Client Discovery & Scoping
Detect scope risk, delivery mismatch, budget strain, and stakeholder ambiguity before proposals turn into operational problems.
Built on Agency Client Intelligence. Pre-sale operational intelligence— evaluative and commercial, not onboarding. Use before you commit delivery or sign scope.
- Surface vague scope and scope inflation before proposals
- Test budget against stated goals and reporting load
- Flag unrealistic timelines and missing owners
- Reveal conflicting success metrics across stakeholders
- Support go / no-go and scoped proposal decisions
What this workflow helps detect
Typical discovery risks
Patterns agencies recognize in discovery—before bad-fit work becomes a signed retainer.
- Client expects enterprise delivery with startup budget
- Success metrics differ between founder and marketing lead
- Scope combines SEO, paid ads, branding, and web redesign
- Internal content ownership is undefined
- Timelines assume immediate execution before approvals exist
When to use this workflow
Example: A startup requests SEO, paid, and redesign in one proposal with a 3-month ranking guarantee—the review flags feasibility and scope inflation before the agency commits margin to an unworkable SOW.
Use this workflow in FormGenyus
Start with the form template, then turn on the recommended AI review. Send intake to clients and review the output with your team before kickoff.
Marketing Strategy Intake Form
Scope, goals, and constraints before contract—extend with budget and timeline fields as needed.
View form templateAgency Client Intelligence — Balanced
Feasibility, scope clarity, and misaligned expectations—before onboarding starts.
One-step apply from this guide isn't available yet. Use the review name above when you turn on AI summaries on your form.
Example: Brightwave Labs — proposal review
Pre-sale discovery intake through generated feasibility assessment—illustrative bad-fit scenario.
From the intake
- Startup wants full SEO turnaround in 3 months
- Budget supports partial execution only (stated in RFP)
- Founder expects weekly reporting + daily Slack availability
- No internal content owner named
- SEO + paid ads + website redesign requested together
What AI detected
- Delivery feasibility risk—scope exceeds budget and timeline reality
- Unclear ownership—no client-side owner for content or approvals
- Scope inflation—three major workstreams treated as one retainer
- Reporting burden mismatch—cadence not priced or resourced
- Timeline compression—3-month SEO outcome promise without baseline
Recommended next steps
- ProposalOffer phased scope—SEO foundation only in phase one; defer redesign
- CommercialPrice reporting cadence explicitly or reduce to biweekly + async
- Pre-contractRequire named content owner and approver before start date
- Go / no-goDecline combined guarantee; document feasibility assumptions in SOW
Brightwave is a high commercial-risk engagement as scoped. Budget, ownership, and timeline do not support the requested bundle. Recommend a narrowed proposal or walk away—signing current scope will likely produce delivery conflict and margin erosion within 60 days.
AI review: readiness gaps, local pressure, week-one actions
Full product screenshot coming soon
Discovery review areas
Assessment-oriented groupings—feasibility and commercial fit, not handoff checklists.
Scope & deliverables
- What is in and out of scope
- Channel mix and deliverable clarity
Commercial fit
- Budget vs ambition
- Reporting and communication load
Delivery feasibility
- Timeline vs approvals and assets
- Internal capacity and owners
Success definition
- Metrics across stakeholders
- Growth objectives vs team reality
Discovery intake structure
Start from the marketing strategy intake form—add budget, timeline, scope boundaries, owners, reporting expectations, and channel list.
Screenshot coming soon — wireframe preview
Recommended AI review sections
Emphasize feasibility, commercial risk, and scope clarity—not onboarding readiness.
| Review section | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Executive snapshot | Stated goals, budget, and timeline in one view |
| Delivery pressure | Scope volume vs realistic capacity |
| Scope clarity | Deliverables, channels, and boundaries |
| Stakeholder alignment | Who decides, who owns execution |
| Feasibility assessment | Can this be delivered as described |
| Commercial risk tier | Bad-fit and margin risk before contract |
| Recommended scope | What to propose—or decline |
| Executive briefing | Proposal and leadership decision support |
How teams use this workflow
- Prospect completes discovery or RFP intake
- AI generates feasibility and commercial-risk assessment
- New business lead reviews scope and fit signals
- Delivery lead validates capacity and phasing options
- Leadership uses briefing for proposal, pricing, or no-bid decision
Quick tips
Do
- Capture budget and scope in the same intake
- Ask who owns content and approvals on the client side
- Document reporting cadence expectations explicitly
Avoid
- Proposing full scope to win the deal
- Skipping feasibility because the logo is exciting
- Signing without named client owners in the contract
Outcome
Before contract, the agency has a clear feasibility view—scope risk, budget strain, timeline reality, owner gaps, and commercial fit—so proposals reflect operational truth, not discovery optimism.