Client report
Sales negotiation
2 of 4 objectives met. The 16 participants present at the end went from 45% to 71% on the competencies measured before and after; “Close an agreement” remains to be consolidated.
Objectives
| Objective | Before → after | Target | Status | n |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Build a costed offer from a restated need | 41% → 85% | 70% | Met | 16 |
| Defend a price without conceding a discount up front | 38% → 79% | 75% | Met | 16 |
| Handle the three most common objections | 53% → 66% | 70% | Partly met | 16 |
| Close on a dated commitment | 48% → 54% | 70% | Not met | 16 |
Before → after, by competency
Only the competencies measured both before and after the training appear here.
baseline latest
Participation
- 18Expected
- 18Joined
- 17Answered before
- 16Answered after
- 13Answered the follow-up
Cold evaluation
| Follow-up | Response rate | End of training → follow-up | Weakest competency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Day 7 | 81% (13 answers) | 72% → 68% | Close an agreement (50%) |
| Day 30 | 69% (11 answers) | 71% → 64% | Close an agreement (48%) |
Satisfaction
NPS 50, from 16 responses · 10 promoters · 4 passives · 2 detractors
Satisfaction is measured apart from learning: it says how the training was received, not what was learnt.
In their words
Comments participants agreed to have quoted, anonymously.
“The pricing role-plays were useful from the very next Monday.”
“I would have liked more time on closing: that is where I still get stuck.”
Group synthesis
Automatically generated synthesis, reviewed by the trainer
What went well
- Costing an offer from the stated need
- Holding a price against a first request for a discount
Common gaps
- Closing on a dated commitment
- Answering the “it is too expensive” objection
Recommendations
- Go back over closing at the start of the next session, on two short cases
- Plan one objection role-play per participant
The group moved clearly on costing and on defending a price. Closing is the competency that moved the least: the answers show a reluctance to ask for a commitment more than a gap in the method, and the cold follow-up shows it remains the weakest.
Method and limits
Training held on 12 March 2026, over 2 days. Cold follow-up: Day 7 on 19 March 2026, Day 30 on 11 April 2026.
Instrument: 24 auto-graded questions in 2 quizzes, taken before the training and after.
A rate is given only from 5 answers; below that, only the number of answers is shown. A side that was not measured is said so, never shown as 0%.
An objective is met when the rate after the training reaches its target; partly met within 15 points of the target, or after a gain of at least 15 points; not met otherwise; not measured without a measurement after the training.
Levels 1 and 2 of the Kirkpatrick model, plus a retention follow-up. This document is not a certification. Aggregate and anonymous: no participant is named.