# Prospect qualification worksheet

Use this worksheet to decide whether a LinkedIn candidate deserves further research, a relevant conversation or no action. It does not establish buying intent or predict sales.

## How to use it

1. Copy the blank record into your own notes and duplicate it for each candidate.
2. Read the original source. Enter its URL, date if visible and your review date.
3. Keep the observed fact separate from your interpretation. Do not infer budget, urgency or authority from a title alone.
4. Choose one next action. Update previous contact and preferences before any message.
5. Review outcomes for people first contacted during the same period. Keep unresolved conversations open rather than counting them as failures immediately.

Use relevant professional information only. Keep your completed records private and respect requests not to be contacted. Do not send a completed worksheet to another prospect.

## Blank reusable record

### Service and candidate

- Service I can actually deliver:
- Company type and relevant responsibility:
- Candidate name and profile URL:
- Company and website:
- Current responsibility and source used to verify it:

### Evidence

- Original post, page or discussion URL:
- Source publication date, if visible:
- Date I reviewed it:
- Observation supported by the source:
- Possible relevance to my service, clearly marked as interpretation:
- Unknowns, including need, ownership, timing and budget:
- Evidence that contradicts my initial interpretation:

### Decision and contact

- Decision: research further / consider contact / exclude / separate peer relationship
- Why this decision follows from the evidence:
- Question the evidence supports asking:
- Contact route made available for relevant business contact:
- Previous contact, including another channel or teammate:
- Contact preferences, refusal or requested future date:
- Next action and date:
- Resource promised, if any, and where the actual resource is stored:

### Outcome

- First-contact date:
- Reply and date:
- What I learned:
- Outcome: unresolved / useful clarification / interested / referral / declined / later
- Agreed conversation or next step:
- Customer outcome and date, if it develops:
- Research and follow-up time:

## Worked examples

All three cases below are hypothetical teaching examples. They are not real leads, customer stories or evidence of results. The example service is an agency sales-to-delivery handoff review. No source links are supplied because no real person is being described.

### Case A: a plausible conversation candidate

- Candidate: an agency operations lead.
- Source and dates: illustrative public post; no real URL or date. In your record, supply both before contacting anyone.
- Observed fact: the author says sales and delivery are deciding who supplies the information for client kickoff.
- Interpretation: a handoff review might help clarify responsibilities.
- Unknown: whether outside help is wanted, any deadline, budget and who approves spending.
- Contradictory evidence to check: a later update saying the process is settled.
- Decision: consider contact after verifying the source is current and the responsibility is relevant.
- Question: are you mainly deciding which details sales supplies, or who checks they are complete?
- Previous contact and preferences: unknown in this illustration; verify before sending.
- Next action: check the original source and contact history, then decide whether a relevant question is appropriate.
- Outcome: not contacted; no result assumed.

### Case B: a peer, not an established buyer

- Candidate: another operations consultant.
- Source and dates: illustrative educational post; replace with an actual URL and dates in your own research.
- Observed fact: the author teaches agencies how to organize kickoff.
- Interpretation: the topic overlaps with our service.
- Unknown: whether they need any service themselves or would welcome a peer relationship.
- Contradictory evidence: their profile says they sell the same kind of work to agencies.
- Decision: exclude from this buyer list. A separate peer relationship may be relevant, but is not assumed.
- Question: none for the current buyer campaign.
- Previous contact and preferences: check before any separate approach.
- Next action: stop buyer outreach; record the exclusion reason to avoid adding them again.
- Outcome: excluded from this campaign; no result assumed.

### Case C: relevant company, insufficient evidence

- Candidate: founder of a service agency.
- Source and dates: illustrative company profile; replace with an actual URL and dates.
- Observed fact: the person founded an agency that delivers client projects.
- Interpretation: the company may have a sales-to-delivery process.
- Unknown: whether kickoff is a concern, who owns it, need for support, timing and budget.
- Contradictory evidence to check: existing internal ownership or a public statement that the process is working well.
- Decision: research further. Do not describe a process problem as established.
- Question: no problem-specific question justified yet.
- Previous contact and preferences: unknown; check if research later supports contact.
- Next action: review relevant public material or leave the person off the contact list if no reason emerges.
- Outcome: research only; no result assumed.

## Review a group of records

Record the first-contact date range and counts for researched people, contacted people, useful clarifications, positive interest, agreed conversations and customers. Note unresolved outcomes separately. Include time and cash costs without assuming that a tool caused every outcome.

Do not treat connection acceptances as customers or compare newly contacted people with wins from an older group. Use the records to identify the next question to investigate, not to manufacture certainty from a small sample.

Created by Trendle. Read the accompanying guide: https://usetrendle.com/blog/linkedin-prospecting