# Pilot Proof Outreach Template

Use this only after you have a pilot proof artifact you can point to.

Current proof anchor in this repo:
- `docs/proof-summary.md`

## 1. Short Email Version

Subject options:
- `Bounded pilot proof for donor proposal workflows`
- `Pilot evidence: faster reviewable drafts in donor workflows`
- `Proposal operations pilot results (UN/EU strongest proof)`

Body:

```text
Hi [Name],

I’m reaching out because I think GrantFlow may be relevant to teams managing complex institutional proposal workflows.

GrantFlow is not a grant-writing chatbot. It is a proposal operations platform designed to help teams move from a raw concept to a structured, reviewable draft package with workflow control, review traceability, and export-ready outputs.

We recently completed a bounded NGO pilot across three donor tracks: UN agencies, EU, and USAID. The strongest proof came from the UN and EU paths, where the team moved faster to reviewable drafts, reduced review loops, and reduced review noise. The USAID path also improved, but remained more coordination-heavy and is best described with conditions rather than as fully solved.

If useful, I can send a short external proof summary and set up a 45–60 minute conversation to see whether the same operating problems exist in your proposal workflow.

Best,
[Your Name]
```

## 2. Short LinkedIn Version

```text
Hi [Name] — I’m working on GrantFlow, a proposal operations platform for complex donor workflows.

We recently completed a bounded pilot showing the strongest proof on UN/EU proposal workflows, with faster reviewable drafts, fewer review loops, and cleaner review flow. USAID also improved, but remained more coordination-heavy.

If this is relevant to your team, I’d be happy to send a short proof summary and compare it to your current proposal process.
```

## 3. Partner / Implementer Version

```text
Hi [Name],

I’m reaching out because I think GrantFlow may be relevant for organizations running multi-review donor proposal workflows across program, MEL, compliance, and approval teams.

GrantFlow is positioned as proposal operations infrastructure, not as a generic AI writing tool. We recently completed a bounded pilot that showed the clearest proof on UN and EU proposal workflows: faster movement to a reviewable draft, fewer review loops, and cleaner review coordination. The USAID path also improved against baseline, but remained more coordination-heavy and should still be positioned with conditions.

The reason I think this may be relevant is that large proposal teams usually do not need more raw text generation; they need tighter workflow control, clearer reviewer routing, and more traceable draft packages.

If useful, I can send a concise external proof summary and discuss whether a bounded pilot would make sense for your team.

Best,
[Your Name]
```

## 4. Attachments To Send

Default send set:
- `docs/buyer-one-pager.md`
- `docs/proof-summary.md`

Optional if the conversation becomes serious:
- `build/release-demo-bundle-6d-buyer/grantflow-demo-bundle-6d-buyer.zip`
- `docs/pilot-kickoff-agenda.md`
- `docs/pilot-role-mapping-example.md`

## 5. What To Say If They Ask For Proof

Use this wording:
- `We have strongest pilot proof on UN and EU proposal workflows.`
- `The USAID path also improved materially, but we describe it with conditions because coordination load remained higher.`
- `So the honest claim is not that every donor path is equally mature; the honest claim is that the proposal operations model is working, with strongest evidence on UN/EU and conditional proof on USAID.`

## 6. What Not To Claim

Do not say:
- `It fully automates donor proposal writing.`
- `It eliminates review loops.`
- `It works equally well across all donor paths.`
- `It replaces human compliance review.`

## 7. Best-Fit ICP After Current Pilot

Best current fit:
- NGOs and implementing organizations with recurring `UN` / `EU` proposal workflows
- teams whose main pain is review chaos, approvals, and MEL / LogFrame alignment

Secondary fit:
- organizations willing to pilot `USAID` with explicit coordination controls and realistic expectations

## 8. 30-Day Pilot Offer (Short Block)

Use this when a buyer asks "what does a first engagement look like?"

```text
30-day pilot (default):
- ICP: NGOs/implementers with recurring EU/UN workflows (USAID accepted as conditional track)
- Scope: 3-6 representative cases with named owner/operator/reviewer/approver
- Week 1: baseline capture + role mapping + first case setup
- Weeks 2-4: run cases, track cycle-time/review-loop deltas, collect traceability and export evidence
- Exit: go/no-go decision based on measured outcomes and reviewer trust
```
