Role Play Scenarios

The training site runs these as live AI conversations, 26 scenarios across 5 difficulty tiers, scored on a 7-dimension scorecard out of 100. Pass at 75, certification at 85. This page preserves every scenario: who the prospect is, how they behave, what wins and what loses. Use them for live pair role-play even without the simulator.

The tier ladder: Beginner (cooperative prospects), Intermediate (realistic pushback), Expert (hostile and complex), Enterprise (law firm buyers), Wildcard (curveball situations).

Beginner: cooperative prospects

1. First-Time Caller, curious and cooperative. Warm YouTube lead, friendly, needs pricing clarity and a tier recommendation. Light objections (“that sounds like a lot of money”) that value framing addresses. Coach note: this is the warm-up; run the full CONNECT-DISCOVER-EDUCATE-PRESENT-CLOSE framework, no skipped steps. Opens: “Hi, I’ve been watching Rebecca’s videos for a while now. I’m interested but I’m not sure which option is right for me.”

2. Ask Rebecca User, ready to upgrade. $19/mo subscriber for 3 months, loves it, case getting more complex. Track B: reference their experience, do not re-sell the brand, match the tier (Starter, Growth or Premium). Their question is “which tier,” not “should I buy.” Opens: “I’ve been using Ask Rebecca for a few months and it’s been really helpful. But my situation is getting more complicated.”

3. Attorney Referral, minimal resistance. CPA in a probate case, sent by their attorney, baseline trust already exists. Wants specifics, not a pitch. Let the attorney’s credibility do the heavy lifting; target Launch ($3,497). Opens: “My attorney told me to look into this. What exactly does it do?”

4. Webinar Attendee, high intent. Just watched the 90-minute webinar, emotionally activated, ready. Do not over-discover a ready buyer: 1-2 situation questions, recommend, close. Slowing them down with heavy discovery cools them off. Opens: “I just finished Rebecca’s webinar and I’m ready. What’s the next step?”

5. Starter User, Premium upgrade. On $18/mo Starter for 2 months, daily user of Incident Tracker and Timeline Builder, hitting limits. Feature-match: show how Premium’s pattern detection and leverage analysis build on what they already use. Value clarity closes it, not price handling. Opens: “I love the timeline builder, but I keep hitting limits. What does Premium give me?”

Intermediate: realistic pushback

6. Mike Young, exhausted entrepreneur. 52, serial entrepreneur, 6-year divorce, $350K+ legal spend, third attorney, parental alienation, deeply skeptical. Objections: sunk cost, no time, “my attorney handles everything.” Wins: acknowledge exhaustion first, prove SLAY differs from everything tried, show Case Command ($9,997) as the system that gives control. Loses: pitching fast, sounding scripted. Opens: “I have been through three attorneys already. My wife has gone through six. I am skeptical anything is going to change.”

7. Theresa Harry, fast-moving entrepreneur. 44, Austin. Partner diverted $380K, active litigation, forensic accountant already engaged. Values speed above everything; rambling loses her. Match her pace, answer directly, show how Deploy ($5,997) accelerates what she is doing. Opens: “I do not have time for a long conversation. Just tell me what this does and how fast it works.”

8. Jason Medina, uncertain pre-litigant. 41, VP of Operations, HR dispute not yet in litigation, cost sensitive, unsure he needs anything. Right move: entry tier (Ask Rebecca $19/mo or Starter $18/mo), framed as smart proactive protection. Pushing expensive tiers shuts him down instantly. Opens: “I am not sure I even need something like this. My situation might resolve on its own.”

9. Professional Attorney, ROI evaluation. Solo family lawyer, 20 active matters at $350/hour, burned by legal tech before. Wants hard math, not features: $62/matter margin x 20 matters = $14,880/year, plus 5-7 hours/week of document prep freed at $350/hour. If you cannot do the math on the spot, they disengage. Opens: “I’ve seen a lot of legal tech tools come and go. Can you show me the numbers?”

10. The Thinker, post-presentation stall. Engaged through the whole Deploy presentation, then “I need to think about it.” The stall is never the real objection; here it hides fear, specifically that their spouse does not know about the case. “What specifically would you want to think through?” surfaces it; pressure or false urgency ends the call. Opens: “This all sounds really good. I just… need to think about it. Can I call you back next week?”

Expert: hostile and complex

11. Becky Whitfield, data interrogation. 56, CFO/CPA, complex probate dispute, attorney-referred but independently skeptical. Asks where data is hosted, database-level privilege isolation, SOC 2 status, retention on cancellation, and challenges the $62 margin’s adoption assumption. Honesty wins (“great question, I’ll get the exact spec from our technical team”); bluffing loses her permanently. Opens: “Before we go any further, I need to understand your data architecture.”

12. Mike Young, distracted and stacking. Takes a phone call mid-conversation, returns distracted, stacks three objections at once: $350K sunk cost + “my attorney says I don’t need this” + “no bandwidth for another system.” Do not answer all three at once. Acknowledge the exhaustion first, then unwind one at a time; show Command SAVES time rather than adding work.

13. Theresa Harry, impulse buy risk. Wants Command ($9,997) immediately, no discovery, just the payment link. The trap: her case actually fits Deploy ($5,997); sell her Command and she churns in 45 days. The winning move costs $4,000 of commission: slow her down, insist on 3-4 discovery questions, recommend Deploy, and explain why. That is what separates a closer from a salesperson. Opens: “I don’t need to hear more. Give me Command. What’s the payment link?”

14. Ethics and Privilege deep dive. Senior employment litigator: does client input waive privilege, who has data access, does the model train on client data, work-product segregation, subpoena handling, Rule 1.6(c). Handle 3 of 5 competently and acknowledge limits honestly on the rest, and they advance to their ethics committee. Never bluff on privilege. Opens: “Let’s start with Rule 1.6 and work product doctrine.”

15. Emotional Crisis, mid-call breakdown. Custody-battle parent breaks down crying: the evaluator just recommended supervised visitation. The humanity test. Pause, give them space, be genuinely human, then pivot to strategy IN LEVERAGE LANGUAGE (“that is a serious situation, let us talk about what you can actually do”). Any therapeutic vocabulary (healing, journey, empowerment) reads as patronizing; trying to close during tears ends the call. Opens: “[voice breaks] I got the custody evaluation results today… I might lose my kids.”

Enterprise: law firm buyers

16. Managing Partner, firm-wide evaluation. 12-attorney family law firm, $6.2M revenue, comparing SLAY to Relativity and an internal build, 30 minutes, no fluff. Wants per-attorney cost at 12 seats, implementation timeline, TCO at 200+ matters, case studies at their size, matter transitions when attorneys leave. Speak P&L or lose early.

17. Legal Ops Director, competitive comparison. Knows Relativity, Westlaw, Clio, NetDocuments cold. The winning position: SLAY is the leverage-and-strategy layer on TOP of the stack, complementary, not a replacement for document review or research. Position it as a Relativity replacement and you are dismissed as uninformed. Asks about API integration, SSO, uptime SLA, migration path.

18. Litigation Dept Head, compliance and training. 15 litigators, terrified of liability. Never minimize it. SLAY is organizational and analytical, not legal advice; outputs require attorney review, and that is a feature keeping the attorney in control. Wants E&O posture, malpractice-carrier documentation, training path for technophobes.

19. In-House Counsel, employment disputes. GC at a 500-person tech company, 12 active employment disputes, $400K/year outside counsel spend. Thinks in portfolios, not cases: multi-matter handling beyond family law, litigation holds, audit trails, multi-user permissions (HR vs legal vs management), attorney-ready exports. Win: a 5-matter pilot.

20. Firm CFO, margin math at scale. Numbers only. At 50 matters: cost $97 x 50 = $4,850/mo; billed to clients at $159 = $7,950/mo; net $3,100/mo = $37,200/year; at 70 percent adoption roughly $2,170/mo net; break-even in month 2-3 including implementation. Build the live P&L on the call or you are done.

Wildcard: curveballs

21. Angry Customer, chargeback threat. Bought Case Command 45 days ago, did orientation, never engaged, now demands a refund and threatens chargeback, BBB, social media. The real issue: they felt abandoned after orientation. De-escalate first, policy second; lead with the solution (reconnect them with their strategist TODAY), then the Leverage Creation Guarantee terms. Cold policy citations escalate it.

22. Bar Compliance and UPL concern. Attorney who likes the product but fears recommending it constitutes UPL exposure. Know the line cold: educational and informational, organizes evidence and surfaces patterns, does not give legal advice or predict outcomes, attorney is always the final decision-maker, compliance documentation available.

23. Misled by a previous closer. Paid $497 for SLAY Your Negotiation after a closer implied it was a managed service; it is a course. Never badmouth the colleague, never gaslight (“I’m sure they didn’t say that” ends it). Acknowledge the miscommunication, explain what each offer actually is, match them to what they thought they were buying (likely Launch or Deploy).

24. Narcissistic caller, mirror of the problem. Exhibits the exact patterns the product handles: grandiosity, devaluation, love-bombing the closer, blame-shifting, word salad. Real situation: custody battle, restraining order they claim is fabricated. Stay calm, do not match energy, do not take the love-bomb bait, redirect to case specifics. They are testing whether you can handle what the product is designed for.

25. Negative reviews, trust repair. Googled SLAY, found 2-3 bad reviews (“just videos,” “couldn’t get a refund”). Never dismiss or call reviews fake. Acknowledge, explain the participation-based guarantee and what distinguishes an active strategic engagement from a passive course. Honesty builds more trust than deflection; they buy BECAUSE you were straight.

26. Rebecca’s personal referral, VIP expectations. Name-drops Rebecca constantly, expects white-glove treatment, direct access to Rebecca, special pricing. Honor the referral, never promise discounts or Rebecca’s personal involvement. Proper discovery IS the VIP treatment. Caving to one concession invites demands for more; dismissing the connection offends. Target: Command at full price.

Scoring

The simulator scores conversations on a 7-dimension scorecard out of 100. Pass at 75, certification at 85. Minimum 4 exchanges before scoring. For manual role-play, score against the framework phases: connect, discovery quality, education/bridge, tier match, objection diagnosis, voice compliance, close.

NOTE FOR REVIEW: the interactive simulator (voice in/out, AI personas, auto-scoring) is functionality of the external training site, not reproducible in this repo. What is preserved here is the complete scenario library and coaching logic. If RZ rebuilds the simulator, the persona prompts in the raw capture (playbooks/_zung-site/RolePlaySimulator.md) are the spec.