Deal Review Process

Status: done
Tier: Tier 1 — Operating business
Owner: Ryan Colston
Started: 2026-03-15

One-line description. Forensic review of terminations and customer complaints. Standard set, running. Canonical process lives in ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md.

Why

Leadership uses deal reviews for every termination request and every customer complaint.

These are forensic. Not casual. The output goes to people deciding whether to fire an agent or refund a customer. It has to be airtight. Communication channel analysis matters as much as response time. The agent didn't just need to answer. They needed to answer in the right medium.

Current state

Standard codified in ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md. Format uses docs_create_formatted (Docs API with table support). Five-part structure with non-negotiable tables in parts 2-4.

Status: done (ongoing standard, not a one-time build)
Last update: 2026-05-02
Blocked on: nothing

Next 3 actions

Maintenance: update standards as new patterns surface in actual reviews.
Maintenance: track which sections drive decisions and which get skipped.
(none — surface when relevant)

Decisions log

2026-04-26 Portfolio organization — vault structure (meta)

In-project decision log:

Date	Decision
Initial setup	Process codified in CLAUDE.md. Communication channel analysis added as a separate dimension from "did they respond."
Format discipline	Switched to `docs_create_formatted` (Docs API, table support). `docs_create` strips tables. Docx import strips tables.
Format discipline	Blank lines between ALL markdown sub-fields. Pandoc and `docs_create_formatted` merge adjacent lines into one paragraph otherwise.

Open issues

(none — surface when patterns evolve)

References

Canonical process: ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md (Deal Review Process section)
Tool: docs_create_formatted MCP (Docs API with table support). Never docs_create (raw text), never docx import (strips tables).
File naming: {address} - {customer last name} - Deal Review

Five-part structure

Timeline — phased, bold dates
24hr+ Response Gaps — table, oldest to newest
Critical Conversations Wrong Channel — table
Claim vs Evidence — two tables (Customer Claims + Agent Actions)
Summary findings — strengths, failures, customer context

Tables in parts 2-4 are non-negotiable.

Communication standard

Minimum acceptable: phone call with all decision makers.
Best practice: Google Meet with screen share and supporting docs.
Texting about major decisions is always a failure point. Show it. Call it out.

White space is a tool. Use it.