Send Proposal. And forget. How April’s release closes the visibility gap in B2B proposals

The proposal you sent on Tuesday is silent. You don’t know why.

Notes from the proposal trenches · April 2026

Most B2B sales teams operate the last mile of every deal completely blind. They build the proposal, hit send, and refresh their inbox for a week. This is a piece about what’s actually happening on the other side of that screen : and what closing the visibility gap looks like in practice. We just shipped four updates to Fresh Proposals that, taken together, change what happens after you click send.

[SCREENSHOT-1: Hero illustration : calendar grid showing one week of sent proposal silence, with a single sent indicator and two brief opens]

What’s in this piece

1. Why the last mile of a B2B deal is structurally broken : 3 min
2. Recurring follow-ups · the proposal that chases itself : 3 min
3. Three-way client responses · ending the false “no” : 3 min
4. Buyer engagement insights · seeing the shape of attention : 3 min
5. Revamped Video Content Library · richer proposals, faster : 2 min
6. A 30-day playbook for putting it all to work : 2 min

The blind spot is structural, not personal

A salesperson on your team spent four hours yesterday building a proposal. They dropped it into a PDF, wrote a thoughtful email, attached the file, and hit send. That was Tuesday at 11:14 AM. It is now Friday afternoon. They have no idea whether the prospect opened the document, scrolled past the cover, lingered on pricing, forwarded it to a partner, or filed it in a folder called “Maybe Q3.”

So they do what every salesperson on earth does in this situation. They send a follow-up that opens with “Just bumping this to the top of your inbox…” : a phrase that has become the white noise of B2B selling.

This is how the last mile of a deal works for most service firms. You spend more energy crafting the proposal than you do tracking what happens to it after it leaves your laptop. The follow-up is guesswork. The pricing conversation is asynchronous and brittle. And when the deal stalls, nobody can quite say why : was it the price? The scope? The third bullet on page 4? Did they even get to page 4?

It’s tempting to say better salespeople wouldn’t have this problem : that the discipline of CRM hygiene and timed follow-up sequences should solve it. That misses the point. The problem isn’t that people forget to follow up. The problem is that the artifact itself : the PDF : is a dead document the moment it lands in someone’s inbox. It does not phone home. It does not say who opened it. It does not invite the buyer to ask questions in line. It does not let two co-signers route around each other. It just sits there, inert, while the seller refreshes Gmail.

The PDF is the most common deal artifact in B2B sales, and also the worst tool we’ve ever invented for closing one.

Buyers feel this from the other side too. The proposal arrives. They have one question : small, easily answered : but no good way to ask it without seeming like they’re stalling. They could reply to the email. But that opens a thread that pulls in three more people. They could schedule a call. But the question isn’t really call-worthy. So they do nothing. The proposal sits. And eventually, when the seller’s third “just checking in” arrives, the buyer takes the path of least resistance and politely declines a deal they were 80% of the way to signing.

This is the negative space the modern proposal tool is supposed to fill. Not by being a prettier PDF, but by being a different kind of object entirely : one that follows up on its own, surfaces what the buyer is actually doing, and gives both sides a way to say something other than yes or no.

Send. And forget.

That’s the philosophy behind this release of Fresh Proposals : and it’s not four disconnected features. It’s four answers to the same problem, working in concert: the proposal that follows up on its own, the proposal that lets buyers respond on their terms, the proposal that tells you what’s happening behind the screen, and the content library that lets you build a richer proposal in less time.

Each section below covers one feature in three layers: what the world looked like before, what specifically changed, and the quantifiable benefits we’re seeing across pilot accounts. We’ve sequenced them in the order you’ll feel them in a deal: first the cadence, then the conversation, then the analytics that close the loop, then the content library that fuels the next proposal.

Recurring follow-ups, smart and account-wide

A proposal email sequencer that thinks in three states : not viewed, viewed but not signed, signed but not paid : and chases each one on its own cadence. Set it once at the account level. Override it per proposal when the deal demands it.

The follow-up problem nobody owns

If you’ve ever inherited an open proposals list from another rep, you’ve felt this: a stack of deals where the last touch was a generic “just checking in,” sent three weeks ago, with no record of whether the prospect ever opened the original document. Some are dead. Some are alive. You have no way to tell.

This is not because anyone is doing their job poorly. It’s because follow-up sits in the gap between three different systems : the CRM (which knows the deal stage), the email tool (which knows what was sent), and the proposal tool (which knows what was viewed). None of them owns the reminder cadence. So the rep owns it, manually, in their head, across forty open opportunities. The math doesn’t work.

What ends up happening, predictably, is one of two failure modes:

• Under-following-up. The rep gets busy, the proposal goes silent, and 30 days later the deal is “lost : no response.” The reality is the prospect simply forgot, and one well-timed nudge would have brought it back. We see this in roughly 35–40% of “lost” proposals when we look at the engagement data after the fact.
• Over-following-up. The rep, anxious about the silence, sends a follow-up every two days. The prospect, now annoyed, declines just to make the emails stop. This is rarer but more expensive : these were live deals.

Why now

Three things have changed in the last 18 months that make this feature land harder than it would have in 2024:

1. Buyers have gotten dramatically more comfortable with sequence-based outreach. Tools like HeyReach and Apollo have normalized cadenced communication; a polite, well-paced four-touch reminder no longer reads as aggressive. It reads as competent.
2. Inbox volume has roughly doubled per knowledge worker since 2022, which means a single follow-up email is far more likely to get buried than ignored. The sequence is no longer optional : it’s the only way to surface above the noise.
3. Sales team headcount across the SMB and lower mid-market has been cut or held flat in 2025 budgets. The same number of reps now manages 1.4× the open proposal pipeline. Manual reminder cadences don’t scale to that load.

What changed

Every proposal now ships with an opt-in, multi-stage email sequence configurable at the account level and overridable per proposal. The sequence has four positions:

The four-position sequence: Initial Email (always sent on Day 0), View Reminder (3 sends, 3 days apart, only fires if proposal hasn’t been opened), Signature Reminder (only fires if viewed but not signed), and Payment Reminder (only fires after signature on proposals with a deposit invoice attached).

The five things that make this useful in practice

Anyone can build a sequence tool. The details that separate a dead one from a live one:

1. Behavior-conditional triggers. The View Reminder track stops the instant the buyer opens. The Signature Reminder takes over. The Payment Reminder only fires after a signed deposit invoice. No reminder ever asks for something the buyer has already done : the single most common, and most cringe-inducing, failure mode of generic email tools.
2. Skip-on-weekends as a default. A reminder that lands on a Saturday is professional malpractice. The sequencer shifts weekend-bound emails to the following Monday automatically.
3. Custom templates per reminder slot. The third “did you have a chance to look at this?” reads like spam. The third reminder, written separately, can change tone : switch to a benefit recap, a case study link, an offer to jump on a call. Each reminder slot accepts its own template.
4. Account-level defaults that propagate to new proposals only. Change the default sequence for new business without breaking the rhythm of every in-flight deal. Existing proposals continue with the sequence they were sent under.
5. Per-proposal override with visible scheduling. Open any proposal and you’ll see every queued reminder with its estimated send date. Edit, delete, or pause individual instances without breaking the rest of the sequence : useful when a champion is traveling, or a renewal warrants a softer cadence.

What we’re seeing across pilot accounts

Numbers below are aggregated from 47 accounts that ran the sequencer during March beta, weighted toward firms doing 8–25 proposals per month. Your mileage will vary by deal cycle and vertical, but the pattern is consistent.

Metric	Impact	What it means in practice
Time saved	~3.5 hr per rep per week	Reclaimed from manually composing and timing follow-up emails. Most was previously mental-load time, not calendar time.
View rate lift	+22%	Roughly 1 in 5 deals previously written off as “ghosted” responds when nudged competently.
Forgotten follow-ups	−68%	Two weeks of zero-touch is now the rare exception, not the default.
Close rate	+11%	Mostly conversion of would-have-been-forgotten deals : not a magic boost on already-active ones.
Payment recovery	100% catch rate	Payment Reminder track caught 100% of deposit-overdue cases in pilot. Previously the rep’s most-forgotten task.
Time to signature	2.3× faster	On signed deals when the Signature Reminder track is active. Most deals don’t die of “no” : they die of “not yet.”

 

The “Smart recurring reminder emails” feature is available in the Business tier.

How to use this well: Don’t enable all three reminder tracks on day one. Start with just the View Reminder for two weeks. Look at the data : you’ll be surprised how many “ghosted” deals come back. Once your team trusts the cadence, layer on Signature, then Payment. The discipline is to set the sequence and actually let it run. The temptation will be to override every proposal manually because it feels more personal. Resist it. The system gets sharper the more proposals run through the same defaults.

Three ways to respond : only one of them is “no”

A new Respond menu sits beside the Accept button in the proposal viewer, giving clients three structured first-class options: Ask a question, Request changes, Decline. The “false no” : the deal that dies because the buyer had no graceful way to keep talking : is the largest preventable loss in B2B services sales. This feature is the antidote.

And new this month: the proposer can now control which of those options each client sees. More on that in a moment.

The cost of a binary choice

Until April, the proposal viewer offered a buyer exactly two options: sign the proposal, or close the tab and ignore it. Most tools in our category are still on this binary. The problem with binaries in sales is that they force buyers into the option that requires the least conversation. When a buyer has a small concern : a clarifying question about scope, a request to swap one line item, a need for two more days to talk to their partner : and the only available actions are “sign now” and “say no,” they will, given enough time, drift toward “no.” Not because the deal is dead, but because no is the option that doesn’t require a meeting.

We started instrumenting this carefully in late 2025. When we surveyed buyers who had declined a Fresh Proposals proposal, asking “what would you have actually preferred to do?” : only 31% said “decline outright.” The other 69% wanted some version of “ask a question without commitment,” “request a small change before signing,” or “buy more time.” None of those options existed in the UI. So they declined.

The single largest source of false-negative deal loss in B2B services isn’t bad pricing or weak value props : it’s a UI that doesn’t let the buyer say “almost, but…”

What the buyer sees now

The proposal viewer’s top-right now shows two controls: a green Accept button and a Respond dropdown. The dropdown contains three options:

• Ask a question : “Message the proposer : no commitment needed.” Opens an inline message panel attached to the proposal. The proposer gets a notification with the question and a link back to that section. The proposal remains open and the email sequence continues.
• Request changes : “Ask for edits to pricing, scope, or terms before signing.” Same as above, but flagged in the dashboard as a change requested state. Auto-pauses the View Reminder sequence so the client doesn’t get nudged while they’re waiting on you.
• Decline proposal : “This will close the proposal. Cannot be undone.” The decline reason field is optional but helpful for win/loss analysis.

 

You’ll also notice the buyer now has a separate “more options” menu (the three-dot icon) that contains document actions : PDF download and document information. This was previously buried; we surfaced it because clients consistently asked where to download the PDF, which was confusingly mixed in with the response actions.

The defaults work for most accounts but the menu is fully configurable

For the vast majority of service firms, the right move is to leave all three Respond options on and let the data come in. The defaults are deliberately permissive because the buyer behaviors we want to surface : questions, change requests, considered declines : are exactly the ones that get suppressed when options are hidden.

That said, the menu and each of its three options are independently toggleable in Client View Option, both at the account level and per proposal. We added this configurability because a small number of accounts have legitimate reasons to override the default:

• Firms operating under regulatory or operational constraints where every proposal goes out at fixed terms : for them, Request changes is noise.
• Firms sending late-stage proposals where negotiation has already happened, and reopening scope at the proposal stage would just create churn.
• Firms : accounting and legal especially : that would rather have an overt phone conversation about declining than a one-click decline button, and want to remove the Decline option deliberately.

If you fall into one of these patterns, the toggles are there. If you don’t, the defaults are what you want. The full configuration walkthrough lives in the help guide; we won’t belabor it here.

What changes when “ask” is one click away

Measured during a 6-week beta across 38 accounts. Sample size of 1,200+ proposals.

Metric	Impact	What it means
Decline rate	−43%	Compared to the same accounts’ pre-April baseline. Most lift came from converting would-be declines into Ask or Request states.
Proposals reaching signature	+27%	Within 14 days. Questions resolved in 24h convert to signatures faster than questions raised in calls scheduled for next week.
Request-changes recovery	~85%	Of “Request changes” deals converted to signature within 30 days. The saved-deal segment.
Buyer questions per proposal	3.2× more	The questions were always there; they just had nowhere structured to go. They now live on the proposal, attached to the right section.
Scattered email threads	−61%	Conversation now lives on the proposal. Email is no longer the source of truth for what was asked and answered.
Average deal value	+19%	On proposals that went through “Request changes” before signing. Counterintuitive but consistent: revision conversations expand scope more often than they shrink price.

How to use this well: The temptation will be to read every “Ask a question” as a buying signal and pick up the phone. Don’t. Answer the question in the channel the buyer chose : async, in writing, attached to the proposal. The buyer picked async deliberately; they don’t want a call yet. Respect that, answer cleanly, and the next move is theirs. Reps who pattern-match to “question = pick up phone” see lower close rates than reps who match “question = thoughtful written answer within 4 hours.” The data is unambiguous on this.

And on the new proposer-side controls: don’t disable options reflexively. Most of the lift in the table above comes from the availability of the soft options. If you turn off Request changes by default across all proposals, you’ll lose the recovery effect. The right pattern is to leave everything on by default, then disable specific options for specific proposal types where they don’t fit.

Buyer engagement, drawn as a shape and now with full session history

The redesigned analytics page renders engagement as radar charts, both aggregated across all viewers and per individual contact, so you can immediately see whether the CFO spent her time in pricing while the CEO lingered on the case study. New this release: a View Activity timeline that shows every recent viewing session : when, for how long, on which device, on which sections.

Why bar charts weren’t enough

Until April, our analytics page showed section-level engagement as a stacked bar chart. The bars told you which sections got attention. They told you nothing about what shape the attention had : which sections held attention together, which contact was driving which spike, whether engagement was concentrated or distributed.

This matters because B2B proposals are read by groups, not individuals. The CFO and the CEO are looking at the same document but reading different parts of it. A bar chart blends them. A bar chart that says “Investment got 4 minutes total” gives you no leverage; a radar chart that says “the CFO spent 3:40 on Investment while the CEO spent 0:20 there and 4:00 on Case Study” tells you exactly who’s worried about what : and exactly which talking point each stakeholder needs in the follow-up call.

The structure of the redesigned page

The page is structured in three layers, top to bottom:

Layer 1: the four-tile engagement headline. Total view time, times viewed (broken down by device), average time per view, and how long ago the last view ended. The at-a-glance answer to “is this deal alive right now?”

Layer 2: two radar charts, side by side. Section Visits on the left, Time Spent Per Section on the right. The shape itself is the diagnostic. A spike on Investment with a flat Case Study tells you something very different than the inverse. The two patterns together : high visits AND high time : almost always means a stakeholder is preparing to push back on that section. High time but low visits typically means careful first-read engagement; high visits but low time often means the section confused or didn’t satisfy.

Layer 3 (new this release): the View Activity timeline. Below the radars, a chronological list of every viewing session. Each entry shows the timestamp, how many sections were visited, how long the session lasted, the device used, and tags showing which specific sections received attention.

The View Activity timeline is the answer to a question that came up consistently in the radar-only view: “That’s a great-looking shape, but when did this engagement actually happen?” A radar that aggregates a Tuesday 3-minute deep read with a Saturday 15-second skim looks the same as one that aggregates two careful 90-second reads on consecutive Mondays. Those tell completely different stories about deal momentum.

The timeline solves this. You can see at a glance whether a buyer is actively engaging this week, drifted off two weeks ago, or has just come back after a long pause : the kind of behavioral signal that tells you whether to send the next reminder, pick up the phone, or write the deal off.

How to read the timeline

Each session entry tells you four things:

• When. Date and time of the session, down to the second.
• How much. Number of sections visited and total session duration. A 6-section, 2-minute session is a real read. A 2-section, 15-second session is a skim.
• How. Device : desktop, mobile, or tablet. A buyer who reads on desktop is at their workstation; a buyer who reads on mobile is on the move and probably not deep-thinking. Same content, different signal.
• What. Section tags showing which specific sections got attention in that session. This is the granular data the radar shape is built from : useful when you want to answer “did they look at the new pricing section yet?” without staring at the radar.

The contact selector at the top of the page applies to the timeline too: switch to a single contact, and the timeline filters to just their sessions. This is where multi-stakeholder deals become legible. Three contacts, three timelines, three completely different engagement stories : all on one page.

What shape-thinking and session-thinking unlock together

Metric	Impact	What it means in practice
Pre-call prep time saved	~12 min per proposal	The radar plus timeline tells you in 30 seconds what previously required digging through session-level data and CRM notes. Across a 20-deal pipeline, that’s roughly 4 hours per week reclaimed.
Follow-up email open rates	+34%	When the email referenced a specific section the buyer had spent time on. Buyers feel seen; emails feel relevant; opens go up.
Warm-deal identification	2.1× more deals	Correctly identified as “warm” : proposals where engagement looked dead in aggregate but was actually alive at the per-contact level.
Stalled-deal investigation time	−40%	For sales managers reviewing rep pipelines. The radar shape plus timeline is a one-glance pipeline review : concentrated shapes with recent activity are alive, flat hexagons with stale timelines are dead.
Discovery quality on follow-up calls	+18%	When the rep had reviewed the per-contact radar and timeline before dialing. Self-reported, validated against call recording analysis.
Multi-stakeholder visibility	9 of 10 deals	Showed materially different shapes per contact, confirming that aggregated engagement was hiding most of the signal worth acting on.

How to use this well: Build a 30-second habit. Before any follow-up email, open the proposal, switch the contact selector to the recipient, glance at their radar shape, then scan their last two timeline entries. Mention the section they spent time on, and reference the recency. “I noticed you spent some time on the Case Study section earlier this week : happy to walk through how we structured the engagement with [comparable client] if useful.” That’s it. The buyer feels seen. The follow-up reads as relevant. The data tells us this single habit is responsible for the 34% open-rate lift listed above. Don’t overthink it. Use the radar plus timeline before every send.

A revamped Video Content Library

This is the quietest of the four updates and possibly the most useful day-to-day. The Video tab inside Content Library has been completely redesigned: cleaner layout, a working preview, named videos that you can search by name, and one-click insertion into the proposal editor. If your firm relies on video : for case studies, founder intros, walkthroughs : this changes what’s possible inside a proposal.

Why video matters in proposals : and why it was painful before

The data on video in proposals is unambiguous. Proposals with at least one embedded video see substantially higher buyer engagement on the sections immediately following the video, higher overall time-on-document, and meaningfully higher close rates. The reasons are intuitive: a 60-second founder video communicates trust and competence faster than a paragraph; a 90-second case study walkthrough is more persuasive than a static testimonial; an explainer video for a complex deliverable does work that bullet points can’t.

So why hasn’t every services firm been embedding video in every proposal? Because the workflow was, frankly, painful. The old Video tab forced you to:

• Paste a YouTube/Wistia/Vimeo URL every time, even for videos you’d added before.
• Identify videos by their URL hash or auto-generated title : meaning your library was a list of cryptic strings rather than a useful asset catalog.
• Hunt for the right video manually each time you wanted to insert one, since search was effectively non-functional on auto-generated titles.

The friction was high enough that most users uploaded video once, never came back to it, and ended up with a graveyard of unidentifiable links. The library existed but wasn’t used. Worse, when reps did want to add video, they typically pasted a fresh URL each time, ending up with the same video stored four or five times under different cryptic names.

What changed

The Video tab inside Content Library has been redesigned end-to-end:

The four practical improvements:

1. Named videos. When you add a video, you give it a human-readable name. The same video added by you and a teammate can have different names if it serves different proposal contexts. Existing videos in your library can be renamed via the Rename action that appears on hover.
2. Working previews. Each video card shows a real thumbnail with the YouTube/Wistia/Vimeo player overlay. You can identify a video at a glance instead of clicking into each one to see what it is.
3. Search by name. The search bar at the top of the page filters by the names you’ve given. Type “AI Gene” and you’ll find your “AI Generated Pricing for an IT MSP Firm” video instantly. The time filter (All time, Last 7 days, Last 30 days, Custom) lets you find recently-added videos when your library is large.
4. Searchable from inside the proposal editor. The most consequential change. When you’re editing a proposal and want to drop in a video, the same name-based search works inside the editor. You don’t have to leave the proposal, switch tabs, copy the URL, come back, paste it. You search by name, click insert, done.

The redesigned library on its own would be useful. The library plus name-based search inside the editor is what changes behavior. Before this release, adding a video to a proposal was a 6-click, two-context-switch operation. After this release, it’s a 2-click, in-context operation. The math on that workflow shift is worth being explicit about:

• If adding a video used to take 90 seconds (find the URL, copy, switch context, paste, configure, save) and now takes 15 seconds (search by name in the editor, insert), that’s 75 seconds saved per video per proposal.
• If a typical proposal can support 2–3 videos but most teams only embed 0–1 because of the friction, then the workflow shift quietly increases the average video count per proposal.
• If video presence correlates with close rate (and it does, in our data, modestly but consistently), then more videos per proposal compounds into more deals closed.

Quantifiable benefits across pilot accounts

Metric	Impact	What it means
Time to add a video to a proposal	−83%	From a typical 90-second sequence (URL hunt, copy, paste, configure) to a typical 15-second sequence (search by name, insert).
Average videos per proposal	+1.4 videos	Across pilot accounts that previously averaged 0.6 videos per proposal, the new average sat at 2.0. The friction reduction directly increased the count.
Library reuse rate	3.7× higher	Proportion of videos inserted via library search vs. fresh URL paste. Reps now actually use the library : meaning your firm builds a real video asset catalog over time.
Buyer engagement on video-adjacent sections	+28%	Time spent on sections immediately following an embedded video, vs. the same section in proposals without video.
Close rate (proposals with 2+ videos)	+9%	Modest but consistent uplift. The mechanism is mostly trust-building on the buyer side : video communicates a level of investment that PDF text doesn’t.

How to use this well: Spend an afternoon naming the videos you already have. Most accounts have between 5 and 30 videos in their library, almost all with cryptic auto-generated titles. Renaming them once turns a junk drawer into a working library. After that, the rule of thumb we recommend: every proposal gets at least one video : typically a 60-second founder intro on the cover page, or a 90-second case study video adjacent to your Case Study section. The mechanical lift in close rate isn’t huge, but the trust signal is real.

A 30-day playbook for putting it all to work

Four features shipped on the same day land best when sequenced, not stacked. Here’s the four-week ramp we recommend for teams that want to extract maximum lift without overwhelming reps with new behavior.

Week 1 : Configure, don’t deploy

Don’t enable any of the new features for live deals yet. Spend the first week in Settings → Email Configuration → Proposal Email Sequence setting the account-level defaults. Write three reminder templates that read differently from each other. Read them out loud : if your third reminder sounds anything like your first, rewrite it. Have your team’s best writer do the editing pass; this content will get sent thousands of times.

While you’re in Settings, also configure your default Client View Option for the Respond menu. If your firm sends fixed-terms proposals, consider disabling Request changes by default. If your team prefers to handle declines via phone, consider disabling Decline by default. For most firms, leaving all three options on is the right starting point.

And : afternoon project : name every video in your Content Library. Most accounts have 5–30 videos sitting under cryptic auto-generated titles. Rename them once, and you have a working library forever.

Week 2 : Go live with the View Reminder track only

Enable just the View Reminder. Leave Signature and Payment off. Send all new proposals through the normal flow. At the end of the week, pull the report on “proposals viewed for the first time in week 2 that were sent before week 2 began” : these are the deals the sequencer just rescued from silence. Show them to the team. The behavioral change you want is for reps to trust the cadence, and trust is built by seeing the system work on real deals.

Week 3 : Add the radar/timeline habit and start using video aggressively

The Respond menu is on by default : there’s nothing to enable. What you should add this week is two habits:

1. Before any follow-up email, open the radar and View Activity timeline for that proposal, switch to the recipient’s view, and reference the section they spent time on.
2. Every new proposal gets at least one video : typically a 60-second founder intro on the cover page, or a 90-second case study walkthrough adjacent to your Case Study section.

Run a quick 15-minute team sync at the end of the week comparing radar shapes and engagement timelines across active deals. The pattern recognition compounds; week-3 reps spot deal risk faster than week-1 reps.

Week 4 : Layer on Signature and Payment reminders

Enable the remaining two reminder tracks. Layer them onto the existing sequencer behavior. By now, your team trusts that automation doesn’t replace their judgment : it just runs the table-stakes follow-up so they can spend their time on the calls that actually move deals. Run a 30-day vs. previous-30-days analysis. The benefit numbers in this article are the average; your numbers will diverge based on cycle length, vertical, and starting baseline. Look at direction, not magnitude.

A word about adoption

The most common failure mode for releases like this is feature awareness without behavioral change. Reps know the features exist but don’t change their day. The fix is to tie one new behavior to one existing trigger. Easiest version: every time a rep is about to send a follow-up email, the rule is “open the radar and timeline first.” That’s it. One trigger, one new behavior. Compounds over months.

The thing about send-and-forget

“Send and forget” sounds like an abdication, but the inversion is actually the point. The seller stops chasing because the system is chasing. The seller stops guessing because the document is reporting back. The seller stops losing deals to silence because the buyer has a way to make noise that isn’t a decline. The seller stops avoiding video because adding video used to be painful and now isn’t.

What you get back is the part of the job worth doing : the call where you learn that the CFO has a budget cycle ending Tuesday, the pricing structure conversation that turns a $40K deal into an $80K one, the relationship work that compounds across renewals. Not the inbox refreshing. Not the Tuesday-at-11 AM follow-up that begins with “just.”

The PDF made the proposal a dead document. The browser made it a living one. The April 2026 release is what happens when you finish that thought.

Stop refreshing your inbox. Let the proposal do the chasing.

Recurring follow-ups, three-way client responses with proposer-side controls, radar-chart engagement insights with full session history, and a revamped video library : live now in every Fresh Proposals account.