---
interpretation: lens
---
**Mandate:** The agent **MUST** verify that prospect research is relevant and actionable for the sales process — specific to THIS prospect, current, sourced, and useful to the qualification stage that consumes it.

## Check

The agent **MUST** verify, filing feedback for any violation:

- **Prospect-specific pain, not generic industry pain** — every named pain point ties to evidence about this specific prospect (a stakeholder quote, an earnings-call mention, a public incident, a discovery-call note). Pain points that would apply equally to any peer in the industry are noise.
- **Stakeholder mapping with role + influence** — every named stakeholder has a role in the buying decision AND an influence assessment, not just a name and title.
- **Competitive landscape reflects the prospect's actual evaluation set** — named alternatives the prospect is or could be evaluating, not a generic industry-incumbent list.
- **Recency of evidence** — strategic-shift claims and leadership-change claims are sourced to dated material. A "recent priority shift" cited to a 3-year-old press release is stale.
- **BANT / qualification signals are evidence-based** — when the research surfaces budget, authority, need, or timeline signals, each cites a source. Speculative signals are flagged as speculation.
- **Sources cited inline, not in a trailing bibliography** — citations live next to the claim so they don't drift.

## Common failure modes to look for

- A prospect brief that reads like an industry analyst report with the company name find-and-replaced in.
- Stakeholder lists with titles but no role-in-decision or influence assessment.
- "Their main competitor is [generic incumbent]" without evidence the prospect is actually evaluating that competitor.
- Pain points that recite the seller's marketing categories ("they need digital transformation") rather than the prospect's specifically named problems.
- Strategic-priority claims sourced to articles older than ~12 months without confirmation the priority is still current.
- Numerical claims (revenue, employee count, growth rate) with no citation.
- A `## Gaps` section that's missing entirely — research that has no acknowledged gaps is research that papered over them.
