# Derek Vasquez, Founder / Fractional RevOps Consultant at Vasquez RevOps LLC — read of engagement-scoring-ai, May 12 2026 > 11 years in sales ops and RevOps, went solo 18 months ago, currently running 4 retainer clients on HubSpot and Apollo. Actively looking for a productized offering I can stop trading hours for dollars with. --- ## How I got here Someone in the RevOps Co-op Slack dropped a link with a comment like "this is a weird one, check it out." No context. I googled the domain first to see if it was spam. It wasn't obviously spam so I clicked through. I had 12 minutes before a client call. I spent 20. ## What I clicked first The hero pulled me in with "Who's actually ready to buy? Real engagement signals, not guesses." I've heard that exact sentence, basically word for word, from Bombora, 6sense, Clearbit, and two YC startups that no longer exist. So I almost closed it. What stopped me was the numbers block below the fold. "63/100 Adoptability. $-26,000 Year-1 take-home (Fermi). 1 in 8 Meaningful-success odds." That is not how a product markets itself. I scrolled up to make sure I hadn't misread the page. I hadn't. ## Where I paused The honest disclosure line: "We don't have live customers on this idea yet. We shipped the strategy package; you ship the customer conversations." I had to sit with that for a second. Because the first half of the page is written exactly like a SaaS product that exists and works. "Spots buying signals 2-3 weeks before reps notice." "Protects reply rate automatically." Those read like copy from a live product with a dashboard and a customer success team. Then it turns out what I'm looking at is the idea, packaged up for me to go build. That's not dishonest. But the gap between the tone of the feature descriptions and the honest disclosure section is genuinely jarring. I'm still not sure if I think that's clever positioning or a drafting inconsistency. ## What I distrusted "Spots buying signals 2-3 weeks before reps notice." That is the single most overused claim in the intent data space. Every vendor from the $10K/month enterprise players to the $49/month indie tools says some version of this. There's no mechanism described. No "here's what we actually track and how the model weights it." The feature bullets sound like a features slide from a pitch deck, not a description of something that runs. Also the "ICP-Weighted Scoring" section: "A VP Engineer's signup engagement weights different than a solo founder's." That's probably true. But you haven't told me how you determined the weights, whether they're configurable, or whether that even matters if I'm building this for a client with 200 contacts in their CRM. This is conceptual-level copy, not product-level copy. ## What would convince me The gap I kept bumping into is: if I pay $99 and get the "working code starter," what does that code actually do? Does it connect to HubSpot? Does it have a real scoring model or a skeleton? Does it produce a number I can show a client, or is it scaffolding I still need 200 hours to make usable? What would move me from skeptical to replying is a 90-second Loom where someone actually opens the code starter, shows the folder structure, runs it against a dummy CRM, and shows output. Not a demo of a polished product. Just proof that the $99 thing is a real artifact and not a Notion doc with some JS pseudocode. The Fermi math is actually the most credible thing on the page. If there was one real-world example of someone who bought a similar dossier from Wishdeal, shipped something in 5 weeks, and got to X paying customers, that would be more useful to me than any feature description. ## What I'd ask in an email reply 1. The code starter for $99: is this runnable on day one against a HubSpot or Apollo export, or does it require engineering work to wire up? What's the actual dependency list? 2. The "operator partnership" custom tier says "hire the team that built this to install, customize, and run launch with you." What does that actually cost and what's the deliverable at the end of it? Is this a productized sprint or a retainer? 3. You show "financial upside: 2/10" as a concern. That's a pretty brutal self-assessment for something you're asking people to spend time and money on. Can you walk me through the reasoning on why this still clears your bar to publish? ## Verdict: on-the-fence The honest disclosure section earned genuine attention from me, which is rare. But I still don't know what I'm actually buying, and the feature copy reads like a product that doesn't exist yet being described as if it does. I'm not dismissing it. I'm not replying yet. I'd reply if I saw 90 seconds of someone opening the $99 artifact. --- *Memo by skeptic persona, generated 2026-05-12. Studio breaks own self-grading loop.*