Prospecting DisciplineForty names, two hours, a call block at eleven: does your research make the calls better or just later?
Twenty situational-judgement scenarios on the work before the pipeline exists: research depth, follow-up cadence, list hygiene and the trade between one good email and a hundred fast ones. Weighted partial credit, four competencies, a banded report with a growth plan.
Every prospecting decision has a defensible second-best
You are opening a new vertical with forty names and two hours before the dial block starts; you left a voicemail Monday and emailed Tuesday and it is now Wednesday morning; your manager's dial floor is sixty a day but your connect quality falls off after forty; twenty of your sixty open opportunities have had no buyer activity for a quarter. The 20 scenarios are the ordinary Tuesday of a business development role, and each offers four things a real seller might do — profile the five biggest names deeply, find one checkable fact per account, call them all cold, or paste a market paragraph into every record.
Options are scored on a 0–3 gradient rather than right or wrong, because most prospecting decisions have a defensible second-best and the report should show how far from best you land. Each option has a written reason for its score. Options that fabricate a premise, evade an opt-out or misrepresent how contact data was obtained score zero whatever they would yield. The bank is original, company names are fictional, and no branded prospecting or outreach methodology is named or implied.
A percentage tells you that you got 14 of 20. The report tells you that your Research Quality is Strong while your Outreach Cadence Judgement is Developing — that you know what to look up but not when to stop following up — and then builds a growth plan from the lowest of the four competencies. Every scenario is reviewed afterwards with the reason each option scored what it did, so the 30 minutes teach as well as measure.
What you walk away with
A 0–100 score with a band (Emerging, Developing, Strong or Exceptional) and a 70 per cent pass mark, so a hiring manager sees at a glance whether a candidate's prospecting judgement is at the standard the role needs, before the first coaching conversation.
Research Quality, Outreach Cadence Judgement, List and Data Hygiene and Personalisation versus Volume each get a banded bar with a coaching interpretation — what a Developing band on cadence looks like in a real week and what to change first.
An AI-personalised narrative built from your own answer pattern names what you already do well and where your instinct misleads you, such as over-researching the large accounts while the mid-size list goes cold.
The plan starts from your lowest competency and gives concrete steps. Each of the 20 scenarios is then reviewed with the reasoning behind every option's score, so you can see the exact moment a good instinct became the second-best choice.
What comes back
Illustrative sample — your report is generated from your own responses.
One number, one band, and a two-sentence summary of what the band means for you — then the breakdown that explains it.
Band edges at 40, 60 and 80. Each band carries its own coaching interpretation for that competency.
Assembled from your lowest competencies, in order — not a generic checklist.
Built for
- Business development representatives and inside sales staff who build their own lists
- Field salespeople opening a new territory or vertical from a cold start
- Hiring managers screening candidates for outbound roles before the interview
- Sellers whose pipeline is thin and who want to know whether the problem is research, cadence or volume
A pipeline built on bad prospecting looks fine for a quarter, then it does not.
Twenty scenarios in 30 minutes, with a banded four-competency report and a growth plan delivered the moment you finish.
Take free · full report ₹299 (incl. GST)
Frequently asked questions
It measures the judgement a seller uses before a pipeline exists: how much research an account is worth, when to follow up and when to stop, whether a territory list is kept honest, and when to write one good message rather than a hundred fast ones. Four competencies are scored across 20 scenarios. It is written for business development representatives, inside sales and field sellers who build their own lists, and for the managers hiring them.
Each scenario has four options scored on a 0–3 gradient with a written reason for every score, so a near-best choice earns partial credit and the report shows how far from best you landed. Options are length-matched and the best answer moves position, so there is no pattern to spot. Options that fabricate a premise, evade an opt-out or misrepresent how contact data was obtained score zero regardless of yield.
Thirty minutes for 20 scenarios in one sitting. You receive the full report immediately: an overall score with band against a 70 per cent pass mark, four banded competencies with coaching interpretations, an AI-personalised narrative of strengths and development areas, a growth plan built from your lowest competency, and a review of every scenario with the reasoning behind each option. There is nothing further to unlock.
Ask the candidate about the competency that came back lowest. If Outreach Cadence Judgement is Developing, ask how they decided when to stop chasing a silent contact last quarter; the report gives you the specific scenarios to reference. For development, the growth plan becomes the first month's coaching agenda. A retake after a quarter of coaching shows whether the band has moved.
Yes. Company and person names are fictional, the industry context is generic and the scenarios are country-neutral, so a business development representative in Bengaluru, Singapore or Leeds faces the same judgements. The two items that touch on contact-data consent are keyed to the conservative reading that holds in every major jurisdiction. It is priced in INR and USD, with the live price shown on this page.
Foundation, core selling, specialist and sales-leadership bands — every one an original situational-judgement bank with weighted partial credit, a stated reason for every option, and ethics scored to zero on a mis-sell. Hire with the band that matches the role, or develop with the one that matches the gap.
See every sales assessment →Methodology: Original AssessAll situational-judgement item bank for prospecting and business development roles, authored to the AssessAll Scientific Item-Authoring Standard: graded partial-credit keys on a 0-3 gradient, misconception-anchored distractors drawn from the habits that make outreach fail, and a rationale for every option rather than only the key. Options that fabricate a premise, evade an opt-out or misrepresent how contact data was obtained score zero regardless of their short-term yield. Company and person names are fictional; scenarios are country-neutral. No branded sales methodology is referenced or implied. Not affiliated with or derived from any third-party instrument.