Foundry Academy · Sales Development · Lesson 2 of 6

Contact research and buying roles

Identify relevant roles and usable contact context without collecting unnecessary personal data or pretending to know the buying process.

Start the lesson

Your learning work, on this device

No signup, cloud storage, cross-device sync or verified completion. Saving is optional. This browser profile is shared with anyone who can use it; private mode, browser cleanup or storage limits may remove work. Use only fictional or non-sensitive material. Export a copy before relying on this device.

Not saved. Worksheets, answers and practice notes currently last only in this tab.

Practice markers are self-reported, never credentials.

01 · Explanation

Contact research and buying roles

Objective: Identify relevant roles and usable contact context without collecting unnecessary personal data or pretending to know the buying process.

Map the likely buying system before selecting a name. Relevant roles may include the person experiencing the problem, operational owner, technical or security reviewer, finance, procurement, executive sponsor, and final authority. The same person may hold several roles in a small company. State why a role is relevant and what question that person can answer. Do not assume a senior title is automatically the best first contact, and do not present an inferred role as confirmed.

Use approved sources and record provenance, date, business relevance, and permitted channel. Minimize personal data: a business role, work contact, source, and relevant account signal may be sufficient. Do not collect sensitive personal details, personal phone numbers, family information, private social content, or unrelated facts for decorative personalization. Maintain do-not-contact, opt-out, complaint, and correction processes. Verify unusual or high-impact details before use. If outreach includes automated calls, texts, recordings, commercial email, or jurisdictions with additional rules, obtain qualified legal guidance and configure the actual workflow accordingly.

Before you begin

  • Confirm the supplied field contains 162 contacts across five role groupings, plus stale-employer, opt-out, and unapproved-mobile conditions.
  • Treat user, evaluator, approver, procurement, and blocker as role hypotheses; no individual identity or role verification is supplied.
  • Define source-date and confidence fields before any proposed contact-verification workflow.

Original overview module anchor →

02 · Compare the artifacts

Supported work. Visible uncertainty.

This is a fictional, sanitized training case using fabricated organizations and contacts. It contains no real personal or confidential data and is not legal, privacy, employment, or sales-results advice.

ClearBench ethical outbound pilot

ClearBench is a fictional supplier of modular quality-inspection workstations for small manufacturers. Leadership wants a four-week outbound pilot aimed at 120 companies in Utah and neighboring states. The proposed ideal-customer profile is plants with 25 to 250 employees, repeat inspection work, and a recent expansion, quality issue, or hiring signal. Research confirms 74 accounts meet all three fit indicators, 28 meet two, and 18 have no traceable trigger beyond industry. The list contains 162 contacts: 46 quality leaders, 39 operations leaders, 31 owners, 22 procurement contacts, and 24 people whose role is unclear. Twelve contacts left their listed employer, eight have explicit prior opt-outs, and 19 personal mobile numbers came from an unapproved list vendor. A draft email states that ClearBench will cut inspection time 40 percent, but the only evidence is one internal demonstration showing a 17 percent reduction under controlled conditions. The sequence proposes six emails, four calls, and two text messages over 14 days. It lacks channel-specific consent review, weekend restrictions, reply handling, and a stop condition after referral to another contact. Sales considers a meeting qualified whenever a prospect accepts a calendar invitation. Delivery specialists want a written problem, current process, stakeholder, urgency, and agreed next step before handoff. The pilot budget is $6,000, capacity is eight discovery calls per week, and only two specialists can conduct technical discovery. Learners must build a responsible account field, role research method, evidence-based message, controlled cadence, qualification handoff, and learning scorecard. The exercise does not promise response rates, revenue, or regulatory compliance; applicable outreach rules require qualified review.

Supported example — reference only

Item ID
ROLE-01
Supported evidence
The field contains 162 contacts across five role groupings.
Source input ID
M02-I01 (F03, confirmed)
Criterion or required state
User-role hypothesis requires current business-source evidence of hands-on inspection-workstation use or process ownership.
Gap or learner proposal
Contact identity, employer, source, source date, observed evidence, confidence, and verification result: not supplied.
Owner or reviewer
Sales process owner and authorized privacy reviewer
Status
Hypothesis only — individual verification pending

A well-handled evidence gap

Item ID
GAP-01
Supported evidence
Nineteen personal mobile numbers came from an unapproved vendor.
Source input ID
M02-I04 (F06, confirmed)
Criterion or required state
Use only approved, business-relevant sources and preserve permission and suppression controls.
Gap or learner proposal
Affected record identities, vendor approval, lawful basis, source dates, and authorized disposition: not supplied; learner proposes quarantine.
Owner or reviewer
Authorized privacy reviewer and Sales process owner
Status
Quarantine required — no use permitted

Flawed approach — do not copy

Marking this five-group buying-role hypothesis map “approved and complete” without the required evidence or reviewer is a flawed submission. Stop verification or outreach when source approval, current employer, source date, confidence, suppression, or contact permission is absent.

Repair: Rework the five-group buying-role hypothesis map as an evidence-backed draft, not an approved result. Capture the aggregate five-role population and each contact-quality constraint with exact module input IDs. Create five hypothesis rows for user, evaluator, approver, procurement, and blocker, labeling each as a proposed buying role rather than a verified person. For every role, state the business question it may answer and the current-business-source evidence required for verification. Check the revision against this requirement: All five buying roles are framed as hypotheses rather than verified individuals. If the required evidence is still absent, keep the decision blocked and identify the missing input or authorized reviewer.

Full case record, ambiguities and all assignments →

03 · Bounded practice

Build the five-group buying-role hypothesis map.

Research relevant roles using current business sources without collecting unnecessary personal data.

Deliverable: A five-group buying-role hypothesis map and blank contact-verification log; no individual identity or role is treated as verified.

Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F03, F04, F05, F06, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.

Exact supplied inputs for this assignment
  • M02-I01 · F03 — The field contains 162 contacts across five role groupings.
  • M02-I02 · F04 — Twelve contacts have left their listed employer.
  • M02-I03 · F05 — Eight contacts have explicit prior opt-outs.
  • M02-I04 · F06 — Nineteen personal mobile numbers came from an unapproved vendor.
  • M02-B01 · CB01 — Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment.
  • M02-S01 · F03, F04, F05, F06 — Build a starter version of “A five-group buying-role hypothesis map and blank contact-verification log; no individual identity or role is treated as verified.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it.

Operating procedure

  1. Capture the aggregate five-role population and each contact-quality constraint with exact module input IDs.
  2. Create five hypothesis rows for user, evaluator, approver, procurement, and blocker, labeling each as a proposed buying role rather than a verified person.
  3. For every role, state the business question it may answer and the current-business-source evidence required for verification.
  4. Include source URL or document, source date, observed role evidence, confidence, suppression result, and reviewer in the proposed verification design.
  5. Quarantine departed-employer records, preserve explicit prior opt-outs, and reject unapproved personal mobile data from the proposed process.
  6. Route individual role assignment and contact-permission decisions to the Sales process owner and authorized privacy reviewer.
  7. Quality-check that every role remains hypothetical, every missing record is visible, and no personal data, outreach, or verification result is fabricated.
Field-by-field guidance
Item ID
Use a stable role-hypothesis identifier such as ROLE-01, never an invented contact name.
Supported evidence
Record the aggregate five-group fact and any supplied quality constraint without assigning a person.
Source input ID
Cite M02-I01 for the aggregate role field; use other module inputs only when stating a contact-control condition.
Criterion or required state
Name the role hypothesis and the observable current-business-source evidence required to verify it.
Gap or learner proposal
Mark identity, source, date, confidence, and record-level result not supplied; label the verification method as proposed.
Owner or reviewer
Use Sales process owner and authorized privacy reviewer; no named reviewer is supplied.
Status
Use Aggregate evidence, Hypothesis only, Verification pending, Suppressed, or Quarantine required.
Five-group buying-role hypothesis map · learning draft
Item IDSupported evidenceSource input IDCriterion or required stateGap or learner proposalOwner or reviewerStatus

Start with 5 rows; the complete workbook specifies 5 stable rows for this artifact. Add rows here or use the full download. No action is saved until you explicitly choose saving above.

Download complete six-module workbook (.md) · Structured case packet (.json)

Keep private client data, unpublished inventions, personal identifiers and credentials out of these public learning tools.

Module 2 · 2-item formative check

Contact research and buying roles

Choose an answer and request feedback. Read why each option does or does not fit the evidence. Answers stay in this tab unless you choose device-only saving; they are never submitted.

Question 1 of 2 · MODULE 2 · knowledgeWhat is the most responsible way to identify a likely buying role before outreach?
Question 2 of 2 · MODULE 2 · scenarioWhich test would most improve ClearBench's buying-role map without inventing record-level evidence?

Answer either question to review its reasoning.

Inspect the artifact, not just your quiz answers

  • All five buying roles are framed as hypotheses rather than verified individuals.
  • The proposed process includes source date, confidence, suppression, and source-approval controls.
  • Departed contacts, prior opt-outs, and unapproved personal mobile data are not treated as outreach-ready.

Stop: Stop verification or outreach when source approval, current employer, source date, confidence, suppression, or contact permission is absent.

Go: Go to bounded business-source review when role hypotheses, minimum fields, quarantine rules, and reviewer boundaries are documented.

Escalate: Escalate personal mobile data, purchased sources, opt-outs, and jurisdiction-specific permission questions to the authorized privacy reviewer.

04 · Evidence to keep

Leave with usable work.

Buying-role map, contact-source log, relevance statement, confidence marker, permitted-channel field, and suppression check.

Download your artifact CSV and, if wanted, export the learning-work JSON above. Neither export is a reviewed submission or certificate. Device-only saving is optional; you must press Save my work now after edits.

When all six artifacts are ready, compare the full packet against the track rubric. Qualified human review is still required before real-world decisions.

Sales team discussing account strategy and outreach during an office meeting.
Learn the standard. Practice the work.
Business development professional holding a focused conversation with prospective clients.
Leave with evidence you can inspect.

Sources, scope and review boundaries

Curriculum 2026.10.08-learning-paths-1. External source dates below are record checks, not continuing guarantees. Verify current requirements before consequential use.

nist-privacy-framework · Official guidance

NIST Privacy Framework

Primary voluntary framework for governing privacy risk in data collection, use, communication, and protection.

Open reviewed external source ↗

fcc-47-cfr-64-1200 · Current codified text

eCFR :: 47 CFR 64.1200 -- Delivery restrictions.

Current codified FCC delivery restrictions. eCFR is authoritative but unofficial. Technology, consent, number type, content, context, state, and jurisdiction affect the applicable rule; obtain qualified legal review before configuring outreach.

Open reviewed external source ↗

fcc-one-to-one-consent-vacatur · Context only—not a positive rule

Insurance Marketing Coalition Limited v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 24-10277

FCC-hosted Eleventh Circuit opinion documenting vacatur of Part III.D of the 2023 order. Legal-status evidence only; it is not a positive instructional rule.

Open reviewed external source ↗

ws-sales-operating-control · Academy internal operating standard

Wealth Synergy sales-development internal operating standard

Academy-selected evidence, research, message approval, suppression, cadence, handoff, and metric controls. This is an internal operating standard selected by Foundry Academy; it is not law, accreditation, licensure, or an external-standard requirement.

Version 1.0 · reviewed 2026-09-01 · owner: Foundry Academy curriculum owner

A future Wealth Synergy private professional-development certificate would be issued only after its assessment, capstone, identity, reviewer, retention, access, deletion, appeal, and issuance controls pass quality review. No credential is currently issued. Any future certificate would not be an accredited academic qualification, professional license, or government certification.