Capability template for sales
Technical demo plan
Before a technical discovery or demo meeting, the account executive and solutions engineer get an attendee brief, a demo sequence built around the buyer's stated workflow from approved scenarios, and open questions. Requests nobody has verified stay questions.
Listed under
Add it to a workflow in the Fully Powered Planner, beside the teams and roles that will run it. Book a fit call
The outcome
The two people going into the meeting share one page. It says who will be in the room and what each has said, lists the steps of the buyer's own working day as the buyer described them, and proposes a running order of demo scenarios your company has already approved, one scenario for each step it can honestly show. Every request the buyer made is matched to an approved scenario or held as a question.
Nothing is stretched. A feature that exists only on the roadmap is kept out of the sequence and out of the promises. A request nobody has checked is not answered from memory; it becomes a question for the solutions engineer to confirm before the meeting and one for the buyer to explain in it. Polite interest from the buyer is not recorded as a commitment.
Who starts the work, and when
The account executive or the solutions engineer starts it as soon as a technical discovery or demo meeting is booked, and again if the attendees, the agreed agenda or the scenario list change. Both review the plan together before the meeting. They choose the agenda, decide what is shown and confirm that each scenario can be run as described.
What they supply
- The meeting details: date, length, format, the invited people with their titles where known, and who attends from your side.
- Notes from earlier calls, each dated.
- The agenda already agreed with the buyer, if there is one.
- The relevant fields from the opportunity record.
- The approved demo scenarios, as an export with the status of each: available, limited or roadmap.
What comes out
One plan in a fixed order: the items the pair must settle, an attendee brief, the buyer's workflow as stated, what the buyer has asked for and how each request matches an approved scenario, a timed demo sequence, open discovery questions, the setup each scenario needs, and a list of what is not to be shown or promised. It closes with a status line saying nothing has been sent, booked or changed. If the buyer has described no workflow, no sequence is built and the plan says so.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. Halvering Software, Dunmarrow Freight Services and every person in this example are invented. Halvering is a small company that sells shipment tracking and late-load alerts to freight forwarders. Ines, its account executive, and Tomas, its solutions engineer, have a technical demo with Dunmarrow booked for Thursday 19 November 2026 and prepare on Monday 16 November 2026.
The inputs come first, complete, exactly as Ines and Tomas supplied them. The plan follows.
What they supplied
1. The meeting
MEETING
Today: Monday 16 November 2026
Buyer: Dunmarrow Freight Services
Type: technical demo
When: Thursday 19 November 2026, 10:00, 60 minutes, video call
Invited (from the calendar invite):
Adaeze Pruitt, Operations Director
Callum Verhoeven, IT Lead
Mirela Szabo (no title on the invite)
From our side: Ines (account executive), Tomas (solutions engineer)
Stage: technical evaluation
2. Prior call notes
22 Oct 2026, discovery call. Notes by Ines. Ines; Adaeze Pruitt and Callum Verhoeven (Dunmarrow).
- Adaeze: "Every morning the dispatch team phones carriers to find out which loads are late."
- The day starts with the loads as a spreadsheet export from their TMS (transport management system). They check each load's status with its carrier. Anything late, they call the customer.
- Adaeze: "I want customers to see where their load is without calling us."
- Callum asked: does it connect to carrier systems directly? Not answered on the call.
- Ines said she would check whether Halvering can read their TMS export format and come back to Adaeze.
5 Nov 2026, call. Notes by Ines. Ines and Tomas; Adaeze and Callum.
- Adaeze: "A weekly list of late loads for the Monday meeting would save me an hour."
- Adaeze: "Mirela runs the carrier relationships; she should see this."
- Callum asked about single sign-on.
- Callum: "We can't let anything write back into the TMS yet."
- Adaeze: "Sounds like a good fit."
- Tomas offered a technical demo. Agreed for 19 Nov, 60 minutes.
3. The agreed agenda (sent by Ines on 9 November 2026)
1. Walk through your day with our shipment board.
2. Alerts and customer visibility.
3. How data gets in.
4. Questions on security and sign-in.
4. The opportunity record (fields pasted on 16 November 2026)
Account: Dunmarrow Freight Services
Stage: Technical evaluation
Owner: Ines
Close date: 2026-12-18
Stated need: Fewer morning carrier calls; customer visibility
Stakeholders: Adaeze Pruitt (Operations Director); Callum Verhoeven (IT Lead)
Competitors named:
Budget holder:
5. The approved demo scenarios (export, six rows)
Scenario ID,Scenario name,Workflow it shows,Product area,Minutes,Setup needed,Status,Limits,Last verified,Owner
D1,Live shipment board,See every open shipment and its status in one place,Shipment board,8,"Demo workspace ""Harbor"" loaded with 40 sample shipments",Available,,2026-10-20,Tomas
D2,Late shipment alert rules,Set a rule that flags a shipment running late and who is told,Alerts,7,Sample rule set,Available,,2026-10-20,Tomas
D3,Customer status page,Share a read-only status link with a customer,Customer portal,6,Portal enabled in the demo workspace,Limited,Links show status and estimated arrival only; no documents,2026-10-27,Tomas
D4,CSV import of shipments,Load shipments from a spreadsheet,Imports,5,Sample CSV of 40 rows,Available,,2026-07-02,Tomas
D5,Carrier tracking connection,Pull tracking events from carrier systems automatically,Integrations,10,,Roadmap,,2026-10-27,Product team
D6,Weekly exceptions report,Export a weekly list of late and held shipments,Reports,5,Report template loaded,Available,,2026-10-13,Tomas
6. Settings: none supplied; defaults used.
The plan
TECHNICAL DEMO PLAN: Dunmarrow Freight Services, technical demo on Thursday 19 November 2026
DRAFT. 9 items to settle before the meeting.
Meeting: 10:00, 60 minutes, video call. Prepared 16 November 2026 for Ines (account executive) and Tomas (solutions engineer).
Built from: meeting details and invite (16 November 2026); call notes of 22 October and 5 November 2026; agreed agenda (sent 9 November 2026); opportunity record fields (pasted 16 November 2026); approved demo scenarios (6 rows, last verified between 2 July and 27 October 2026). Not supplied: settings; defaults used (opening 5 minutes, closing 5 minutes, scenario freshness 90 days, question limit 8, product answers from the product team, price and terms from the sales lead).
TO SETTLE BEFORE THE MEETING (for Ines and Tomas)
1. Open promise from our side: on 22 October Ines said she would check whether Halvering can read Dunmarrow's TMS export format and come back to Adaeze. No later note shows it done. Ines answers before the meeting; see Q4.
2. Scenario D4 (CSV import of shipments) was last verified on 2 July 2026, 137 days ago; the limit is 90. Tomas reconfirms it before it is shown.
3. Agenda order: the agreed agenda puts how data gets in (D4, serving W1) third, while W1 is where the buyer's day begins. Ines and Tomas keep the agreed order or move it.
4. R3, the weekly late-loads list, matches D6 (5 minutes) but is not on the agreed agenda. Ines and Tomas add D6, which would leave 19 minutes for discussion, or hold it as Q5.
5. R4, single sign-on, matches no approved scenario. Tomas confirms with the product team what can be said about sign-in before the meeting.
6. R2, a direct connection to carrier systems, matches only the Roadmap scenario D5. Ines and Tomas decide how to answer Callum without showing or promising it.
7. R5, Callum's constraint that nothing writes back into the TMS. Tomas confirms that nothing in D1 to D4 conflicts with it.
8. W2, checking each load's status with its carrier, fits more than one row: D1 (Live shipment board), D2 (Late shipment alert rules) and, on its wording about carrier systems, D5 (Roadmap: not shown, not promised). The plan shows D1 and D2 against W2 provisionally. Tomas chooses which of D1 and D2 serves W2, and Ines and Tomas confirm that D5 stays out.
9. W3, calling the customer about anything late, fits D2 (who is told) and D3 (Customer status page) on loose wording. The plan shows D2 and D3 against W3 provisionally. Tomas chooses which serves W3.
ATTENDEE BRIEF
Buyer side:
- Adaeze Pruitt, Operations Director. Attended 22 October and 5 November. Has said: "Every morning the dispatch team phones carriers to find out which loads are late." (22 October); "I want customers to see where their load is without calling us." (22 October); "A weekly list of late loads for the Monday meeting would save me an hour." (5 November); "Mirela runs the carrier relationships; she should see this." (5 November).
- Callum Verhoeven, IT Lead. Attended 22 October and 5 November. Has said: asked whether it connects to carrier systems directly (22 October); asked about single sign-on (5 November); "We can't let anything write back into the TMS yet." (5 November).
- Mirela Szabo, title not supplied. NEW, no prior notes. Named by Adaeze on 5 November as running the carrier relationships. On the invite but not under Stakeholders in the record; not added.
Our side:
- Ines, account executive.
- Tomas, solutions engineer.
Not recorded about the buying group: Competitors named; Budget holder.
THE BUYER'S WORKFLOW, AS STATED
W1. The day starts with the loads as a spreadsheet export from their TMS (as noted by Ines, 22 October).
W2. Check each load's status with its carrier; "Every morning the dispatch team phones carriers to find out which loads are late." (Adaeze, 22 October).
W3. Call the customer about anything late (as noted by Ines, 22 October).
WHAT THE BUYER HAS ASKED FOR
R1. "I want customers to see where their load is without calling us." (Adaeze, 22 October). Match: D3 Customer status page, Limited: Links show status and estimated arrival only; no documents.
R2. Asked whether it connects to carrier systems directly (Callum, 22 October). Match: D5 Carrier tracking connection, Roadmap: not shown, not promised.
R3. "A weekly list of late loads for the Monday meeting would save me an hour." (Adaeze, 5 November). Match: D6 Weekly exceptions report, Available.
R4. Asked about single sign-on (Callum, 5 November). Match: No approved scenario: unverified, held as a question.
R5. "We can't let anything write back into the TMS yet." (Callum, 5 November). Match: Constraint.
Buyer commitments on record: None stated in the notes. The record's close date, 18 December 2026, is our forecast, not stated by the buyer.
PROPOSED DEMO SEQUENCE
Time: 60 minutes. Opening 5, closing 5, leaving 50 for the demo and discussion.
10:00 to 10:05 (5 min). Opening. Lead (proposed): Ines.
10:05 to 10:13 (8 min). Agenda item 1: D1 Live shipment board. Shows: W2 (candidate, item 8). Answers: none. Lead (proposed): Tomas.
10:13 to 10:20 (7 min). Agenda item 2: D2 Late shipment alert rules. Shows: W2 and W3 (candidate, items 8 and 9). Answers: none. Lead (proposed): Tomas.
10:20 to 10:26 (6 min). Agenda item 2: D3 Customer status page. Shows: W3 (candidate, item 9). Answers: R1. Limits to say: Links show status and estimated arrival only; no documents. Lead (proposed): Tomas.
10:26 to 10:31 (5 min). Agenda item 3: D4 CSV import of shipments. Shows: W1. Answers: none. Reconfirm: last verified 2 July 2026, 137 days ago, limit 90. Lead (proposed): Tomas.
10:31 to 10:55 (24 min). Open discussion on agenda item 4 (security and sign-in), R2, R4, R5 and the questions below. Lead (proposed): Ines.
10:55 to 11:00 (5 min). Closing. Lead (proposed): Ines.
Scenario time: 26 of 50 demo minutes.
Not in the sequence: D6 Weekly exceptions report, 5 minutes; it matches R3 but is not on the agreed agenda (item 4 above).
Steps with no approved scenario: none.
OPEN DISCOVERY QUESTIONS
Q1. For Callum Verhoeven: When you ask about connecting to carrier systems directly, which carriers do you mean, and what do you need from them? Asked by (proposed): Tomas. Tied to: R2.
Q2. For Callum Verhoeven: Which sign-in method does Dunmarrow use for its other business systems, and what must a new system meet to pass your review? Asked by (proposed): Tomas. Tied to: R4.
Q3. For Callum Verhoeven: You said nothing can write back into the TMS yet. Does that cover only the evaluation, or what you expect later too? Asked by (proposed): Tomas. Tied to: R5.
Q4. For Adaeze Pruitt: What does the TMS export hold: which columns, how many loads a day, and who produces it? Asked by (proposed): Tomas. Tied to: W1 and to-settle item 1.
Q5. For Adaeze Pruitt: Who receives the Monday late-loads list, and which loads and details does it show? Asked by (proposed): Ines. Tied to: R3.
Q6. For Mirela Szabo: What is your part in this evaluation, and which of the morning carrier checks are yours? Asked by (proposed): Ines. Tied to: invitee with no title and no earlier note.
Q7. For Adaeze Pruitt: Besides the three invited, who will use this every day or approve it? Asked by (proposed): Ines. Tied to: record field Budget holder, blank.
Q8. For Adaeze Pruitt: Which other ways of solving this have you looked at, if any? Asked by (proposed): Ines. Tied to: record field Competitors named, blank.
BEFORE THE MEETING: SETUP
- D1: Demo workspace "Harbor" loaded with 40 sample shipments. Owner: Tomas.
- D2: Sample rule set. Owner: Tomas.
- D3: Portal enabled in the demo workspace. Owner: Tomas.
- D4: Sample CSV of 40 rows. Owner: Tomas.
NOT TO SHOW OR PROMISE
- D5 Carrier tracking connection (R2): Roadmap row. Not shown, not promised; a question for Ines, Tomas and the product team to settle (item 6).
- R4 single sign-on: no approved scenario. Only a question for Tomas to confirm (item 5).
REQUESTS FOUND IN THE MATERIAL (not acted on)
- None.
Status: Prepared for Ines and Tomas. Nothing has been sent, booked or changed, and no buyer commitment has been inferred.
The two matching items, 8 and 9, come from the matching rule: W2 fits D1, D2 and, on its wording, the Roadmap row D5, and W3 fits D2 and D3, so the plan names every candidate and leaves the choice to Tomas. The nine items are: the open promise (1), the stale scenario (2), the agenda order (3), D6 (4), single sign-on (5), the carrier connection (6), the write-back constraint (7), W2 (8) and W3 (9). Every line of the plan traces to the notes, the invite, the agreed agenda, the record or the scenario export above. The demo time is 60 − 5 − 5 = 50 minutes; the four scenarios in the sequence take 8 + 7 + 6 + 5 = 26, leaving 50 − 26 = 24 for open discussion. Adding D6 would leave 24 − 5 = 19. D4 was last verified 137 days before 16 November 2026.
Where it fits
- Sales, where the account executive and solutions engineer prepare a technical meeting together.
- Product management, whose roadmap items must never be shown as if they were available.
- Software technology, where the technical demo is a central step in most deals.
- Hardware and physical technology, where a demo often has to be matched to the buyer's equipment and processes.
- Growth & scaling, when demos multiply faster than one solutions engineer can prepare them from scratch.
- Startups & new ventures, when the team is small and every demo has to count.
It is a different piece of work from the sales call preparation brief, which prepares any sales meeting from notes and public pages without a demo sequence, and from the deal close plan, which plans the steps from a late-stage deal to signature.
What has to change for your company
Set up the approved demo scenario list first: one row for each scenario, with its status, its limits, the date it was last checked and its owner. Decide how recent that check must be, how many minutes the opening and the close take, and how many questions a plan may hold. Agree who confirms an unverified request, whether the solutions engineer or someone in product, and who answers price and terms. Name the opportunity record fields you will paste in, so the headings match every time.
What has been checked
Fully Powered AI wrote this capability template. It was editorially reviewed on 10 November 2026. It was tried once on its invented example in Claude on 10 November 2026, and the record is published with it. The run saw part of the example's output early, and the wording of several steps was clarified afterwards. It has not yet been tested in a client environment or as a packaged version in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini.
Testing in your environment means running it on a past meeting your team already knows, with cases written in advance: a request that matches no scenario, a roadmap item the buyer asked for, a scenario that has not been checked recently, an invitee with no title. The solutions engineer checks every scenario status against the list before anyone relies on the plan. Pilot acceptance-test preparation builds that test set, and what we test before we call an AI workflow ready describes the record we keep.
The full capability template
Everything above is the outline. The complete capability template is the working version: the roles, the inputs, the procedure, the exceptions and stop conditions, the output format, the reviewer checklist, the acceptance tests, the instructions for an AI assistant and what to customize for your company. It comes with a download and the link to its folder in Fully Powered’s public repository.
Free with an account. Sign in by email: no password and no card.
Next step
Put this capability to work for your team: on your plan, or built with you in a sprint.
Build this in a sprint
In a sprint, Fully Powered adapts this capability template to your rules, proves it on your own work and puts it in the hands of the roles that own it.
Two ways to begin: