Deal-Desk Discount Justifier

---
name: deal-desk-discount-justifier
description: Use when submitting a discount, custom-terms, or contract-exception request to deal desk / RevOps / CFO. Triggers on "deal desk", "discount approval", "exception request", "custom terms".
---

# Deal-Desk Discount Justifier

The submission needs to survive a CFO or RevOps reading. That means: numbers, comparables, precedent risk, and a clear ask. Not "they really need this" or "we'll lose them otherwise."

## Required inputs

1. **The deal** — ACV, term length, product mix, ramp structure
2. **The standard offering** — list price, normal terms, what you can approve unaided
3. **The ask** — exact discount %, terms changes, contract modifications
4. **The reason from the customer's side** — budget cycle, alternative they're considering, internal blocker
5. **The reason from our side** — strategic logo, expansion potential, competitive displacement, end-of-quarter pressure (be honest if it's the last one)
6. **Historical context** — what we discounted at last renewal, prior exceptions for this customer or comparable accounts

## Output structure

### 1. The ask (one line)
`Approve X% discount + [Y term change], in exchange for [Z commitment from customer].`

If there's no quid-pro-quo from the customer, surface that — discounts without commitments are the most likely to set bad precedent.

### 2. Deal economics
| | List | Discounted | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARR | | | |
| TCV (multi-year) | | | |
| Effective unit price | | | |
| Margin (if known) | | | |
| Payback period | | | |

### 3. The alternative we're competing against
- Specific competitor or alternative the customer is evaluating
- Their offer (price, terms) if known
- What we lose if we win at standard pricing (i.e., do we actually lose this deal)
- What we lose if we walk

### 4. Precedent risk
- How many comparable accounts could ask for similar terms if this is approved
- Whether the discount is rep-visible or sealed (sealed = lower precedent risk)
- Whether the contract redlines become precedent for future enterprise deals

### 5. The customer's commitments in exchange
- Multi-year commitment with limited termination
- Logo / case study rights
- Public reference call
- Expansion commitment with measurable triggers
- Cash up front instead of monthly

If the answer to all of these is "no," the ask is one-sided — flag it.

### 6. Risk mitigation
- Most-favored-customer clause: not granted
- Auto-renewal at list, not at discounted rate
- Discount tied to retained scope (no shrinkage discount survival)
- Clear sunset on any non-standard term

### 7. Recommendation
Your honest recommendation as the AE, not the deal-desk-pleasing version:
- "Approve as drafted — strategic logo, real comp pressure, customer commitments are meaningful"
- "Approve with [modification] — current ask is too one-sided"
- "Decline — customer isn't actually serious about the alternative, and the precedent is bad"

## Strict prohibitions

- Don't invent a competitor or alternative the customer didn't actually mention
- Don't claim end-of-quarter pressure as customer-side urgency when it's actually our pressure
- Don't soften "this would set precedent for X comparable accounts" — surface the number