DealAcme Robotics, approvals pilot
StagePilot, week three of four
OwnerDana Olabode
Updated2026-08-19
Internal. What Acme sees is the deck, poc-deck.html in this directory: the pilot objective, the agreed criteria and targets, and the plan. Targets are not restated here.
Company
- Acme Roboticshardware manufacturing. About 400 people, finance team of 14.
- Flux tenant slug
acme - CRM record name"Acme Robotics Inc". Render the account as Acme.
CRM state
Deal "Acme Robotics — approvals pilot", stage Pilot, owner Dana Olabode.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
monthly_volume | 420 |
current_process | shared sheet + email |
integration_target | NetLedger, self-hosted. Production release version unknown; connector built against 8.4 |
close_date | 2026-09-30, flagged for review 2026-08-17 (security review has not started) |
champion_confidence | high — rep's read, never overwrite |
People
| Identity | Who | Class |
|---|---|---|
| priya.raman@acme.example | Finance ops lead. Champion. Runs the pilot day to day, submits most requests herself, presents the handover | customer |
| tomas.eriksen@acme.example | Controller. Primary approver; decided 11 of the 13 requests routed to him in the week to 2026-08-14. Verifies the ERP write-back | customer |
| j.whitfield@acme.example | CFO. Economic buyer — not yet met. Added to the CRM 2026-08-17, invited to the handover. Zero product activity | customer |
| head of IT, unnamed | Owns the security review. Not yet introduced | customer |
| sam.oduya@flux.example | Flux SE, built the ERP connector | implementation |
Where the pilot stands
| Criterion | Where it stands |
|---|---|
| Approval latency | Met. 31-hour median reported by Priya at the 2026-08-14 review, against the four-day baseline she quoted at kickoff |
| Coverage | On track. 49 of 54 requests closed in Flux in the week to 2026-08-14 |
| ERP write-back | Not started on production. Everything so far ran against the sandbox |
| Handover | Scheduled, week four. Priya presents; the CFO is invited |
Open threads
| Thread | Owner | State |
|---|---|---|
| NetLedger production release version | Tomas | Committed 2026-08-14 for the next day. Connector built against 8.4; Tomas believes production is 8.1 or 8.2 |
| Connector field mapping | Sam | Within a day of the version landing. If the release is 8.1 the mapping differs |
| Delegation rule, so a backup approver can be exercised | Sam | Config change, not a build. Promised to Priya for 2026-08-15 |
| A CFO slot before the handover | Priya | Asked 2026-08-14. "Late next week", no date given |
| Vendor onboarding | — | Out of pilot scope on purpose. Revisit after the handover |
Security review
Statusnot started · Packet sent: 2026-08-15 · Reviewer: not yet assigned · Expected duration: about six weeks, per Tomas
| Packet item | Owner | State |
|---|---|---|
| Data-handling summary | Sam Oduya | sent 2026-08-15 |
| SOC 2 Type II report | Sam Oduya | sent 2026-08-15 |
| Subprocessor list | Sam Oduya | sent 2026-08-15 |
| Penetration test summary, most recent | Sam Oduya | available on request |
| Architecture note, ERP connector | Sam Oduya | not written |
Acme side:
- Tomas hands the packet to their head of IT. Name not yet given.
- No security questionnaire received so far. Their last vendor review used one, so expect it.
- Acme hosts NetLedger themselves. The connector runs outbound only, which is the point most likely to need an architecture note.
Outstanding:
- Get the head of IT named and introduced.
- Write the connector architecture note before it is asked for.
- Ask whether the review can start before the pilot ends. Serial rather than parallel is what puts the close date at risk.
History
- 2026-08-17Post-call run on the midpoint review: four CRM updates proposed, all approved by Tilo —
integration_target, James Whitfield as a new contact,close_dateflagged for review,champion_confidenceleft alone as a rep field. - 2026-08-15Security packet sent to Tomas.
- 2026-08-14Pilot midpoint review. Latency criterion met. Production ERP write-back unverified. Security review not started, and about six weeks long. CFO named as a handover attendee for the first time.
- 2026-08-03Scope agreed in writing. Three workstreams; vendor onboarding and expenses explicitly out. The sheet keeps running in parallel.
- 2026-07-27Workflow configured, first 12 requests routed.
- 2026-07-24Kickoff. Capex chosen as the pilot workflow over expenses.
The read
- The CFO has never been in a room with usDeal is mid-Pilot; per deal-stages this is the gap most likely to cost a quarter. Every brief until it is fixed.
- Security review is the largest risk on the dealClose date is 2026-09-30, the review runs about six weeks here, and it has not begun. Priya thought it was "a form". Acme will not chase it; Flux drives it or it sits.
- Single-approver concentrationIf Tomas is out, the latency number goes with him. The delegation rule exists to be exercised, not just configured.
- The ERP is behind the release the connector was built for. Until Sam has the version, the integration criterion is a guess rather than a risk.
- Expansion, held back on purposePriya says people are asking for vendor onboarding, which annoys them more than capex does. After the handover, not during — widening the test while the ERP check is open trades a result for a wish list.
- Usage readComes from the product signal, per product-health. Not restated here, and never in client-facing material.