Grading a PMM Scorecard Draft Before It Reaches the VP of Sales
Objective: Given 3 synthetic draft scorecard slides, apply the lesson's tier framework and presentation rules to identify which metrics will fail in front of skeptical leadership and why.
You're a PMM analyst at Squarespace reviewing a colleague's draft scorecard slides the night before they present to the VP of Sales.
Spot metrics that are operational rather than commercial, snapshots instead of trends, or unanchored to a business outcome, before they go in front of leadership.
Before you start
What you'll need
Free path (everything below is enough to finish)
Free, fast to draft and share
The process
Specimens to review
This is the entire scorecard slide a colleague plans to bring to tomorrow's QBR with the VP of Sales. What's wrong with it before they present it?
Q2 PMM Scorecard, Draft v1 - 14 blog posts published - 6 case studies shipped - 3 competitor battlecards updated - 22 sales enablement decks created - 1 product launch executed - Website copy refreshed for 2 pages
Specimen: synthetic, realistic
This is the headline number on the second draft slide. Is this ready to present to a skeptical VP?
Win rate on enabled deals: 47% (this quarter only)
Specimen: synthetic, realistic
This is the headline commercial-influence metric on the third draft slide. Evaluate it against the lesson's framework.
Sales enablement asset downloads this month: 340
Specimen: synthetic, realistic
Final deliverable
A one-page critique memo listing every scorecard defect found, its severity, and the corrected metric to replace it with.
See a reference example
Adyen PMM Scorecard Critique (excerpt) Draft slide 1: 9 of 9 metrics operational, zero tied to revenue or win rate. FIX: replace with win-rate-on-enabled-deals and pipeline-influenced. Draft slide 2: single-quarter win rate, no trend, no dollar anchor. FIX: show 5-quarter trend line, add 'worth ~$X in pipeline' sentence.
Success criteria
You're done when you can:
- Correctly identifies the operational-heavy defect in item 1
- Correctly identifies both the snapshot and unanchored-number defects in item 2
- Correctly identifies the vanity-metric-over-counterfactual defect in item 3
- Does not flag any of the 3 distractors as real defects