Interview objective: Turn the findings into a defensible decision, including refusal or a narrower contract.
Put to: Tyler Heaps, Sarah Rudd, Daniel Geey and the club’s final approvers.
Why it matters to buyers: Our proposed decision standard requires the evidence for purchase to survive the same scrutiny as the evidence for cancellation. Neither a persuasive expert nor a strong aggregate score should override a failed essential requirement.
A strong answer should cover:
- The specific gap closed and the evidence supporting that conclusion.
- Cases where the incumbent is sufficient, the sample is inconclusive or internal work is the better route.
- Non-negotiables that cannot be averaged away by attractive features.
- Commercial commitments tied to the tested scope, rather than the demonstration’s broader capabilities.
- Remedies for material coverage loss, delivery failures or unfulfilled implementation commitments, subject to negotiation and legal review.
- Exit, export and continuity arrangements before dependency grows.
Sharp follow-up: Which unresolved item would stop you signing today, and what exact evidence would change your answer?
Request this artefact: A one-page decision memo with the recommendation, baseline, incremental findings, failed gates, untested areas, costs, responsibilities and review date. Separate “add now” from “reconsider when a promised feature becomes available”.
Proposed expert interview; not yet conducted. No expert quotation is attributed.