Customer opportunity report
Historical CRM evidence, competitive fit and decision implications for opportunity AV-2026-041. The report tests whether approved engagement context can carry from proposal work into client-preparation tasks without losing source control, reviewer trust or commercial readiness.
Directional signal: the closest past wins reward editable, connected work products and context continuity. The losses show where that story can be outweighed: controlled publication, access administration, a required connector, and unresolved assurance. AsterVale must prove its workflow advantage while closing those gates.
The selected deals are qualitative decision records. Bars show recorded disposition, not product performance or the probability of an AsterVale award.
Percent of each group; labels include the underlying count. “No decision” is neither a win nor a loss.
Each mark is one opportunity; row position denotes outcome. The sample spans 46–72 seats, with a median of 60.
The direct group gives the closest like-for-like workflow and account context. The adjacent group broadens the risk lens; it is not a conversion benchmark.
Reproducible inclusion rules applied to the full 40-row CRM export; each record lists Crestline as competitor.
| Direct-comparable | n = 9 Consulting/advisory; 40–80 licensed users; proposal, briefing, presentation or presales response work—or a clearly linked multi-file client workflow. 60 seats falls near the sample median (60). |
| Adjacent-risk | n = 18 Exclude direct deals; retain 30–90 seats and a nearby bid/tender/RFP/report/deliverable/pitch/meeting workflow, or a No Decision record with a stated purchase-readiness risk. All seven No Decisions are included and remain separate. |
| Denominator | Win share = Closed Won ÷ (Closed Won + Closed Lost). No Decisions excluded from win-share denominator and shown separately in every outcome count. |
| Observed result | Full history: 18 won / 15 lost / 7 no decision. Direct: 6 / 3 / 0. Adjacent: 9 / 2 / 7. Records span Feb 2025–Sep 2026; product versions vary. |
The paired rails below separate historical evidence from account-specific competitive fit.
Moderate, selected evidence: 9 direct deals; all Crestline competitions; buyer-confirmed reasons are common, not universal.
Promising on cross-task context and editable outputs; contingent on access/security, provisioning, contract and cost approval. Not an award score.
The supplied comparison and Crestline Workbench 6.2 handbook indicate a trade-off. The decision turns on whether AsterVale accepts Noumi’s documented operating boundaries.
| Decision axis | AsterVale’s stated test | Noumi evidence / boundary | Crestline evidence / boundary | Deal implication |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carry context forward | Reuse approved engagement material in a later task without another upload; preserve scope and source version. | Project files and scoped memory are documented across tasks. Search is not exhaustive; stale sources can still surface. | Saved investigations retain selected references; broader continuity needs explicit selection, configured workflow or manual assembly. | Noumi edge when continuity is the buyer’s central pain. Demo the same source across proposal and meeting prep. |
| Editable work products | Open and edit DOCX, XLSX and PPTX; keep reviewer rework visible. | Native editable Office deliverables documented; exact layout, embedded objects and advanced animation are not guaranteed. | DOCX/PDF/Markdown/CSV exports described; handbook does not describe native editable PPTX or formula-bearing XLSX generation. | Noumi edge on a Must requirement, but show native editing and measure reconstruction rather than only draft speed. |
| Governance & source lifecycle | Controlled, authorized files; approved/current evidence; client separation. | Projects and shared knowledge support working boundaries; a project is not a records-management classification. | Collection owners, approved publication, version signals, review/retirement, retention and legal-hold controls are documented. | Crestline edge if centrally governed reference content dominates. Confirm whether AsterVale is buying project work or a governed knowledge layer. |
| Identity & provisioning | Test membership, leavers, group mapping, offboarding; determine acceptable admin effort. | SAML configurable; SCIM and group synchronization not included; lifecycle administration is manual. | SAML 2.0 and SCIM 2.0 user/group provisioning documented; nested-group behavior remains unproven. | Crestline edge on automated provisioning. Get AsterVale IT to explicitly accept or reject Noumi’s manual operating model. |
| Security & terms | Approve actual processing route, subprocessors, incident notice, availability and contract deviations. | Singapore processing detail is more specific in the supplied comparison; contract and assurance gaps remain to close. | Singapore or EU hosting options; handbook defers actual processing details and is not an audit opinion or executed service schedule. | No feature fit substitutes for written security and legal approvals. Resolve incident notice and required evidence by named owner. |
| First-year listed fees | 60 seats; support, implementation, usage, tax and internal cost understood. | $79,200 first-year; $69,600 recurring, from supplied comparison’s dated quote. | $75,600 first-year; $63,600 recurring, from handbook’s stated price. | Crestline lists $3,600 less year one / $6,000 less recurring. Not normalized TCO: onboarding, support, sources, usage units, custom work and internal effort differ. |
Full direct-comparable cohort and full adjacent-risk cohort. Quotes are transcribed from the CRM `buyer_quote` field; confirmation labels are retained to show evidence quality. Account names and record IDs are preserved for internal follow-up.
40–80 seats; consulting/advisory and tightly matched client workflows.
| Deal / account | Seats · outcome | Recorded reason · buyer quote | Confirmation |
|---|---|---|---|
| OP-2025-0101 MorrowPeak Consulting Management consulting · proposal preparation · closed 06 Feb 2025 | 55 Closed Won | Editable deliverables “We need the proposal and cost workbook to agree after every revision.” | Confirmed by buyer Buyer debrief · 04 Feb 2025 |
| OP-2025-0102 CedarQuay Advisory Financial advisory · client briefings · closed 27 Feb 2025 | 72 Closed Lost | Knowledge governance “Our policy owners need an approval queue before wider access.” | Confirmed by buyer Procurement decision letter · 25 Feb 2025 |
| OP-2025-0103 VelaBridge Partners Strategy consulting · proposal & presentation · closed 11 Mar 2025 | 46 Closed Won | Project continuity “The second review kept our agreed exclusions without another briefing.” | Confirmed by buyer Pilot review minutes · 11 Mar 2025 |
| OP-2026-0107 LindenArc Consulting Operations consulting · proposal preparation · closed 24 Sep 2026 | 60 Closed Lost | Notion write-back “Our methodology owners publish in Notion and will not maintain a second copy.” | Confirmed by buyer Architecture review · 23 Sep 2026 Crestline 6.2 evaluated |
| OP-2025-0108 Rainford Partners Transaction advisory · engagement briefing · closed 14 May 2025 | 52 Closed Won | Context retention “The project kept the final assumptions when a new analyst joined.” | Confirmed by buyer Partner interview · 12 May 2025 |
| OP-2025-0113 Northwick Design Partners Engineering consulting · technical proposal packages · closed 07 Aug 2025 | 68 Closed Won | Multi-file editing “Reviewers changed the scope and saw it carried into the other deliverables.” | Confirmed by buyer Technical acceptance · 05 Aug 2025 |
| OP-2025-0116 JuniperSpan Consulting Technology consulting · presales response · closed 19 Sep 2025 | 61 Closed Lost | Security review “We could not close our assurance questionnaire before the procurement deadline.” | Buyer statement relayed by seller Call summary · 17 Sep 2025 |
| OP-2025-0119 Oakwell Transformation Management consulting · proposal preparation · closed 04 Nov 2025 | 57 Closed Won | Review effort “Reviewers spent their time on the argument rather than moving text between files.” | Confirmed by buyer Pilot retrospective · 30 Oct 2025 |
| OP-2025-0121 Tamarind Gate Consulting Sustainability advisory · proposal & meeting prep · closed 03 Dec 2025 | 66 Closed Won | Scope fit “The two workflows fit our first phase without adding a separate authoring service.” | Confirmed by buyer Commercial approval note · 01 Dec 2025 |
Wider workflows or explicit purchase-readiness risk; industries and comparability vary.
| Deal / account | Seats · outcome | Recorded reason · buyer quote / CRM note | Confirmation |
|---|---|---|---|
| OP-2025-0105 Oriole Ridge Associates Business consulting · bid response · closed 09 Apr 2025 | 38 No Decision | Budget freeze “The workflow worked, but our partner group has postponed all new platforms.” | Confirmed by sponsor · email · 08 Apr 2025 |
| OP-2025-0106 Westmere Analytics Research advisory · client reporting · closed 24 Apr 2025 | 88 Closed Won | User-managed memory “I can correct the report convention once and inspect what was retained.” | Confirmed by buyer · acceptance notes · 22 Apr 2025 |
| OP-2025-0110 Arcfield Advisory Risk consulting · client deliverable assembly · closed 18 Jun 2025 | 42 Closed Won | Template fidelity “The editable output removed our last round of rebuilding tables.” | Confirmed by buyer · pilot sign-off · 16 Jun 2025 |
| OP-2025-0112 FablePoint Advisory ESG consulting · proposal drafting · closed 17 Jul 2025 | 34 No Decision | Sponsor departure “Internal notes: the incoming practice head is expected to reassess the business case next quarter.” | Corroborated by two internal notes · 15 Jul 2025 |
| OP-2025-0115 Hearthway Advisory Change management · client meeting prep · closed 05 Sep 2025 | 76 Closed Won | Reusable methods “New staff can follow the agreed preparation method without copying old chats.” | Confirmed by buyer · sponsor call · 03 Sep 2025 |
| OP-2025-0117 Kestrel Grove Advisory Economic advisory · research to report · closed 07 Oct 2025 | 44 Closed Won | Editable output “Our economists want the source references next to the editable narrative.” | Confirmed by buyer · evaluation workbook · 02 Oct 2025 |
| OP-2025-0118 MarbleLeaf Partners Accounting advisory · client briefing · closed 23 Oct 2025 | 82 No Decision | Internal alternative “The firm will first test a tool already covered by its enterprise agreement.” | Confirmed by buyer · committee note · 21 Oct 2025 |
| OP-2025-0122 Willowcrest Advisory Transformation consulting · client reports · closed 18 Dec 2025 | 54 No Decision | Data readiness “We need to decide which versions are authoritative before reopening the trial.” | Confirmed by buyer · workshop minutes · 17 Dec 2025 |
| OP-2026-0125 Cloudmarsh Logistics Logistics · account briefing · closed 05 Feb 2026 | 47 Closed Won | Project continuity “The account team returned to the same decisions each week.” | Confirmed by buyer · account retrospective · 03 Feb 2026 |
| OP-2026-0127 Elmstone Retail Retail · campaign reporting · closed 04 Mar 2026 | 36 No Decision | Priority change “The merchandising system replacement took the available project team.” | Buyer statement relayed by seller · phone note · 02 Mar 2026 |
| OP-2026-0128 Fjordwell Components Industrial supply · tender package · closed 23 Mar 2026 | 64 Closed Won | Multi-format production “A document and editable pricing worksheet were both required at handover.” | Confirmed by buyer · pilot acceptance · 19 Mar 2026 |
| OP-2026-0131 Ironbloom Systems Industrial software · presales proposals · closed 06 May 2026 | 79 Closed Lost | Incumbent consolidation “The CIO chose one knowledge platform already used by support.” | Confirmed by buyer · executive debrief · 04 May 2026 |
| OP-2026-0133 LumenDock Travel Travel services · supplier research · closed 03 Jun 2026 | 31 No Decision | Insufficient usage “The sponsor could not justify a year of seats for seasonal work.” | Confirmed by buyer · finance review · 01 Jun 2026 |
| OP-2026-0135 NobleTide Media Media production · client pitch prep · closed 26 Jun 2026 | 45 Closed Won | Editable presentation “The editorial team needed to keep changing the deck after generation.” | Confirmed by buyer · creative operations email · 24 Jun 2026 |
| OP-2026-0136 OpalForge Automation Automation equipment · configuration proposals · closed 16 Jul 2026 | 70 Closed Lost | Integration cost “The additional product-system work made the first phase too expensive.” | Buyer statement relayed by seller · loss review · 14 Jul 2026 |
| OP-2026-0137 Pinehaven Property Property services · tenant briefing · closed 30 Jul 2026 | 56 Closed Won | Context retention “The recurring briefing used the latest agreed actions.” | Confirmed by buyer · service owner review · 28 Jul 2026 |
| OP-2026-0139 RiverAsh Maritime Maritime services · service proposals · closed 27 Aug 2026 | 39 No Decision | Procurement delay “The vendor decision will wait until next year's fleet contract renewals.” | Confirmed by buyer · procurement email · 26 Aug 2026 |
| OP-2026-0140 SableWing Software B2B software · RFP preparation · closed 10 Sep 2026 | 62 Closed Won | Multi-file editing “The same change appeared in the response and the meeting material.” | Confirmed by buyer · pilot completion · 08 Sep 2026 Crestline 6.1, not 6.2 |
Other adjacent-risk records not selected as direct comparables remain visible here; No Decision means purchase stopped or deferred without a named winner. Confirmation labels come from each CRM row and are not upgraded by this report.
Recommendations are specific to AsterVale’s supplied priorities and the loss patterns; each should produce evidence an evaluator can inspect.
Use one authorized engagement source in a proposal task, then a separate client-briefing task. Show the source/version reference, a correction, the same approved context reused, and a missing-fact refusal. Let the evaluator inspect each native file. This directly tests the differentiators reflected in VelaBridge, Rainford, Cloudmarsh and SableWing.
Owner: solution lead · Evidence: saved test outputsHave IT and Security record a go/no-go view on manual provisioning, offboarding, group behavior, processing route, subprocessors, assurance evidence and the incident-notice clause. The HarborElm / Greenhaven losses show SCIM/access requirements can be decisive; JuniperSpan shows late assurance can close the window (its source was seller-relayed).
Owners: customer IT + security; Noumi response ownersAsk whether AsterVale primarily needs engagement-specific context or a controlled reference library with named owners, approval, retention and legal holds. Demo client separation and source versioning, but do not claim a project workspace is a records-management system. Give Crestline’s governance case a fair, explicit test.
Owner: business sponsor · Evidence: agreed acceptance rubricScore DOCX/XLSX/PPTX editability, evidence traceability, factual corrections and reviewer reconstruction time. Include one representative PowerPoint layout, state unsupported animation/object limits, and count failed tasks and rework. Keep capacity value distinct from cash savings.
Owners: workflow leads · Evidence: pre-agreed pilot logNormalize scope and total effort behind the stated $3,600 year-one / $6,000 recurring supplier-fee difference; usage units are not comparable. Confirm budget holder, legal approvers, pilot conditions and a dated selection path so a positive demo cannot turn into a sponsorless No Decision.
Owner: account director · Evidence: normalized quote + action registerIf Notion write-back, centralized lifecycle controls or SCIM are hard requirements, state the gap and quantify any workaround/SOW before bid approval. LindenArc’s 60-seat loss is the closest current warning; do not let the workflow win conceal an integration dependency.
Owner: opportunity team · Evidence: scoped gap dispositionSource records are internal and the source chronology itself needs reconciliation. The report preserves that uncertainty instead of smoothing it away.
Read these constraints before using any historical signal.
The files and extracts used to support this report.
CRM_Opportunity_History.csvFull 40 records, including outcome, use case, seats, competitor version, primary reason, quote, source type, confirmation and verification dates. Last CRM close date: 24 Sep 2026. Latest listed verification: 28 Sep 2026.AsterVale_Opportunity_Brief.mdSections 1–3, 5–7 and 9–10; version 1.1; snapshot date 1 Oct 2026.AsterVale_Product_Comparison_Noumi_vs_Crestline.xlsxDecision view A6:E14; Priority comparison A6:I22; Commercial comparison A6:J16; Sources & notes A6:E13. Stated verification date: 30 Sep 2026.Crestline_Product_Documentation.pdfWorkbench 6.2 Enterprise guide, document C-WB-62-202609 rev 1.0, published 21 Sep 2026; sections 2–7 and 9.Noumi_Product_Capabilities.mdEnterprise 2026.3 v1.1, 28 Sep 2026; capability records CAP-001/003/006/008–012/016/020–022/028–046.Noumi_Security_and_Data_Handling.mdEnterprise 2026.3 v1.0, 28 Sep 2026; processing, permissions, key, model, resilience and assurance sections.Calculation: overall decided win share = 18 ÷ (18 + 15) = 54.5%; direct = 6 ÷ (6 + 3) = 66.7%; adjacent = 9 ÷ (9 + 2) = 81.8% among decisions only. All derived figures use CRM outcome labels without reclassification.