Dell — Deal Risk Assessment

Code	Play
P1	ELT exec bridge (C-suite ↔ C-suite)
P2	SLT bridge (VP/Director ↔ VP/Director)
P3	Back-channeling / political intel
P4	Value / business outcomes workshop
P5	Technical / architecture risk session
P6	Commercial alignment session
P7	On-site
P8	Own internal business case structure
P9	Customer-facing exec 1-pager
P10	Internal exec briefing 1-pager
P11	Pricing / term levers

ID	Category	Risk	Evidence	Impact	Plays	Owner & By When
R1	Timing	41 days since last customer meeting — deal is stalled Known	Last meeting note: 2026-01-14 (handoff call) No customer-facing activity since December workshop momentum lost	March 27 close is not achievable without immediate re-engagement. Deal may already be lost to competitor.	P7 P4	Matt/Conor — re-engage Evan immediately, this week
R1 3/11	Timing	Exp POC active; Opal track still stalled Known	Per 2/20 kickoff and 2/24 POC sync: Matt is engaged with Debra/Fernando on Experimentation No Opal/content operations activity documented post-1/14 Evan Greenbaum has not appeared in any meeting notes since handoff March 27 close remains at risk for Opal	Opal close is not achievable without re-engaging Evan and defining Opal POC scope separately from Exp track.	P7 P4	Conor — open Opal track independently from Exp POC; re-engage Evan
R2	Value	POC use cases still undefined Known	1/14 handoff: “POC use cases still undefined — need Dell commitment to move forward.” Next step was collaborative use case definition. No evidence it occurred.	No POC scope = no business case = no path to close. Without defined use cases, Dell has nothing to evaluate.	P4 P5	Conor — propose content operations POC scope during re-engagement
R3	Political	AE handoff execution unclear — 41-day silence Assumed	1/14: “Matt to email Evan introducing Conor as new Opal lead.” No subsequent meeting notes confirm this happened. No Evan re-engagement documented.	If Evan hasn’t heard from Optimizely in 6 weeks, trust eroded and competitors may have advanced.	P7 P3	Matt — confirm handoff status and send intro email if not done, immediately
R3 3/11	Political	Matt is active — but only on Exp track, not Opal/Evan Known	Per 2/20 and 2/24 notes: Matt is confirmed active with Debra Greene and Experimentation team Evan Greenbaum does not appear in any post-1/14 notes Handoff intro email to Evan may never have been sent, or Evan is simply not involved in Exp POC	Opal champion (Evan) and budget owner (Ryan Schaaf) are dark. If not re-engaged, Opal evaluation has no internal advocate.	P3 P7	Conor — confirm Evan status with Matt; reconnect directly
R4	Technical	Credit usage dropped post-workshop — low engagement Known	1/14: “usage dropped post-workshop — Dell team not self-exploring.” December workshops well-received but no sustained adoption.	Low platform engagement = low internal advocacy. Evan cannot champion what his team isn’t using.	P4 P5	Conor — after re-engagement, schedule hands-on use case session
R4 3/11	Technical	Opal platform engagement still low; Exp POC team is active but separate Known	Per 2/24 POC sync: Debra raised concern about Opal Dev Agent capabilities but documentation doesn’t exist yet Some newer Opal capabilities are not enabled in Dell’s instance Dev Agent demo to Fernando did not land cleanly — code output did not match expected selector behavior	Opal adoption remains unproven. Exp POC team is engaged but focused on Web Experimentation, not Opal. No content-creation use cases have been exercised.	P4 P5	Conor — define Opal use case session with Evan separately from Exp POC; push to enable full Dev Agent capabilities in Dell’s instance
R5	Paper	Paper process completely unknown Known	Deal file: Paper Process = “Unknown.” No signals from any meeting on procurement, legal, or security requirements.	Enterprise deal with unknown procurement = unpredictable close timeline. Could add months.	P3 P8	Conor — surface paper process during re-engagement call
R6	Commercial	Jasper is incumbent and paying — switching cost is real Known	1/14: “Jasper: Paying customer.” Dell has existing budget allocated to Jasper. Jasper pain (limited brand guidelines) documented but not reinforced recently.	Status quo bias. If Opal evaluation stalls, Dell renews Jasper by default.	P4 P9	Conor — position content operations differentiation vs. Jasper during POC scoping
R7	Political	No engagement above Evan since handoff Assumed	Decision process: Evan → Ryan → Liana/Liz for budget. Ryan described as “fanboy” but no contact since December. No EB engagement documented.	No budget conversation happening. No internal business case being built above Evan’s level.	P2 P3	Matt/Conor — re-engage Ryan Schaaf after Evan reconnect
R7 3/11	Political	Carol (Dell leadership) is applying timeline pressure — new signal Known	Per 2/24 POC sync: Carol (Dell leadership) is pressing for the evaluation to move faster Matt referenced a call with Carol where she said “we need this done yesterday” Carol’s role/title not documented but she is above Debra and driving urgency	Carol = potential new EB or exec sponsor. Creating urgency (opportunity) but also risk: compressed timeline may force a decision before Opal track is ready.	P2 P3	Conor/Matt — identify Carol’s full name and title; determine if she owns Opal budget or only Exp evaluation
R8	Value	Insufficient discovery — vault data is thin Known	Only 2 meeting notes exist for Opal track. MEDDPICC metrics limited to “10% YoY reduction.” No validated pain beyond initial handoff intel. Workshop outcomes not documented.	Cannot build compelling business case without deeper discovery. Flying blind on decision criteria and process.	P4 P8	Conor — run proper discovery during re-engagement
R9 New 3/11	Technical	Multi-project architecture — critical open question Known	Per 2/24 POC sync: Dell runs 130+ live activities in a single Adobe Target call Optimizely’s multi-project model does not map cleanly Open questions: site-wide tests, cross-page cookie/data persistence, mutual exclusion across projects, code duplication in Project.js Custom snippets identified as mechanism but cannot be implemented within POC scope (Zach) Zach to diagram architecture proposal validated by Simone	If Zach/Simone cannot provide a credible architecture path, Dell cannot envision production deployment. Deal-breaker risk for Exp POC. Opal deal is bundled with Exp outcome.	P5 P7	Zach Coulter — deliver architecture diagram (validated by Simone) before next Dell sync; Matt to schedule Simone on architecture call. Due: 2026-03-13
R10 New 3/11	Technical	WYSIWYG scrutiny — visual editor must clear a low bar Known	Per 2/24 Exp POC Follow-Up: Dell disabled Adobe Target’s WYSIWYG because it slowed dev team down Devs code all experiments without the Target UI Debra disclosed this as a known failure mode of Adobe	Optimizely visual editor will face skepticism from first use. A poor demo or slow performance during the Friday walkthrough could kill enthusiasm before POC progresses.	P5	Zach — ensure Friday demo showcases visual editor speed and code access; address friction proactively
R11 New 3/11	Technical	Opal Dev Agent not fully enabled in Dell’s instance Known	Per 2/24 POC sync: Zach walked Fernando through Dev Agent but some newer capabilities were not available Demo result was unexpected — generated code did not map to expected selector behavior Debra flagged documentation gap: no docs exist for Opal’s code writing / Dev Agent feature	If Dell evaluates Opal with an incomplete instance, they will underestimate capabilities. Documentation absence limits self-service exploration and reduces internal advocacy.	P5	Conor — confirm with Opal team which Dev Agent features are enabled for Dell; push to enable full capabilities; get documentation ETA. Due: 2026-03-14
R12 New 3/11	Commercial	Opal and Exp POC running on separate tracks with no integration story Assumed	Exp POC is active with Debra/Fernando/Izabella Opal (content operations) has no active stakeholder engagement post-1/14 Two tracks running independently; no evidence business case connects them Matt is on both but integrated narrative is absent	If Exp POC closes without Opal, the $200K deal value drops substantially. The strongest differentiation (Opal + Exp = unified DXP vs. Adobe) is not being articulated.	P4 P8 P9	Conor — build integrated platform narrative for Dell (Opal + Experimentation = one contract, one platform, Adobe displacement); use Exp momentum to open Opal conversation. Due: 2026-03-18