version: "1.0.0" name: proposal-architecture description: High-ticket pricing proposal ($30k+) with objection handling embedded. 7-section structure (reframed problem, mechanism, scope, proof, investment, guarantee, next step) + 5 anti-commoditization patterns. For the consultant / agency closing deals where the proposal is the document that closes (or loses) the account.

Proposal Architecture

Source: Alex Hormozi, $100M Offers (Grand Slam Offer principles) + Pricing Playbook (Laws 3 and 4) + cross-reference with objections (commands/objections.md) and guarantees.

Why this skill exists

In B2B high-ticket ($30k-500k), the commercial proposal is the document that closes or loses the account. Other skills cover the offer (grand-slam-offer), pricing (pricing-playbook), objections (objections). This one integrates the three into a single document delivered to the decision-maker, with objection handling built into the structure itself.

Most founders write the proposal as a "30-page PDF with everything" or a "shallow one-pager with just a price." Both lose. An effective high-ticket proposal has a specific structure that cuts decision time from 60 days to 14.

Canonical structure — 7 sections

Section 1: Reframed problem (1 page)

Not "the client wants to grow." Reframe the problem from the client's point of view, with the client's numbers (not generic ones).

"You're losing $X/month because of [specific diagnosis].
At $Y ARR and a Z-day sales cycle, that's $W per quarter
in uncaptured opportunity. Over 12 months, that's the equivalent of $V."

Why it matters: the decision-maker reads page one and thinks "this person gets my business." Without it, the proposal is just a pitch.

Section 2: Mechanism (2 pages)

A proprietary framework with 4-6 named components. Not a generic description ("our methodology").

The [Proper Name] Framework has 5 components:
 
1. [Component] — specific function + tool used
2. [Component] — ...
3. [Component] — ...
4. [Component] — ...
5. [Component] — ...
 
Applied at [Client A], it cut [metric] by [N]% in [timeframe].
Applied at [Client B], ...

Why it matters: the decision-maker can picture how the work actually happens. Without a named mechanism, it reads like "I'll figure it out alongside you."

Section 3: Scope (1-2 pages)

What you'll deliver, in named and dated deliverables.

Delivered in 90 days:
 
Sprint 1 (weeks 1-2): [Deliverable 1] — [exactly what it is, how to measure it]
Sprint 2 (weeks 3-4): [Deliverable 2]
Sprint 3 (weeks 5-6): [Deliverable 3]
Sprint 4 (weeks 7-9): [Deliverable 4]
Sprint 5 (weeks 10-12): [Deliverable 5]
 
Not included (out of scope):
- [X the client might ask for but you don't do on this project]
- [Y]

Why it matters: kills ambiguity. The decision-maker has no doubt about what they're getting. Scope creep during execution is prevented by the document.

Section 4: Proof (1-2 pages)

3-5 cases with auditable before/after numbers. Not generic testimonials.

Case 1: [Client] — from [X] to [Y] in [timeframe]
  Quote: "[exact line, in quotes]"
 
Case 2: ...
 
Case 3: ...

Why it matters: the decision-maker looks for proof that others like them got a result. Without comparable cases (same sector, same stage), the proposal is just a promise.

Section 5: Investment (1 page)

Don't say "investment." Say price. Honesty convinces.

Total price: $[X]
 
Payment structure:
- Pay in full: $[X with a 5-10% discount]
- Split payments / financing: [terms — localize per market]
 
Vs the alternatives:
- In-house hire (1 senior, 90 days): $[60k] + overhead + risk
- Broad consultancy (competitor X): $[70k] with no guarantee
- Doing nothing: $[W in 12 months of lost opportunity]
 
Why this price:
[1 paragraph justifying margin + scope + transferred risk]

Why it matters: the decision-maker always runs a mental comparison. Get ahead of the 3 real alternatives (in-house hire, competitor, do nothing).

Section 6: Guarantee (1 page)

A conditional guarantee with a metric and a payout. Without it, the decision-maker mentally risk-adjusts your proposal downward.

Conditional guarantee:
 
Within [N] days of starting, [metric X] must reach [value Y].
If it doesn't, you get [partial refund + bonus + extension], no questions asked.
 
Why I offer it:
[1 paragraph: my confidence comes from the cases — not a blind promise]
 
What this guarantee means for you:
- Real maximum financial risk: $[value after the refund]
- Operational worst case: [the diagnostic you keep regardless]

Why it matters: the decision-maker is calculating risk. A conditional guarantee shifts the risk off them and onto you. Huge differentiation vs competitors with no guarantee.

Section 7: Next step (½ page)

An exact direction. Not "looking forward to hearing back." A specific, dated next action.

Next 14 days:
 
1. You review this proposal with [decision-maker 2, decision-maker 3].
2. We book a 30-min call to clear up final questions — [booking link].
3. If you move forward: contract signed by [date], start [date + 5 days].
 
If the answer is "no" or "not yet":
A short email is enough. No pressing. I stay in touch every 90 days with material useful to your niche.

Why it matters: the decision-maker has a clear path. Without it, the proposal turns into an open-ended "we'll think about it."

5 anti-commoditization patterns

Pattern 1: Visible tiers (not a single price)

If the proposal has 1 price, the decision-maker compares you 1-to-1 against competitors and usually picks the cheapest. If the proposal has 3 tiers, they compare inside your proposal — and pick Gold or Platinum.

Silver — $[X]: [reduced scope], deliverables 1-3
Gold (recommended) — $[Y]: [full scope], deliverables 1-5
Platinum — $[Z]: [full scope + dedicated service], deliverables 1-5 + extras

Platinum doesn't need to sell — it exists to make Gold the obvious choice.

Pattern 2: Odd-numbered bonus stack with $ values

Not "there'll be some extras." Each bonus has a proper name + a $ value + a function.

Bonuses included in Gold:
 
1. [Premium X Toolkit] ($4,997) — [function]
2. [Y Vault] ($2,997) — [function]
3. [Z System] ($9,997) — [function]
 
Total stack value: $17,991
You pay: $[Gold]

Pattern 3: Conditional guarantee, not a generic one

"Satisfaction guaranteed" = a generic bluff. "In 90 days with [metric X] at [value Y] or we refund" = a real commitment.

Pattern 4: Comparison against the real alternatives

The decision-maker always compares against 3 things: (a) doing it in-house, (b) another consultant, (c) doing nothing. Get ahead of all 3 comparisons in the proposal.

Pattern 5: Genuine scarcity at the close

"Next window only opens [date]" — not "spots running out." Give the operational reason for the limit.

I take [N] new projects per quarter to protect delivery capacity.
This quarter: [N filled]/[N total]. Next quarter opens [date].

Physical format of the proposal

Length: 8-15 pages (not 30+). Density > volume.

Preferred format:

• A professional PDF, lightly branded (logo in the header, no excessive decoration).
• Table of contents on page 2.
• Each section on its own page (no run-together).
• Footer with page number + client name on each one.

Format anti-patterns:

• PowerPoint exported to PDF (looks amateur).
• Public Notion page (signals "didn't prepare anything formal").
• Plain-text email (high-ticket deserves a formal document).
• More than 20 pages (the decision-maker won't read it).

Delivery cadence

From the call to the proposal: 3 business days max (past that, close rate drops 30-40%).

From the proposal to the yes/no: a 14-day window documented in the proposal. After 14 days with no reply, follow up once. After 30 days with no reply, a gentle breakup.

Anti-patterns

• "Investment proposal" (an evasive euphemism — say "commercial proposal")
• 30 pages with everything (the decision-maker won't read it; it dilutes)
• No guarantee (the decision-maker mentally discounts your proposal)
• Single price, no tiers (you lose on price in a comparison)
• No comparison against the alternatives (the decision-maker runs it himself, against you)
• No deadline on the next step ("looking forward to hearing back")
• Genericness (the proposal could be for any client)
• No named mechanism ("our methodology")
• Bonuses with no $ value ("you get some extras")
• Case studies with no numbers (vague testimonials)

Application by use case

When it does NOT apply

• B2C transactional (impulse buy, no formal proposal).
• Self-serve SaaS (no proposal cycle).
• Deal size < $10k (a heavy proposal is overkill).
• Refining cold email copy → use ad-copy-formula or sales-sequencing.

Detailed reference

reference/100m-offers-extracts.md (Grand Slam Offer principles) + reference/leaked-pricing-playbook.md (Laws 3 and 4).