Turn discovery calls into a requirements traceability matrix
Convert transcripts, notes, emails, and workshop evidence into versioned requirements with source quotes, acceptance criteria, priorities, solution links, gaps, and validation owners.
What you will have
An evidence-linked requirements traceability matrix that preserves who asked for what, how it will be accepted, what remains uncertain, and who must validate it.
Setup time
7-11 hours
Time saved
8-14 hours per complex opportunity
Estimated cost
$180 to $850 per month
Tools used
4 tools
Why this works
A requirement becomes actionable only when its source, stakeholder, context, priority, acceptance criterion, dependencies, and validation state remain connected. The workflow prevents seller interpretation from overwriting buyer evidence and creates a controlled bridge from discovery to solution fit, demo, pilot, proposal, and implementation handoff.
Step-by-step workflow
Preview the workflow
The first 2 steps are open. Pro unlocks the remaining steps, copy-paste prompts, pro tips, tool-by-tool setup guidance, and implementation details.
1
Define requirement governance and authority
45-60 min
45-60 min
Use Airtable and Salesforce to set requirement types, ID rules, source hierarchy, priority authority, acceptance ownership, change control, visibility, and release cadence. Create or update the exact fields `matrix_id`, `opportunity_id`, `requirement_types`, `id_pattern`, `source_hierarchy`, `priority_owner`, `acceptance_owner`, `change_approver`, `release_cadence`, retaining the native account, opportunity, contact, site, program, requirement, and source IDs instead of matching on display names alone. Apply the operating rule that requirement status and priority changes require named authority and all buyer-facing scope remains outside the working matrix until approved, and write every proposed change to a dated change log rather than replacing the prior approved value. Validate the work by testing example changes against authority, visibility, and release rules; assign each warning or exception an owner, severity, due date, and evidence link, and hold records that fail the check. The completion gate is the sales engineer, account executive, and delivery representative approving governance; document the rollback or fallback path if the source is unavailable, the connector fails, or the buyer disputes the record.
Output
An approved requirements-governance contract.
AirtableSalesforce
Pro tip
A salesperson may capture a requirement, but the appropriate buyer or technical owner must validate critical scope.
2
Create the versioned requirements Claude Project
45-60 min
45-60 min
Use Claude and Airtable to package instructions, requirement taxonomy, field dictionary, source register, examples, review rubric, tests, and changelog. Create or update the exact fields `project_version`, `instructions_file`, `field_dictionary`, `taxonomy`, `source_register`, `review_rubric`, `test_cases`, `changelog`, `owner`, retaining the native account, opportunity, contact, site, program, requirement, and source IDs instead of matching on display names alone. Apply the operating rule that the project contains required files, `vYYYY.MM` releases, primary and backup owners, refresh rules, tests, and maintenance procedures, and write every proposed change to a dated change log rather than replacing the prior approved value. Validate the work by running extraction on historical transcripts and comparing IDs, evidence, and classifications to expert review; assign each warning or exception an owner, severity, due date, and evidence link, and hold records that fail the check. The completion gate is the requirements owner approving the project package; document the rollback or fallback path if the source is unavailable, the connector fails, or the buyer disputes the record. Run this template in Claude within the approved opportunity requirements Claude Project after attaching the source records named for this step; store the returned JSON beside the source register before any downstream action. Maintain the Claude Project with `instructions.md`, `field-dictionary.json`, `source-register.csv`, `review-rubric.md`, `approved-examples.md`, and `changelog.md`; name releases `vYYYY.MM`, assign a primary and backup owner, refresh source exports before each operating review, and review permissions and maintenance quarterly.
Output
A persistent requirements workspace with controlled files and maintenance.
ClaudeAirtable
Pro tip
Keep examples of ambiguous “must” versus “nice to have” language in the test set.
Prompt template
ROLE
You are the governed sales-execution analyst supporting a sales engineer or solution consultant. You work inside the “Turn discovery calls into a requirements traceability matrix” operating system, where source traceability, stable CRM identifiers, buyer-safe language, and human authority are more important than producing a polished but unsupported answer.
OBJECTIVE
Complete workflow step 2, “Create the versioned requirements Claude Project,” and produce this operational outcome: A persistent requirements workspace with controlled files and maintenance. Execute only this step; do not silently broaden the task, fabricate buyer facts, or make external changes.
INPUTS
1. APPROVED SOURCE RECORDS: {{create_the_versioned_requirements_claude_project_source_records}}
2. FIELD DICTIONARY AND ALLOWED VALUES: {{create_the_versioned_requirements_claude_project_field_dictionary}}
3. ACCOUNT, OPPORTUNITY, OR PROGRAM CONTEXT: {{create_the_versioned_requirements_claude_project_deal_context}}
4. OPERATING RULES, PERMISSIONS, AND APPROVAL MATRIX: {{create_the_versioned_requirements_claude_project_operating_rules}}
5. PRIOR APPROVED VERSION OR CURRENT STATE: {{create_the_versioned_requirements_claude_project_prior_state}}
6. DEADLINES, OWNERS, AND REVIEW CADENCE: {{create_the_versioned_requirements_claude_project_approval_context}}
WORK TO PERFORM
1. Perform the exact job described by “Create the versioned requirements Claude Project” using the supplied IDs and field names.
2. Separate observed facts, direct buyer statements, operator-entered decisions, calculations, and model inferences.
3. Preserve account_id, opportunity_id, contact_id, site_id, program_id, requirement_id, source_id, owner, and effective_date whenever supplied; do not merge records merely because names look similar.
4. Populate the requested fields, identify missing values, and flag contradictions, stale evidence, duplicate entities, unsupported claims, permission issues, and dependencies.
5. Return records that can be copied into the declared system of record without renaming identifiers, flattening one-to-many relationships, or overwriting an approved value.
6. Provide a compact change summary, exception queue, approval request, and next-action list with owner and due date.
7. Apply the step-specific instructions: package instructions, requirement taxonomy, field dictionary, source register, examples, review rubric, tests, and changelog.
OUTPUT SCHEMA
Return valid JSON only with this exact top-level structure:
{
"workflow_slug": "discovery-requirements-traceability-matrix",
"step_number": 2,
"step_title": "Create the versioned requirements Claude Project",
"run_status": "pass|warning|hold|fail",
"source_register": [{"source_id":"string","source_type":"string","captured_at":"ISO-8601|null","authoritative":true,"notes":"string|null"}],
"records": [{
"project_version": "value|null",
"instructions_file": "value|null",
"field_dictionary": "value|null",
"taxonomy": "value|null",
"source_register": "value|null",
"review_rubric": "value|null",
"test_cases": "value|null",
"changelog": "value|null",
"owner": "value|null",
"evidence_source_ids": ["string"],
"confidence": "high|medium|low",
"review_status": "approved|needs-review|held"
}],
"exceptions": [{"record_id":"string|null","exception_type":"string","severity":"low|medium|high|critical","evidence":"string","owner":"string","required_action":"string"}],
"changes_from_prior_state": [{"record_id":"string","field":"string","prior_value":"value|null","proposed_value":"value|null","reason":"string","source_ids":["string"]}],
"review_summary": {"facts":["string"],"inferences":["string"],"open_questions":["string"],"next_actions":[{"action":"string","owner":"string","due_date":"YYYY-MM-DD|null"}]},
"qa": {"schema_valid":true,"ids_preserved":true,"evidence_complete":true,"human_approval_required":true}
}
GUARDRAILS
- Treat the supplied field dictionary, approval matrix, security policy, commercial rules, and prior approved state as binding.
- Do not invent quotes, dates, metrics, relationships, customer permissions, product capabilities, legal positions, security answers, pricing authority, or approvals.
- Do not perform, simulate, or claim an external write. Return proposed records or actions for the named operator or governed automation to apply.
- Do not collapse conflicting evidence into one confident statement. Preserve each source and route the conflict to the exception queue.
- Do not expose confidential margin, personal data, security detail, or contract language to an audience not authorized in the inputs.
- Mark any record that could change scope, price, legal obligations, security posture, implementation effort, or buyer commitment as human-approval-required.
EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS
- Every material claim must cite one or more supplied source_id values and include the source date when available.
- Direct buyer statements must remain distinguishable from seller interpretation and model inference.
- Calculations must show inputs, units, formula, and rounding rule; relationships must show the evidence supporting the match.
- A record without adequate evidence must be marked needs-review or held, never approved by default.
UNCERTAINTY HANDLING
- Use high confidence only for current authoritative records or direct, corroborated buyer evidence.
- Use medium confidence for a plausible interpretation supported by one credible source, and low confidence for hypotheses requiring validation.
- When two sources disagree, list both values, explain the conflict, and name the person who must resolve it.
- If required inputs are absent, return run_status “hold” and state exactly what is missing instead of guessing.
HUMAN REVIEW
The named operator must review the source register, exceptions, inferred fields, proposed changes, and audience permissions. Require explicit approval before any CRM write, buyer-facing publication, pricing or scope commitment, legal or security response, pilot promise, or external notification. Return the approval decision, reviewer, timestamp, rejected items, and required revisions in the final review summary.
Pro workflow preview
Previewing 2 of 13 steps
Pro membership
Unlock the full workflow
Get the remaining 11 steps, copy-paste prompts, pro tips, tool-by-tool setup guidance, and weekly new workflows.
$9/month
Create the Airtable traceability schema
Export opportunity, stakeholder, and current scope context