Your sales team qualified the deal. Discovery was thorough. The champion was engaged. The demo landed. And then... nothing. Weeks of follow-up emails. Rescheduled calls. Vague reassurances that the deal is "still moving forward." Until finally, it's not. The opportunity closes as "no decision"—not lost to a competitor, just lost.
This scenario—no-decision loss—plays out across B2B sales organizations every quarter. According to research from Gartner, approximately 40-60% of qualified B2B opportunities end in no decision. That's not a competitor problem or a product problem. It's a value credibility problem and an internal alignment failure.
The conventional response treats no-decision loss as a sales execution issue: teach reps to create urgency, handle objections, multi-thread relationships. These skills matter at the margins, but they misdiagnose the root cause. Deals ending in no decision rarely fail because a rep didn't follow up enough or create sufficient urgency. They fail because the buyer's organization cannot build internal consensus around a credible business case. The value assumptions are indefensible when scrutinized by finance. The stakeholders across sales, finance, and business functions never aligned on why this purchase matters. The champion, no matter how enthusiastic, lacks the ammunition to sell internally because no one gave them a case that would survive CFO scrutiny. Understanding how to build CFO-ready business cases is the first step toward solving this problem.
RevOps is uniquely positioned to address no-decision loss at its source. By operationalizing value credibility—making finance-grade business cases systematic, scalable, and embedded in the sales process—RevOps can prevent the alignment failures that cause stalled deals. This guide explains how.
The No-Decision Epidemic: Understanding What's Actually Happening
Before solving the no-decision loss problem, RevOps leaders need to understand its root causes. The surface-level explanation—"the buyer wasn't ready"—obscures the specific failure points that can actually be addressed. And those failure points are almost always about value credibility and stakeholder alignment, not sales execution.
Why Qualified Deals End in No Decision
Deals that reach late-stage pipeline have cleared significant hurdles. Budget exists or can be found. Need is established. Timeline is defined. A champion is engaged. Yet something prevents the final decision. When you examine stalled deals closely, three interconnected causes emerge—and each traces back to how value is articulated and defended internally.
Undefendable value assumptions. In uncertain economic conditions, buying committees default to caution. Approving a significant purchase creates career risk—if it fails, someone is accountable. The safe choice is often no choice at all. But risk aversion alone doesn't explain no-decision loss. Buyers approve risky purchases when the business case is compelling and credible. What actually stalls deals is value claims that cannot survive internal scrutiny. When finance examines the projected ROI and finds assumptions that are optimistic, unsourced, or based on best-case scenarios, they don't reject the deal outright—they defer it. According to Gartner's research on B2B buying, 77% of buyers report that their latest purchase was "very complex or difficult." That complexity is often the difficulty of defending value assumptions to skeptical internal stakeholders.
Misalignment between sales, finance, and business stakeholders. The average B2B purchase now involves six to ten decision-makers, each with different priorities and evaluation criteria. Your champion may be convinced, but they face the challenge of aligning finance, IT, procurement, legal, and executive stakeholders—each of whom has veto power. The deeper problem is that these stakeholders often receive inconsistent or incompatible value narratives. Sales emphasizes one set of benefits. Finance receives a different business case with different assumptions. Business stakeholders hear yet another version. When these narratives don't cohere, the buying committee cannot form consensus. One unconvinced stakeholder can stall an entire deal indefinitely—not because they object to the purchase, but because no one has given them a unified, credible case for why it matters.
Absence of an internal business case that finance will own. Even when buyers want to move forward, they're juggling dozens of initiatives. Your project competes for attention with internal fires, other vendor evaluations, and organizational change fatigue. But competing priorities only explain why deals take longer—not why they end in no decision. The deciding factor is whether someone inside the buyer's organization will stake their credibility on approving the purchase. Without a business case that finance can defend to executive leadership, no one will. The deal enters limbo not because it lacks merit, but because it lacks an internal owner with a defensible justification.
The Hidden Cost of No-Decision Loss
No-decision loss is often treated as less painful than competitive loss. After all, you didn't "lose"—the deal just didn't happen. This framing obscures the real cost, which may actually exceed competitive losses in aggregate impact.
Wasted customer acquisition cost. Every dollar spent on marketing, SDR outreach, and AE time to generate and progress that opportunity is lost. Unlike competitive losses, where you might learn what to improve, deals ending in no decision often provide no actionable feedback. The investment simply evaporates.
Extended sales cycles that compress quota attainment. Stalled deals that eventually close as no-decision often consume months of pipeline time first. Reps invest in follow-up, forecast the deal optimistically, and delay prospecting for new opportunities. When the deal finally dies, they're behind on pipeline generation for the next quarter.
Forecast inaccuracy that undermines business planning. No-decision deals are notoriously difficult to forecast. They look like real opportunities—qualified, engaged, progressing—until they're not. This creates revenue volatility that makes capacity planning, hiring decisions, and board reporting unreliable.
How No-Decision Loss Manifests Across Stakeholders
No-decision loss is not just a sales problem—it manifests differently for every function involved in revenue operations. Understanding these perspectives is essential for RevOps strategy.
For sales leaders, no-decision loss appears as pipeline that ages without progressing. Forecast calls become exercises in optimism. Reps report that deals are "still alive" quarter after quarter, then eventually concede that the buyer went dark. The instinct is to diagnose this as an execution problem—reps need better objection handling, more persistent follow-up, stronger relationships. But when the same pattern repeats across reps and segments, the cause is structural, not individual.
For RevOps teams, no-decision loss appears as conversion rate degradation at late stages. Win rates look acceptable when measured against competitive losses, but overall conversion from qualified pipeline to closed-won underperforms. Stage velocity metrics show deals dwelling in negotiation or procurement for extended periods. The data suggests the problem, but traditional RevOps tools—pipeline tracking, stage management, forecasting—don't address it directly.
For finance stakeholders, no-decision loss appears as revenue unpredictability. Deals that sales confidently forecasted slip quarter after quarter. Budget models based on pipeline coverage assumptions consistently miss. The CFO sees a pattern: either sales is chronically overconfident, or something structural prevents qualified opportunities from converting to revenue.
For executive buyers on the customer side, no-decision manifests as initiative fatigue. They're presented with purchase proposals that require significant organizational change but lack credible financial justification. The ROI claims seem optimistic. The assumptions don't match their cost structures. The business case wasn't built with their input, so they don't own it. Approving the purchase would mean staking their credibility on numbers they don't trust—so they don't.
The common thread across these perspectives is that no-decision loss is a collective internal failure, not an individual sales miss. Addressing it requires systemic changes to how value is articulated and defended across the buying process.
Why Traditional Sales Tactics Don't Solve This
Sales organizations typically respond to no-decision loss with rep-level interventions: urgency creation, objection handling, executive engagement. These tactics help at the margins but don't address the structural problem—and in some cases, they make it worse.
Creating urgency only works when there's genuine urgency to surface. Artificial deadline pressure ("this pricing expires Friday") generates resentment, not action. If the buyer doesn't have internal motivation to decide, external pressure won't manufacture it. More fundamentally, urgency tactics don't address why the buyer can't decide. If the business case doesn't survive CFO scrutiny, a deadline won't change that.
Executive engagement can accelerate deals when executives have relationships, but it doesn't scale. Your CRO can't parachute into every stalled opportunity. And executive attention without a credible business case often feels like pressure rather than partnership. Senior involvement signals importance but cannot substitute for the financial justification that enterprise deal approval requires.
Better follow-up cadence addresses the symptom while ignoring the cause. If a champion stops responding, more emails won't help. The champion stopped responding because they hit internal resistance they couldn't overcome—usually from finance or an executive stakeholder who wasn't convinced by the value proposition. More persistent follow-up just adds friction to an already frustrated buyer.
The missing element in most sales processes is value credibility—giving your champion a business case they can actually defend internally. That's where RevOps can create systematic advantage. For a detailed framework on building stakeholder-specific value narratives, see our guide on selling to every stakeholder in the buying committee.
The Buyer's Internal Challenge: What Your Champion Faces
To solve the no-decision loss problem, you need empathy for what buyers experience internally. Your champion isn't just evaluating your solution—they're trying to build organizational consensus around a purchase that requires credible financial justification.
The Modern Buying Committee Reality
Enterprise purchasing has become a committee sport. Gartner's research shows the typical B2B purchase involves six to ten stakeholders, each representing different functions with different success metrics. The IT buyer cares about integration and security. The finance buyer cares about ROI defensibility and budget timing. The operations buyer cares about implementation disruption. The executive sponsor cares about strategic alignment and their own credibility in approving the initiative.
Your champion must build consensus across all these stakeholders. They need to translate your value proposition into language that resonates with each function, address concerns they may not fully understand, and maintain momentum across people with competing priorities. This is fundamentally a value alignment challenge: each stakeholder needs to see how the purchase serves their priorities, and those narratives must cohere into a unified business case. Most champions aren't equipped for this internal alignment challenge—not because they lack selling skills, but because they lack credible value materials designed for internal defense.
Why Your Champion Can't Sell Internally Without Help
Even enthusiastic champions face structural disadvantages when advocating for your solution internally. They lack the financial modeling expertise to build CFO-ready business cases. They don't have time to create custom materials for each stakeholder. They may not understand what finance scrutinizes in ROI projections or what level of rigor enterprise deal approval actually requires.
The result is that champions either advocate ineffectively—with generic decks and verbal assertions—or stop advocating altogether when internal resistance emerges. The deal stalls not because your solution is wrong, but because your champion ran out of ammunition. They could not provide finance with assumptions that would survive scrutiny. They could not give the executive sponsor a narrative defensible to the board.
This is why no-decision loss is fundamentally a value credibility problem, not a champion engagement problem. You can have an enthusiastic champion who loves your product and still lose to no-decision if you never equipped them with the materials they needed for internal approval.
The CFO Gatekeeping Phenomenon
In uncertain economic conditions, CFO scrutiny of software purchases has intensified. What used to be approved at the VP level now requires finance sign-off. What used to require a verbal business case now demands detailed ROI analysis. This shift has made enterprise deal approval the primary bottleneck for stalled deals.
CFOs aren't trying to block purchases—they're trying to allocate limited resources responsibly. But their evaluation framework differs fundamentally from how vendors present value. They want to see conservative assumptions, not optimistic projections. They want total cost of ownership, not just license fees. They want risk analysis, not just upside potential. They want to understand what happens if the projected benefits don't materialize.
When business cases don't meet this standard, CFOs default to "not now" rather than "no." The deal enters limbo—technically still alive, but with no path to approval until someone provides a case that finance can defend. Understanding ROI vs TCO and which metric matters more can help you speak the CFO's language. But the deeper issue is that most business cases are built by sales and marketing to persuade, not by finance to justify. When CFOs see a case built to sell rather than to withstand scrutiny, they recognize it immediately—and they defer.
RevOps' Role in Preventing No-Decision Loss
RevOps has traditionally focused on pipeline management: tracking opportunities, forecasting revenue, managing handoffs between teams. But the function is uniquely positioned to address no-decision loss at its source—by operationalizing value credibility across the sales process.
From Pipeline Management to Pipeline Enablement
Pipeline management asks "where are our deals and when will they close?" Pipeline enablement asks "what do our deals need to close, and how do we provide it systematically?" The shift from passive tracking to active enablement represents RevOps' opportunity to directly reduce no-decision loss.
This doesn't mean RevOps builds business cases for every deal—that doesn't scale. It means RevOps creates the systems, templates, and workflows that enable reps to build credible, finance-grade business cases quickly. It means embedding value tools into CRM workflows so they're used consistently. It means tracking which value messages actually convert so the organization learns and improves.
Many organizations attempt this with ROI calculators—but most calculators are designed for lead generation, not for enterprise deal approval. They produce outputs optimized for marketing conversion rather than CFO credibility. The result is tools that generate pipeline but don't prevent stalled deals. For a detailed analysis of why calculators alone don't solve this problem, see our ROI calculator playbook for sales teams. The gap between "calculator that impresses prospects" and "business case that survives finance scrutiny" is where most no-decision loss originates.
Many teams are also still stuck using spreadsheets—learn why spreadsheet business cases fail and what to do instead.
Operationalizing Value Credibility: What It Actually Means
Operationalized value credibility has four characteristics that distinguish it from ad-hoc value selling.
Systematic: Value isn't created heroically by individual reps or value engineers—it's embedded in standard processes. Every qualified opportunity gets a value assessment. Every late-stage deal has a business case built for internal defense, not just external persuasion. Every champion receives materials designed to survive finance scrutiny.
Scalable: The value process works whether you have ten opportunities or ten thousand. Templates, tools, and workflows reduce per-deal effort while maintaining the rigor required for enterprise deal approval. Reps can create CFO-ready outputs without waiting for specialized resources.
Measurable: Value activities connect to outcomes. You can analyze which value propositions correlate with wins, which business case formats prevent stalled deals, and which objections indicate deal risk. Data informs continuous improvement.
Integrated: Value tools live within existing workflows rather than requiring separate systems. Business cases attach to CRM opportunities. Value data informs pipeline analytics. Champions receive materials through the same channels they use for everything else.
The Metrics That Matter for Reducing No-Decision Loss
RevOps should track specific metrics to measure progress on no-decision loss reduction. Traditional pipeline metrics—conversion rates, average deal size, cycle length—remain important but don't isolate the no-decision problem. Add these value-specific metrics to your RevOps strategy.
No-decision rate by stage: What percentage of opportunities at each stage eventually close as no-decision? This identifies where deals stall and suggests where value credibility interventions are needed.
Business case coverage: What percentage of late-stage opportunities have documented, finance-grade business cases? Low coverage suggests either process gaps or tool friction. High coverage with high no-decision rates suggests quality issues—the cases exist but don't survive scrutiny.
Time in stage by value activity: Do opportunities with credible business cases progress faster through late stages? This validates whether value investments actually prevent stalled deals.
Win rate with vs. without business cases: The clearest measure of value credibility impact. If business cases don't correlate with wins, either the cases aren't defensible enough or they're not reaching the right stakeholders.
CFO approval rate: For deals requiring finance sign-off, what percentage receive approval on first submission? Low first-submission approval rates indicate business case quality issues—the value assumptions are being rejected. High rates indicate that value alignment happened early enough to prevent late-stage objections.
The Credible Business Case as RevOps Infrastructure
Business cases are often treated as sales collateral—something reps create when asked, optimized for persuasion rather than defense. RevOps should reframe business cases as deal infrastructure: a standard component of qualified opportunities that enables buyer decision-making by providing finance-credible justification for the purchase.
The distinction between "business case as sales tool" and "business case as internal approval document" is critical for understanding no-decision loss. Sales-oriented business cases emphasize benefits and ROI projections designed to excite buyers. Finance-oriented business cases emphasize defensible assumptions, risk analysis, and conservative projections designed to survive CFO scrutiny. Most organizations produce the former and wonder why deals stall at finance review.
Templated Value Frameworks That Scale
The first step in operationalizing value credibility is creating standardized frameworks that reps can customize per deal. These aren't rigid templates that produce identical outputs—they're structured starting points that ensure consistency while allowing personalization.
Effective value frameworks include standard value drivers relevant to your solution (efficiency gains, cost reduction, revenue impact, risk mitigation), calculation methodologies that produce defensible numbers using conservative assumptions, output formats appropriate for different stakeholders (executive summary for sponsors, detailed financial analysis for CFOs, implementation assessment for operations), and benchmark data and proof points that support credibility under scrutiny. RevOps owns these frameworks, updating them as messaging evolves and incorporating learnings from won and lost deals. For a comprehensive approach to building stakeholder-specific materials, see our guide on business case strategy for every stakeholder.
Embedding Business Cases in Deal Stages
Business cases shouldn't be optional extras—they should be required artifacts at specific pipeline stages. This ensures consistent coverage and creates natural checkpoints for deal health and value alignment.
Consider requiring a preliminary value assessment to exit discovery stage, confirming the deal has quantified business pain worth solving. A draft business case could be required to enter negotiation stage, ensuring the buyer has materials for internal approval before they need them. A final, customized business case becomes a condition for deals requiring CFO approval, with assumptions validated by the customer's finance stakeholders.
These stage requirements transform business cases from nice-to-have into process steps that reps complete as part of normal deal progression. More importantly, they shift value alignment earlier in the sales cycle—before the deal reaches the approval stage where misalignment manifests as no-decision loss.
Tracking Which Value Messages Prevent Stalled Deals
When business cases are created systematically and attached to opportunities, RevOps can analyze which value propositions actually correlate with wins—and more importantly, which correlate with deals that close decisively rather than stalling.
Track which value drivers appear in winning vs. losing deals. Analyze whether certain ROI ranges correlate with conversion. Identify which objections appear in deals that end in no decision versus those that close (won or lost competitively). This data informs not just sales enablement but product marketing and positioning strategy. Over time, you learn which value narratives survive CFO scrutiny and which trigger the "not now" response that kills deals slowly.
Implementation Playbook: Five Steps to Reduce No-Decision Loss
Moving from ad-hoc value selling to operationalized value credibility requires deliberate implementation. This playbook outlines the steps RevOps should follow to build the infrastructure that prevents stalled deals.
Step 1: Audit Your No-Decision Loss Patterns
Before building new processes, understand the current state. Pull all opportunities that closed as no-decision in the past four quarters. Analyze time in each stage, identify common stall points, and look for patterns in deal characteristics. Specifically, examine what happened at the finance review stage—was there a business case? Was it rejected or simply deferred?
Supplement quantitative analysis with qualitative research. Interview reps about deals they lost to no-decision. What happened? Where did momentum stop? What did buyers say? What did champions need that they didn't have? Critically, try to understand what the internal approval process looked like—did finance engage? Did they reject the value assumptions, or did the deal simply never reach formal approval?
This audit reveals whether the problem is concentrated in specific segments, deal sizes, or sales stages—and suggests where value credibility interventions will have the most impact.
Step 2: Identify Value Credibility Gaps
No-decision loss stems from specific credibility gaps in how value is articulated and defended internally. Catalog the objections that surface when deals stall: CFO concerns about ROI assumptions, IT concerns about integration risks, procurement delays, competing budget priorities, executive sponsor hesitation to stake their credibility on approval.
Map each objection pattern to the stakeholder who raises it and the value credibility gap it represents. CFO objections typically indicate assumptions that seem optimistic or unsourced. IT objections indicate implementation risks that weren't addressed. Executive sponsor hesitation indicates a business case that doesn't align with strategic priorities. This mapping defines what your value materials need to address to prevent stalled deals.
Step 3: Build Finance-Credible Templates for Top Credibility Gaps
Create standardized materials that address your most common value credibility gaps. Start with the three to five patterns that appear most frequently in deals ending in no decision.
For CFO objections, build a business case template with conservative ROI methodology, total cost of ownership breakdown, risk analysis, and sensitivity modeling that shows outcomes under different assumption scenarios. The goal is a document a CFO would be comfortable presenting to their board—not a sales asset designed to impress. For IT objections, create technical architecture documentation and security compliance summaries that address implementation risk. For executive sponsors, prepare strategic alignment narratives that connect the purchase to organizational priorities. Each template should be customizable—reps input deal-specific data, and the template generates outputs designed for internal defense rather than external persuasion.
Step 4: Integrate Value Credibility into CRM Workflow
Value tools only work if reps use them, and reps only use tools that fit their existing workflow. Integrate business case generation into CRM so it becomes part of normal deal progression rather than a separate task.
Ideal integration includes one-click business case generation from opportunity records, automatic population of company and contact data, business case documents attached to opportunities for tracking, and stage transition requirements that enforce business case creation before deals reach stages where no-decision loss typically occurs. The goal is reducing friction to near zero while ensuring value alignment happens early. If creating a finance-credible business case takes five minutes and happens within CRM, adoption follows. If it requires logging into a separate system and manual data entry, adoption struggles—and deals stall at finance review.
Step 5: Measure No-Decision Loss and Iterate
Launch your value credibility infrastructure with clear success metrics and a commitment to iteration. Track the metrics outlined earlier—no-decision rate by stage, business case coverage, CFO approval rate, win rate correlation—and review monthly.
When no-decision loss doesn't decrease, diagnose the failure point. Low business case coverage suggests adoption problems—simplify the tools or strengthen stage requirements. High coverage but persistent no-decision loss suggests quality problems—the cases exist but don't survive finance scrutiny. Gather buyer feedback on why deals stalled. Were the assumptions questioned? Did the value narrative not align with stakeholder priorities?
Value credibility infrastructure isn't a one-time project—it's ongoing investment that improves with each quarter's learnings about what actually prevents stalled deals.
Frequently Asked Questions
What's the difference between sales enablement and business case automation?
Sales enablement is the broad discipline of equipping reps with content, training, and tools to sell effectively. Business case automation is a specific capability within enablement focused on creating financial justification documents. Enablement might provide pitch decks, competitive battlecards, and objection handling guides. Business case automation provides ROI calculators, value assessment templates, and CFO-ready output generation. Most organizations need both—general enablement for early-stage selling, finance-credible business case infrastructure to prevent no-decision loss at the approval stage.
How do I measure the impact of value credibility investments?
Measure value credibility investments through three outcome categories. Efficiency gains include time savings per business case (compare before and after implementation) and reduction in value engineering bottlenecks. Effectiveness gains include win rate improvement for deals with business cases versus without, reduction in no-decision loss, and sales cycle compression for late-stage deals requiring enterprise deal approval. Revenue impact includes incremental closed revenue attributable to improved conversion and reduction in stalled deals. Establish baselines before implementation and compare results quarterly. Most organizations should see measurable efficiency gains within 30 days and effectiveness gains within two to three quarters.
Which sales stage should business cases be introduced?
Business cases should evolve through the sales cycle rather than appearing fully formed at one stage. Introduce preliminary value assessment during or immediately after discovery—this quantifies the problem and validates deal qualification. Develop draft business cases during evaluation or proposal stage as buyers begin internal socialization. Finalize and customize business cases before negotiation, when CFO and procurement engagement typically peaks. The principle is that value alignment should happen before the stage where no-decision loss typically occurs—not after deals have already stalled. The goal is finance-credible value consensus before approval is formally required.
How do I get reps to actually use value tools?
Rep adoption requires addressing three barriers: time, complexity, and perceived value. Minimize time investment by integrating tools into CRM workflow and pre-populating data from existing records. Reduce complexity by providing guided templates rather than blank canvases. Build perceived value by sharing data on win rates for deals with credible business cases and highlighting stalled deals that lacked proper value documentation. Stage requirements help establish the habit, but genuine adoption comes when reps see business cases preventing the no-decision outcomes that kill their pipeline. Start with your best performers, prove impact, and use their success stories to drive broader adoption.
Should RevOps own value tools or should sales enablement?
The answer depends on organizational structure, but RevOps typically owns the infrastructure while enablement owns the content. RevOps responsibilities include tool selection and integration, CRM workflow configuration, no-decision loss metrics tracking and reporting, and process enforcement through stage requirements. Enablement responsibilities include value messaging and frameworks, template content and design, rep training on value conversations, and content updates based on market changes. Close partnership between functions is essential—RevOps builds the system, enablement fills it with finance-credible content, and both collaborate on reducing stalled deals.
What if we don't have dedicated value engineering resources?
Most organizations don't—that's precisely why value credibility infrastructure matters. Without dedicated value engineers, you need tools that enable reps to create finance-grade business cases independently. Look for solutions with guided templates that require minimal financial expertise, pre-built value drivers relevant to your product category, automated calculations that produce defensible outputs, and formatting designed for internal approval rather than external persuasion. The goal is value engineering capability without the headcount: reps input deal-specific information, and the system produces outputs that survive CFO scrutiny.
Preventing No-Decision Loss: The Path Forward
No-decision loss isn't mysterious once you understand its causes. Buyers cannot build internal consensus around undefendable value assumptions. Champions lack the materials to secure finance approval. CFOs defer purchases when business cases don't meet the rigor required for enterprise deal approval. The result is qualified deals that stall indefinitely—not because the solution is wrong, but because the value case wasn't credible enough to survive internal scrutiny.
RevOps can address this at the source by treating value credibility as infrastructure rather than heroics. When every qualified deal has early value alignment with finance stakeholders, when every late-stage opportunity has a business case built for internal defense rather than external persuasion, and when every champion has materials designed to survive CFO review, the structural causes of no-decision loss diminish. Deals that would have stalled reach decisions. Forecasts become more reliable. Revenue teams convert more of their qualified pipeline.
The implementation path is clear: audit no-decision loss patterns, identify value credibility gaps, build finance-grade templates, integrate into workflow, and measure relentlessly. Organizations that operationalize value credibility don't just reduce stalled deals—they build sustainable competitive advantage in how they help customers navigate enterprise deal approval.
For more on the limitations of traditional ROI calculators and how to build tools that actually prevent stalled deals, see our ROI calculator playbook for sales teams. For stakeholder-specific value strategies, see our guide on business case strategy for every stakeholder.
ValueNova helps RevOps teams build the value credibility infrastructure that prevents no-decision loss. Our platform enables early, finance-credible value alignment—before deals reach the approval stage where misalignment causes stalls. Champions get business cases designed for internal defense. Finance stakeholders get assumptions they can scrutinize and own. The result is fewer qualified deals that end in no decision. Request early access at valuenova.ai.