You’re in the back of an Uber. The meeting starts in ten minutes. You realize you don’t know enough about the person across the table.
Also, your shoe’s untied.
What would it be worth to have the preparation you need, when you need it, where you need it?
That’s the question behind Instant Intelligence.
The useful deliverable is pretty specific: who you’re meeting, what matters to them, what you’re assuming, what you should ask, and what would make the meeting worth having.
A mountain of tokens doesn’t answer that question. A better question at the right moment might.
Here’s a situation worth testing. You prepare for a meeting, get in the room, and discover the person can describe the problem but can’t buy the solution. The preparation may still have helped. You learned where the problem lives. You may have found a guide. You also found a targeting mistake.
We should own both parts.
The next preparation should distinguish the person who experiences the problem, the person who can sponsor a change, and the person who can authorize the money. Sometimes that’s one person. Sometimes you need an introduction before you have an opportunity.
This is a hypothetical example. A booked meeting, a useful brief, a qualified opportunity, and a sale are different outcomes. We need to keep score accordingly.
The hypothesis
Situation-specific preparation improves the questions and the next step, even when the first contact isn’t the buyer.
For the next three genuine preparation deliveries, we’ll record what was known beforehand, which assumptions changed, which questions were used, what authority the contact actually had, and whether a concrete next action emerged. We’ll also record whether the preparation was useful to the person receiving it.
If the briefs look impressive but don’t change the questions or the next action, we’ll revise the offer. If better preparation keeps arriving for the wrong people, targeting belongs inside the service.
No ten-minute delivery promise here. The Uber is the moment that makes the value question concrete. Delivery time and willingness to pay still need to meet reality.
We’ll report back after those three deliveries, or sooner if a failure changes how we do the work.
That’s the publishing loop: pose a hypothesis, bump into reality, tell you what happened.