How is this different from Marketing's messaging framework?

They're close cousins and should agree. Marketing's messaging framework is the company-wide positioning house; this value narrative is the sales-floor version a rep sells from — the buyer's problem, the proof, the cost of inaction, and the ROI line, tuned for a live deal. Build this from your won/lost reality and reconcile it with Marketing so the buyer hears one company, not two.

What if I can't prove one of the value claims?

That's exactly what step two surfaces. Claude flags any claim with thin or missing evidence so you fix it — find the metric, the named customer, the ROI figure — or cut it. A claim with no proof is one a prospect or competitor can disprove on the call, so it's far better caught here than in front of a buyer.

Do I really need a written value narrative, or can reps just wing it?

Winging it is why every rep pitches a different value and the proof is whatever they half-remember. A one-page value-prop.md makes "why us" a concrete, provable thing the whole team — and Claude — pulls from. It's the file half the other Sales playbooks ask you to feed in, so building it once sharpens all of them.

Is it safe to put our win stories and ROI numbers into Claude?

Use proof that's cleared for external use, and keep anything under NDA, embargo, or with a customer's private details in a workspace your company has approved. The narrative itself is a sales asset meant to be shared — just make sure every reference and figure in it is one you're allowed to say out loud.

Build the value narrative every rep sells from

when to reach for this

Half the Sales playbooks tell you to "feed in your value-prop.md" — this is the playbook that builds it. Without one, every rep pitches a slightly different value, the proof is whatever they half-remember, and "why us" comes out as a feature list. The fix is a single value narrative: the buyer's problem stated in their words, the value you deliver, the hardest proof behind each claim, and the honest cost of doing nothing. Build it once and it becomes the source of truth every opener, objection card, proposal, and renewal pulls from — so the whole team finally sells the same strong story.

gather this first

Your raw inputs as files or pasted text — product/feature briefs, a few closed-won and closed-lost notes, any deck or one-pager you already pitch from.
The proof: real customer outcomes with numbers, named references, ROI math, integrations, certifications — whatever you can actually stand behind on a call.
2–3 deals you won and why (in the customer's words if you have it), and 1–2 you lost — the won/lost contrast is what separates real value from wishful positioning.

the workflow

Start from the buyer's problem, not your product

In Claude Desktop, open the folder with your briefs and win/loss notes and ask in the chat — no terminal needed. Force the foundation before any pitch: the expensive problem you solve, stated the way the buyer would say it. A narrative that opens with your features is one a buyer tunes out.

you ask

Read these product briefs and win/loss notes. In the buyer's own language, name the single expensive problem we solve and who feels it most — the role, what it costs them today, and why their current workaround isn't enough. One paragraph, plain words, no product names yet.

what you get back A crisp problem statement in the buyer's voice — "Ops leaders lose two weeks onboarding every new client because setup is manual and error-prone" — not a feature you're proud of. If this isn't sharp, every downstream line stays generic.

Resist leading with the product. The deals you lose to "no decision" are lost on the problem, not the demo — name the pain first.
Turn the value into claims — and demand proof for each

Now state what you deliver as outcomes, each tied to the single hardest piece of evidence behind it. The proof requirement is the whole point: a claim a rep can't back is a deal-killer waiting to happen on a call.

you ask

From that problem, draft 3–4 value claims as customer outcomes (not features). For each: the outcome in plain words, the capability that delivers it, and the single hardest proof point we have — a metric, a named customer, an ROI figure, a certification. Flag any claim where the proof is thin, vague, or missing.

what you get back A short value narrative — outcomes stated as the buyer's wins, each tied to a real capability and a hard proof point, with the unsupported ones flagged for you to fix or cut before a rep ever says them.
Make the cost of doing nothing concrete

Most deals are lost to inertia, not a competitor. Build the honest case for why the status quo costs more than it looks — in the buyer's own numbers, not scare tactics.

you ask

Build the cost-of-inaction case: what staying on their current approach actually costs over a year — time, money, risk, missed growth — framed honestly with the math, not fear. Then give me a one-line ROI framing a buyer's finance team would accept.

what you get back A grounded cost-of-doing-nothing case ("~$120k/year in re-work and 3 lost weeks per hire") and a defensible ROI line — the part of the narrative that moves a stalled deal off "maybe next quarter."
Assemble the one-page value-prop.md

Pull it into one canonical artifact reps actually keep open. Short on purpose — a value narrative nobody can hold in their head doesn't get used on a live call.

you ask

Assemble everything into one value-prop.md: the buyer problem, the value claims with proof, the cost-of-inaction case and ROI line, a short "who we're a strong fit for / not a fit for" note, and a one-line elevator version. Keep it to one page.

what you get back A single, paste-ready value-prop.md — the source of truth the outreach engine, the objection cards, the proposal, and the renewal play all inherit.

Save this file. It's the first thing you paste into nearly every other Sales playbook — build it well and they all get sharper at once.

make it your own

Per-persona cuts: a CFO and a practitioner buy on different outcomes — add a short section re-pointing the top two claims for each key persona, the same way the proposal playbook tailors a quote.
Arabic value narrative, adapted not translated: for Arabic-speaking markets, build a parallel value-prop-ar.md from Arabic proof and references — don't translate the English. The proof points, the references, and the register that land in this region are not the English ones rephrased.
Feed it from real calls: refresh the proof and objections from the post-call extractions and won/lost notes so the narrative reflects what actually closes deals, not what marketing hopes closes them.
Make it always-loaded (Power Track): advanced teams can load value-prop.md as a reusable skill or /value command so every draft is checked against the narrative (see the Features tab).

watch out for

Proof, or it's not a claim. A value claim with no evidence is a wish — flag it and fix it before it reaches a rep who'll get caught making a number up on a call. The whole exercise is worthless if the proof is invented.
Every figure clears a fact-check. ROI math, customer outcomes, and named references must be true, current, and cleared for external use — a confident wrong number in your core narrative gets repeated by the whole team. Route anything regulated or competitive past the same review as published copy.
One owner, reviewed changes. This is a shared source of truth; if every rep edits it freely it drifts back into the fragmented mess it was meant to fix. Keep one owner, version changes, and re-run the playbook when the product or market genuinely shifts.
Marketing's messaging framework and this value narrative should agree — if Sales and Marketing tell two different value stories, the buyer hears two companies. Reconcile them deliberately, don't let them drift apart.

you'll end up with A one-page `value-prop.md` — the buyer's problem, value claims with proof, the cost of doing nothing, and the fit profile — that every other Sales playbook inherits, so the whole team sells one true, provable story.

Questions people ask

How is this different from Marketing's messaging framework?: They're close cousins and should agree. Marketing's messaging framework is the company-wide positioning house; this value narrative is the sales-floor version a rep sells from — the buyer's problem, the proof, the cost of inaction, and the ROI line, tuned for a live deal. Build this from your won/lost reality and reconcile it with Marketing so the buyer hears one company, not two.
What if I can't prove one of the value claims?: That's exactly what step two surfaces. Claude flags any claim with thin or missing evidence so you fix it — find the metric, the named customer, the ROI figure — or cut it. A claim with no proof is one a prospect or competitor can disprove on the call, so it's far better caught here than in front of a buyer.
Do I really need a written value narrative, or can reps just wing it?: Winging it is why every rep pitches a different value and the proof is whatever they half-remember. A one-page `value-prop.md` makes "why us" a concrete, provable thing the whole team — and Claude — pulls from. It's the file half the other Sales playbooks ask you to feed in, so building it once sharpens all of them.
Is it safe to put our win stories and ROI numbers into Claude?: Use proof that's cleared for external use, and keep anything under NDA, embargo, or with a customer's private details in a workspace your company has approved. The narrative itself is a sales asset meant to be shared — just make sure every reference and figure in it is one you're allowed to say out loud.