BUYER READINESS CHECK
WHAT YOU GET
Equipped to succeed.
Your four-dimension read
A rough read across the four dimensions of buyer readiness, with your likely weakest dimension flagged and a written interpretation of what's driving it.
Your friction cost
A rough estimate of what indecision is costing you in revenue this quarter, calibrated to your average deal size. You might be surprised.
Your next step
If you want this on your real pipeline, the next step is a free scoping call. I confirm you're a fit, and if you are, I run the Indecision Rate Diagnosis on your live CRM data, also free, and turn this gut read into a measured Indecision Rate. No pitch on the call.
FAQ
Who built this, and why should I trust the methodology?
I did. I am Wilton Blake. Seventeen years in B2B, working in content, sales enablement, and pipeline operations across early-stage startups, growth-stage SaaS, and enterprise platforms managing more than 1,500 franchise brands. I am not a salesperson. That matters here. The four dimensions came out of a question I could not stop asking. The question was why qualified deals die before anyone says no. Collateral can't do work the buyer isn't ready for. If the buyer hasn't decided they have a problem worth solving, can't say what success looks like, or doesn't have the room internally to move, a better deck won't change that. That's a readiness problem, and it needs its own diagnosis. I was not trained on a sales framework. I came to this from the outside. That is part of why DecisionScope looks different from BANT or MEDDIC or Challenger. Those are seller-side qualification tools written by people who carried a quota. They tell a rep how to advance a buyer who is already in motion. They have nothing to say about the buyer who is not. I built the dimensions to measure that earlier moment. Problem Conviction. Evaluation Clarity. Outcome Confidence. Organizational Readiness. Each one names a thing that has to be true before a buyer will move. If any one of them is missing, the deal stalls. You can usually feel which one. The diagnostic just makes you say it out loud. Dixon and McKenna (Harvard Business Review, 2022) put a number on the pattern: 56 percent of inaction losses come from buyer indecision, not status quo preference. The same study found that 87 percent of sales opportunities contain moderate or high levels of customer indecision (Dixon and McKenna, HBR, 2022). Ebsta and Pavilion (2024) confirmed it independently, finding 61 percent of lost deals attributed to buyer indecision. None of that generated the dimensions. It gave the pattern a name. The dimensions themselves stand on older and broader research. Indecision decomposes cleanly into three uncertainty types in the academic literature: valuation, information, and outcome (Germeijs and De Boeck, 2003). Status quo bias, formally identified in Samuelson and Zeckhauser (1988) and replicated across health-plan and retirement decisions, has thirteen documented countermeasures across cognitive, rational, and psychological dimensions (Godefroid et al., 2022). Loss aversion, the endowment effect, and status quo bias share an underlying asymmetry of value (Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler, 1991). When buyers cannot verify outcomes, trust does the work that evidence cannot (Siegrist, Gutscher, and Earle, 2005). That is well established in the procurement literature. The Organizational Readiness dimension exists because buying is a multi-stakeholder process, not an individual transaction. Webster and Wind's buying center model from 1972 is still cited in current research. The current data is harder. Forrester's 2026 figure puts the average B2B buying group at thirteen internal stakeholders and nine external influencers. Gartner has shown that 74 percent of these groups demonstrate unhealthy conflict during decisions, and that groups achieving consensus are 2.5 times more likely to report a high-quality deal. Win rates peak at four to five stakeholders and decline past six (Brontén and Cabrera, Journal of Systems Thinking, 2025). None of that is mine. I built the dimension on it. What I added was the diagnostic. The four dimensions are mine. The protocols that resolve each one are mine. The Check scores your gut read of your last ten deals. Same answers, same score, every time, with no AI guessing at your situation. The free Diagnosis measures that read against your real pipeline. One last thing. The most expensive misread in B2B is treating an indecisive buyer like a hesitant one and applying pressure. Dixon and McKenna's data shows pressure tactics on indecisive buyers degrade win rates by 84 percent. Top performers are 364 percent less likely than average performers to lose deals to indecision, because they read the dimension and apply the right move (Ebsta and Pavilion, 2024). That is what your content cannot do for you. That is what your CRM scoring cannot tell you. That is what the diagnostic does, in four minutes.
How long does this actually take?
Four minutes. Fourteen questions. The clock starts when you answer the first one and stops when your score loads. There is no pre-form, no email gate, no "tell us about your company" wall before you can begin. You answer fourteen questions from your gut about your last ten deals, and you see your result. If you finish in three minutes, you rushed it. If it took you eight, you were thinking carefully about real deals. Either is fine.
Do I need any data or research before I start?
No. Think about your last ten deals, won, lost or still open. That's all you need. The questions ask what your buyers said and did, and you answer from your gut. You aren't estimating probabilities or predicting close dates. Anyone who has worked those deals can answer.
What happens to my email address?
You see your score before you give us your email. The score loads, the dimension breakdown loads, the friction cost loads. All of it. If you want the written interpretation sent to you, you give us an email. If you want to book the free scoping call, you give us an email. If you want to leave with the screen result and never hear from us, you can do that. We do not sell, rent, or share the list. There is no nurture sequence designed to wear you down.
Should closed-lost deals count?
Yes. Your last ten deals include the ones you lost, and they belong in your read. Most loss reviews stop at "they went with a competitor" or "budget got cut." Those are stories the buyer tells the seller to end the conversation. They are almost never the real reason. The Check shows which of the four dimensions your gut says broke most often across those deals.
Which deals should I think about?
Your last ten, whatever happened to them. The Check reads the pattern across them, so don't pick only the deal that's keeping you up at night. Take it again later to see whether the pattern has moved.
How is this different from BANT, MEDDIC, or Challenger?
Those are seller-side frameworks. They tell you what information to gather and what to push the buyer toward. They are useful when the buyer has decided they have a problem worth solving and is moving through evaluation. DecisionScope measures something earlier and different: whether the buyer has actually decided. Dixon and McKenna's research (Harvard Business Review, 2022), based on 2.5 million sales calls, found that 40 to 60 percent of lost B2B deals are not lost to competitors. They are lost to indecision. The buyer simply does not pull the trigger. BANT and MEDDIC do not catch that, because they assume the buyer is already in motion. The four readiness dimensions tell you whether they are. You can run BANT or MEDDIC alongside DecisionScope. They answer different questions.
Is the score comparable across teams, deal sizes, or industries?
Yes, with one caveat. The dimensions and the scoring are constant. A "low Evaluation Clarity" reading means the same thing on a $20,000 deal as it does on a $2,000,000 deal: the buyer cannot articulate the criteria they are using to choose. The friction cost is the part that flexes. The dollar figure is a rough estimate, calibrated to the average deal size you enter. So a low Outcome Confidence reading on a $50,000 deal and a $500,000 deal will surface the same dimension, but the cost of letting it sit will be different. If you run the Check across a sales team, the dimension distribution is comparable. The cost numbers are not.
Will this tell me whether my deals are going to close?
No, and that is on purpose. Any tool that claims to predict closing based on the seller's read of the buyer is overclaiming. Sellers are systematically optimistic about their own deals. So are the tools built to flatter them. What this does is identify which of the four dimensions is blocking momentum, and tell you which protocol resolves that gap. Whether you use the protocol is your call. Whether your deals close is a function of what you do next.
