Final Round Review: VP Sales / Revenue
Three final candidates side by side, on one page.
Example report. The candidates are synthetic, built to show the format for the VP Sales / Revenue search.
I. Spine Verdict
| Candidate 1 | Candidate 2 | Candidate 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A-Player Probability | 30–46% | 60–76% | 18–34% |
| Confidence | medium-high | medium-high | high |
| Spine recommendation | Worth a second look | Strong recommend | Decline politely |
| Evidence vs. panel read | Evidence pulls back; the panel will rate the CV highly. One test could change our read. | Evidence pulls forward; quiet in interview, undersells | Evidence pulls back hard; the panel read will be the highest of the three |
II. Five-Dimension Comparison
| Dimension | Wt | Candidate 1 | Candidate 2 | Candidate 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customer judgement ↑ | 25% | Untested with consumers. Every customer has been a business buyer. Says the right things about vulnerable customers, with no example. | Declined a partner that wanted a hard upsell in the advice call, at a cost of about 8% of that year’s pipeline. A peer referee told the same story unprompted. | Two of three references describe pushing advisers to close on the first call. Complaints rose in the year the channel grew fastest. |
| Partner channel built ↑ | 25% | Signed six large partners in three years through a software marketplace. The product sold itself; no member conversion to manage. | Built a pension and employer referral channel from nothing to 31% of new customers. 14 partners signed, 13 still live. | Inherited an adviser channel and grew it 40% in two years. Did not build it, and the growth came from volume more than new partners. |
| Team built and kept | 20% | Ran a team of four, all inherited. No hiring at scale. | Hired nine in two years, seven still in post, two promoted. Names the hiring mistake behind each departure. | Ran 25 people. Annual turnover around 45%, described by a referee as “the cost of the pace”. |
| Services complexity | 15% | Software only. Case study proposed partner quotas and commission accelerators, with nothing on the service behind the referral. | Advice-led fintech. Case study went straight to the handoff from partner to first advice call. | Insurance distribution: regulated and service-heavy. Strong on process, weaker on the customer experience. |
| Pace and ambiguity | 15% | Comfortable. Has worked through two reorganisations. | Wants a plan before moving. Coach in month one. | Thrives on pace. Untested on anything slower than a monthly target. |
III. The Case for the Recommend
Candidate 2 is the recommend because the two dimensions weighted highest for Octopus Legacy, customer judgement and building a partner channel, are where this candidate has the strongest evidence and the widest gap to the rest of the final round. The decision report (Document 02) explains why Candidate 2 interviews below their record. Hiring Candidate 2 is acting on what they have done. Passing on them is acting on how they present.
Candidate 1 is the strongest CV. The partnerships are real and the logos are recognisable, but every one of them was signed by a product that sold itself, with no service to scale behind it and no member conversion to manage. Octopus Legacy’s partners only matter once their members become cases, and nothing in Candidate 1’s record shows that skill yet. One focused test, below, could change that, so Candidate 1 is worth a second look.
Candidate 3 is the decline that will feel wrong. They will win the panel interview: confident, quick, and clear on the numbers. The references describe the profile that has not worked at Octopus Legacy before, revenue first and customer second, in a business whose customers are often grieving. We do not recommend spending further interview time on Candidate 3.
IV. What We Recommend You Do This Week
- Run the case-target probe on Candidate 2 as the main test: “Walk us from one new pension partner to 1,000 cases.” It closes the largest remaining question in our read.
- Book Sam’s conversation with Candidate 2, with the one question in the decision report.
- Give Candidate 1 a second look: ask them to map how a member referral becomes a case. If they get to the advice call unprompted, our read updates.
- Decline Candidate 3 this week. A strong hire for a volume sales role elsewhere, and worth keeping warm for one.