Ten questions. Answer honestly. The grade updates as you go, and nothing hides behind an email field. A real ICP names pains, triggers, and disqualifiers, and your whole team describes it the same way.
01Your ICP doc names specific pain points, written down in customer language.
02You can name the buying triggers: the events that make a good-fit account start looking.
03Your ICP defines the buying-cycle stage you win in, not just who the company is.
04You have written disqualification criteria: accounts you walk away from on purpose.
05Every AE and CSM would describe your ICP the same way.
06The ICP gets revisited on a schedule, not just when growth stalls.
07Win/loss and churn data feed the ICP. It changes when the evidence changes.
08Spend follows the segments in your ICP, not sprayed across the entire TAM.
09Lead and account scoring actually use the ICP. Fit changes who sales calls this week.
10Sales and marketing would point to the same five accounts as your best-fit deals.
Scales: 1 = not true · 5 = completely true.
F28/100
Strict by design. An A takes confident yeses across the board. One weak link is enough to make an ICP decorative.
There is no working ICP here — there's a target market description. That's normal and fixable. Don't write a deck. Do the two things below first; they take a week and they change what the team does on Monday.
Your top gaps
Your ICP doc names specific pain points, written down in customer language.
Pull the last 10 win interviews. Write the pains in the words customers used. Add them to the ICP doc this week.
You can name the buying triggers: the events that make a good-fit account start looking.
List the trigger events from your last 20 closed-won deals (new exec, funding, tool churn, audit, growth stall). Make triggers a field on the ICP.
Your ICP defines the buying-cycle stage you win in, not just who the company is.
Add one line to the ICP: "We win when the account is ___." If you can't fill the blank, your win/loss data can.