Win Case Study Interview

---
name: win-case-study-interview
description: Runs a Case Study Interview with the person who ran the work, one question at a time, and writes the Case Study Source File with the before, what was done, results with base and period, a client quote with permission and a named defender for every number. Use for "run win-case-study-interview", "interview me about the project", "write up our best work", "start a case study", "get the story down before we forget", "capture this project", "we have nothing to show for last year", part of the Claude Guide for Finding Clients Pack by Polar Bear.
---

# Case Study Interview

## When To Use
You did your best work last year and have nothing written to show for it. The story lives in one person's memory, the client contact may move on, and the only records are the proposal and the invoice. This answers: what really happened on that project, and which parts of it can we stand behind in front of a prospect?

## When Not To Use
If the source file already exists and you need something to hand a prospect, go straight to Case Study One-Pager. If the client has said no to being written up, keep the notes for your own learning in a Win/Loss Review instead.

## Inputs
- The person who ran the work, in the chat or on a call with someone typing, for 30 to 45 minutes
- Anything on file (proposal, deliverable, the client's emails or reports with results) and what the client has said about being written up
If you have none of this, I start from your memory alone and mark every result "no source yet".

## Approach
Challenge, action, result is a long practitioner convention, described here generically; the defender's check per figure is what makes it safe to use. The polished version of any project is "they asked for X, we delivered X, it went well", and a prospect believes none of it. Asking about the Tuesday (who was in the room, what was on the whiteboard, the first email after launch) gets under the summary. The failure it prevents: a number someone remembered, printed on a slide, and a prospect who asks the client about it.

## Workflow
1. Ask at most three questions first: the project in one line, what the client has said about being written up, and who on your side can confirm the numbers.
2. Ask one question at a time, with one follow-up each, in this order: what was really wrong before (and what it cost them), the moment you understood it, the turn (the decision or piece of work that changed direction, and who made the call), the thing that nearly failed, what shipped and the first day it was used, what changed and how you know. The near-miss is the question people skip and the one a case gets believed for.
3. Record answers in the person's words. I do not polish, round or improve; an approximate figure keeps the word "about".
4. For every figure write a row: what it says, from [x] to [y] over [period], the source (the client's report, email or dashboard on a date), and the role on your side who will defend it. Then the check, row by row: would you say this number to the client's finance lead, as phrased? A hesitation leaves the row without a defender, and the case describes the change without the figure.
5. For each client line, ask whether the wording is exact and whether the speaker knows it may be quoted. Unsure wording is marked paraphrase. I never draft a quote for the client to sign.
6. Close with three lists: results you hoped for and did not see, things the client asked you not to say, and parts of the outcome that were someone else's work. This is the do-not-claim list.
7. Record naming level, quote approval and logo use exactly as the client stated them. Publishing permission and confidentiality are the client's call; contract or confidentiality questions, check with a qualified adviser.

## Output Format
```markdown
# Case Study Source File
**Project:** [one line] | **Interviewed:** [role] | **Date:** [date]
## Permissions
| Item | Client's answer | Asked by | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Naming level | [named / described by role / not yet asked] | [role] | [date] |
| Quote | [approved / not yet asked] | [role] | [date] |
| Logo | [yes / no / not yet asked] | [role] | [date] |
## The story, in your words
- **Before:** [situation and what it cost them]
- **The turn:** [decision or work that changed direction]
- **Nearly failed:** [what, and what you did next]
- **What changed:** [for their team and their numbers, and how you know]
## Results
| Claim | From, to, period | Source | Defender (role) |
|---|---|---|---|
| [what it says] | [x] to [y] over [period] | [client document, date] | [role, or none] |
## Client lines
- "[words]", [speaker role], [exact / paraphrase], [approved / not yet asked]
## Do not claim
- [results not seen, things asked not to say, others' work]
## Decision
[Lead's role] asks the client for any missing permission and confirms the defender for each figure by [date].
```

## Done When
- Every result row has a base, a period and a source, or says "no source yet"
- Every figure has a defender by role, or is marked for the change only
- The do-not-claim list exists, even if short

## Quality Bar
- One question at a time, in order; the near-miss is never skipped
- Nothing rounded, polished or estimated; the file is a record, not copy
- Client people by role only; nothing in the file judges anyone's competence
- Every number has a person who will defend it, and every quote is approved by the client.

## Next
Run win-case-study-one-pager (Case Study One-Pager) to turn this source file into a page a prospect can forward.

## About the makers

This pack is made by Polar Bear, a consultancy built by ex-McKinsey founders with a dream to make AI work for People, not instead of them. We help our clients build people systems and AI-first ways of working, and we run our own company on Claude. If your team has outgrown the self-serve version, message Pauline (linkedin.com/in/paulinebertry).