QBR evidence worksheet
Objective. Assemble a quarterly business review around evidence the customer validates, with capacity value and cash kept separate and confounders named.
A worksheet that builds a QBR from the baseline outward: what we agreed to move, what the evidence shows, what the customer confirms, and what we do next. It makes you keep freed capacity apart from recovered cash, name the things that could explain the change other than Time Champ, and leave with a signed-off next-quarter plan. Fill it before the meeting, not during.
See it in the demo
What it is and when to use it
A QBR evidence worksheet prepares the one meeting where you prove value against the plan the customer owns. Use it before every quarterly or periodic business review, and before any value conversation that will be taken to a sponsor or finance. Its job is to stop the two failure modes of a QBR: a slide of vendor-asserted numbers the customer did not build, and a single blended 'ROI' figure that finance will not trust. Everything in it ties back to the mutual success plan baseline and the agreed measurement method - if a number was not measured the agreed way, it does not go on the page.
The worksheet - copy this
QBR evidence worksheet - <customer>, <period>
- Agreed objective (from the success plan):
- Baseline (value + the method/denominator/exclusions agreed):
- What the evidence now shows: (metric, source, scope, freshness)
- Customer validation: (who on their side confirms this reading - name + role)
- CAPACITY line: hours / units released - measure + how counted
- CASH line (separate): money collected or avoided - measure + how counted
- Confounders named: (volume change, seasonality, tenure, process change, other tools, one-offs)
- Adoption evidence: (routines actually run: which, how often, by whom)
- Unresolved risks / open escalations:
- Next-quarter plan + owners + review date:
- Roadmap items promised vs confirmed: (confirmed-with-product only)
How to fill it
Start from rows 1-2: if you cannot state the baseline and the method that was agreed, stop and reconstruct it before the QBR - a change with no baseline is a story, not evidence. In row 3, pin scope and freshness so the customer cannot later say the number meant something else. Row 4 is the heart of the QBR: get a named person on the customer side to confirm the reading in advance, so the meeting validates a shared number rather than debating it. Keep rows 5 and 6 strictly apart and never total them. Row 7 is where credibility is won - list what else could explain the movement and say which you can and cannot rule out. In row 8, show the routine was adopted (managers ran the weekly review, exceptions were actioned), because durable value comes from the routine, not a one-off reading. Row 11 lists only roadmap items confirmed with product; anything else is 'not committed'.
Honest caveat
A QBR demonstrates movement on an agreed scope; it does not prove platform-wide ROI, and it cannot attribute a change to Time Champ alone unless the confounders were controlled - say so out loud. Freed capacity is operational value, not money, until the customer acts on it; presenting it as cash saved is the fastest way to lose a finance sponsor. Do not invent a figure to fill a row - an honest 'we could not measure this cleanly this quarter, here is why' is stronger than a number the customer did not build. Overlapping findings (for example from Value Leakage or Work Understanding) cannot be summed into one headline. Roadmap dates are confirm-with-product, never your own promise.
Interpretation check
A QBR proves movement on one agreed scope with a customer-validated number, not platform-wide ROI. Capacity and cash stay on separate lines, and a change is not attributed to Time Champ until the confounders (volume, seasonality, tenure, other tools, process changes) are named and addressed.
In the field
KnackGlobal QBR: objective = output-per-FTE visibility vs the ProHance incumbent; capacity line = complexity-adjusted clean units per paid hour released on the piloted claims team; cash line kept separate and tracked toward collected denial recovery; confounders named included a seasonal volume rise and two new hires, so the attributed movement was stated conservatively and signed off by the operations sponsor.
Practical task
Fill the full worksheet for a real account ahead of its next review. Pre-validate rows 3-6 with a named customer contact, and make sure capacity and cash are separate lines with the confounders explicitly listed in row 7.
Self-check
Why must a named customer person validate the reading before the QBR, not during it?
So the meeting confirms a shared, owned number instead of becoming a debate about whether the number is real - which is what makes it defensible to their sponsor and finance.
Capacity released and cash collected - how do they appear on the worksheet?
As two separate lines, each with its own measure and counting method, never totalled into one ROI figure.
The metric improved this quarter. What must you do before claiming Time Champ caused it?
Name the confounders (volume, seasonality, tenure, process change, other tools, one-offs) and state which you can and cannot rule out; attribute only what the evidence supports.
A row cannot be measured cleanly this quarter. Fill it with your best estimate?
No. State honestly that it could not be measured cleanly and why. An invented number destroys the credibility of the numbers that are real.
Verified vs demo. The capacity-vs-cash separation and outcome evidence are demo-shown (Value Leakage, Work Output, RCM Operations); every figure on the worksheet is the customer's own, measured the agreed way, and roadmap items are confirm-with-product only.