Account Intelligence Document
30 accounts · Priority 1 (15) + Priority 2 (15) · April 2026 · Internal
30 accounts · Priority 1 (15) + Priority 2 (15) · April 2026 · Internal
This document captures what we know about each of our 30 target accounts — not as CRM fields, but as a real account story. The goal is that anyone on the team can look at a card for 30 seconds and understand exactly what happened, who we know, what the real blocker is, and what we should do next.
Cards marked NEEDS INPUT are structurally ready but require account owners to fill in the story. The standard questions below apply to every account — please complete these before our next weekly session.
One of our longest relationships — three years. They tested us early, said we weren't good enough, gave specific feedback. We improved and reconnected via a CEO email two years later. We got deep into contracting — three rounds of redlining — before their CEO pulled the plug saying negotiations had become too much. In the meantime they built their own solution (70–80% on their own 23M image dataset) and licensed SightEngine. Despite this, they have now agreed to start a Proof of Value with us — a strong signal that their in-house approach and SightEngine are not satisfying them.
Introduced via an Au10tix connection to their Head of Identification and Authentication. They came to us unsure if they had a deepfake problem but curious. We also reached their SVP of ID and Auth. We ran a spoofing demo — it wasn't convincing enough, they asked us to do it again despite us flagging it was experimental. They've asked for pricing but there's no confirmed direction — POC or otherwise. Currently exploring, not buying.
Two conversations. Working-level contact Andre was dismissive and rude, then ghosted. Decision-maker Sylvia has never been engaged. Position: "we already have solutions, this is not a problem." We have a warm route via John Eric (ex-Signicat) but haven't used it to reach Sylvia yet. No champion, no urgency, active blocker. Kill signal triggered.
Three years ago, eight Mitek VPs reached out simultaneously with an urgent deepfake problem. Six months of pre-POC discussions — then they announced they'd built their own solution and walked away. Later, their product person came back saying the internal solution had failed — then left the company. We now have zero active contacts at Mitek. Meanwhile ABN AMRO (a Mitek client) is being actively attacked by deepfakes and Mitek cannot catch them. Our strongest external proof point — but no door in right now.
Re-engaged via Annika. Biometric vendor with Southeast Asia footprint. Interested in deepfake detection as an add-on for their clients. Willing to pay for a scoped engagement — one customer with ten deepfakes identified. Volume package also discussed. One of our more commercially concrete conversations right now.
Genuine early interest — agreed to review NDA and security docs for a potential POC. Then the main contact left. Multiple stakeholders churned over time. Restarted via John Eric (warm intro) — one meeting, then silence again. No urgency, no champion, no current named contact. Account is in limbo.
Outbound from Brazil. Banking-as-a-service — outsources full KYC and identification for banks. Builds most things in-house but unhappy with current deepfake vendor. We reached out before they were actively looking. Now between POC phase 1 and 2. Only in contact with two engineers — decision-maker Gustavo is deliberately staying back until technical evaluation is complete. Want to start at 500K checks/month, scale to 5M. Pricing is below our standard floor.
In touch since May last year — nearly a year. Pilots run, product tested. In December their client came under active deepfake attack — their product team urgently asked us to accelerate purchase. Attack lasted two weeks; they used FaceCheck (high false rejection rate) as a stopgap. Once the attack stopped, urgency disappeared. Procurement has been working on the contract since December — four months of limbo. Last week they shifted from "we'll sign" to "we're not sure."
Strong relationships — we know the CPO, CTO, and CEO. The CTO is a genuine champion who has believed in us since day one. POC and POV results were strong. But the CTO's position is: "I don't see clients complaining about deepfakes, so I can't build an internal business case." CPO adds: "We can't charge existing clients extra — maybe new clients." They are currently switching liveness providers due to cost, which opens a window to position DDG as part of the new vendor stack.
One interaction only. After the meeting their CPO sent a direct challenge: "We have tested your competitors. You are not impressive at all industry-wide. Why would you be different? Convince me." We did not respond at the time. The conversation is technically still open but the window is closing with every week we don't reply.