Strategy & Positioning / Trigger Event Framework / Intent Definition Framework
TRIGGER EVENT FRAMEWORK · SAMPLE ARTIFACT

Separating Customer Fit From Buying Intent

A shared model distinguishing fit, interest, intent, and readiness across account-level and person-level activity.

The intent definition framework gives marketing, sales, revenue operations, and customer teams one shared way to interpret activity, aggregate evidence, evaluate readiness, and choose the correct commercial response.

View the Sample Intent Framework Back to Trigger Event Framework
Deliverable
Models, State Definitions & Rules
Typical Format
12 to 16 pages

The Fairway Intent Maturity Model™

Distinguish durable account suitability from dynamic buyer activity to determine the correct level of commercial response.

1

Fit

Does the account match the structural ICP conditions?

2

Awareness

Has the account encountered the issue or brand?

3

Interest

Is someone voluntarily learning more about the problem?

4

Intent

Is the account beginning to consider change?

5

Evaluation

Is the account examining options, pricing, or feasibility?

6

Readiness & Commit

Can the account practically move forward and commit to action?

Why an Intent Definition Framework Matters

Without shared definitions, teams often overreact to isolated engagement, underreact to coordinated buying behavior, and use the word "intent" to describe several fundamentally different conditions.

Common Symptoms Solved

  • × A high-fit account is treated as if it is currently buying
  • × One download triggers an account-level sales alert
  • × Repeated activity by one person is viewed as buying-group demand
  • × Known and anonymous engagement are weighted identically
  • × Interest and organizational readiness are merged into one score
  • × Sales receives accounts that cannot act operationally

Strategic Decisions Enabled

  • ✓ What fit, interest, intent, evaluation, and readiness actually mean
  • ✓ Which activities are person-level vs. account-level
  • ✓ How role relevance shifts the interpretation of activity
  • ✓ When several individual actions convert into an account-level state
  • ✓ How long an intent state remains active and decays
  • ✓ Which states warrant nurture vs. research vs. direct sales action

What Is Included

Intent-State Model

The progression from fit through interest, intent, evaluation, and readiness.

Person-Level Activity

Rules for interpreting individual actions by role, topic, depth, and recency.

Account-Level Aggregation

Standards for combining person and external signals into an account state.

Evidence Hierarchy

Distinguishing observed, inferred, corroborated, and confirmed intent.

Decay & Progression

Time windows and expiration rules applied to dynamic activity.

Response Rules

The activation, research, routing, or hold actions associated with each state.

Fictional Client Example: AeroGrid Systems

View the Sample Intent Framework

Explore the representative pages that distinguish AeroGrid’s customer fit, person-level interest, account-level intent, formal evaluation, and organizational readiness.

Document Structure
  • Page 01 Framework Summary
  • Page 02 Core Distinctions
  • Page 03 Person Activity Model
  • Page 04 Role Relevance
  • Page 05 Topic Relevance
  • Page 06 Acct Aggregation Model
  • Page 07 Entry Rules
  • Page 08 Evidence & Confidence
  • Page 09 Data Sources
  • Page 10 Progression & Decay
  • Page 11 Intent vs Readiness
  • Page 12 Account Profiles
  • Page 13 Intent-to-Action Matrix
  • Page 14 Data Requirements
  • Page 15 Measurement
  • Page 16 Governance
Intent Strategy & Decision Document

AeroGrid Intent Definition Framework

A shared model for interpreting customer fit, person-level activity, account-level intent, evaluation, and buying readiness.

Page 01 & 02

Intent Framework Summary & Distinctions

The Full Model in One View

1. Fit

Account matches ICP conditions. Q: Should we care about this account?

Response: Prioritize, monitor, or target according to tier.

2. Awareness & Interest

Person/Account exposed to brand, or voluntarily learning about the problem. Q: Is someone paying attention?

Response: Role-specific nurture and monitoring.

3. Intent

Corroborated behavior suggesting the account may consider action. Q: Are they considering change?

Response: Account review and coordinated activation.

4. Evaluation

Examining options, feasibility, value, or providers. Q: Are they evaluating an approach?

Response: Immediate sales and specialist coordination.

5. Readiness & Commitment

Account has ownership/authority to act, and agrees to next steps. Q: Can they move forward?

Response: Advance qualification and mutual action planning.

Rule: Each state answers a different commercial question and should create a different level of response. Fit, interest, intent, and readiness remain separate data states even if they contribute to one priority model.
Page 03 & 04

Person-Level Activity & Role Relevance

Interpreting Individual Behavior

Activity Level Example Default Interpretation
Exposure / Light Eng. Ad impression, brief website visit. Awareness or weak interest. (Monitor only).
Relevant Interest Diagnostic downloaded, webinar. Person-level interest. (Role-specific nurture).
Problem Exploration Multiple related assets, return topic visits. Developing intent. (Research account context).
Solution Evaluation Capabilities review, customer proof. Possible evaluation. (Account owner review).
Comm/Tech Evaluation Pricing review, Security docs, API specs. High-intent behavior. (Immediate account review).
Direct Commitment Demo, Assessment, Proposal request. Explicit person-level intent. (Direct qual/response).
Who Is Engaging Matters
Problem Owner (Facilities/Ops)

High Value Act: Workflow review, portfolio prioritization content.

Meaning: Operational problem may be receiving active attention.

Economic Buyer (Finance)

High Value Act: Financial methodology, pricing, business-case tool.

Meaning: Account may be validating financial viability.

Technical Evaluator (IT/Data)

High Value Act: Architecture, security, integration docs.

Meaning: Account may be testing feasibility.

Unknown / Irrelevant Role

High Value Act: N/A

Meaning: Does not create meaningful account intent without stronger evidence.

Page 05 & 06

Topic Relevance & Account Aggregation

When Individual Activity Becomes Account Evidence

Topic to Intent Translation
  • • Problem Recognition: Hidden energy cost content
    → Interest (Low/Med weight)
  • • Approach Exploration: Prioritization frameworks
    → Developing Intent (Med weight)
  • • Solution Evaluation: AeroGrid capabilities, workflows
    → Intent/Eval (Med/High weight)
  • • Business/Tech Validation: ROI models, security
    → Evaluation (High weight)
Account Aggregation Dimensions
  • • Account Fit: Confirmed or probable ICP fit?
  • • Role Relevance: Are relevant buying roles involved?
  • • Behavioral Depth: Progression beyond low-value exposure?
  • • Breadth: Multiple roles engaging?
  • • External Context: Is there an organizational/market trigger?
  • • Recency: Within active intent window?
Account-Level Intent States
No Current Intent: Account fits but lacks current behavior.
Dev. Interest: Relevant people engaging, but isolated/educational.
Emerging Intent: Activity progressing or corroborated by a trigger.
Active Intent: Multiple strong signals indicate considering action.
Formal Evaluation: Examining financial/tech/implementation options.
Buying Ready: Supported by ownership, authority, timing, feasibility.
Page 07 & 08

Entry Rules, Evidence & Confidence

How Certain Are We?

State Minimum Conditions Default Action
Emerging Intent Probable fit + relevant person progression + 1 corroborating trigger + no suppression. Account research & coordinated review.
Active Intent Strong fit + 2 med-confidence signals (or 1 high) + buying role participation. Account-owner alert & targeted engagement.
Formal Evaluation Direct tech/fin/comm evaluation activity + known stakeholder + current context. Immediate sales & specialist coordination.
Buying Ready Problem owner confirmed + value/timing validated + tech feasible + no critical risk. Advance qualification & mutual action plan.
Observed

Activity occurred; commercial interpretation uncertain (e.g. anonymous intent surge).

Inferred

Plausible state based on context, but lacks direct confirmation.

Corroborated

Independent signals support the same interpretation (e.g. multi-role + trigger).

Confirmed

Buyer directly validates problem, timing, or next step.

Page 09 & 10

Sources, Progression & Decay

How Dynamic States Change Over Time

Known vs Anonymous vs 3rd Party
  • • Known 1st Party: Default use is person-level interest/intent classification.
  • • Anonymous 1st Party: Default use is account monitoring & corroboration.
  • • 3rd Party Topic Intent: Default use is research signal or supporting evidence.
  • • Sales-Observed: High-value evidence when documented.
Decay Rules (Illustrative Windows)
  • • General Content: 30 days (Returns to awareness if inactive).
  • • Problem Progression: 45 days (Reduces from emerging to interest if uncorroborated).
  • • 3rd Party Surge: 14-30 days (Expires unless repeated or corroborated).
  • • Pricing/Tech Eval: 14-45 days (Requires account-owner review when progression stops).
Rule: Do not allow repeated low-value activity to preserve a high-intent state indefinitely. Intent should increase as behavior progresses and decrease when evidence becomes stale.
Page 11 & 12

Intent vs Readiness & Account Examples

Why Active Research May Not Equal a Sales-Ready Account

High Intent + High Readiness

Evaluating & can progress.

Immediate sales engagement
High Intent + Low Readiness

Researching but lacks authority or feasibility.

Readiness dev & stakeholder enablement
Low Intent + High Readiness

Could act but lacks urgency.

Trigger monitoring & problem dev
Low Intent + Low Readiness

Not active and cannot currently act.

Low-cost nurture or deprioritization
Example: NorthStar Home Retail

Activity: New facilities exec, Modernization trigger, Facilities/Finance content progression, Architecture review.

Person State: Evaluation | Account State: Active Intent | Readiness: Developing

Interpretation: Account evaluating modernization performance, but exec sponsorship/implementation ownership incomplete. (Corroborated Confidence).

Action: Coordinate AE, finance messaging, and technical validation.

Page 13 & 14

Data Requirements & Actions

Operationalizing the Model

Account Condition Default Action Primary Owner
Strong fit + No current intent Segment nurture & trigger monitoring Marketing
Developing interest (1 role) Role-specific nurture & monitoring Marketing
Emerging intent (Med confidence) Acct research & coordinated review Acct Mktg / SDR
Active intent at strong-fit account Trigger-specific activation AE & Marketing
Formal evaluation Immediate sales/specialist coordination AE
High intent + Low readiness Stakeholder/Readiness development Account Team
Critical System Fields
  • • person_activity_type
  • • activity_depth
  • • topic_group
  • • person_intent_state
  • • account_intent_state
  • • intent_confidence
  • • readiness_state
  • • intent_expiration_date
Page 15 & 16

Measurement & Governance

Maintaining Shared Definitions

Measurement Areas
  • • Coverage: Known-role activity coverage, State-confidence distribution.
  • • Progression: Interest-to-intent progression, Time in state.
  • • Response: Time to sales response, Unworked active-intent rate.
  • • Outcomes: Sales acceptance by intent state, Opp quality by entry state.
Governance & Change Control
  • • Triggers: High false-positive rate, low sales acceptance, weak state-to-opp correlation.
  • • Process: Propose change, test impact historically, validate with Sales, update workflows.
  • • Standard: Person and account states remain distinct. Every dynamic state has an expiration rule.

Note: AeroGrid Systems and all associated definitions, thresholds, intent states, account examples, and recommended actions are fictional. This sample demonstrates the structure of a Fairway engagement.

How Teams Use the Intent Framework

The framework gives marketing, sales, operations, and leadership one shared way to interpret account and person activity without confusing fit, attention, evaluation, and readiness.

Product Marketing

Define intent states, role relevance, topic progression, and commercial interpretations.

Demand Generation

Build nurture, activation, and evaluation paths according to actual intent state.

Marketing Operations

Classify activities, apply recency/decay, aggregate behavior, and manage audience changes.

Sales & SDRs

Understand what the account demonstrated, distinguish research from readiness, and validate next steps.

Revenue Operations

Implement state calculations, confidence logic, readiness rules, routing, history, and reporting.

Leadership

Evaluate whether intent investment is improving opportunity creation, quality, and win rate.

Intent Framework Review Checklist

Are the definitions precise enough to prevent false buying signals?

✓ Are fit, awareness, interest, intent, evaluation, and readiness defined separately?
✓ Are person-level and account-level activity distinguished?
✓ Is buying-role and topic relevance included in the interpretation?
✓ Does account-level intent require more than one isolated activity?
✓ Are known, anonymous, third-party, and sales-observed data treated differently?
✓ Is confidence stored separately from state?
✓ Is readiness stored separately from intent?
✓ Do dynamic states have recency and decay rules?
✓ Can high activity at a poor-fit account be prevented from triggering sales action?
✓ Is model performance tested against qualification, opp creation, and win outcomes?

Explore Related Artifacts

Previous Artifact

Trigger-Event Taxonomy

Defines the org, operational, tech, and market events that may change account timing.
Next Artifact

Signal-Confidence Model

Defines how source reliability, recency, relevance, and corroboration determine confidence.
Capability Overview

Trigger Event Framework

Return to the complete signal, activation, routing, and measurement system.