"Hang on, let me find that for you."

You know the moment. You're thirty minutes into a discovery call with a skeptical Head of Engineering. You've built real momentum. Then she asks a pointed question about your API's rate-limiting logic, and suddenly you're scrambling.

Clari Copilot catches the keyword "API" and surfaces a battle card. Great. Except now you're scrolling through it, squinting at a wall of bullet points, trying to figure out if the answer is under "Security" or "Architecture", while fifteen seconds of dead air stretches out like fifteen minutes. On the other end of the Zoom, she's tapping her pen. The momentum you spent half an hour building is gone.

This is the fundamental problem with battle cards. They were a genuine leap forward when they first showed up. But for complex technical sales, where the questions are specific, the stakes are high, and the silence is deadly, they've hit a ceiling.

The difference between a library and an expert

Most in-call coaching tools work like a library. A keyword gets mentioned, a document gets surfaced, and the rep is expected to find the right paragraph while simultaneously maintaining eye contact and sounding like a human being.

That's an unreasonable question. Reading and speaking are different cognitive tasks. Try parsing a bulleted list of technical specs while also listening to a follow-up question. What you get is "robotic voice", that unmistakable moment when the prospect realizes you're reading off a script. Trust evaporates.

What reps actually need isn't a document. It's the answer, phrased the way their best Sales Engineer would phrase it, delivered fast enough that the conversation doesn't skip a beat.

Why battle cards keep falling behind

It's not just a UX problem. There are deeper structural issues.

They go stale. Most battle cards were written by a PMM three or six months ago and dropped into a shared folder. By the time a rep pulls one up mid-call, the product has changed, the pricing has shifted, or the competitor has shipped something new. Nobody's updating these things in real time because nobody has time to.

Keywords are too blunt. When a prospect says "we're worried about implementation," they could mean a dozen different things. They might want a technical timeline. They might want a case study from a similar company. They might want reassurance about security. A battle card tagged "Implementation" doesn't know the difference, so it gives you everything and hopes you figure it out.

They add cognitive load at the worst possible moment. The hardest part of a technical sales call isn't knowing the answer exists somewhere, it's producing that answer under pressure, in conversation, without breaking your rhythm. Battle cards solve the first problem and make the second one worse.

What we built instead

We started Commit because we kept watching this same scene play out. Smart reps, solid products, deals dying in the discovery phase because a technical question landed and the rep couldn't respond fast enough.

We didn't want to build another forecasting dashboard. Revenue intelligence tools already tell you that you're losing deals in discovery. We wanted to build something that helps reps actually win those moments.

Here's what that looks like in practice:

Answers you can actually say out loud. Commit doesn't surface a document and wish you luck. It synthesizes a one-to-two sentence response that's ready to be spoken. No scanning, no scrolling, no awkward pauses.

It learns from your best people. Instead of waiting for someone to manually update a battle card, Commit listens to how your top sellers and SEs actually handle objections on real calls. That tribal knowledge your best SE has locked in their head? Commit extracts it and puts it in every rep's ear. You don't need to hand over a library of internal docs to get started, the knowledge is already sitting in your call recordings.

Sub-second delivery. This one matters more than people think. In a live conversation, momentum is fragile. If the coaching arrives three seconds after the question, it's too late, the rep has already stammered through a filler sentence or, worse, said "I'll have to check and get back to you." Every time that happens, the deal cycle gets longer.

"We already bought Clari. Isn't this the same thing?"

We hear this from RevOps leaders all the time, and it's a fair question. The short answer: no, and if you already have Clari, Commit actually gets better.

Clari gives you the big picture, revenue intelligence, forecasting, deal health. It tells you where your pipeline is and whether you're on track. That's genuinely valuable, and we're not trying to replace it.

What Clari doesn't do is sit with your rep inside the call and help them navigate the hard moments. That's where Commit lives. If Clari is the GPS showing you the route, Commit is the experienced co-driver telling you exactly when to brake and how hard to turn. You want both.

And if you've already invested in Clari, you're sitting on a goldmine of call data that Commit can learn from immediately. That's not redundancy, it's compounding returns on an investment you've already made.

Scaling technical depth without scaling headcount

The AE-to-SE ratio is under pressure everywhere. Most teams can't afford to hire another SE for every two AEs. But you can close that gap if you get smarter about how knowledge moves through your org.

Extract the tribal knowledge. Your best SEs already have the answers. The problem is those answers are locked in their heads (or scattered across hundreds of call recordings). Get them out and into the hands of your junior AEs.

Kill the "I'll get back to you" habit. Every follow-up email on a technical question adds days to the deal cycle. Aim for one-call resolution on technical objections whenever possible.

Let AI handle the battle card lifecycle. If a competitor changes their pricing and your SE mentions it on a call Tuesday, your whole team should know about it by Wednesday. Humans shouldn't be doing this manually.

Save the AI for the hard stuff. Don't use it to script your greeting or generate small talk. Use it for the technical curveballs that require deep product knowledge, the moments where a rep's anxiety about "not knowing" keeps them from being present with the prospect.

Empower, don't replace. The goal isn't to turn reps into robots. It's to take away the fear of getting stumped, so they can actually listen, connect, and sell like humans.

The bottom line

Battle cards were a great first step. But the bar has moved. In technical SaaS, the difference between winning and losing a deal often comes down to a handful of moments, the thirty-second windows where a prospect asks something hard and the rep either nails it or doesn't.

Revenue intelligence tells you those moments exist. Commit helps your reps win them.