The checklist
- What assumption about demand, adoption, or channel access would materially change the decision if it proved false locally?
- Who shapes approvals, credibility, procurement, or adoption beyond the obvious counterparty?
- Which local partner profile would actually improve execution, and which would only create surface-level access?
- What regulatory, reputational, or operational issues are most likely to slow the first 90 days?
- What is the true sequence of meetings, approvals, and relationship-building required to move credibly?
- Which conversations should happen now, and which should wait until the posture or evidence base improves?
- What remains uncertain after the first pass, and how should those unknowns be tested next?
- If the answer is not “go now,” is the right conclusion “wait,” “redesign the route,” or “stop”?
How to use it
The checklist works best when leadership and operating teams answer the same questions independently, compare gaps, and identify where the disagreement comes from. The aim is not consensus by default. It is clarity about what needs validating before the next irreversible step.
When to bring in outside support
If the disagreement is mostly about local reality, stakeholder sequence, or partner quality, the issue is no longer just internal alignment. That is usually the point where a short market entry brief or a partner mapping sprint becomes more useful than another internal memo.