Why do we apply our deal process so unevenly?
You built a methodology together. Then real deals came in, and you applied it like a buffet — full steps for some, skipped steps for others. Now no one fully trusts what it produces. This is not a flaw in the framework. Frameworks do not apply themselves. Every time someone skips a step, they made a choice — rushed, tired, overconfident, or afraid of a hard conversation. That choice is yours to examine. The method carries no blame. You are not alone in this. Your whole pod does it, differently, for different reasons. So the fix is not one person's willpower. It is agreeing, out loud, what 'flexible' is allowed to mean — and where it is never allowed to mean anything at all.
The method isn't broken; your discipline is uneven. A framework only hands you questions — it cannot force you to ask them. When one deal gets the full process and another gets waved through, someone chose that, usually to save time or dodge a hard conversation. Find the pattern. Fix the choosing.
What changes unlock by starting
- You can state, in one sentence, why each deal got the treatment it got.
- Your pod agrees on a short, specific list of non-negotiable steps.
- Fewer deals surprise you late, because the skipped step was usually the one that mattered.
- The team trusts the process again, because they can see each other holding the line.