Most commercial advice fails in the same place: the analysis is right and nobody acts on it. Each instrument answers one commercial question and ends in an artifact your team owns and can run without me.

No engagement uses all six. If a problem needs none of them, I say so in the first conversation.

1. The three-layer read

The read finds which of three layers a commercial fault sits in. Most get diagnosed one layer too high: the pipeline looks soft, so the fix is a new deck or a new hire.

What you keep: an architecture map and a prioritised roadmap a new commercial hire can execute on day one.

COMMERCIAL ARCHITECTURE LAYER 01 Market fit Who the product actually wins with, on real win and loss data. THE TEST Is the segmentation the one the data shows, or the one the team believes? LAYER 02 Motion design How a deal moves from first contact to signature. THE TEST Where does a deal actually stall, and who owns that step? LAYER 03 Operating infrastructure The metrics that show whether the motion is healthy in time to act. THE TEST Would this have shown up in a report before the quarter closed? Output: a one-page commercial architecture map and a prioritised roadmap. Exhibit 1 | TeakCharge

2. The working-assumptions table

It sits on page three, ahead of the argument, with an owner and a severity per row.

Every row states what must be true for a recommendation to hold:

A high-severity unknown is never softened into a finding, which is how it surfaces in week one, not month four.

What you keep: a living assumptions log. Every row has a named owner. Statuses change as facts arrive.

WORKING ASSUMPTIONS ASSUMPTION STATUS SEVERITY No structured pipeline exists in the target channel.Working assumptionHighThe stated segmentation matches where deals actually close.Working assumptionHighContracting and billing can support an enterprise buyer today.Working assumptionMediumPricing at the premium tier is compatible with the stated volume ambition.Working assumptionMediumThe first priority is near-term profit rather than regional scale.UnknownHighThe buyer's renewal window falls inside the next two quarters.ConfirmedMedium Every recommendation rests on this table. The client is asked to correct it before reading the argument. Exhibit 3 | TeakCharge

3. The build, buy, or partner routing scorecard

It names the cheapest credible route to the next proof point. One page, three routes side by side, plus the fourth that usually goes unwritten: stop.

All four on the same criteria:

Scoring is coarse on purpose: a defensible ranking beats a precise number.

What you keep: a scored one-pager, and a written stop condition for the route chosen.

4. Evidence-gated discovery

This is for creating something new, not fixing what exists. Four stages, with a go or no-go meeting between each. The sequence decides which ideas deserve real money and when to stop paying for the rest.

Machines do the sweep, on tooling I build and run myself. A person makes every gate call.

What you keep:

EVIDENCE-GATED DISCOVERY GATE 1 GATE 2 GATE 3 Discovery Conviction Test Launch Long list, clustered Scored case, evidence attached Desirability, feasibility, viability First evidence from the market Stop here No space worth funding. Budget ends at gate one. Stop here Everything outside the top few, with a written reason. Stop here Fails desirability, feasibility, or viability. One success criterion per phase, agreed before it starts. Machines sweep and score. A person makes every gate call. Exhibit 2 | TeakCharge

5. The one-page value brief

Is the revenue real, and what is the honest range on the outcome? A market-size slide cannot answer that. The buy-side and portfolio format can.

Three gates, run in order:

I score what survives dimension by dimension. Then I model it under bear, base, and upside, each with a stated probability. The value-creation half names the work and who owns it.

What you keep: one decision-ready page, with the gated assessment behind it. This is the format used for the buy-side diligence on a leading Asia-focused PE fund's acquisition, in Alex's prior advisory role. The deal closed.

6. Pilot-first 90-day sequencing

The 90-day target is a pilot running, not a contract signed, stated on page one.

Tracks run in parallel, ranked by one rule:

That usually promotes the routes around procurement and demotes the one everyone expected to lead.

Enterprise cycles run longer than a quarter. The plan separates what can run in 90 days from what is a next-year event.

What you keep:

NINETY-DAY SEQUENCING WEEK 1 WEEK 4 WEEK 8 WEEK 12 Institutional pipeline Ecosystem and partners Existing customer economics Infrastructure and compliance Warm referral routes Fastest route to a first pilot DAY 90 Target state is a pilot running, not a contract signed. FAR HORIZON Contract close Well outside the window. Tracks are ranked by conviction: probability of conversion, multiplied by deal size, divided by the effort to get there. Exhibit 4 | TeakCharge

Working with these

The first step is a 30-minute conversation. No deck, nothing to prepare.

Contact Alex