EDO AI PLAYBOOK · 8 OF 15 · VERSION 1.0
By Andy Greiner
A pitch can sound persuasive to its authors because they already know the missing context. A prospect does not. This exercise gives different business functions permission to challenge the same claims, then turns the objections into an evidence plan.
What to bring
Current pitch and supporting sources; target project profile; decision criteria; known constraints; comparable locations when documented; the team’s actual ability to make commitments.
The prompt
Copy and paste this directly into your AI Assitant
Act as a structured review panel with finance, operations, workforce, logistics and site-selection perspectives. These are analytical lenses, not interviews with real executives. Start by extracting each factual claim, comparison, forecast and promise from the supplied pitch.
Create a claim register with source, date, scope, relevance to the project and status: supported, partly supported, unsupported or contradicted. Do not import invented competitor facts. Treat superlatives such as lowest-cost, best and fastest as claims requiring a defined comparison.
Have each perspective ask its five most consequential questions. Finance should test cost definitions and uncertain obligations; operations should test service reliability and schedule; workforce should test occupations and hiring assumptions; logistics should test actual routes and constraints; site selection should test evidence, site control and elimination criteria.
For each objection distinguish a presentation problem, an evidence gap and a real constraint. Rank by project consequence and state why. An evidence gap is not proof of a bad location; a better sentence cannot remove a real constraint.
Produce an objection matrix: original claim, skeptical question, available answer, missing evidence, verification owner and consequence if unresolved. Identify contradictions between parts of the pitch. Rewrite only those claims that the available evidence supports. Put unresolved material in a questions-to-resolve list rather than burying it in confident prose.
Conclude with a revised two-minute pitch, the three strongest defensible advantages and the three issues to disclose early. Preserve material limitations. Do not guarantee incentives, utility delivery dates, approvals or workforce availability. Keep an audit trail from each revised factual sentence to its source.
Human check
Ask a colleague outside the pitch team to challenge the revised version. Have partners approve statements attributed to their capabilities or commitments.
Follow-up prompt
Run a second review using only the revised pitch and verified evidence. Identify the objections that remain unanswered.
Do this Monday
Remove or substantiate the pitch’s strongest superlative.
Why I built this
For three years, part of my work while editing Area Development involved processing economic-development thought leadership: conference material, interviews, presentations and panels. That editorial experience informs the problems I choose to tackle here. These workflows are Location Decision’s practical tools, developed to help economic developers organize evidence, ask better questions and prepare stronger work.
Get the complete operating kit
Get all 15 copy-and-use AI workflows free with your Location Decision subscription. Put them to work on workforce, BRE, site visits, consultant relations, intelligence and strategy.
EDO AI PLAYBOOK · 8 OF 15 · VERSION 1.0
By Andy Greiner
A pitch can sound persuasive to its authors because they already know the missing context. A prospect does not. This exercise gives different business functions permission to challenge the same claims, then turns the objections into an evidence plan.
What to bring
Current pitch and supporting sources; target project profile; decision criteria; known constraints; comparable locations when documented; the team’s actual ability to make commitments.
The prompt
Copy and paste this directly into your AI Assitant
Act as a structured review panel with finance, operations, workforce, logistics and site-selection perspectives. These are analytical lenses, not interviews with real executives. Start by extracting each factual claim, comparison, forecast and promise from the supplied pitch.
Create a claim register with source, date, scope, relevance to the project and status: supported, partly supported, unsupported or contradicted. Do not import invented competitor facts. Treat superlatives such as lowest-cost, best and fastest as claims requiring a defined comparison.
Have each perspective ask its five most consequential questions. Finance should test cost definitions and uncertain obligations; operations should test service reliability and schedule; workforce should test occupations and hiring assumptions; logistics should test actual routes and constraints; site selection should test evidence, site control and elimination criteria.
For each objection distinguish a presentation problem, an evidence gap and a real constraint. Rank by project consequence and state why. An evidence gap is not proof of a bad location; a better sentence cannot remove a real constraint.
Produce an objection matrix: original claim, skeptical question, available answer, missing evidence, verification owner and consequence if unresolved. Identify contradictions between parts of the pitch. Rewrite only those claims that the available evidence supports. Put unresolved material in a questions-to-resolve list rather than burying it in confident prose.
Conclude with a revised two-minute pitch, the three strongest defensible advantages and the three issues to disclose early. Preserve material limitations. Do not guarantee incentives, utility delivery dates, approvals or workforce availability. Keep an audit trail from each revised factual sentence to its source.
Human check
Ask a colleague outside the pitch team to challenge the revised version. Have partners approve statements attributed to their capabilities or commitments.
Follow-up prompt
Run a second review using only the revised pitch and verified evidence. Identify the objections that remain unanswered.
Do this Monday
Remove or substantiate the pitch’s strongest superlative.
Why I built this
For three years, part of my work while editing Area Development involved processing economic-development thought leadership: conference material, interviews, presentations and panels. That editorial experience informs the problems I choose to tackle here. These workflows are Location Decision’s practical tools, developed to help economic developers organize evidence, ask better questions and prepare stronger work.
Get the complete operating kit
Get all 15 copy-and-use AI workflows free with your Location Decision subscription. Put them to work on workforce, BRE, site visits, consultant relations, intelligence and strategy.