---
id: c10-gtm-architecture
title: GTM Architecture
module: GROW-S10
module_slug: grow-s10-commercialization-architecture
cluster: Coordination
type: spec
version: v0.1.0
status: Gate-reviewed
tier: membership
contract_role: ""
canonical_url: "https://grow.goodcombinator.ai/library/registry/c10-gtm-architecture"
download_url: "https://grow.goodcombinator.ai/library/registry/c10-gtm-architecture.md"
license: CC-BY-4.0 (proposed — owner confirmation required)
source: GROW by Good Combinator
retrieved_at: 2026-05-29
---

# Go-to-Market Architecture

The Go-to-Market Architecture spec translates a validated pricing hypothesis from `c10-revenue-model-design` and a confirmed ICP from `c10-customer-market-framing` into a concrete sales motion, partner channel strategy, and pilot structure. It is not a marketing plan — it is an operational spec that names the wedge, the sequence of motions, the pilot terms, and the proof-of-value (PoV) metrics that determine whether the pilot converts to a paying contract. Every PoV metric cited here must trace to a live, passing rubric criterion in `s2-scoring-system`; this is the same anti-vaporware discipline enforced by the C12 contract in `c10-revenue-model-design`. A GTM architecture without grounded PoV metrics is aspirational writing, not a usable sales instrument.

## Go-to-Market Spec Template

```yaml
gtm_id: <kebab-case>
offer_id: <offer_id from c10-revenue-model-design>
icp_ref: <icp_id from c10-customer-market-framing>
pricing_hypothesis_ref: <pricing_hypothesis_id from c10-revenue-model-design>
version: <semver>
last_reviewed: <ISO date>

# ── Wedge ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
wedge:
  wedge_description: >
    <The single, specific, smallest-possible problem this offer solves for the
    beachhead ICP. The wedge is not the full product; it is the problem that
    gets a first meeting and a first check.>
  wedge_rationale: >
    <Why this wedge and not another? What makes it urgent, visibly painful,
    and winnable?>
  wedge_capability_ref: <capability_id; the one capability that anchors the wedge>
  expansion_sequence:
    - step: <e.g., stormwater permit triage → building permit triage>
      unlock_condition: <what must be true before this expansion step is valid>

# ── Sales Motion ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
sales_motion:
  primary_motion: <inbound | outbound | channel | product-led | community-led>
  motion_description: >
    <How deals are sourced, qualified, and advanced; who does what at each stage>
  lead_sources:
    - source: <e.g., FASD conference, district manager network, direct inquiry>
      estimated_volume_per_quarter: <number; (illustrative) if unverified>
      qualification_criteria: <minimum signal required to advance a lead to discovery>
  discovery_questions:
    - <question that surfaces the wedge pain and qualifies budget authority>
  champion_profile: >
    <The internal advocate who will shepherd the deal; their motivation and
    what they need from you to build a business case for the economic buyer>
  deal_stages:
    - stage: <name>
      entry_criteria: <what must be true to enter this stage>
      exit_criteria: <what moves the deal forward>
      owner: <seller or champion>
      expected_duration: <calendar time>

# ── Partner Channels ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
partner_channels:
  - channel_id: <kebab-case>
    channel_type: <referral | reseller | integration-partner | cooperative-purchasing | endorsement>
    partner_name: <organization or program name>
    rationale: <why this partner matters for this ICP>
    status: <target | in-conversation | signed | active>
    target_date: <ISO date>
    moat_contribution: <which moat source this channel reinforces>

# ── Pilot Structure ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
pilot:
  pilot_duration_days: <number>
  pilot_scope: >
    <exactly what the pilot covers; what is in scope and explicitly what is not>
  pilot_price_usd: <number or "no charge"; note if discount from pricing_hypothesis_ref>
  pilot_success_criteria:
    - criterion_id: <rubric criterion id in s2-scoring-system — must match a live criterion>
      criterion_description: <human-readable label>
      target_score: <integer 0–5; the score the pilot must achieve to declare success>
      measurement_method: <how the score is produced — eval run, operator observation, etc.>
  pilot_failure_criteria:
    - <condition that would trigger an early exit from the pilot>
  conversion_condition: >
    <The specific outcome — stated in writing before the pilot starts — that
    triggers a contract offer at the full pricing_hypothesis price>
  pilot_review_cadence:
    - checkpoint_day: <number>
      agenda: <what is reviewed; who participates>

# ── Proof-of-Value Metrics ────────────────────────────────────────────────────
# These must be a subset of pov_metric_refs in the c10-revenue-model-design
# pricing hypothesis. No new metric may be introduced here that is not already
# in s2-scoring-system with a live, passing evaluation.
pov_metrics:
  - metric_id: <criterion_id from s2-scoring-system>
    metric_description: <human-readable; what the buyer observes>
    baseline: <current state before pilot; must be measurable>
    target: <what the pilot must demonstrate>
    measurement_frequency: <daily | weekly | end-of-pilot>
    accountable_party: <seller or customer champion>

# ── Launch Sequence ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
launch_sequence:
  - phase: <e.g., "pilot close", "general availability", "channel activation">
    entry_gate: <what must be true before this phase starts>
    actions:
      - <concrete action item>
    exit_gate: <what must be true before the next phase starts>
    owner: <role>
    target_date: <ISO date>
```

## Worked Example — Stormwater Pre-Screener GTM Architecture

```yaml
gtm_id: stormwater-prescreener-gtm-v1
offer_id: stormwater-prescreener-fl-district
icp_ref: fl-special-district-engineer-review-reduction
pricing_hypothesis_ref: stormwater-prescreener-annual-v1
version: 0.1.0
last_reviewed: 2026-05-29

wedge:
  wedge_description: >
    Eliminate manual permit impact classification for the top-80% of
    stormwater permit applications at a FL independent special district
    with FDEP delegated authority. The clerk receives a triage recommendation
    with FDEP rule citations and a routing decision in under 30 minutes rather
    than spending 2–4 hours per application on a manual checklist.
  wedge_rationale: >
    This is the single most painful, most visible step in the district's
    permitting workflow. It requires no system integration beyond the existing
    portal, and the output is a draft recommendation — not a final decision —
    so it clears the economic buyer's AI-risk objection. It is winnable in
    a 90-day pilot without requiring multi-jurisdiction capability.
  wedge_capability_ref: stormwater-permit-prescreener
  expansion_sequence:
    - step: Extend to building permit triage at the same district
      unlock_condition: >
        Stormwater triage achieves 92%+ engineer-agreement rate over 90-day
        pilot and pilot converts to annual contract
    - step: Expand to a second FL district (Okaloosa County target)
      unlock_condition: >
        First district reference case published with signed customer quote;
        multi-jurisdiction rule layer built in t7-multi-municipality-architecture

sales_motion:
  primary_motion: community-led
  motion_description: >
    The elected commissioner seat provides direct access to the FASD network
    and peer district manager relationships. Initial outreach is peer-to-peer
    (commissioner to district manager), not vendor-to-buyer. Discovery is a
    30-minute working session using the s1-operating-context-canvas as a
    structured conversation tool. Qualified leads advance to a 90-day pilot
    offer. No cold outbound.
  lead_sources:
    - source: FASD annual conference and regional chapter meetings
      estimated_volume_per_quarter: "2–4 qualified conversations (illustrative)"
      qualification_criteria: >
        District has FDEP stormwater delegated authority, annual permit volume
        >= 40 applications, and a district manager who can approve a pilot
        without full board vote (check district charter [VERIFY per district])
    - source: South Walton County peer network (30A corridor districts)
      estimated_volume_per_quarter: "1–2 qualified conversations (illustrative)"
      qualification_criteria: Same as above
  discovery_questions:
    - "How many stormwater permit applications does your district process per year,
       and what share currently go to engineer review?"
    - "How long does a typical clerk spend on triage before the application is
       routed? What does that cost in staff hours?"
    - "Has your district had an FDEP compliance review in the last 24 months,
       and were any documentation gaps flagged?"
    - "Who has authority to approve a software pilot under $10,000 without a
       full board vote?"
  champion_profile: >
    The district clerk or permits coordinator who does the triage work daily.
    Their motivation is relief from tedious, error-prone citation lookup. They
    need a 15-minute demo showing their own application type triaged correctly,
    and a one-page summary they can share with the district manager framing
    the FS Chapter 119 audit-trail benefit.
  deal_stages:
    - stage: Discovery
      entry_criteria: Lead has FDEP authority and >= 40 permits/year
      exit_criteria: Pain confirmed, budget authority identified, champion named
      owner: seller
      expected_duration: 1–2 weeks
    - stage: Demo
      entry_criteria: Champion confirmed; district manager aware
      exit_criteria: Demo scored favorably by champion; manager agrees to pilot conversation
      owner: seller
      expected_duration: 1 week
    - stage: Pilot Agreement
      entry_criteria: Manager approved pilot scope and price; legal reviewed terms
      exit_criteria: Signed pilot agreement
      owner: seller + customer
      expected_duration: 2–4 weeks (procurement cycle)
    - stage: Pilot Execution
      entry_criteria: Signed agreement; onboarding complete
      exit_criteria: pov_metrics targets met or not met; conversion decision made
      owner: seller + champion
      expected_duration: 90 days
    - stage: Conversion
      entry_criteria: Pilot success criteria met; conversion conversation initiated
      exit_criteria: Annual contract signed
      owner: seller
      expected_duration: 2–4 weeks

partner_channels:
  - channel_id: fasd-endorsement
    channel_type: endorsement
    partner_name: Florida Association of Special Districts (FASD)
    rationale: >
      FASD endorsement converts peer credibility into institutional credibility.
      A district manager who hears about the tool from the FASD newsletter has
      pre-qualified it without a cold sales call.
    status: target
    target_date: "2026-Q4"
    moat_contribution: distribution
  - channel_id: fl-naspo-cooperative
    channel_type: cooperative-purchasing
    partner_name: FL NASPO ValuePoint [VERIFY eligibility and schedule]
    rationale: >
      Cooperative purchasing removes the sole-source procurement objection for
      small districts. A district manager can order off-contract without a
      full RFP if the tool is on an approved schedule.
    status: target
    target_date: "2027-Q1"
    moat_contribution: distribution

pilot:
  pilot_duration_days: 90
  pilot_scope: >
    Stormwater permit triage only; input via district portal CSV export or
    direct upload; output is a triage recommendation draft for clerk review.
    Excludes building permits, environmental resource permits, and any
    applicant-facing communication. The agent never sends directly to applicants.
  pilot_price_usd: 0
  pilot_success_criteria:
    - criterion_id: citation-accuracy
      criterion_description: >
        FDEP rule citations in triage recommendations are correct and applicable
      target_score: 4
      measurement_method: >
        Blind review of 20 sampled recommendations by district engineer;
        scored against s2-scoring-system Permit-Triage rubric Criterion 1
    - criterion_id: jurisdictional-fit
      criterion_description: >
        Recommendations stay within district scope or escalate correctly
      target_score: 4
      measurement_method: >
        Same blind review; Criterion 2 from s2-scoring-system rubric
    - criterion_id: hitl-surfacing
      criterion_description: >
        HITL gate correctly inserted when engineer review is required
      target_score: 3
      measurement_method: >
        Review of all applications marked engineer-review; confirm gate
        was inserted before any applicant notification draft was produced
  pilot_failure_criteria:
    - Any instance of a triage recommendation sent directly to an applicant
      without clerk review (irreversible-impact boundary violation)
    - Citation-accuracy score below 3 on any blind review checkpoint
    - District engineer agreement rate below 80% at day 45
  conversion_condition: >
    All three pilot_success_criteria targets met at end of 90-day period;
    district manager confirms the tool saved >= 1 hour per week of clerk
    time on average (self-reported or time-tracking data); no pilot_failure_criteria
    triggered.
  pilot_review_cadence:
    - checkpoint_day: 14
      agenda: >
        Review first 10 triage outputs together with champion; identify any
        citation gaps or routing errors; adjust configuration if needed
    - checkpoint_day: 45
      agenda: >
        Mid-pilot scorecard from s2-scoring-system rubric run; engineer-agreement
        rate review; go/no-go conversation with district manager
    - checkpoint_day: 90
      agenda: >
        Full proof-of-value scorecard; conversion offer if criteria met;
        postmortem on any failures regardless of outcome

pov_metrics:
  - metric_id: citation-accuracy
    metric_description: >
      Share of FDEP rule citations that are correct and applicable to the
      permit type being triaged
    baseline: >
      Manual process has no systematic citation-accuracy tracking; baseline
      estimated at 85% from clerk self-report (illustrative)
    target: >= 4/5 on blind-review rubric at 90-day end
    measurement_frequency: end-of-pilot
    accountable_party: seller
  - metric_id: hitl-surfacing
    metric_description: >
      Rate at which the agent correctly inserts an engineer-review gate on
      applications that require one
    baseline: >
      Manual process routes ~35% of applications to engineer review;
      current miss rate unknown (illustrative)
    target: >= 3/5 on rubric; zero missed gates on edge-case inputs
    measurement_frequency: weekly
    accountable_party: seller

launch_sequence:
  - phase: First Pilot Close
    entry_gate: Pilot agreement signed with one FL special district
    actions:
      - Complete onboarding in <= 5 business days
      - Run first triage batch of 10 applications with champion present
      - Confirm citation-accuracy on first batch >= 4/5 before proceeding
    exit_gate: Day 14 checkpoint passed; no failure criteria triggered
    owner: seller
    target_date: "2026-Q3"
  - phase: Reference Case Publication
    entry_gate: 90-day pilot completes; conversion conditions met
    actions:
      - Document proof-of-value scorecard from s2-scoring-system
      - Obtain signed customer quote from district manager
      - Publish case study to FASD network (with district approval)
    exit_gate: Reference case live and in active distribution
    owner: seller
    target_date: "2026-Q4"
  - phase: Second District Pilot
    entry_gate: Reference case live; t7-multi-municipality-architecture extended
      to second jurisdiction; FASD channel conversation initiated
    actions:
      - Outreach to Okaloosa County or Bay County district (illustrative)
      - Replicate pilot structure using GTM spec
    exit_gate: Second pilot agreement signed
    owner: seller
    target_date: "2026-Q4"
```

## GTM Design Principles

Three principles distinguish a durable GTM architecture from a plan that collapses at first contact. First, the wedge must be small enough to close in a single conversation and large enough to make the pain visible. A stormwater triage tool that replaces one step in a permit workflow is the right size — it is not "AI for permitting," which is too large to evaluate, and it is not "AI that summarizes one field in an application form," which is too small to justify a procurement cycle. Second, PoV metrics must be set before the pilot starts, in writing, and they must trace to a live `s2-scoring-system` criterion — a metric invented during the pilot is a negotiating position, not a proof. Third, partner channels take longer to mature than pilots; start the FASD and cooperative-purchasing conversations now, even when the first pilot has not closed. The channel that closes deal three was planted during deal one.