> ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.interchange.io/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # The pitch > A proposal pass can now argue for the plan, not only price it — the seven-part case, where every sentence comes from, and why it reads plainer when your catalogue gives it less to argue from. ## Overview A [proposal pass](/v2/storefront/demand-inbox#the-proposal-pass) can carry a **pitch**: a written argument for why this plan is right for this buyer, sitting above the plan itself. Where a pass used to open on a table of products and prices, it can now open on the case your Merchandising Agent would make — built only from what your storefront genuinely knows. The pitch composes shortly after your storefront answers a brief — normally within a minute — and lands on that brief's pass in your [demand inbox](/v2/storefront/demand-inbox). It doesn't hold up the buyer: the plan and prices go out as soon as they're ready, whether or not a pitch has finished composing. **The pitch is seller-side only today.** It renders on your demand inbox pass. It is **not** part of what a buyer's agent receives from `get_products` — the wire response still carries the plan and prices exactly as before. Sharing the argument with a buyer today is up to you; a buyer-facing wire projection is a later change. ## The seven parts A composed pitch reads in this order — every part is its own honest claim, so a part with nothing to say is simply absent rather than padded out: | Part | What it says | | ---------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **The thesis** | One specific argument connecting this buyer's brief to your storefront's supply — why this plan, for this buyer, now. Leads the pass in its most prominent text. | | **What we heard** | The buyer's brief, mirrored back in their own words, before you argue anything. | | **The plan as roles** | Each product presented as a role in a strategy — the anchor, the amplifier, the experiment — with a *fit argument*: why this asset, for this outcome, for this buyer. | | **How we'll know it worked** | What will be measured, on what cadence, from your products' real reporting capabilities — and, just as honestly, what won't be measured. | | **The value** | The argument for the price: the guarantee, the packaging, how the price was built — never a bare number in a grid. | | **The honest counter** | What the brief asked for that your catalogue genuinely lacks, and what you'd do instead. | | **What's next** | The invitation — what happens if the buyer books it, refines it, or tests it. | When a pitch composes, the pass keeps its product table too — it moves under a **Plan appendix** heading beneath the narrative, same products, same prices, unchanged. Nothing about the plan is restructured; the pitch adds the argument on top of it. ## Where every sentence comes from **This is the rule that matters most: every sentence in a pitch cites at least one real source, or it never appears.** That's enforced at the moment the pitch is composed, not a style guideline applied afterward — a sentence with no source behind it is deleted before anyone reads it. A sentence may cite: * **Your buyer's brief** — mirroring the buyer's own stated words and facts. * **Your inventory and product data** — the bundles and signals selected for this plan, delivery type, and the products' real reporting capabilities. * **Your Playbook pricing** — the rate-card facts that anchored or floored a price. See [Playbook pricing](/v2/storefront/playbook/overview). * **Your Playbook instructions** — the guidance version the pass composed under. See [Playbook instructions](/v2/storefront/operating-instructions/overview). Each claim carries its receipts the same way a product row already does: the same ["fed by" chips](/v2/storefront/demand-inbox#where-fed-by-comes-from) sit behind individual sentences, and tapping one opens the exact ingredient it cited — your inventory source, or your Playbook — so you can check any claim in the argument, not just the plan underneath it. **A superlative only composes when something you told your storefront says so.** A claim like "our highest-attention placement" or "read by N million people a month" needs a source that states it. Today nothing does — your Media Kit and buyer-facing story aren't a pitch source yet, the same gap [the demand inbox](/v2/storefront/demand-inbox#where-fed-by-comes-from) already documents for "fed by" — so those sentences don't compose, and the value case rests on the guarantee, the packaging, and what your inventory data can state plainly. That's not a bug to route around: it's the honest result of nothing yet backing the bigger claim. ## Why your pitch reads plainer than you expected A pitch gets richer exactly as your storefront's own data gives it more to argue from — that's the lever you have, not a setting to find: * **A thin rate card produces a thin value case.** Add target prices, floors, and the conditions they apply under in Playbook pricing, and the value case can argue from them instead of the number alone. * **A generic Playbook produces a generic thesis and honest counter.** The more your Playbook instructions say about how you position your inventory and where it doesn't fit, the more specific those two sections get. * **A claim you expected to see and don't** almost always means it didn't have a real source at compose time — not that the composer forgot it. Check what fed the surrounding claims; the gap is usually the ingredient, not the argument. Nothing is ever reconstructed to fill a gap. A section with nothing to say stays empty rather than showing an invented sentence. ## Every claim is checked twice Citing a real source isn't the whole check. Before a pitch is attached to your pass, every sentence also has to genuinely follow from the source it cites — a second, independent pass verifies that the claim's actual wording is supported by the fact behind it, not just that the fact exists. A sentence that names a real bundle but overstates what that bundle's own data says is caught here and removed, the same way an unsourced sentence never survives composition in the first place. If this verification step itself can't run, no pitch composes at all for that pass — a pitch with an unverified claim is worse than no pitch. ## While it's composing A pass can show a quiet note that its pitch is still being composed. This is normal — composing an argument happens after your response has already gone to the buyer, so it never holds anything up — and it resolves within a few minutes to either the finished pitch or one of the absent reasons below. It never silently disappears: if something interrupts composing partway through (a deploy, for instance), the pass is guaranteed to eventually pick back up and resolve, retrying once before giving up. ## When there's no pitch at all A pass can carry no pitch. When that happens, the pass renders **exactly as it did before pitches existed** — the plan, and nothing invented around it. Reasons a pitch may be absent: | Reason | What it means | | --------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | Not yet enrolled | Pitch composition is rolling out to selected storefronts (see [Availability](#availability)). | | Composing failed | A real fault interrupted composing or its verification pass. | | Nothing to argue from | Even the thesis — the one part every pitch must have — needs a real, verified source. When nothing in your own data could ground one, no pitch is composed at all, rather than one built on a claim that wouldn't survive an honest check. | | Superseded | You adjusted the proposal before the pitch for the earlier version finished; the revision gets its own pitch instead (see [Revisions get their own pitch](#revisions-get-their-own-pitch)). | | Timed out | Composing an argument runs against a deadline so it never holds up your response to the buyer, and retries once if interrupted; if it still can't finish, the pass ships with the plan only. | ## When the pitch can't be checked right now Separately from the reasons above, a pass can occasionally show the plan only because the pitch lookup itself hit a transient problem — a slow database query, for example — rather than because a pitch never composed. This renders identically to "no pitch at all": the plan, and nothing invented around it. It isn't one of the reasons in the table above, because it says nothing about whether a pitch actually exists; refreshing the pass usually resolves it. ## Revisions get their own pitch When you [adjust a proposal and send a revision](/v2/storefront/demand-inbox#adjusting-a-proposal), the revision is re-argued: it composes its own pitch from the revised plan rather than reusing the one that shipped with the original. A revision is a new case, not a relabeled one. ## Availability The pitch is rolling out to selected storefronts. If your proposal passes show the plan only, check with Scope3 on current availability for your storefront. ## Related The ledger and the proposal pass the pitch renders on. The rate-card facts a pitch's value case can cite. The versioned guidance a pitch's thesis and honest counter draw on.