| ID | Category | Risk | Evidence | Impact | Plays | Owner & By When |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | Commercial |
Price gap vs competitor — significant price advantage for competitor
Known |
• Sukai stated “significant gap” between Optimizely and competitor (2/3) • Best-and-final at 47% off list, 20% reduction from previous proposal • Competitor is meaningfully cheaper per procurement • Best-and-final positioned as non-negotiable — no further price levers available |
Win rate reduced if decision comes down to price. $1.28M TCV vs unknown competitor pricing. Architecture council may weight cost heavily. |
P1
P4
P11
|
Conor — GCP Marketplace value positioning by 3/28; Rich/Alex — exec value bridge |
| R2 | Political |
Architecture council (Zamir) has not convened — vendor decision gate still ahead
Known 3/25 |
• Charlotte confirmed architecture council has not reviewed package (3/25) • Zamir (Zameer Andani, VP Engineering) leads final vendor decision • No date set for council review • Post-selection: legal, security, audit, and order form review in parallel |
Vendor selection cannot proceed until council meets. Every day of delay extends the deal beyond Q2. No visibility into Zamir’s evaluation criteria or timeline. |
P2
P5
P9
|
Conor — push Charlotte for council timeline by 3/31; prepare architecture-ready materials |
| R3 | Timing |
Timeline slippage — March close missed, no replacement date
CRITICAL 3/25 |
• Original March 31 signing target missed • Charlotte has no timeline from business team (3/25) • Internal strategy sync assessed Q2 as realistic (2/13) • Procurement handoff created ~2-month communication gap • DY contract doesn’t expire until August 2026 — no urgency forcing function |
Deal drifts into Q2+ with no forcing function. DY August expiry removes urgency. Risk of deal going dormant if not actively managed. |
P1
P6
P7
|
Conor — secure updated timeline from Charlotte by 3/31; in-person NYC meeting next week |
| R4 | Paper |
Procurement handoff — Sukai to Charlotte, 2-month communication gap
Known 3/25 |
• Sukai was original procurement lead (Feb 2026) • Charlotte Picq Vitaux is new contact, still ramping (3/25) • Charlotte juggling multiple projects, has not completed commercial review • ~2 months of silence between Feb and March touchpoints |
New procurement lead must rebuild context. Delays commercial review, legal engagement, and internal process alignment. |
P6
P7
|
Conor — in-person NYC meeting week of 3/31; forward all prior materials proactively |
| R5 | Political |
Grace McCloyd departure — Lauren short-staffed, reduced advocacy
Known |
• Grace left the business (confirmed 12/15) • Lauren short-staffed through Q1 2026 • No active champion signal in 3/25 call — Charlotte in procurement mode only • Internal advocacy momentum reduced |
Champion bandwidth constrained. Lauren may not be able to push architecture council or executive approvals with same intensity. |
P2
P3
|
Conor — re-engage Lauren directly; assess bandwidth and council timeline |
| R6 | Political |
Leadership access gated behind incumbent executive meeting
Known |
• Lauren has executive meeting with incumbent (DY) scheduled • Leadership introductions for Optimizely happen after that meeting • No update on whether incumbent meeting has occurred (3/25) • Cannot engage Josh Lieberman or Chris Conrad through normal path |
Cannot reach economic buyers or executive sponsors without Lauren’s facilitation or an alternative bridge. Executive plays blocked. |
P1
P2
P3
|
Conor — confirm with Lauren whether incumbent meeting has occurred; propose parallel path through Google/CIO |
| R7 | Technical |
Data refresh limitation — 10/day max vs required 24x/day hourly
Known (Nov 2025) |
• Critical limitation identified Nov 2025 technical deep dive • Required hourly data refresh (24x/day) for merchandising • 10/day max is current platform constraint • Marked as potential showstopper requiring roadmap escalation |
Could be disqualifying if architecture council evaluates on technical requirements. Competitor may not have this limitation. |
P5
P8
|
Conor — confirm roadmap status for data refresh; prepare mitigation narrative for architecture council |
| R8 | Competitive |
Competitor identity uncertain — ABtasty vs Statsig positioning shifts strategy
Known 2/13 |
• Originally tracked as ABtasty • Internal strategy sync (2/13): Statsig now suspected primary competitor • Charlotte declined to confirm competitive status (3/25) • ABtasty recently acquired — roadmap uncertainty angle only works if ABtasty is competitor |
Competitive positioning depends on knowing the opponent. Vendor stability argument applies to ABtasty but not Statsig. Price gap narrative changes based on identity. |
P3
|
Conor — verify competitor through Lauren or back-channel by 3/31 |
| R9 | Political |
Google partnership play status unknown — executive leverage idle
Assumed |
• Alex Atzberger committed to GCP outreach (2/13) to Google account team + Oliver Parker • Nancy McConnell, PJ Zargar, Rhiannon Liebowitz all identified as contacts • No follow-up on whether outreach was sent or landed • Chris Conrad (CIO) pathway remains unused |
Significant executive leverage sitting idle. Google partnership was identified as potential tiebreaker but execution is unknown. |
P1
P3
|
Conor — confirm with Alex whether GCP outreach was sent; prepare Conrad escalation if needed |
| R10 | Paper |
Legal/security contacts unidentified, signatory unknown for $1.28M TCV
Assumed |
• Charlotte described post-selection process: legal, security, audit, order form review in parallel • No legal or security contacts identified by name • Signatory for $1.28M TCV unknown • New MSA required (2018 MSA too outdated); DPA may need AI updates |
Post-vendor-selection process could take 2–3 months with unidentified stakeholders. Paper process cannot be pre-loaded. |
P6
P8
|
Conor — ask Charlotte to identify legal, security, and signatory contacts; prepare MSA for immediate send post-selection |