Expectation-gap surfacer
Tests stated client expectations against what the engagement form can realistically deliver, naming the gaps — over-promised outcomes, control the advisor won't hold — so they can be resolved before signing.
In / outStated expectations + engagement model constraints → named expectation gaps with honest reframe for each
You might say…
“They expected me to 'fix the culture'. I named the gap: I can surface what's sustaining it, but only the CEO can change it. That conversation saved us both.”
What it does
Tests stated client expectations against what advisory work can realistically deliver, naming the gaps (over-promised outcomes, control the advisor won't hold) so they can be resolved up front. Used when client hopes risk outrunning what the engagement form can produce.
Trigger: Use when client hopes risk outrunning what the engagement form can produce — especially when the client uses language like 'transform', 'turn around', or 'fix'.
Recognise the problem?
The primitives are the commodity part. The fastest next step is a conversation about composing them into something that works for you.
Start a conversation