Skip to main content

Proof

Outcomes, not logos.

Every engagement below is real. All client identities are anonymized. Sector, problem, and outcome are described as accurately as confidentiality allows.

Typical impact

Shortlist probabilityMaterials structured to pass first-pass evaluator review
Time compressionFaster evaluator understanding reduces back-and-forth cycles
RFI response qualityProcurement-aligned language reduces clarification requests

NDA / Redaction notice — All case studies are presented in anonymized form. Client names, product names, and identifying program details have been removed or altered. Published with client knowledge and written authorization.

CS-01Q3 2024

Sector

EO/IR Sensors / Dual-Use

Buyer type

Defense ministry program office + institutional investors

Procurement stage

RFI / early evaluation

Evaluation win

Seed round closed 90 days post-launch; 3× RFI response rate

Assets produced

  • Investor deck (14 slides)
  • Capability brief (A4, 2 pages)
  • Product sheet with SWaP-C table
  • LinkedIn executive profile rewrite

Proof format

Message architectureEvaluator pathProof blocks

Context

Electro-optical payload manufacturer. Pre-Series A. 18 months of product development, no coherent go-to-market materials.

Problem

The company had an 80-page technical databook and a 3-slide investor deck. Neither worked. Government evaluators found the technical document impenetrable. Investors said the deck showed no market understanding.

What we changed

  • Built a two-track message architecture: one version for institutional buyers, one for investors
  • Produced a 14-slide investor deck and a 2-page capability brief for procurement audiences
  • Rewrote the product sheet with a SWaP-C table and mission-scenario framing

Outcome

3× increase in qualified RFI responses within 60 days. Closed seed round within 90 days of deck launch.

Why it worked

Evaluators could map capability directly to mission scenarios — reducing first-pass rejection.

CS-02Q2 2024

Sector

Homeland Security / Cybersecurity

Buyer type

National homeland security agency

Procurement stage

Open tender / competitive RFQ

Evaluation win

Shortlisted in 2 tenders Q1; contract awarded Q2

Assets produced

  • 7-page website (EN + HE)
  • Capability statement (bilingual)
  • Procurement deck (12 slides)
  • 2 anonymized reference cases

Proof format

Message architectureEvaluator pathProof blocks

Context

Cybersecurity firm with proven technology, entering government procurement for the first time. No prior institutional sales history.

Problem

The company website read like a B2B SaaS product. The deck used consumer-market language. Procurement officers found no reference to compliance frameworks or prior government deployments.

What we changed

  • Restructured website information architecture around government buyer decision criteria
  • Rewrote all copy to align with DISA, ISO 27001, and IL NIST-adjacent standards
  • Built a bilingual capability statement for IL defense and homeland security tenders

Outcome

Shortlisted in 2 tenders within first quarter post-launch. One award in Q1 following year.

Why it worked

Materials matched the language and structure procurement officers expect in open tenders — passed first-pass screening.

CS-03Q4 2023

Sector

Aerospace / UAS

Buyer type

National defense accelerator / program office

Procurement stage

Accelerator pitch → pilot evaluation

Evaluation win

Fast-tracked for evaluation 6 weeks ahead of standard timeline

Assets produced

  • 12-slide procurement deck
  • One-page executive summary
  • Technical annex (12 pages, separate)

Proof format

Evaluator pathProof blocks

Context

Autonomous systems startup. Accepted into a national defense accelerator program. Needed materials for program office pitch in 3 weeks.

Problem

Existing deck was 40 slides. Most slides were engineering diagrams with no operational context. No clear ask. No outcome framing.

What we changed

  • Condensed 40-slide technical deck to 12-slide procurement deck
  • Added mission scenario framing to every capability claim
  • Built a one-page 'what we are asking for' slide with clear program fit

Outcome

Approved for accelerated evaluation — 6 weeks ahead of standard program timeline.

Why it worked

The evaluator path was explicit — clear ask, clear evidence, clear fit to program criteria. No evaluator effort required.

CS-04Q1 2024

Sector

Defense Advisory / Systems Integration

Buyer type

Central government procurement agency

Procurement stage

Framework contract bid

Evaluation win

Awarded framework position — multi-year contract

Assets produced

  • 6 anonymized track record pages
  • Firm capability deck (10 slides)
  • Executive biographies (4 principals)

Proof format

Message architectureProof blocks

Context

Systems integrator advising on procurement modernization. Needed to position for a multi-year framework contract.

Problem

The firm had strong credentials but no coherent narrative. References were scattered across proposal documents. There was no consistent way to describe track record.

What we changed

  • Built a track record format: one-page per engagement, anonymized, structured identically
  • Wrote a firm profile covering methodology, team credentials, and relevant experience
  • Produced a capability deck aligned to the specific framework contract criteria

Outcome

Awarded position on framework contract. Contract value not disclosed.

Why it worked

Consistent track record format gave evaluators a reliable evidence structure across all prior engagements.

CS-05Q2 2024

Sector

Dual-Use / AI & SIGINT

Buyer type

Intelligence community + commercial CTO

Procurement stage

Dual-track: RFI (defense) + pilot negotiation (commercial)

Evaluation win

Commercial pilot signed 45 days post-launch; defense RFI submitted

Assets produced

  • 9-page website (dual-track structure)
  • 2-page commercial product brief
  • 1-page defense capability statement

Proof format

Message architectureEvaluator path

Context

AI-based signal analysis company. Technology applicable in both telecom and intelligence markets. Needed a website that served both audiences without compromising either.

Problem

A single website could not serve both a commercial telecom CTO and an intelligence procurement officer. Previous site was too technical for commercial buyers and too vague for defense evaluators.

What we changed

  • Designed a dual-track site structure with distinct entry points per audience
  • Wrote separate copy tracks without replicating content
  • Built a 'product' section that described capabilities in outcome terms only — no exposed methodology

Outcome

Commercial pilot signed within 45 days of launch. Defense RFI submitted with new materials.

Why it worked

Separate audience paths eliminated the cognitive mismatch that had confused both buyer types.

See a relevant case?

Request additional detail under NDA. Reference the case ID in your brief.

Request case detail under NDA