--- # === IDENTITY === id: consulting/recipes/gtm-roadmap-assembly/2026 canonical_question: "How do you assemble a unified GTM plan from signal library, friction gates, committee maps, and counterfactual templates?" aliases: - "Rorschach GTM roadmap assembly" - "consulting go-to-market plan 90-day milestones" - "advisory retainer scoping $3K/month" - "unified GTM plan from Rorschach components" entity_type: execution_recipe domain: consulting > recipes > GTM Roadmap Assembly region: global jurisdiction: global temporal_scope: 2026-2027 # === VERIFICATION === last_verified: 2026-03-30 confidence: 0.85 version: 1.0 first_published: 2026-03-30 # === TEMPORAL VALIDITY === temporal_validity: status: evolving last_breaking_change: "Initial release — Rorschach GTM Module 8 deliverable assembly" next_review: 2026-09-26 change_sensitivity: high # === CONSTRAINTS === constraints: - "All four component libraries must be complete before assembly — partial integration produces inconsistent GTM plans" - "90-day milestones must be specific and measurable — 'improve pipeline' is not a milestone, '12 qualified opportunities generated' is" - "Every milestone must have a single named owner — shared ownership means no ownership" - "Advisory retainer must be scoped to deliverables, not hours — hourly billing misaligns incentives with client outcomes" - "Success metrics must be leading indicators (pipeline velocity, qualification rate) not lagging indicators (revenue) for 90-day horizons" # === SKIP CONDITIONS === skip_this_unit_if: - condition: "User needs to design friction gates first" use_instead: "consulting/recipes/friction-gate-design-exercise/2026" - condition: "User needs to build counterfactual scenarios first" use_instead: "consulting/recipes/counterfactual-scenario-workshop/2026" - condition: "User needs the signal stack theory, not GTM execution" use_instead: "consulting/rorschach-gtm/rorschach-meets-signal-stack/2026" # === AGENT HINTS === inputs_needed: - key: components_ready question: "Which Rorschach GTM components are complete?" type: choice options: ["all four (signal library + friction gates + committee maps + counterfactuals)", "three of four", "two of four", "none yet — need to build components first"] - key: team_size question: "How many people will execute the GTM plan?" type: choice options: ["solo consultant", "2-3 person team", "4-6 person team", "7+ person team"] - key: target_revenue question: "What is the 90-day revenue target?" type: choice options: ["$25K-$50K", "$50K-$100K", "$100K-$250K", "$250K+"] - key: retainer_interest question: "Is an ongoing advisory retainer part of the model?" type: choice options: ["yes — primary revenue model", "yes — secondary to project work", "no — project-only model", "undecided"] # === EXECUTION METADATA === execution: required_inputs: - name: "Signal Library" source: "Module 2 output" format: "document + database" - name: "Friction Gate Blueprint" source: "Module 4 output (friction-gate-design-exercise)" format: "document + prototypes" - name: "Committee Maps" source: "Module 5 output" format: "document + visualization" - name: "Counterfactual Scenario Package" source: "Module 6 output (counterfactual-scenario-workshop)" format: "document + spreadsheet" outputs: - name: "Unified GTM Roadmap" format: "document (Notion/Google Docs) + spreadsheet" description: "90-day GTM plan with milestones, owners, metrics, and integrated component deployment schedule" - name: "Advisory Retainer Proposal" format: "document" description: "Scoped retainer offering at $3K/month with deliverables, SLA, and success metrics" - name: "Success Metrics Dashboard" format: "spreadsheet or dashboard" description: "Leading indicator tracker: pipeline velocity, qualification rate, counterfactual engagement rate" tools_required: - name: "Project Management Tool" purpose: "Milestone tracking and owner accountability" tier: "free" cost: "$0" alternatives: ["Notion", "Asana", "Linear", "Google Sheets"] - name: "CRM" purpose: "Pipeline tracking and conversion metrics" tier: "varies" cost: "$0-$100/month" alternatives: ["HubSpot Free", "Pipedrive", "Attio", "Google Sheets"] - name: "Document Tool" purpose: "GTM roadmap and retainer proposal authoring" tier: "free" cost: "$0" alternatives: ["Google Docs", "Notion", "Markdown"] credentials_needed: [] estimated_duration: "4-6 hours (assembly) + 1-2 hours (retainer scoping)" estimated_cost: "$0 (tools) + consultant time" # === DISTRIBUTION === canonical_source: "https://knowledgelib.io/consulting/recipes/gtm-roadmap-assembly/2026" suggested_citation: "Source: knowledgelib.io — AI Knowledge Library (verified 2026-03-30)" # === RELATED UNITS === related_kos: depends_on: - id: "consulting/recipes/friction-gate-design-exercise/2026" label: "Friction gate designs — Module 4 output" - id: "consulting/recipes/counterfactual-scenario-workshop/2026" label: "Counterfactual scenarios — Module 6 output" - id: "consulting/rorschach-gtm/rorschach-meets-signal-stack/2026" label: "Signal Stack integration — Module 2 theory" feeds_into: [] related_to: - id: "consulting/rorschach-gtm/friction-meets-compliance-moat/2026" label: "Costly signaling principles informing retainer pricing" # === SOURCES === sources: - id: src1 title: "The Challenger Sale" author: Dixon, M. & Adamson, B. url: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/304913/the-challenger-sale-by-matthew-dixon-and-brent-adamson/ type: primary_research published: 2011-11-10 reliability: high - id: src2 title: "Predictable Revenue" author: Ross, A. & Tyler, M. url: https://predictablerevenue.com/book type: primary_research published: 2011-08-01 reliability: high - id: src3 title: "Measure What Matters" author: Doerr, J. url: https://www.whatmatters.com/the-book type: primary_research published: 2018-04-24 reliability: high - id: src4 title: "Performance-based contracting" author: Hypko, P. et al. url: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019850109001679 type: academic_paper published: 2010-01-01 reliability: high - id: src5 title: "Crossing the Chasm" author: Moore, G. url: https://www.harpercollins.com/products/crossing-the-chasm-3rd-edition-geoffrey-a-moore type: primary_research published: 2014-01-28 reliability: high --- # GTM Roadmap Assembly ## Purpose This recipe executes Module 8 of the Rorschach GTM curriculum: assembling all prior module outputs — signal library, friction gates, committee maps, and counterfactual templates — into a unified go-to-market plan with 90-day milestones, named owner accountability, leading-indicator success metrics, and a scoped advisory retainer at $3K/month. This is the capstone deliverable that transforms individual GTM components into an executable system. [src1, src2] ## Prerequisites - [ ] **Signal Library complete** — documented exhaust fume signals with detection triggers and response protocols (Module 2) - [ ] **Friction Gate Blueprint complete** — designed and prototyped friction gates with filter rate projections (Module 4) - [ ] **Committee Maps complete** — buying committee structures mapped for target accounts with influence pathways (Module 5) - [ ] **Counterfactual Scenario Package complete** — personalized failure simulations, mock incident reports, and entropy trajectories for 3 target accounts (Module 6) - [ ] **CRM access** — pipeline tracking capability, even if just a spreadsheet ## Constraints - All four component libraries must be complete before assembly. Integrating partial components produces a plan that looks complete but has structural holes — the consulting equivalent of Swiss Cheese. [src1] - 90-day milestones must be specific, measurable, and have a single named owner. "Improve pipeline" is not a milestone. "Generate 12 qualified opportunities via friction gate deployment by Day 60" is. [src3] - Success metrics must be leading indicators measurable within 90 days. Revenue is a lagging indicator — use pipeline velocity, qualification rate, friction gate completion rate, and counterfactual engagement rate instead. [src2] - Advisory retainer is scoped to deliverables, not hours. Hourly billing creates perverse incentives (client minimizes hours consumed rather than maximizing value extracted). Deliverable-based retainers align consultant and client incentives. [src4] - The retainer price of $3K/month is calibrated for solo consultants targeting mid-market clients. Adjust upward for enterprise ($5K-$10K/month) or downward for SMB ($1.5K-$2K/month). ## Tool Selection Decision ``` Which GTM model? ├── Solo consultant targeting 3-5 deals/quarter │ └── PATH A: Lean GTM — manual integration, spreadsheet tracking, $3K retainer ├── Small team (2-3) targeting 5-10 deals/quarter │ └── PATH B: Structured GTM — CRM integration, shared dashboards, tiered retainer ├── Full team (4+) targeting 10+ deals/quarter │ └── PATH C: Scaled GTM — automated signal detection, CRM workflows, account teams └── Solo consultant exploring retainer-only model └── PATH D: Retainer-First GTM — retainer as primary offering, project work secondary ``` | Path | Team Size | Revenue Target (90 days) | Retainer Price | Tooling Cost | |------|-----------|-------------------------|----------------|-------------| | A: Lean GTM | 1 person | $25K-$75K | $3K/month | $0-$50/month | | B: Structured GTM | 2-3 people | $75K-$200K | $3K-$5K/month | $50-$200/month | | C: Scaled GTM | 4+ people | $200K+ | $5K-$10K/month | $200-$500/month | | D: Retainer-First | 1 person | $36K-$60K (retainer revenue) | $3K-$5K/month | $0-$50/month | ## Execution Flow ### Step 1: Component Integration Audit **Duration**: 60 minutes **Tool**: Checklist + document review Audit all four component libraries for completeness and internal consistency: - **Signal Library**: Are detection triggers specific enough to automate or semi-automate? Does each signal have a clear response protocol? - **Friction Gates**: Are filter rate projections backed by data? Does each gate deliver standalone value? - **Committee Maps**: Are influence pathways documented for each target account? Are hidden decision-makers identified? - **Counterfactual Templates**: Are scenarios account-specific (not generic)? Are mock incident reports labeled as simulations? Cross-check for integration gaps: Does each signal have a corresponding friction gate? Does each committee map have a corresponding counterfactual? Do friction gates align with committee structures (e.g., multi-stakeholder gate matches multi-person buying committee)? **Verify**: All four components pass audit with no critical gaps. Integration points mapped. **If failed**: Identify missing components and complete them before proceeding. Partial assembly produces unusable plans. ### Step 2: Build 90-Day Milestone Framework **Duration**: 90 minutes **Tool**: Project management tool or structured document Define 90-day milestones using the OKR framework [src3] adapted for GTM execution: **Days 1-30: Foundation** - Deploy friction gates (diagnostic tool live, operational calculator live, multi-stakeholder workshop template ready) - Activate signal detection for top 10 exhaust fume signals - Complete committee mapping for 3 priority target accounts - Milestone owner: [Name] - Key result: Friction gates operational, first 5 prospects entering gate funnel **Days 31-60: Activation** - Deliver personalized counterfactual scenarios to 3-5 qualified prospects (post-friction-gate) - Run first multi-stakeholder workshops with 2+ target accounts - Calibrate friction gate filter rates against actual data (target: 80% filter, 5x conversion) - Milestone owner: [Name] - Key result: 8-12 qualified opportunities in pipeline, 2+ proposals delivered **Days 61-90: Conversion + Retainer** - Close 2-3 initial engagements from qualified pipeline - Transition 1-2 completed engagements to advisory retainer - Measure and report: actual filter rate, qualified conversion rate, pipeline velocity, retainer conversion rate - Milestone owner: [Name] - Key result: $25K-$75K revenue closed, 1+ retainer signed at $3K/month **Verify**: Every milestone has a specific key result, a named owner, and a measurable metric. No milestone spans more than 30 days. **If failed**: If milestones are too vague, apply the "would a stranger know if this was achieved?" test. If not, make it more specific. ### Step 3: Assign Owner Accountability **Duration**: 30 minutes **Tool**: RACI matrix (spreadsheet) For each milestone and sub-task, assign a single owner using RACI: - **R (Responsible)**: Single person who does the work — one person only, never shared - **A (Accountable)**: Person who approves/reviews — typically the engagement lead - **C (Consulted)**: People whose input is needed before action - **I (Informed)**: People who need to know after action is taken For solo consultants: R and A are the same person. C and I may include clients, partners, or virtual assistants. **Verify**: Every task has exactly one R. No task has multiple R assignments. [src3] **If failed**: If a task "needs" two owners, split it into two tasks. ### Step 4: Define Success Metrics Dashboard **Duration**: 45 minutes **Tool**: Spreadsheet or dashboard tool Build a leading-indicator dashboard with weekly tracking: | Metric | Week 1-4 Target | Week 5-8 Target | Week 9-12 Target | Source | |--------|----------------|-----------------|-------------------|--------| | Signal detections (exhaust fumes identified) | 10-15 | 15-25 | 20-30 | Signal library alerts | | Friction gate entries (prospects entering) | 5-8 | 8-15 | 10-20 | Form/tool analytics | | Friction gate completions (prospects passing) | 1-2 | 2-4 | 3-5 | Form/tool analytics | | Filter rate (% filtered out) | Calibrating | 70-85% | 75-85% | Calculated | | Qualified opportunities generated | 2-4 | 4-8 | 6-12 | CRM | | Counterfactual deliveries | 0-1 | 2-3 | 3-5 | Outreach tracking | | Proposals delivered | 0-1 | 1-3 | 2-4 | CRM | | Retainer conversations initiated | 0 | 1-2 | 2-3 | CRM | **Verify**: Every metric is measurable from existing tools (no new infrastructure required). Dashboard is updated weekly. [src2] **If failed**: If a metric cannot be measured with current tools, either add a simple tracking mechanism or replace with a measurable proxy. ### Step 5: Scope Advisory Retainer **Duration**: 60 minutes **Tool**: Proposal template Design the advisory retainer offering at $3K/month (adjust for market segment) with: **Retainer deliverables (monthly)**: - Signal monitoring report: ongoing exhaust fume detection with recommended responses - Friction gate performance analysis: filter rates, conversion metrics, optimization recommendations - Committee map updates: changes in buying committee structures for active accounts - 2 hours of strategic advisory calls (scheduled, not ad-hoc) - Quarterly counterfactual refresh: updated entropy trajectories for active accounts **Retainer SLA**: - Response time: 24 hours for questions, 48 hours for analysis requests - Monthly report delivered by 5th business day of following month - Quarterly business review (60 minutes) included **Retainer pricing rationale** [src4]: - $3K/month = $36K/year — positioned as <10% of the value delivered (minimum value: one additional closed deal per quarter = $50K+ annual impact) - Deliverable-based, not hourly — client gets the outputs regardless of hours consumed - 3-month minimum commitment with monthly renewal thereafter - Onboarding month includes initial signal library setup + friction gate deployment (may require additional one-time fee of $5K-$10K) **Verify**: Retainer proposal passes the "would I buy this?" test. Value delivered exceeds price by minimum 3x. **If failed**: If value proposition is unclear, add a concrete ROI calculation using the client's actual pipeline metrics. ### Step 6: Assemble Final GTM Document **Duration**: 60 minutes **Tool**: Document tool (Google Docs, Notion, or Markdown) Compile the unified GTM roadmap document integrating all outputs: 1. **Executive Summary**: One-page overview of the 90-day GTM strategy, target outcomes, and investment required 2. **Component Library References**: Links/references to signal library, friction gate blueprints, committee maps, counterfactual packages 3. **90-Day Milestone Plan**: Full milestone framework with dates, owners, and key results 4. **Success Metrics Dashboard**: Embedded or linked weekly tracking dashboard 5. **Advisory Retainer Proposal**: Standalone section or separate document for client-facing use 6. **Risk Register**: Top 5 risks to the 90-day plan with mitigation strategies **Verify**: Document is complete, internally consistent, and actionable. A new team member could execute from this document alone. **If failed**: If the document requires verbal explanation to be understood, rewrite for clarity. The document should stand alone. [src5] ## Output Schema ```json { "output_type": "gtm_roadmap", "format": "document + spreadsheet + proposal", "sections": [ {"name": "component_integration_audit", "type": "object", "description": "Audit results for all 4 component libraries with integration gap analysis", "required": true}, {"name": "ninety_day_milestones", "type": "array", "description": "3 milestone blocks (30/60/90 days) with key results and named owners", "required": true}, {"name": "raci_matrix", "type": "object", "description": "Owner accountability matrix for all milestones and sub-tasks", "required": true}, {"name": "success_metrics_dashboard", "type": "object", "description": "Weekly leading-indicator tracker with targets per phase", "required": true}, {"name": "advisory_retainer_proposal", "type": "object", "description": "$3K/month retainer with deliverables, SLA, and pricing rationale", "required": true}, {"name": "unified_gtm_document", "type": "object", "description": "Final assembled GTM roadmap with executive summary and risk register", "required": true} ], "expected_sections": "6", "sort_order": "execution sequence" } ``` ## Quality Benchmarks | Quality Metric | Minimum Acceptable | Good | Excellent | |---------------|-------------------|------|-----------| | Milestone specificity (stranger could verify achievement) | > 60% of milestones | > 80% | 100% | | Owner accountability (every task has single R) | > 80% of tasks | > 95% | 100% | | Metric measurability (can be tracked with current tools) | > 70% of metrics | > 85% | 100% | | Retainer value-to-price ratio | > 2x | > 3x | > 5x | | Document standalone clarity (executable without verbal explanation) | Mostly clear | Clear | Fully standalone | **If below minimum**: Iterate on the weakest section. Most common failure: vague milestones. Apply the "would a stranger know if this was achieved?" test. ## Error Handling | Error | Likely Cause | Recovery Action | |-------|-------------|----------------| | Components incomplete — missing one or more libraries | Workshop modules skipped or partially completed | Complete missing module before assembly — do not assemble from partial components | | Milestones are vague ("improve pipeline") | Lack of current baseline metrics | Establish baseline metrics first: current inquiry volume, qualification rate, close rate, deal size | | No single owner for milestones | Team avoids accountability assignment | Force single-owner constraint: split shared tasks into individual tasks | | Retainer price objection anticipated | Value proposition not concrete enough | Add ROI calculation using prospect's actual pipeline metrics and close rates | | 90-day timeline unrealistic | Signal library or friction gates require more build time | Extend to 120-day plan or reduce scope of first phase to "foundation only" | ## Cost Breakdown | Component | Solo Consultant | Small Team (2-3) | Full Team (4+) | |-----------|----------------|-------------------|----------------| | Component integration audit | 1 hour | 1.5 hours | 2 hours | | 90-day milestone framework | 1.5 hours | 2 hours | 3 hours | | Owner accountability (RACI) | 0.5 hours | 1 hour | 1.5 hours | | Success metrics dashboard | 0.75 hours | 1 hour | 1.5 hours | | Advisory retainer scoping | 1 hour | 1.5 hours | 2 hours | | Final document assembly | 1 hour | 1.5 hours | 2 hours | | **Total assembly time** | **5.75-6 hours** | **8.5-9 hours** | **12-13 hours** | | **Ongoing tool costs** | **$0-$50/month** | **$50-$200/month** | **$200-$500/month** | ## Anti-Patterns ### Wrong: Assembling the roadmap before all components are complete Rushing to produce the GTM document with placeholder sections for incomplete components. Result: plan has structural holes that only become apparent during execution, requiring costly mid-stream redesign. [src1] ### Correct: Complete all four component libraries before assembly The integration step requires all components because cross-references between them (signal triggers friction gate, friction gate routes to committee map, committee map selects counterfactual) cannot be validated with missing pieces. ### Wrong: Setting milestones as activities rather than outcomes "Run 10 outreach campaigns" is an activity. "Generate 12 qualified opportunities" is an outcome. Activity-based milestones reward busywork, not results. [src3] ### Correct: Define every milestone as a measurable outcome Use the OKR framework: Objective (qualitative direction) + Key Result (quantitative measurement). If the key result cannot be measured with existing tools, either add tracking or choose a different metric. ### Wrong: Pricing the advisory retainer by the hour $3K/month divided by expected hours creates an implicit hourly rate that clients will benchmark against freelancer rates. Result: price pressure, scope creep ("I'm paying for 10 hours, I want 10 hours"), and misaligned incentives. [src4] ### Correct: Price the retainer by deliverables $3K/month buys: monthly signal report, friction gate analysis, committee map updates, 2 advisory calls, quarterly counterfactual refresh. The client pays for outputs, not inputs. If the consultant becomes more efficient, they keep the margin — this rewards expertise. ## When This Matters Use when a consultant has completed the Rorschach GTM curriculum modules (signal library, friction gates, committee maps, counterfactual scenarios) and needs to integrate them into an executable 90-day GTM plan with a scoped advisory retainer. This is the capstone exercise — Module 8 — that transforms individual components into a unified system. Requires all four component libraries as inputs. ## Related Units - [Friction Gate Design Exercise](/consulting/recipes/friction-gate-design-exercise/2026) - [Counterfactual Scenario Workshop](/consulting/recipes/counterfactual-scenario-workshop/2026) - [Rorschach Meets Signal Stack](/consulting/rorschach-gtm/rorschach-meets-signal-stack/2026) - [Friction Meets Compliance Moat](/consulting/rorschach-gtm/friction-meets-compliance-moat/2026)