Enquirer Consulting Group / Prepared for AccessSync

The Friday session.
Where Wednesday landed, and what we decide next.

Friday, August 21, 2026 · Ed Barrett, Dan Reeves, Matt Marani
Working session document. All counts pre-verification.
THE FULL PLAN ↗ YOUR LIVE MAP ↗

01 Wednesday: discussed, agreed, actioned

Your rulings from the last call, and what has been built against them since. The census, the entry pool and the Asembia cross are live on the map now. The next pass carries the widened company layer, per your Sobi ruling, and the re-cut Asembia segment.

What you ruled

  • Market access is the way in. Patient access next, then managed markets and payer. Reimbursement and Pricing / Contracting & Trade sit on the committee but are rarely the door.
  • Commercial leadership and HEOR are out. Patient services parked until you call it.
  • Director and below leads. Your primary contact is a director or senior director; managers and leads sit under them in the same pool. VP and above deprioritized, not excluded; a new-in-role VP is the exception worth moving on.
  • New hires are a trigger event. Your words, and the lane held up when we ran it.
  • Therapy in the US market is the gate, not headquarters country.
  • Anyone you already work with comes out automatically. Sobi and its subsidiary are suppressed now; the full gate needs your client list.

What was built against them

  • The full census, rebuilt overnight Wednesday to your exact rules, live on the map since Thursday morning.
  • Your trigger lane, run once by hand across your target list: new-in-role people at director level and below, plus new-in-role VPs at Bayer, GSK, Jazz, Iovance and Madrigal, with a sixth on the twelve-month boundary.
  • Your Asembia file crossed against the map, and all 92 matches run back through an independent licensed source.
  • Forty-three of our own records carried a stale employer. The live check caught them; they are re-pointed before the next map render.
  • Your Thursday note on the file versions, checked Friday morning. The census and the map already stood on the brands file, so nothing needed rebuilding. What we did re-cut is the Asembia segment on your current rule, your role ratings kept, the company frame from the brands file: 533 Role A at your companies before your red pen, 333 after it. 176 of them are people your April sheet under-scored.
21,238
named people in the access conversation, the full census
5,042
in your entry pool by your exact rule: first three rings, directors and managers
16,878
at the companies behind your 365 rows, and that is a floor
78
new-in-role access people at your targets, eleven months or less, one manual pull
33
of your target companies have posted market access roles
76 of 92
Asembia matches confirmed still at the company your file lists, re-verified live
All counts pre-verification and at company level. 16,878 is a floor: 4,405 of the 5,042 entry pool sit at the companies behind your 365 rows, and 14 of your company keys still resolve to zero people, Gilead and Insmed among them. Gap-fill is the next deliverable.

02 The open threads

What Wednesday did not reach, plus what you sent since.

To walk together

  • Your signal framework from Thursday, read back. Your pains split into observable, commercial underperformance, competitive pressure, new launches, access complexity, and one that is not. Your current signals sort into three kinds. On your properties, firing once someone has found you: form fills, website visitor identification, CRM engagement scoring, today all email, and LinkedIn followers and profile visitors. Creating awareness once a year: the booth. Firing cold all year: new market access leadership and job changes, the one lane we have already run at your targets.
  • The signal that does not exist. The key motivator you named, a service gap at the incumbent vendor, emits nothing. It only ever surfaces inside a conversation that is already open. That is the case for continuous coverage of the named market over more signal tooling.
  • Who works the signal. Every source on your list needs a person to act on it the day it fires. We should look at where that capacity comes from between now and the AE hire.
  • Third-party validation. The ingredient you called missing. We own reach into the industry press, and we want to show you what multiplication looks like in practice.

From your side

  • Your client list and live opportunities. The suppression gate we committed to. Nothing gets staged until it is in.
  • The outbound math you offered. The actual numbers behind the prior outsourced effort, still useful for the baseline.
  • Your parked calls. Patient services in or out; the dual-hat HEOR titles; head-only titles; whether the specialist layer becomes a supporting champions pool.

03 The economics of a conversation

Your structure: a year of funnel data, a February to November buying window, and a committee of five to eight behind every deal. Let's fill this in together now, so the engagement can be judged the same way you judge a rep: calls in, closed deals out.
  1. Qualified first conversations. Right role, right company, live pain. What should these convert at? →
  2. Discovery held. The committee starts to form. How many reach discovery? →
  3. Committee engaged. Five to eight people, mapped and covered, inside the buying window. Opportunity rate inside the window →
  4. Closed customer. Your first-year value per customer company, with your retention behind it. What one close pays for, from your data →
The question this answers: what is one closed customer worth to AccessSync.

04 The shape of working together

The model is four months: designed, staffed and run in-market with you, then handed over as a working machine your team owns. Before the proposal conversation, we want your read on three things. No pricing today; the proposal call carries that, and it will be exact, not a range.
Question one / Commercial shape
A single flat engagement fee for the four months, or a lower flat fee with a success component on revenue from deals closed off the pipeline we build?
Both work. The difference is where the risk sits and how aligned you want the incentives. Your preference shapes the proposal.
Question two / What makes it safe
What conditions would make this engagement feel de-risked from your side?
Levers we can build in: verification gates before anything is sent, automatic suppression of your client list and live opportunities, monthly deliverables you sign off, and defined handover terms. Tell us what you would add.
Question three / The rep
How close should we be to the AE hire, and to bedding them into the systems we build?
Anywhere from spec and scorecard, to shortlist support and interview panels. Either way, there is an argument for timing the hire with the build. The person lands inside a running machine instead of a blank CRM: the census, the trigger feeds, the sequences and the mapped committees are already there. You said it yourself, this should not be a rolodex hire. Paul joins us next week for the deeper pass on this one.
Last items before we finish: who should be in the room for the proposal conversation, a date that works, and a slot next week with Paul.