Mike Foley watched the full dry run on Monday, Sept 28, and said we're in great shape. This review checks his notes, and what we agreed in the debrief afterward, against the working copy of the deck as of today. It also flags what is still open before we're on stage.
The structure works and the delivery is close. Mike's asks were all about the seams: break the talk into three clearly marked sections, land each one with a one-line takeaway, and take words off the slides.
| Total run time | 16:44 vs 15:00 |
| Janine | about 2:05 |
| Aaron | about 2:40 |
| Megan | about 2:43 |
| Mark, Susan, Melissa | about 9:00 combined |
| Lost to "next slide" calls | about 1:00 |
Laps are from Megan's timer. It stopped lapping after her section, so the last three are combined. With clickers, the real gap to 15:00 is about 45 seconds.
Mike's asks and the debrief commitments, rechecked against the copy deck after today's edits. Slide numbers refer to the current 25-slide main deck. 14 of 15 are done.
| Ask | From | Status | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hide the run-of-show slide | Mike | Done | The copy opens on the title slide, and the date is on it. |
| Three sections with divider slides | Mike | Done | Slides 3, 10 and 18 use the gradient background so they stand apart, with the current section lit. Slide 3 lights all three for Janine's forecast. |
| Executive takeaway plus bridge question at each handoff | Mike | Done | New today. Megan's takeaway is in slide 9's notes, Susan's in slide 17's, and the handoff lines are in the notes on dividers 10 and 18. |
| Buy-in check after each section | Mike | Done | New today. Built into both takeaways: "Is that what you're seeing in your companies too?" (Megan) and "Could your teams run this?" (Susan). |
| "In closing" recap before the final line | Mike | Done | New today. The "In a Box" art on slide 24 now runs in talk order: Survey, Two Plays to Run, ROI Calculator. Melissa's "So in closing" line is in the notes. |
| Take words off the slides | Mike | Partly | Better today: Four Stages is down to 56 words (from 78), the Exchange success slide to 83, the "What the engine looks like" slide to 106. Still heavy: slides 12, 13, 15, 16 and 21. See Word diet. |
| Say "Enablement Engine" and "Knowledge Exchange," not "Process A/B" | Debrief | Done | The labels stay on the slides as eyebrows, as agreed. The talk-track guides use the names throughout, and the team has signed off on the notes as they stand. |
| Don't re-present the same stat | Debrief | Done | The 43% is gone from the Engine slide. Slide 14 is framed as a five-second reset ("if you recall"), which is what was agreed. |
| Susan's pillar slide should match her words | Debrief | Done | New today. Slide 16 is now "Three things it takes for the Exchange to succeed": Trust, Meet teams where they are, Keep it fresh, each with the question a user asks. The typos are gone. |
| Transformation loop: once to open section 2, once before the ROI | Debrief | Done | New today. The third copy is deleted. The loop is on slide 11 (Mark's opener) and slide 17 (Susan's wrap and takeaway). |
| Remove the 2026 Vision content and redesign the agenda slide | Debrief | Done | Replaced by the gradient divider slides. |
| Don't cite VisiQuate by name as a proof point | Debrief | Done | It's off the Exchange slides. On stage, say "a couple of our PortCos are already putting this in place." |
| Take out the "AI hyphens" | Debrief | Done | New today. The long dashes on slide 5's closing line and slide 9's chart label are gone. A shorter dash remains in both; swap it for a colon if you want them fully clean. |
| Talk track for every slide | Team | Done | New tonight. All 25 main slides have a "Talk track guide" in the speaker notes, under the existing notes: speaker, target time, and what to say, built from the run-through with Mike and his feedback. Targets add up to about 14:10. |
| Consistent headline case | Team | Done | New tonight. Headlines are in sentence case. Names keep their capitals: the AI Knowledge Exchange, the Engine, the stage names, and the talk title "From AI Experiment to AI Advantage." |
7 done, 1 open.
Melissa's script puts Appspace, StoreForce and VisiQuate on the Enablement Engine, but VisiQuate's card led with the Exchange, and ESO's card on the Exchange slide led with enablement.
Fix: VisiQuate's card on slide 21 now leads with "Formalize training with the Enablement Engine," so all three companies on the Enablement slide start with the Engine. ESO's first line on slide 22 now reads "Lead the Exchange with customer-facing plays," backed by its company read: best training coverage, lowest customer-conversation confidence, 71% say peers' work is hard to find. Melissa's talk tracks walk each card in the slides' words.
VisiQuate and ESO are still on template defaults ("not yet run"), and an orange banner says "Data to be updated." That's an easy question for a finance-minded partner.
Fix: Run both companies through the calculator, or drop the row and the banner and show four companies.
Megan and Susan both nailed theirs live, and Mike called them out. Under pressure, though, an unscripted takeaway turns into a summary.
Fix: Each takeaway is scripted in the speaker notes as one sentence, a buy-in question and a bridge question: Megan on slide 9, Susan on slide 17, Melissa's close on slide 24, with handoff lines on dividers 10 and 18.
The script, slide 8's notes and the recommendation slides each described the PortCos' stages differently.
Fix: The new 0/6 chart on slide 8 sets it: Kantata, ESO and Abrigo at 2→3, VisiQuate at 2, StoreForce and Appspace at 1→2. Megan's talk track says it the same way.
The slide said Governance, Workflow Integration, Continuous Reinforcement; Susan says trust, meet teams where they are, and keep it fresh.
Fix: Slide 16 now uses her three words, each with the question a user asks, and the typos are gone.
The plan was twice: to open section 2 and to wrap it before the ROI.
Fix: The middle copy is deleted. The loop is on slides 11 and 17 only.
Aaron's script runs inconsistent execution, duplicated effort, commercial risk, but the boxes showed only the stats.
Fix: The redesigned slide labels each stat with his point, and the friction pills are now a lollipop chart.
Old review text and outdated lines could surface if anyone reads from notes on the day.
Fix: Every main slide has a talk-track guide, and the team has signed off on the notes as they stand.
Mike's formula: one sentence that captures the section, a buy-in check if it fits, then the question the next section answers. Then the divider goes up for three seconds while you hand off. These drafts use your own words from the run-through, tightened. Status Oct 1: all three are now in the speaker notes (slides 9, 17 and 24).
"At the end of the day, our people want two things: one place to find the AI work that already works, and the skills to use it. Is that what you're seeing in your companies too? So the question becomes: how do we put that into action?"
Click to the divider (slide 10). "Mark's going to show you."
"At the end of the day, these two processes move a PortCo from Stage 1 to Stage 2, and from Stage 2 to Stage 3, on the tools our teams already use. Could your teams run this? So what is it worth?"
Click to the divider (slide 18). "Melissa's going to walk you through the ROI."
"So in closing: we showed you how our GTM teams are using AI today, the two processes that close the gap, and what that's worth to every PortCo. Let me leave you with this."
Click to slide 25 and pause. "AI adoption is already here. The advantage comes from honing and sharing it." Pause again before inviting questions. Mike asked for this line to land harder.
"So the answer isn't to slow adoption. It's to give adoption structure. Before we get to how, Megan's going to show you where each of our companies stands today."
Mike called this handoff out as a good one already. Keep it.
On-screen word counts from the working copy, including small labels, rechecked Oct 1. Aim for about 40 or fewer on content slides. Melissa's approach works: move the wordy version to the appendix, then strip the subtext from the stage version.
| Slide (current #) | Words then | Words now | What to cut |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13 · What the Engine looks like | 120 | 106 | Drop the description lines in the four modules. Keep the module names, times and play tags. |
| 12 · Enablement Engine staircase | 109 | 109 | Drop the five description lines, as Melissa did on her copy. The step names carry it. Keep or cut the metrics line. |
| 15 · Exchange, how it works | 91 | 91 | Drop the five description lines under the steps. The definition line and the step names are enough. |
| 16 · Exchange success (Susan's three) | 91 | 83 | Redesigned and matched to Susan's words. The questions do the work; cut the small descriptions under them if you need more room. Better |
| 21 · Recommendations 1 of 2 | 78 | 78 | The lead lines are enough. Drop the second line on each card or shorten it to 4 words. |
| 22 · Recommendations 2 of 2 | 70 | 70 | Same as 21. |
Numbers are the current deck. The repeat loop slide has been deleted, so slides after 13 moved up by one since the first version of this page.
| # | Slide | Working | To do |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Title and team | New title, "From AI Experiment to AI Advantage," with the date. Clean. | None. In Slides, use Mask image, then Oval, if you want round headshots. |
| 2 | "AI is infrastructure." | A big, bold single quote. Strong opener, and Mike liked it. | Talk track added. Done |
| 3 | Divider · forecast | All three sections lit for the preview. | Janine names all three in one breath, then hands to Aaron. |
| 4 | Survey at a glance | Four big numbers, no approach list. This is the trimmed version from the debrief. | None. |
| 5 | The paradox | 74% vs 43% at hero size; the 79% is gone. The long dash is gone. | Talk track added. Done |
| 6 | Operational chaos | Redesigned today (headline now sentence case). Each stat is labeled with Aaron's point; the friction points are a lollipop chart. | Done. Done |
| 7 | Four stages | Redesigned today. Editorial columns with Standardized as "the current target"; descriptions cut to one line. Headline now sentence case. | Talk track added. Done |
| 8 | Current maturity | Redesigned today. "0 / 6" with a maturity bar per PortCo against the Standardized line. Replaces the radar and the gray legend box. | Talk track scripts Megan's line to match the chart. VisiQuate at Stage 2 confirmed. Done |
| 9 | Ranked levers | The pivot of the deck: one color, with training in coral. Megan's takeaway is in the notes. | None. Done |
| 10 | Divider · section 2 | 02 lit. Handoff line to Mark in the notes. | Three seconds only. Done |
| 11 | Two processes that feed each other | A native, editable loop, and the new title works. | Talk track added for Mark's flywheel opener. Done |
| 12 | Enablement Engine (staircase) | The climb from Stage 1 to 2 is visual, in lime. | Drop the subtext to cut words. Talk track added. Partly |
| 13 | What the Engine looks like | A real, detailed example, which Foley rewards. Down to 106 words. | Talk track added. Still the heaviest slide: cut the module descriptions. Partly |
| Loop (repeat) | The third copy of the loop. | Deleted. Done | |
| 14 | The why (reset) | Bars against a halfway mark, plus a real respondent quote. | Keep to five seconds: "If you recall..." |
| 15 | Exchange · how it works | Pipeline with a loop-back. Clear. | Drop the step descriptions to cut words. Talk track added. Partly |
| 16 | Exchange success | Redesigned today in Susan's words: Trust, Meet teams where they are, Keep it fresh, each with a user's question. | Talk track added. Done |
| 17 | Loop (Susan's wrap) | Susan's takeaway and buy-in question are in the notes. | None. Done |
| 18 | Divider · section 3 | 03 lit. Handoff line to Melissa in the notes. | Three seconds only. Done |
| 19 | Four levers | Icons, no subtext. A good diet example. | Talk track added: Melissa's "think back to last year's graduation" story opens here. Done |
| 20 | Levers, worked numbers | Strong evidence, with honest defaults. | Talk track added, including the footnote to say out loud. Done |
| 21 | Recommendations 1 of 2 | Logos and stage tags read fast. | VisiQuate now leads with the Enablement Engine. Talk track walks each card. Done |
| 22 | Recommendations 2 of 2 | Same pattern as 21. | ESO now leads with the Exchange. Talk track matches the cards. Done |
| 23 | ROI per GTM seat | Native stacked bars. | Run VisiQuate and ESO, or drop the row and the banner (fix 2). Open |
| 24 | AI Adoption "in a box" | Updated today. Same 3D art, now in talk order: Survey, Plays, ROI. The close is in the notes. | Done. Done |
| 25 | Closing line | Mike's favorite. "A great closing slide." | Pause before and after the line. |
His theme for everyone: educate, don't just get through the data. The educating style is the most persuasive.
Very confident and clear. Slow down a touch. Get off the script: glance at a phrase, then talk to the room. Volunteer us to go first.
Loud and clear, with good rhetorical questions ("how did we identify which problems mattered most?"). Keep asking those; they slow the pace in a good way. Be a bit more conversational, and keep the strong takeaway and transition.
Very conversational, a great executive takeaway, and good eye contact with the camera. Tighten the takeaway to one sentence and add the buy-in question.
Very conversational, excellent. Say "as Aaron mentioned" instead of re-presenting the 43%.
Conversational, with a really nice educational style, which Mike wants everyone to lean into. Line the words on the slides up with the words in your talk track.
Excellent. Slow down a touch and lean into the powerful points. Let the closing quote breathe: "What we really want you to take away from this is..." then the line.
Questions are grouped by the section most likely to draw them. "Heavy hitter" means a skeptical partner could use it to knock over a claim. Answer the way Foley teaches: take a breath, make one claim, then prove it with one number or one example. The angles below use numbers from our own survey.
Why did you pick AI readiness for a GTM capstone?
Angle: It's the one change every PortCo is making at the same time, and nobody has a shared playbook for it yet. The survey let the portfolio tell us where to focus instead of guessing.
Appspace is 65 of the 168 responses. Isn't this really Appspace's survey?
Angle: Claim: the conclusion holds without them. Proof: the top value levers rank the same at every one of the six companies, and results are published by company so each PortCo can read its own slice. Hand to Megan if they push further.
Is a self-reported survey strong enough to build a program on?
Angle: It's a baseline, not a verdict. The value is that it's one instrument across six companies, so the comparisons are fair. The Engine uses the same survey as its recurring diagnostic, so the baseline improves every time we run it.
Who actually answered? Leaders or the front line?
Angle: Mostly the front line: 114 of 168 are individual contributors. That's deliberate, because they're the people running AI in the workflow every day.
What does the Jensen Huang quote have to do with a sales team?
Angle: "AI is infrastructure" means it belongs in how the work gets done, not in a side tab. The rest of the talk is what that takes for a GTM team: skills, shared plays, and a way to measure the return.
If 74% use AI daily, isn't adoption already a success?
Angle: Usage is a success. Consistency isn't. Only 16% of teams use standardized approaches, and the top friction is inconsistent output at 42%. Busy isn't the same as effective.
People can learn AI on their own. Why does formal training matter?
Angle: They are learning on their own, and that's the problem: 69% can't easily find what their peers built, so the same prompt gets rebuilt in every team. Use the ESO RevOps quote as your example.
How do you know 3.51 out of 5 is low? Compared to what?
Angle: Don't defend the number on its own. Pair it: people rate their understanding at 3.5 but use AI daily. They're confident enough to use it and not confident enough to trust it, which is why 61% name quality and accuracy as their top concern.
Isn't security the bigger risk?
Angle: The respondents ranked it second. 95 people named quality and accuracy, 49 named security. Governance is built into the Exchange either way.
How did you place each company on the maturity stages?
Angle: From each company's survey results: how standardized their teams are, how clear governance is, and how discoverable shared work is. It's directional, and the placement updates each time the survey is rerun.
Isn't this just AKKR's maturity model with new labels?
Angle: Built independently from the survey data (the group's Sept 3 call was to keep it separate). If they see the overlap, that's a good sign. Two views arrived at the same place.
Training ranked last. So are you telling us not to invest in training?
Angle: No. Training is how you deliver the shared assets, not the headline. That's why the Enablement Engine exists: every module is built on an approved play. People asked for playbooks, and the Engine is how they learn to use them.
Why is no one Standardized? Is that a failure?
Angle: It's the opportunity. It means the portfolio can move together, and the first PortCo across the line becomes the model for the rest.
Does 49% average top-three selection really count as strong demand?
Angle: The strength is how consistent it is, not how big. The same four levers hold the same order at all six companies, across very different business models. That rarely happens in a survey.
How much time does this ask of people?
Angle: It fits the budget people gave us: most said 1 to 4 hours a month. Modules are 20 minutes, one a week, reinforced in manager 1:1s. Time was the number one barrier (84 of 159), so we designed around it.
We've all rolled out training nobody finished. What makes this different?
Angle: Three things: it's embedded in onboarding and SKO rather than added on top, every module runs a real workflow on a live deal, and graduating means publishing a play, which gives people a reason to finish. Then tell the Abrigo task force story.
Who owns this? Enablement, RevOps, or IT?
Angle: The respondents were split: cross-functional team 57, sales enablement 53, IT 22. Recommend enablement as the owner, with a cross-functional group vetting the plays.
What do the badges actually get someone?
Angle: Recognition, and they create pull. Managers reinforce them in 1:1s, and the badge is what qualifies someone to contribute to the Exchange.
How do you prove it's working in 90 days?
Angle: Path completion by role, badges issued, plays contributed by graduates, and the change in confidence and consistency scores on the next survey.
Isn't this just a SharePoint folder or a Notion page?
Angle: The tool matters less than the process. It's tool-agnostic on purpose. What makes it work is screen, score, and approve before anything is published, so people trust what they find. A folder without vetting is how you get 69% who can't find anything.
Who vets the submissions, and doesn't that turn into a bottleneck?
Angle: Name an owner per function and keep scoring light. Governance is the first pillar because trust is the whole point. Keep the lane fast, or people go back to building in private.
Why would busy reps contribute anything?
Angle: Contributing is the graduation step in the Engine, managers reinforce it, and contributors get recognized. Tell the VisiQuate story as proof that it's already happening.
What about data security and prompts with customer data?
Angle: Approval includes a governance check. 79% of respondents already say they understand their company's AI policy, so the Exchange builds on rules they know.
How is this different from each vendor's own prompt library?
Angle: Those libraries are generic. Ours holds our plays, on our systems, already proven on our deals. The survey asked for team-specific playbooks (65%), not generic prompts.
Where do these ROI numbers come from? They look high.
Angle: Say it before they do: only the time-reclaimed lever uses Kantata's real inputs. The other three use shared illustrative defaults. The calculator exists so each PortCo can plug in its own numbers, and nobody has to take ours.
8.5x ROI and a 3.3-month payback. What's the catch?
Angle: Adoption. The model assumes people use it, which is exactly what the two processes are designed to drive. Offer to walk through the inputs live.
Why are VisiQuate and ESO not run yet?
Angle: Run them before we present, or drop the row. If it's still open: the inputs are pending, and we'll send updated numbers after the session.
Time saved doesn't pay the bills. Where does revenue show up?
Angle: Time reclaimed is the floor, and it pays for the program on its own. Revenue upside comes from win rate and ramp: getting new hires productive four weeks sooner is real pipeline.
What should a PortCo do first, Monday morning?
Angle: Run the survey. It tells you your stage, and your stage tells you whether to start with the Engine or the Exchange.
If we could fund only one of the two, which would it be?
Angle: Follow the sequencing rule: where training gaps are wide and governance clarity is low, start with the Engine; everywhere else, start with the Exchange. They compound, so the second one gets cheaper once the first is running.
Foley founded Clarity Central in 1996 and teaches this at Kellogg. The approach is Aristotle-based: state your case, then prove it. These are the tests applied to every slide.