When your plan stalls, know who decides next and what was already agreed. Document the economics, the floor, and who owns each decision before you start, so if the original path fails, you still have a way forward.
The discriminating question is this: if this stalls, who still owns getting me to a decision, and what did we agree happens next? That is the difference between being helpful and building a process that can actually carry commercial weight. The commercial standard is simple: the route should still support a decision when the first path does not. A useful test is to read the plan backward from the moment something goes wrong. If the process stalls, can the owner identify the next decision, the responsible party, and the path back? From the owner's perspective, written clarity is not bureaucracy. It is protection for the relationship and the decision. Before the next introduction, write the 4 answers down. Write the economics before the introductions. Agree the floor before shared work. Protect the return path. Before you route the relationship, ask whether the owner can still see the next decision. They need introductions that can still produce a decision if the first path fails.
