GC cognitive default is pattern-matched stories, not ROI spreadsheets — implication for pitch structure

Claim: Marketing arguments structured as pattern-matched stories ("here is the project we did for a contractor like you; here is what changed") will land better with a GC than marketing arguments structured as ROI spreadsheets, even when the spreadsheet is more rigorous. The cognitive default — per [[klein-rpd-1985-fireground-naturalistic-decision-making]] and [[klein-kahneman-2009-conditions-for-intuitive-expertise]] — is recognition, not calculation.

Confidence: Industry-consensus (well-validated across naturalistic-decision-making literature and applied sales research in trades).

For Candid: Practical implications:

• Case studies built as narrative arcs (problem → constraints → decisions → measured result) outperform same-data case studies presented as bullet-charts.
• Reference clients matter more per-dollar of effort than aggregate statistics.
• The first 60 seconds of a sales conversation should be a story about a comparable contractor, not a value-proposition recitation.
• ROI math is the second-meeting tool (for the spouse / office manager — see [[gc-owner-spouse-as-primary-buyer-not-gatekeeper]]), not the first-meeting tool.

Related rule: [[rule-lead-with-work-not-strategy-for-gc-marketing]].