Sheri — Discovery Call Design

The pre-call email Luke sends to Sheri

Why two and not three:

• Q1 (stack) resolves Petey's open question (Google vs Microsoft) and confirms which Thomson Reuters product she has. Both materially change the integration playbook.
• Q2 (document-chase share) tells us whether the dominant pain is a 30-min build or a 30-day build. If >30% of inbound, the pain is acute and quantifiable.
• What we left out: a hiring question. Asking by email how many CPAs she's interviewed and hired in 18 months is a recruiter's qualifying question, and a friend-of-Amy referral has not earned the right to ask it before the call. Surface hiring conversationally during the Zoom instead.

Three scoped directions — choose one based on her answers

The call shouldn't pitch all three. Pre-route from her email answers, then walk in with the chosen direction as the working hypothesis. Other two stay in reserve as second-call material.

The §7216 conversation — language Luke needs ready

If Direction A surfaces as the chosen path, Sheri will (correctly) ask within 5 minutes of any concrete discussion: "how does OBB legally touch my clients' tax documents?" IRC §7216 makes unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer return information a misdemeanor (and a civil §6713 penalty). The §7216 obligation runs against Sheri — she's the tax-return preparer; OBB is the downstream recipient. She's the one with criminal exposure if it's botched. OBB drafts; Sheri issues.

There are two clean structural paths under §7216, and Sheri's preference picks one:

1. Auxiliary-services arrangement (Treasury Reg §301.7216-2(d)). OBB is engaged as a contractor performing services in connection with return preparation, governed by a confidentiality agreement between Sheri's firm and OBB. No per-client consent required. This is how most outsourced bookkeeping + document-prep vendors operate. Cleanest path for most firms.
2. Per-client written consent (Treasury Reg §301.7216-3). If Sheri's clients are sensitive to having a named third party touch their documents, each client signs a consent in the specific format the regulation requires. More friction operationally, more transparency to clients.

Three sentences Luke needs ready when this comes up:

1. "§7216 is your obligation as the preparer, not ours — we'd never put your name on a form we drafted without your review. The two ways to structure it are an auxiliary-services arrangement under §301.7216-2(d), or per-client consents under -3 if your clients are sensitive to having OBB named. Most firms our size go with -2(d). Your call."
2. "During the 30-day pilot, we test the workflow on a small cohort — 20-30 clients you pick — and whichever consent structure you choose is the first thing we operationalize. No document moves to the OBB side until that's signed off."
3. "On the insurance side — what does your firm normally require of a contractor at this scope? We'd rather match your existing spec than guess. If you need a specific endorsement on our coverage, we'll either get it bound before contract or refer you to someone better-built for that level of controls."

What Luke does NOT say: "TaxDome is §7216-compliant." True of the tool, not of any workflow on top of it — the compliance is in the consent process and OBB's data-handling posture, not the software. Also do NOT say "we carry E&O coverage" without checking with Kevin whether OBB has the right policy bound — promising verifiable coverage we don't have is the deal-killer that ends the Amy relationship along with the deal.

Data-handling posture — the 90-second pitch

Adjacent to §7216 — Sheri will ask "where do these documents live? Who at OBB sees them?" Luke's answer:

• Where the documents live: in the client portal (TaxDome or whatever portal her Thomson Reuters product offers) — Sheri's tenant, not OBB's. OBB has scoped access for operational purposes only; primary copies never leave her tenant.
• Who at OBB sees them: a named human operator (Luke can name the person on the call), identified to Sheri up front. Not a rotating team. Logged access.
• Retention + offboarding: if the pilot doesn't continue, OBB's access is revoked within 48 hours of termination and we provide a written attestation of access revocation. Documents stay in Sheri's tenant; OBB does not retain copies.
• What we don't have yet (honest): SOC 2 audit. We're a small operator. If Sheri's firm requires audited controls (some states + larger client contracts do), we tell her up front and refer her to a vendor built for that level. We don't bluff our way past it.

Compliance layers adjacent to §7216 that may apply:

• GLBA Safeguards Rule. Since the 2023 amendments, CPA firms are treated as "financial institutions" under GLBA. The Safeguards Rule requires Sheri's firm to have a written information-security program covering its service providers (OBB). Worth one sentence: "your written ISP will need to cover us — we'll help you scope what that looks like for the OBB engagement."
• State CPA-board rules. Some state boards (TX, CA, NY are stricter) have specific rules on outsourcing client work. One line: "state board rules on outsourcing vary — we'll confirm yours before contract."

The 45-minute Zoom agenda

Listen-fors during the call

Graceful no-sale exit — preserve the Amy relationship

If Sheri is polite but uninterested — or if the diagnostic surfaces that her pains aren't actually OBB-shaped — the call has to end cleanly, with Amy's relationship intact.

Recommended close: "Sheri, this was useful for me even if it doesn't turn into work — I have a better feel for what CPAs your size are actually wrestling with right now. If something changes or you want a second opinion on anything, I'm a Zoom away. And let Amy know I appreciated the connect."

Do not: send a follow-up "just checking in" email a week later if she didn't bite. Trust her to come back if it surfaces. Amy stays comfortable.

What to leave OFF the discovery call

• Pricing. Don't quote numbers. The pricing in the direction cards above is for your reference — quote in writing afterward.
• OBB's own track record. If she asks, be honest: "We're newer than the bigger firms in this space. Our differentiator is that we run the tools, we don't sell them — and Amy can vouch for the work we've done for her." Don't oversell adjacent clients we haven't asked permission to name.
• Technical specifics. If she asks "how does the AI work?" — redirect to "what it does for you," not "what's under the hood." Tax-firm partners don't buy on tech stack; they buy on outcomes.
• Multiple directions. Don't show her all three direction cards above. Pick one, pitch it, hold the other two in reserve. The packet looks chaotic if you walk in with three things you could do.

What we need from Sheri to confirm before the second call

Assuming the discovery call surfaces interest, post-call:

• Sample of her client-facing email voice (forward us a real document-chase email she sent last year, redacted as needed).
• Confirmation of the Thomson Reuters CRM product name (so we can scope the integration option).
• Email-system confirmation (Google Workspace vs Microsoft 365).
• Her availability for a 30-min second call to walk through the formal 30-day pilot scope.
• If Direction B (hiring): the role description she's been trying to fill, and what salary band she's in.

Pricing ownership + decision rights

Per the standard rubric: floor $1,500/mo, typical landing $3,500-$8,500/mo, Luke-review on anything >$10K/mo. Sheri is Amy-introduced (not Ryan-introduced), so this rubric applies cleanly. Luke owns the final number. Kevin and Petey both wanted eyes on this thread (per Petey's 5/20 channel note); loop them in before quoting if there's any ambiguity.