Sales promises that outran the product
2026NowDeadline · Decision window: 5 days until the large contract is signed
Realistic synthesis
The people, events, figures, and technology in this matter are stated assumptions. They are not to be treated as information about real individuals or as observed events. Background documents are separate sources, and symbolic interpretations are recorded as discovery paths.
The question to decide
A contract worth 20% of annual revenue is about to be signed based on a proposal that described an in-development feature as already usable. The customer names that feature as a key reason for the purchase, and the salesperson says they used internal wording verbatim. Between correcting the description before signing, re-proposing on the basis of what is usable, or withdrawing from the deal, what response should the CEO and sales lead choose, and how should internal responsibility be divided?
Who decidesThe CEO and sales lead of a service company
What the AI judgments chose
Reading the judgment record…
The options
The order shown is not a ranking of preference.
The situation as it stands
A fictional sales proposal described a feature still in development as if it were usable today. Deadline: Deadline: 5 days until the major contract is signed.
A 2026 fictional scenario · A best-selling sales pitch runs ahead of the product's actual capabilities. The people, organizations, figures, and events are a synthetic premise constructed for comparison.
- Premise 1A fictional sales proposal described a feature still in development as if it were usable today.
- Premise 2The customer cited that feature as a key reason to buy, and the contract is worth 20% of annual revenue.
- Premise 3The feature may be ready in six months, but there is no confirmed schedule, and the salesperson explained that internal wording was used as written.
Where it holdsCustomer disclosure, contract scope, and sales compensation
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1The features the customer actually needs and when they are needed
- Unknown 2The verifiable scope of the development schedule
- Unknown 3The process and accountability under which the sales wording was approved
Signals to decide again
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation channel can verify the «features the customer actually needs and when they are needed», and re-judge if new confirmation changes the tradeoffs of the options.
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation channel can verify the «verifiable scope of the development schedule», and re-judge if new confirmation changes the tradeoffs of the options.
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation channel can verify the «process and accountability under which the sales wording was approved», and re-judge if new confirmation changes the tradeoffs of the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
The customer proposed using only some features first, with changes to pricing and termination rights.
The development team confirmed that the promised feature would be difficult to build on the existing architecture.
Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
Where is the continuity of a company rooted once its members, customers, and purpose have changed?
An exploratory perspective chosen by the creator. Does not claim supernatural validity or the superiority of any particular option.The benefits and costs of the options accrue to different stakeholders. Which loss to accept remains undecided.
A subject for the decision-maker to argue over; the materials carry no conclusion of their own.- OECD · SMEs and entrepreneurship accessed 2026-09-08
- ICA · Cooperative identity, values and principles accessed 2026-09-08
The record of this question
- Question
FSP-VENTURE-20· version 1.4.0- Content identity, SHA-256
0f57b36e458dfa41de4796d4b799c0398b50f2a9749155d430d111a6092093bc- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON