Skip to content

Appendix D — Discovery Call Script and Qualification Questions

This appendix is for the conversation that happens before the demo.

Its purpose is not to pitch too early. Its purpose is to understand whether the buyer is actually living inside the kind of pain SUMMA is built for.

That matters because SUMMA is not for everyone equally. A weak discovery call tries to make every prospect sound qualified. A serious discovery call tries to discover whether the file pain is real enough, repeated enough, and expensive enough to justify the product.

1. Goal of the discovery call

The discovery call has four jobs:

  1. understand the kind of files the buyer handles
  2. understand where the real workflow pain lives
  3. determine whether the pain matches SUMMA’s wedge
  4. decide whether to move to demo, pilot, or stop

That is all.

The discovery call is not the place to explain every feature. It is not the place to oversell Level 9. It is not the place to force a fit that is not there.

2. Good opening frame

A good opener should sound calm and serious.

Example:

Thanks for taking the time.
What I’d like to understand first is the kind of files that create the most structural pain for your team now — where the current environment starts breaking down, where re-entry gets expensive, or where it becomes hard to tell what matters most.

Or:

Before showing anything, it helps to understand what kind of case burden you’re actually dealing with, because SUMMA is strongest in a pretty specific lane.

That is a strong opening because it sounds diagnostic, not desperate.

3. Qualification principle

The main qualification question is not:

Do you use legal tech?

The main qualification question is:

Do your files get painful enough that ordinary tools stop composing into a survivable review environment?

That is the real test.

4. Questions to ask

File-type questions

  • What kinds of criminal matters create the most review pain for your team?
  • Are the hardest files usually disclosure-heavy, media-heavy, witness-heavy, or timeline-heavy?
  • Do you regularly deal with repeated productions, supplemental disclosure, or corrected disclosure?
  • Do you often handle files where the issue count grows as the record grows?

Pain questions

  • Where do you lose the most time right now?
  • What becomes hardest to hold together as the file grows?
  • What part of the review process breaks first?
  • Is the bigger problem access to the material, or knowing what matters now?
  • How painful is re-entry after a gap?
  • How painful is handoff when someone else has to inherit the file?

Current-workflow questions

  • How are you currently organizing these files?
  • What tools are you using now for documents, notes, timelines, and issue tracking?
  • Are you relying mostly on folders, PDFs, search, spreadsheets, summaries, or case-management software?
  • What do those tools do well for you?
  • Where do they stop being enough?

Structural questions

  • How do you currently track issue drift?
  • How do you preserve source return when summaries start accumulating?
  • How do you manage contradiction-heavy witness areas?
  • How do you know what deserves attention first in a big file?
  • What happens when new disclosure changes the posture of an issue you thought you understood?

Fit questions

  • Are these problems occasional, or do they happen often enough to justify changing workflow?
  • Are there one or two live files right now where this pain is especially obvious?
  • If you had a stronger review environment, what would you most want it to reduce first: re-entry pain, issue sprawl, source drift, handoff pain, or poor prioritization?

5. What good signals sound like

A likely good-fit prospect says things like:

  • Every time I come back to a file, I lose hours rebuilding context.
  • The problem is not opening the documents. The problem is figuring out what matters now.
  • We keep rediscovering the same issue.
  • The file becomes too big to hold in one person’s head.
  • Once media, witness contradictions, and new disclosure pile up, our structure starts failing.
  • Handoff is weak and expensive.
  • The file is searchable, but it still isn’t inhabitable.

These are strong signs because they match SUMMA’s wedge directly.

6. What weak-fit signals sound like

A likely weak-fit prospect says things like:

  • Our files are usually straightforward.
  • We mainly need billing or admin cleanup.
  • We rarely deal with serious disclosure mass.
  • Our current folders and case-management system are mostly enough.
  • We want general AI help for everything.
  • We are not really feeling a continuity or review-structure problem.

That does not mean the prospect is bad. It means the fit may be weak right now.

7. How to respond to strong-fit answers

When the fit sounds strong, do not rush into hype.

Say something like:

That sounds very close to the environment SUMMA is built for.
The next useful step would be to show how the system handles source, issue concentration, re-entry, and pressure in a file that has already crossed that threshold.

Or:

What you’re describing is exactly the kind of structural pain point where the product becomes most credible.
The demo will make the most sense if we show it against that type of burden.

That transition is calm and serious.

8. How to respond to weak-fit answers

When the fit sounds weak, do not force it.

Say something like:

That’s helpful.
From what you’re describing, it may be that your current file mix has not crossed the threshold where SUMMA becomes urgent yet.

Or:

SUMMA is strongest where the review environment itself starts becoming painful.
If that is not happening often enough yet, it may make more sense to keep the conversation open rather than forcing a fit too early.

That protects credibility.

9. Discovery call mistakes to avoid

Do not turn the discovery call into a feature dump.

Do not introduce Level 9 too early.

Do not argue with the prospect about their pain.

Do not pretend every prospect is a fit.

Do not use generic legal-AI language when the buyer is describing specific workflow pain.

Do not skip the current-tool question. A prospect’s current stack matters enormously.

10. Qualification outcome types

Outcome 1 — Strong fit

Pain is real, repeated, and expensive.
Move to demo.

Outcome 2 — Interesting but early

Pain exists, but not often or sharply enough yet.
Keep warm. Do not force.

Outcome 3 — Wrong lane

Prospect mainly needs broad practice management, admin cleanup, or generic AI language.
Do not position SUMMA as the wrong product.

Outcome 4 — Strategic prospect

Pain is strong and the buyer thinks clearly about workflow.
Move to demo, then to a structured pilot if the demo lands.

11. Clean closing lines

Strong-fit close

This sounds like the kind of file environment SUMMA is built for.
The next step should be a focused demo that shows how the system handles source, issue concentration, re-entry, and pressure in a severe file.

Early-fit close

There may be a fit here, but it sounds like the urgency may depend on how often these file conditions show up.
We can keep the conversation open and revisit when the pain becomes more operationally expensive.

Wrong-fit close

From what you’re describing, I do not think the strongest immediate need is SUMMA’s lane.
It sounds more like a broader admin or practice-management problem than a severe review-structure problem.

That kind of honesty builds trust.

12. Final takeaway

A strong discovery call should determine one thing clearly:

Is this buyer living inside the kind of file pain that SUMMA is actually built to reduce?

If yes, move to demo. If maybe, keep warm. If no, do not fake the fit.