Sales opportunity close plan review for evidence-based timing

Start this close plan timing workflow when a new request, changed record, meeting event, or policy queue creates an item. The coordinator may collect buyer-confirmed dates, dependency owners, mutual action notes, approval gates, and forecast history and describe what the records show. The opportunity owner decides questions of authority, ownership, customer meaning, and policy interpretation.

Use a passing case and a stopped case to teach the boundary. In a passing case, mutual action and commitment have identifiable sources and the permitted action is administrative. In a stopped case, an internal target has no current customer confirmation; preserve the governed value and write the unresolved question for the opportunity owner.

Open the packet with the received timestamp, record key, request wording, and source locations. For close plan timing, place buyer-confirmed dates, dependency owners, mutual action notes, approval gates, and forecast history in an order that lets the checker distinguish dependency from forecast. Preserve original attachments or links instead of paraphrasing away the qualifying detail.

Lay milestone dates against dependency owners and the latest customer commitment, then label each as confirmed, internal, blocked, or stale. Treat an unverified launch gate as a question, not a forecast input.

Compare the customer commitment with each milestone and dependency, then record whether the plan can be treated as current.

The stop condition for this route is simple: an internal target has no current customer confirmation. When it occurs, label the item blocked, preserve critical path, and send one focused question to the opportunity owner. Do not close the queue item merely because a plausible answer is available from memory.

Use read-only plan views for milestones and dependencies; keep forecast editing, customer commitments, and launch-gate decisions with the opportunity owner.

Capture the prior milestone, proposed date, dependency source, rule reference, reviewer, and forecast consequence before any plan change.

Sample one ordinary close plan timing case, one missing-source case, one conflict, and one handoff. A second checker should reproduce the result from mutual action, commitment, and dependency. Track whether disagreement came from a missing definition, an unavailable source, or an unauthorized request.

Review missing milestone evidence, dependency conflicts, and stale commitments separately; revise the procedure only when the opportunity owner confirms a reusable rule.

Close-plan handoff: attach the milestone ledger, dependency exceptions, customer-confirmation notes, and owner question so forecast context stays auditable.

For this close plan timing route, close accepted work by recording mutual action, commitment, the rule version, and the reviewer. Close stopped work by retaining dependency, naming the opportunity owner, and dating the follow-up. This keeps milestone evidence useful for audit and future procedure changes without turning forecast into an invented business conclusion.

Route-specific scenario: begin with mutual action and commitment, then test whether dependency is supported by the source before interpreting forecast. If critical path is missing, preserve launch gate and mark signature as unresolved. The opportunity owner should receive the exact question, the relevant handoff, and the proposed administrative next step. This sequence keeps close plan timing grounded in its own record rather than borrowing a conclusion from another queue.