Strategic Partnership One-Pager and Deal Outline

Prompt

Act as a business-development lead who has closed and killed partnerships. Write a one-pager a CEO can read before a partner meeting. Be explicit about who sells, who builds, who owns the customer, and what would make you walk.

Inputs:
- Us: [Company, product, stage]
- Them: [Company, product, why they matter]
- Relationship now: [Cold / intro / existing vendor / competitor-adjacent]
- Goal: [Distribution, product, co-sell, data, brand]
- What we can offer: [API, audience, pipeline, brand, engineering]
- What we want: [List]
- Economics I know: [Rev share, referral fee, or unknown]
- Integration reality: [Build weeks, systems, security]
- Risks I already see: [List]
- Decision date: [When we need a yes/no]

Generate:
1. Why this partner, why now: 8-12 sentences. The customer job that neither of us finishes alone. Why not build vs. buy vs. partner. Why this firm rather than a generic category.
2. Value exchange table: We give / they give / customer gets. Three rows minimum. Flag any row that is a favor, not a business.
3. Motion: Co-sell, referral, embed, OEM, or marketplace. Who owns the logo. Who owns support. Who owns pricing to the end customer. Channel conflict with our own sales.
4. Integration sketch: v1 scope (4-8 bullets). Out of scope. Security and data-flow one paragraph. Build estimate as a range only if Integration reality supports it. Otherwise "unknown, need eng."
5. Commercial options: 2-3 structures (referral, rev share, embed fee). For each: who bills, when money moves, a sample math using only numbers in Inputs. If Economics I know is unknown, give structure with blanks, not invented percents presented as market truth.
6. 30-day plan: 6 dated moves. Owner on our side. Ask on their side. A single success metric for day 30 that is not "good energy."
7. Kill criteria: 5 explicit walk-away lines (exclusivity, build cost, logo ownership, security, timeline). A "slow no" pattern to watch.
8. Meeting brief: 8 bullets for our CEO. 5 questions to ask them. 3 things we will not promise in the room.

Constraints:
- Do not invent their revenue, headcount, or a named exec unless it was in Inputs.
- Do not invent legal positions or exclusivity norms.
- No em dashes. No "win-win ecosystem" filler.
- If they are competitor-adjacent, dedicate a paragraph to how this does not leak roadmap.
- Write for a general counsel who will ask who owns the customer when it breaks.

Instructions

Replace every [bracket] with your details before running. Works on ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini.

Examples

Example Input

Us: Paynest, payroll API for vertical software platforms, seed, 11 people
Them: Shiftboard, HRIS for restaurants (scheduling + tips), series B, already in ~900 locations. We do not have their revenue number.
Relationship now: intro from a shared investor last week; no NDA yet
Goal: embed payroll inside their HRIS so restaurant groups stop exporting CSVs to a generic payroll tool
What we can offer: payroll API, tax filing in 40 US states, white-label employee app, implementation engineer for 6 weeks
What we want: default payroll in their new-location onboarding, co-sell to groups with 15+ locations, a joint case study after 3 live groups
Economics I know: unknown; we usually charge platforms a per-employee-per-month fee plus tax filing; we have never done a rev share
Integration reality: they use REST + webhooks; our sandbox can be live in 2 weeks; production tax filing needs their EIN collection flow; SOC 2 Type I on our side, they have Type II
Risks I already see: they have talked about "maybe building payroll"; we would be teaching a possible future competitor; their sales team currently refers Gusto
Decision date: we need a build/no-build by 30 Sep 2026 so we do not staff a second embed

Example Output

1. Why this partner, why now
Restaurant groups already do scheduling and tips in Shiftboard, then dump CSVs into a generic payroll tool. The job neither of us finishes alone is "labor to paid, in one system." Building a full restaurant HRIS would take Paynest off the API thesis. Shiftboard building payroll is the real alternative, and they have talked about it. Partnering now is a test of whether they want to own payroll or rent it. They matter because they already sit in about 900 locations, not because payroll APIs need a logo on a slide. Shared-investor intro, no NDA yet: this is a first meeting, not a deal.

2. Value exchange
We give: payroll API, tax filing in 40 states, white-label employee app, 6 weeks of an implementation engineer. They give: default payroll in new-location onboarding, co-sell to groups with 15+ locations, three live groups for a case study. Customer gets: no CSV export, tips and hours in the same run. Flag: a case study is a favor until three groups are live.

3. Motion
Embed plus co-sell, not a marketplace listing. They own the restaurant-group logo. We own payroll accuracy, tax filing, and payroll support. They own HRIS support. Pricing to the end customer should be their SKU or a joint SKU, not our self-serve page undercutting them. Channel conflict: their reps currently refer Gusto. If that referral stays live, this is not a default. Write that down.

4. Integration sketch
v1: REST hours and tips in, pay stubs and filing status out, webhooks for run complete / fail, sandbox in 2 weeks, EIN collection in their onboarding for production filing, white-label employee app. Out of scope: scheduling, tip pooling logic, international, benefits. Data flow: they send labor; we file taxes; we do not keep their scheduling graph. Security: our SOC 2 Type I vs their Type II is a gap. Expect them to ask for Type II or a bridge letter. Build weeks for production filing: unknown until eng sees their EIN flow.

5. Commercial options
A. Per-employee-per-month paid by Shiftboard to us (our usual). They bill the group. Blanks: PEPM and minimums. B. Referral only: they send 15+ location groups, we bill, they get a fee. Weaker than "default in onboarding." C. Rev share on payroll PEPM. We have never done this; do not quote a "market" percent. Sample math cannot be honest without a PEPM; leave a blank table, do not invent $2 or 20%.

6. 30-day plan
Week 1: NDA, security questionnaire swap. Week 2: sandbox live, architecture call. Week 3: commercial structure options on one page. Week 4: named pilot group criteria. Owner on our side: CEO + impl engineer. Ask on theirs: a product owner and a sales leader who can kill the Gusto referral. Day 30 success: written build/no-build date held at 30 Sep, plus one pilot group shortlist. Not "good energy."

7. Kill criteria
Walk if they demand exclusivity that blocks other restaurant HRIS. Walk if they keep Gusto as the default. Walk if they require us to staff more than 6 weeks before a paid pilot. Walk if Type II is a gate we cannot meet by 30 Sep. Walk if they will not say who owns the group when a filing fails. Slow no: endless sandbox tourism with no named group.

8. Meeting brief
They have 900 locations and a Gusto habit. We are an API, not a replacement HRIS. Default onboarding is the prize. Gusto referral is the tell. Type I vs Type II will come up. Do not promise Type II. Do not promise exclusivity. Do not quote a rev-share percent. Questions: who owns payroll on your roadmap, what does a failed filing look like for your CSM, who bills the group, can sales kill Gusto, which group would pilot. Will not promise: a 30 Sep production go-live, their revenue math, building scheduling.