagement	Fee / type	Duration	GP	Team shape	What happened
[Name] ([date])	[fee]	[wks]	[GP]	[roles/FTE]	[outcome]

What this means for the [Client] number

[Run-rate × timeline = range.] [vs Notion estimate, vs deck.]

04What's new from outside research

Incumbent[Headline.]

[Evidence with date.]

[What it changes.]

05Positioning angles

Angles the findings above support that the team's win themes don't already cover. Each one says what we could say, on what evidence, and what we would have to deliver for it to hold.

Angle[The angle in one line.]

Evidence: [finding, with the section it comes from].

What it lets us say: [the client-facing line, in their vocabulary].

[What we would have to be able to deliver, and who owns confirming that.]

06Where to go deeper or lighter

Topic	Adjust	Why
[Topic]	Deeper	[Why]
[Topic]	Lighter	[Why]

07Corrections to our own material

[Highest-severity conflict.] [Doc A says X. Doc B says Y. Public source says Z. Do this.]

Inconsistent[Item.] [Which doc, what to change.]

08Slop grenades: what blows up on contact

Claims in our own material that detonate when the client checks them. Every named credential, number, date and benchmark in the working deck, checked against wwt.com and the internal record.

Claim	Where	What the source actually says	Verdict	Fix
[Claim]	[Deck slide / Notion section]	[Site or record language, with page]	Supported / Overstated / Not public / Unsourced / Stale	[One line]

09Reads from posted visuals

My inferences from [what], not client statements.

[View]: [what's in it]. [Implication.]

10Q&A priorities for [date]

[Question.] [Why, tied to a finding.]

11Sources

Internal, read in full: [list]. Not read: [list]. External:

[Title]