Before quoting custom work, separate facts from assumptions
If you sell custom work alongside a product, a customer email can look ready to price while leaving the expensive decisions unresolved.
Here is a simple intake structure you can use without any software:
- Confirmed: what did the customer actually specify?
- Missing: which unanswered details could change the work or price?
- Assumed: what are you currently taking for granted?
- Excluded: what will your quote explicitly leave out?
- Approval: who can confirm the requirements and accept changes?
Illustrative example: “We need 500 custom brackets next month.” Quantity and a rough deadline are present. Material, dimensions, tolerances, finish and delivery requirements are not. Putting a number on that email means pricing assumptions.
The same distinction applies to an office move, a catering booking or an implementation project; each needs different questions. It does not replace technical checks, measurements or a site visit.
I am the founder of ScopeClarify. This is the problem behind the product: use your own intake templates to review customer enquiry emails, identify missing details and prepare follow-up questions. You edit and approve every outgoing message and decide the price yourself.
For anyone currently handling quote enquiries, the Free plan includes 3 AI intakes per month. Start with one enquiry and a template for the work you actually quote. A supported Gmail or IMAP mailbox connection is part of the workflow.
Which missing detail most often changes your quote after the first conversation? Please use a fictional example rather than sharing a customer’s email.
The intake distinction is useful, but the real test seems to be quote accuracy. Have users caught missing requirements with ScopeClarify that would actually have changed the work or price?
The “assumed” bucket is the one I’d watch closest. That is where the quiet margin damage usually hides.
Fictional software example: “We need a dashboard for our sales team.” Confirmed might only be dashboard plus sales team. Missing could be data sources, roles, refresh frequency, export needs, permissions, and whether it has to replace an existing workflow. Assumed might be “they already have clean data” or “read-only is enough.” Either one can change the quote pretty fast.
I reckon the useful output is not just follow-up questions, but a short risk note beside each one: “This answer may affect scope, timeline, or price.” That makes the customer understand why you are asking instead of feeling like you are slowing them down.