Delta Arc
Purpose
This worksheet helps teams decide whether an observed event is noise, a useful signal, a qualified demand pattern, or an action-ready opportunity.
It is not a scoring model pretending to know more than the evidence. It is a structured way to make the reasoning visible.
1. Describe the signal
- Signal:
- Source:
- Date observed:
- Account, market, product, or process affected:
- First person or system to observe it:
- Existing record or object:
- Related signals:
What happened?
What is the narrowest statement the evidence supports?
2. Test source quality
| Question | Yes | No | Unknown | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Is the source identifiable? | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Is the timestamp reliable? | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Is the event directly observed? | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Is the record complete enough for its intended use? | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Could automation, bots, duplication, or routing create the event? | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Is the same event repeated across systems? | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Is the source independent of the conclusion? | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Can another person reproduce the finding? | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Source-quality classification
- ☐ Direct and reviewable
- ☐ Reliable system record with limitations
- ☐ Corroborated external information
- ☐ Single-source report
- ☐ Modeled or inferred
- ☐ Unknown provenance
3. Distinguish signal from pattern
One event can justify attention. It rarely establishes sustained demand by itself.
Signal
What single event occurred?
Corroboration
What independent event supports it?
Persistence
Has the behavior continued or repeated across time?
Specificity
Does it point to a particular need, product, market, or decision?
Pattern statement
Across [sources or events], there is evidence that [market or account] may be moving toward [need or decision] during [timeframe].
4. Test fit
| Dimension | Evidence present | What remains unknown |
|---|---|---|
| Problem fit | ||
| Product or service fit | ||
| Industry or operational fit | ||
| Geographic fit | ||
| Scale or capacity fit | ||
| Technical fit | ||
| Commercial fit | ||
| Relationship or access fit |
Fit conclusion
- ☐ Strong fit established
- ☐ Plausible fit requiring qualification
- ☐ Weak fit
- ☐ No fit
- ☐ Insufficient evidence
5. Test need
What evidence indicates a problem, gap, requirement, or desired change?
- ☐ Direct request
- ☐ Active evaluation
- ☐ Operational constraint
- ☐ Capacity constraint
- ☐ Replacement or modernization cycle
- ☐ Compliance or risk requirement
- ☐ Budget or procurement activity
- ☐ Hiring or organizational change
- ☐ Market event
- ☐ Repeated research behavior
- ☐ Other:
Need statement
Evidence against the need
6. Test timing
- Known decision date:
- Known operational trigger:
- Budget period:
- Contract or replacement date:
- Event or market trigger:
- Evidence of urgency:
- Evidence against urgency:
Timing classification
- ☐ Active now
- ☐ Defined near-term window
- ☐ Future with known trigger
- ☐ Monitor
- ☐ Unknown
Do not manufacture urgency because the system prefers a hot lead.
7. Test access
- Relevant organization:
- Relevant function:
- Likely decision owner:
- Likely operational user:
- Existing relationship:
- Credible introduction path:
- Public or permissioned contact route:
- Communication restriction:
Access classification
- ☐ Direct relationship
- ☐ Warm path
- ☐ Relevant public route
- ☐ Research required
- ☐ No appropriate route
8. Assess value and risk
| Dimension | Low | Medium | High | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Potential value | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Cost to investigate | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Cost to pursue | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Reputational risk | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Compliance risk | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Delivery risk | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Evidence uncertainty | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Risk boundary
What must not be assumed, disclosed, promised, or automated?
9. Classify the opportunity
Noise
The event lacks reliability, relevance, or sufficient context.
- ☐ Noise
Signal
The event is credible and relevant enough to observe or investigate.
- ☐ Signal
Pattern
Multiple sources or repeated events support a meaningful interpretation.
- ☐ Pattern
Qualified demand
Fit, need, timing, and an appropriate route to action are supported by evidence.
- ☐ Qualified demand
Action-ready opportunity
The next move, owner, and review point are defined.
- ☐ Action-ready opportunity
Current classification:
Reason:
10. Select the next move
- ☐ Discard as noise
- ☐ Monitor for a defined trigger
- ☐ Request missing evidence
- ☐ Qualify fit
- ☐ Qualify need
- ☐ Qualify timing
- ☐ Identify the correct route
- ☐ Engage with a specific question
- ☐ Route into CRM or operating workflow
- ☐ Assign an owner and due date
- ☐ Escalate a risk
Action
Owner
Due date
Review trigger
11. Record the result
- Action completed:
- Result:
- Evidence gained:
- Classification after action:
- Reasoning that should change:
- Reasoning that should be retained:
No response is not automatically evidence of no need. A response is not automatically evidence of qualified demand. Interpret each result within its source and context.
Continue the system
- Delta Arc Demand Intelligence
- Manufacturing Demand Intelligence
- CRM Pipeline Intelligence Reference
- Manufacturing Demand Signals Reference
- Delta Arc Reports
This worksheet is educational and operational guidance. It does not establish that any specific lead, buyer, customer, demand event, or commercial outcome exists.