CODITECT Sales Enablement Package
Battlecard + Objection Handling + Discovery Framework
Section 1: Quick Reference Battlecard
30-Second Elevator Pitch
"Coditect is the autonomous platform that transforms how regulated enterprises build software, automate operations, and accelerate business development. While tools like Copilot and Cursor help developers write code faster, Coditect's multi-agent architecture ships compliant features in days—not months—with audit trails built in. We're purpose-built for healthcare and fintech, where compliance isn't optional."
60-Second Pitch (Add Context)
"The WSJ just reported that less than half of AI projects generate positive ROI, with the biggest failures in regulated domains like security, legal, and healthcare. That's because general-purpose AI tools weren't designed for compliance.
Coditect is different. We built a multi-agent platform from the ground up for regulated industries. Not just code generation—we automate the entire workflow: development, business operations, and compliance documentation. Your engineers ship features in days instead of months, and your compliance team gets audit trails automatically.
Companies like [reference customer] have seen [specific metric]. We're offering a pilot program to validate the same results for your team."
Positioning Statement
| Element | Statement |
|---|---|
| For | Engineering and compliance leaders in regulated industries |
| Who | Need to ship compliant software faster without audit risk |
| Coditect is | An autonomous orchestration platform |
| That | Transforms requirements into production-ready, audit-compliant systems |
| Unlike | Code assistants that require manual compliance work |
| We | Build compliance in from day one across development, business, and operations |
Key Differentiators
| Differentiator | Coditect | Copilot/Cursor | Microsoft | Consulting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Autonomy level | Multi-agent orchestration | Single-prompt assistance | Task automation | Manual execution |
| Compliance | Native (FDA, HIPAA, SOC2) | None | Add-on | Project-based |
| Scope | Dev + Biz + Ops | Code only | Workflows only | Custom |
| Audit trails | Automatic, continuous | Manual | Partial | Manual |
| Time to value | Days | Immediate (code only) | Weeks | Months |
| Cost model | Platform subscription | Per-seat | Per-seat + services | Project fees |
Target Buyer Profiles
Primary: VP/Director of Engineering
| Attribute | Details |
|---|---|
| Pain points | Slow feature delivery, compliance delays, audit prep burden |
| Success metric | Time to compliant feature, developer velocity |
| Budget authority | $50K-$500K annually |
| Decision timeline | 30-90 days |
| Opening question | "How long does it take to ship a compliant feature today?" |
Secondary: Head of Compliance / VP Quality
| Attribute | Details |
|---|---|
| Pain points | Manual audit trails, regulatory gaps, documentation lag |
| Success metric | Audit findings, compliance coverage, prep time |
| Budget authority | Influence, not direct |
| Decision timeline | Follows engineering |
| Opening question | "When was your last audit finding related to development documentation?" |
Executive Sponsor: CTO / Chief Digital Officer
| Attribute | Details |
|---|---|
| Pain points | AI ROI not materializing, competitive pressure, board scrutiny |
| Success metric | Overall velocity, risk reduction, cost efficiency |
| Budget authority | $500K+ |
| Decision timeline | Quarterly planning cycles |
| Opening question | "What's blocking your AI transformation initiatives?" |
Proof Points to Reference
| Claim | Proof Point | Source |
|---|---|---|
| AI ROI is failing | <50% positive ROI | WSJ 2024 |
| Regulated domains worst | Security/legal/HR failures | WSJ 2024 |
| Compliance adds months | 40-60% of project time | Industry surveys |
| Enterprise readiness | 80% planning agent integration | Microsoft/IDC |
| Custom dev crisis | $50B+ in healthcare alone | Industry analysis |
Section 2: Objection Handling Guide
Objection Category: Competition
"We're already using Copilot/Cursor"
Response Framework:
"That's great—[Copilot/Cursor] works well for general development.
The question is: how are you handling regulated features?
Most teams find they still need significant manual work for:
- Compliance requirement tracking
- Audit trail generation
- Regulatory documentation
That's where Coditect is different: compliance-native, not retrofitted.
Would a 15-minute comparison demo be useful?"
Key points:
- Don't disparage competitor
- Acknowledge their value for general dev
- Pivot to regulated-specific gap
- Offer concrete next step
"We built something internally"
Response Framework:
"That's impressive—internal tools show strong engineering culture.
A few questions to understand your approach:
- How are you keeping compliance frameworks current?
- What's your maintenance burden as regulations change?
- How do audit trails work across the full lifecycle?
Most teams find internal tools work well initially but struggle to scale with regulatory complexity. We've invested [X years] specifically in compliance automation.
Would it be valuable to compare approaches?"
Objection Category: AI Skepticism
"AI tools haven't worked for us before"
Response Framework:
"That's exactly why we built Coditect.
WSJ just reported <50% of AI projects generate positive ROI, with the biggest failures in security, legal, and HR—regulated domains.
The reason? General-purpose tools weren't designed for compliance.
Coditect is purpose-built for regulated industries. Different architecture, different outcomes.
Mind if I show you the difference in 15 minutes?"
"How do I know the AI output is compliant?"
Response Framework:
"Great question—this is exactly why we built compliance-native, not as an add-on.
Three layers of assurance:
- Pre-generation: Requirements mapped to regulatory controls before code is written
- Continuous validation: Compliance agent validates against framework requirements
- Audit trail: Every decision documented, traceable, auditable
The audit trail is actually more complete than manual development because it's systematic, not dependent on developer discipline.
Want to see an example audit package?"
"Regulators won't accept AI-generated code"
Response Framework:
"This is a common misconception. Regulators care about:
- Traceability (we provide complete)
- Validation (we automate)
- Documentation (we generate continuously)
FDA's Computer Software Assurance guidance actually encourages automation that improves consistency. What matters is the audit trail, not whether a human or agent wrote the code.
Our customers have passed audits with Coditect-generated code because the documentation is more thorough than manual processes.
Would a walkthrough of our audit trail format help?"
Objection Category: Budget/Timing
"We don't have budget right now"
Response Framework:
"Understood. Budget cycles are real.
A few thoughts:
- ROI timeline: Most customers see payback in 30-60 days
- Cost comparison: Enterprise tier is 75% cheaper than Cursor + dedicated compliance team
- Risk cost: Single audit finding can cost $50K-$500K to remediate
Would it help to build an ROI model for your next budget cycle?"
"We're in the middle of [project/migration/reorg]"
Response Framework:
"Makes sense—timing matters.
Two options:
- Pilot approach: Small scope to validate while main initiative continues
- Post-initiative: Let's schedule follow-up for [timeframe]
Either way, I'd love to share how similar companies have integrated Coditect alongside major initiatives.
Which approach fits better?"
Objection Category: Technical
"How does this integrate with our existing tools?"
Response Framework:
"We're designed to complement, not replace, your existing stack.
Common integrations:
- Git: GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket
- CI/CD: Jenkins, GitHub Actions, CircleCI
- Project management: Jira, Linear, Asana
- Communication: Slack, Teams
Implementation typically takes [timeframe] with our integration team.
Want to map your specific stack?"
"What about data security/privacy?"
Response Framework:
"Critical question for regulated industries.
Our security posture:
- SOC2 Type II certified
- Data encryption at rest and in transit
- No training on customer data
- Air-gapped deployment option (Enterprise+)
- Customer-managed encryption keys (Strategic tier)
We've passed security reviews at [reference companies].
Would a security architecture review help?"
Objection Category: Organizational
"I need to get buy-in from [compliance/security/legal]"
Response Framework:
"Absolutely—multi-stakeholder decisions are normal.
Here's how we typically help:
- Technical review: Deep-dive with your engineering team
- Compliance review: Audit trail walkthrough with compliance
- Security review: Architecture review with security/legal
Should we schedule sessions with each group?"
"We have a vendor freeze / procurement process"
Response Framework:
"Understood—governance is important.
A few options:
- Pilot under existing category: Often fits under existing dev tools or compliance automation
- Start paperwork now: Get in queue for next approval cycle
- Executive sponsor: Sometimes strategic initiatives can accelerate
What typically moves fastest in your organization?"
Section 3: Discovery Framework
Stage 1: Initial Discovery Questions
Understanding Current State
| Question | What You're Learning |
|---|---|
| "Walk me through how a regulated feature goes from idea to production today." | Process pain points, timeline, bottlenecks |
| "How long does that typically take?" | Baseline for improvement comparison |
| "Where do delays usually happen?" | Specific problems to address |
| "Who's involved in the compliance review process?" | Stakeholders to engage |
Understanding Pain
| Question | What You're Learning |
|---|---|
| "What happens when an audit finding relates to development documentation?" | Cost of failure, organizational impact |
| "How much time does your team spend on compliance vs. building features?" | Burden quantification |
| "What's the business impact of delayed feature releases?" | Revenue/competitive connection |
Understanding Priorities
| Question | What You're Learning |
|---|---|
| "What are your top 3 engineering priorities this year?" | Alignment opportunities |
| "How is your team's success measured?" | Success metrics to target |
| "What would change if you could ship compliant features 5x faster?" | Value articulation in their words |
Stage 2: Qualification Questions (BANT+)
Budget
| Question | Qualifier |
|---|---|
| "How are development tools typically budgeted?" | Budget exists |
| "What's the investment range for productivity/compliance tools?" | Budget size |
| "Who approves purchases in this range?" | Budget authority |
Authority
| Question | Qualifier |
|---|---|
| "Who else would need to be involved in evaluating this?" | Decision process |
| "What's your role in the decision?" | Champion vs. decision-maker |
| "Who has final sign-off?" | True authority |
Need
| Question | Qualifier |
|---|---|
| "On a scale of 1-10, how urgent is solving this problem?" | Priority level |
| "What happens if this doesn't get addressed this year?" | Consequences |
| "What have you tried before?" | Prior attempts |
Timeline
| Question | Qualifier |
|---|---|
| "When would you need to see results?" | Urgency |
| "What's driving that timeline?" | Internal pressure |
| "What's your evaluation process typically look like?" | Sales cycle length |
Competition
| Question | Qualifier |
|---|---|
| "Are you evaluating other solutions?" | Competitive situation |
| "What alternatives are you considering?" | Specific competitors |
| "What would make you choose one over another?" | Decision criteria |
Stage 3: Solution Mapping Questions
| Question | Maps To |
|---|---|
| "Which compliance frameworks are you working with?" | Feature fit (FDA, HIPAA, SOC2) |
| "How many engineers would use this?" | Tier sizing |
| "What's your current tech stack?" | Integration scope |
| "Do you need on-premise or cloud?" | Deployment model |
| "What documentation do auditors typically request?" | Output requirements |
Section 4: Demo Talk Track
Opening (2 minutes)
"Before I show you the platform, let me confirm I understand your situation:
You're [restate their pain point from discovery]. You've tried [prior attempts], but [why they didn't work]. Your goal is [their stated objective].
Does that capture it?
What I'll show you is how Coditect addresses [specific pain] through [relevant capability]. I'll focus on [their priority area]."
Core Demo (10 minutes)
Flow: Requirement → Architecture → Code → Compliance → Audit Trail
| Demo Section | Key Points | Questions to Ask |
|---|---|---|
| Requirement input | Natural language, compliance framework selection | "How do requirements typically start for you?" |
| Architecture generation | C4 diagrams, ADRs, compliance mapping | "Would this save time vs. your current process?" |
| Code generation | Production-ready, error handling, tests | "How does this compare to what you'd expect from your team?" |
| Compliance validation | Continuous checking, gap identification | "How is this done today?" |
| Audit trail | Complete traceability, export for auditors | "Would your auditors accept this format?" |
Closing (3 minutes)
"Based on what you've seen, does this address [their primary pain]?
What questions do you have?
[Handle questions]
Here's what I recommend as next steps:
- [Specific next action based on their situation]
- [Timeline]
- [Who to involve]
Does that work for you?"
Section 5: Follow-Up Templates
Post-Discovery Email
Subject: Coditect follow-up: [Their specific pain point]
Hi [Name],
Thank you for the conversation today. I appreciated learning about [specific detail they shared].
To recap what I heard:
- Current challenge: [their pain in their words]
- Impact: [business impact they mentioned]
- Goal: [their stated objective]
Based on this, I think Coditect can help by:
- [Specific capability 1]
- [Specific capability 2]
As discussed, next steps:
- [Action 1] by [date]
- [Action 2] by [date]
I'm attaching:
- Overview deck customized for [their industry]
- Case study from [similar company]
Let me know if you have questions.
Best, [Name]
Post-Demo Email
Subject: Coditect demo follow-up + next steps
Hi [Name],
Thank you for taking time for the demo today.
Based on your questions about [specific topic], I wanted to share:
- [Additional resource/answer]
Key points from the demo:
- [Capability that resonated]
- [Proof point relevant to them]
- [ROI data point]
Next steps we discussed:
- [Action 1] - I'll send by [date]
- [Action 2] - Can you confirm [stakeholder] availability?
[Name mentioned] should be involved in [next meeting]. Would [date/time] work to include them?
Best, [Name]
Proposal Cover Email
Subject: Coditect proposal for [Company]
Hi [Name],
Attached is our proposal based on our conversations over the past [timeframe].
Summary:
- Solution: [Tier] with [specific features]
- Investment: [Price point]
- Timeline: [Implementation timeline]
- Expected ROI: [Metric] within [timeframe]
This proposal is valid through [date].
I'm available [times] to walk through and answer questions. Would any of those work for a 30-minute review?
Best, [Name]
Section 6: Competitive Positioning Quick Reference
When Competing Against GitHub Copilot
| Their Strength | Our Counter |
|---|---|
| Microsoft ecosystem | We complement, don't replace |
| Broad adoption | General-purpose = compliance gap |
| Lower price point | True cost includes compliance work |
Positioning: "Copilot for developers who don't need compliance. Coditect for regulated industries."
When Competing Against Cursor
| Their Strength | Our Counter |
|---|---|
| Developer-loved UX | We're autonomous, not assistant |
| AI-native architecture | Compliance not in their roadmap |
| Strong momentum | Horizontal play vs. our vertical depth |
Positioning: "Cursor helps you code faster. Coditect ships compliant features."
When Competing Against Internal Tools
| Their Strength | Our Counter |
|---|---|
| Customized to their process | Maintenance burden, regulatory changes |
| No new vendor | TCO often underestimated |
| Team built it, team loves it | Does it scale with compliance complexity? |
Positioning: "Internal tools for unique needs. Coditect for compliance that changes."
When Competing Against Status Quo (No Decision)
| Their Strength | Our Counter |
|---|---|
| No change required | Competitors are moving faster |
| No risk of new tool | Risk of audit findings, slow delivery |
| Known costs | Hidden costs in delays, remediation |
Positioning: "The cost of doing nothing is measured in months of delay and audit exposure."
Document Version: 1.0 Sales Enablement Package AZ1.AI Inc.