Quick snapshot of your scouting work

• In a typical week, how many hours does your staff spend on film review? Options: Under 10 hours, 10-30 hours, 30-75 hours, 75-150 hours, More than 150 hours
• Tell me about the primary goals you use to evaluate players this season Options: Draft grading and targets, Weekly opponent scouting, Player development tracking, Health and availability assessment, Other
• Walk me through the current path a single game film file takes from ingestion to a scout's report
• Which tools or systems does your team rely on today to tag, store, or share film Options: Team video server, Cloud storage or object store, Spreadsheet or manual grading, Proprietary roster/performance DB, Shared network drives, Other
• Describe who on your staff makes final calls on a player's grade and who compiles the scouting report
• If you had to name the single most important metric you expect from a scouting platform, what is it Options: Tagging accuracy, Time to retrieve clip, Consistency of grades, Adoption by coaches, Integration with performance DB, Other

Where film review is costing you wins

• Who in your organization feels the pain of inconsistent tagging most, and what does that cost you in decision speed or confidence
• When your staff needs a play or cut quickly, how often is the needed clip unavailable or hard to find Options: Almost always, Often, Sometimes, Rarely
• Does inconsistent grading between scouts change whether a player advances to the next round of evaluation Options: Yes, frequently, Occasionally, Rarely, Never
• How much time does reconciling different scout views add to your weekly preparation cycle Options: Less than 1 hour, 1-3 hours, 3-6 hours, More than 6 hours
• What single downstream consequence would make you pause a vendor selection, data ownership, latency, taxonomy mismatch, or something else Options: Data ownership concerns, Latency or processing speed, Taxonomy mismatch, Integration blockers, Training and time-to-value, Other

How scouting decisions actually get finalized

• Walk me through the last time two evaluators disagreed and the way that shaped the final grade
• Who signs off on final roster and personnel decisions, and are they regularly reviewing outputs from your current scouting tools Options: Head coach, Director of scouting, General manager, Committee, Other
• Which reporting formats actually get used by coaches versus what only sits archived in a folder Options: Play-by-play reports, Player comparison sheets, Highlight reels, Stat-export CSVs, Custom dashboards, Other
• Describe a recent decision where video analysis changed the team's plan for an opponent or player development
• If platform tagging could remove 50% of manual review work, what would you redeploy those hours toward Options: Deeper opponent prep, More player development sessions, Broader draft scouting, Analytics projects, Other

The tagging rules you wish just worked

• What single tagging inconsistency creates the most argument during scout grading sessions
• List the event types or labels that are non-negotiable in your taxonomy and must map to internal KPIs Options: Play type (run/pass), Player action (block, tackle), Play outcome (gain, turnover), Situational tags (red zone, 3rd down), Other
• How granular do you need automated classifications to be, play type only, player actions, or situational context like down and distance Options: Play type only, Player actions, Situational context included, Full situational plus tracking
• Tell me which current tagging rules regularly produce false positives or miss crucial plays
• When you introduce a new label, how quickly does your staff adapt and apply it consistently Options: Within days, Within weeks, A few months, Not consistently
• Would you consider a hybrid approach where the platform suggests tags and scouts confirm, or do you require fully automated accuracy before adoption Options: Hybrid: suggestions + confirmation, Fully automated required, Depends on event type, Unsure

Other options on your short list

• Name the external vendors, incumbent systems, or internal builds you are seriously weighing right now Options: Incumbent vendor, Internal build effort, Small specialist vendor, Do nothing and continue current processes, Other
• Identify the parts of your current approach that would have to stay exactly as they are for you not to switch vendors Options: Data ownership, Workflow integration, Existing dashboards, Coach familiarity, Budget constraints, Other
• Does anyone internally argue for building the capability yourself rather than contracting, and who would lead that effort Options: Yes - engineering, Yes - analytics, No one has proposed it, Unsure
• Rate the incumbent and internal options against your needs for processing speed and taxonomy flexibility Options: Meets needs, Mostly meets needs, Partially meets needs, Does not meet needs
• Imagine you stayed with the incumbent, describe the single improvement that would make that decision defensible for your leadership
• Choose the option that shortens time to value most Options: New external vendor, Stay with incumbent, Build internally, Partner with integrator, Unsure

Practical gates we cannot ignore

• Are named owners for film access, integrations, and data permissions ready to engage Options: Yes, all owners identified, Partially identified, No named owners yet, Unsure
• List the systems that must integrate with the platform and whether they provide APIs or file exports Options: Performance database, Team video server, Media asset manager, Coach communication tool, Roster and HR system, Other
• Name who holds API keys, S3 buckets, or on-prem storage access, and how quickly they can grant test credentials Options: Can provide within days, Can provide within 1-2 weeks, Longer than 2 weeks, Not available
• Estimate the volume of historical footage you intend to migrate for the pilot and whether it needs re-encoding or cleansing Options: Less than 100 hours, 100-500 hours, 500-2,000 hours, More than 2,000 hours
• Do you have any legal, union, or compliance constraints that could delay access to game or practice footage Options: Yes - multiple constraints, Yes - minor constraints, No known constraints, Unsure
• Provide the number of dedicated technical and operations hours per week you can allocate to the deployment Options: Under 10 hours, 10-25 hours, 25-50 hours, More than 50 hours

Signals that move you to 'go' and next steps

• Identify the single blocker that could still stop you from approving full deployment even if the pilot proves your top metric Options: Budget approval, Data ownership or compliance, Integration failure, Leadership change, Other
• By what date does leadership need results to inform draft or season planning Options: Within 4 weeks, Within 8 weeks, Within 12 weeks, Longer than 12 weeks
• Provide the names and roles of the decision makers who must sign acceptance criteria
• Rate how important each success signal is: tagging accuracy, time-to-clip, adoption rate, and report relevance Options: Tagging accuracy, Time-to-clip, Adoption rate by coaches, Report relevance to decisions
• Would you be willing to commit to a 6-week pilot that includes 100 hours of migration and three integration milestones if acceptance targets are met Options: Yes, Maybe with adjustments, No
• Confirm the minimum adoption rate among coaching and staff you require to call the pilot successful Options: 50%, 65%, 80%, 90%

• Solution Experience — Multi-Angle Film & Tagging Walkthrough

• Confirm the current state and its cost to your team
• Customer confirms the demonstrated workflow eliminates the manual tagging rework and reduces grading inconsistency.
• Provide a representative set of multi-angle game and practice clips for two test scenarios plus the corresponding evaluation rubric and recent scout grades.
• Walk through ingestion of a real multi-angle clip set
• Customer validates that report outputs map directly to their evaluation rubric and decision points.
• Ingest the provided clips and deliver a tagged report and a side-by-side comparison to the provided scout grades within five business days.
• Show tagging taxonomy mapping to your evaluation rubric
• Identify the acceptance criteria you will use to sign off on the tagging and report outputs for the pilot.
• Agreement on the specific test cases and acceptance criteria needed to advance to Solution Scope.
• Deliver a short estimate of projected time saved in film review based on measured processing speeds and validated tagging accuracy.
• Produce the evaluation report and compare to current scout grades
• Confirm this maps to what you meant when you described X
• Agree next evidence and acceptance criteria

• Solution Experience — Multi-Angle Film & Tagging Walkthrough
• Solution Experience Deck
• Solution Brief — Multi-Angle Film & Tagging

• meeting
• slides
• document

• Ingest multi-angle game and practice film
• Migrate historical film library
• Configure custom tagging taxonomy
• Deploy automated play-type classification
• Apply event tagging and annotation at scale
• Enable side-by-side player comparison dashboard
• Integrate with team performance database
• Deliver API connector for data export
• Deploy exportable scouting report templates
• Enable real-time feed processing and highlight reels
• Automate weekly opponent scouting pack generation
• Provision user roles and access controls
• Conduct staff platform training and onboarding

Ingest multi-angle game and practice film

• Which camera angles and source types will you ingest (e.g., sideline, endzone, helmet/collar, line-of-scrimmage, practice overhead)? Options: Sideline, Endzone, Helmet/collar, Line-of-scrimmage, Practice overhead, Broadcast/third-party
• How many hours of game and practice film do you expect to ingest per week during season? Options: Less than 50, 50-200, 200-500, More than 500
• What video formats and codecs are produced by your capture systems (for example: MP4 H.264, MOV ProRes, raw camera files)?
• Do you require same-day ingest from live feeds to support same-day opponent packs or is batch post-game upload acceptable? Options: Yes, same-day live ingest required, Batch post-game uploads acceptable, Pilot same-day for selected games
• Who will own camera file delivery from venue partners and which delivery protocols will they use (for example: S3 upload, FTP, direct upload portal)? Options: We will deliver via cloud object storage (S3), We will deliver via FTP/SFTP, Venue/third party provides files, Need platform to arrange collection

Migrate historical film library

• Which seasons or date ranges of historical game film do you need migrated (list season years or specific date ranges)?
• How many total hours and approximate number of files exist in your archive? Options: Less than 500 hrs / <5,000 files, 500-2,000 hrs / 5k-20k files, 2,000-10,000 hrs / 20k-100k files, More than 10,000 hrs
• What storage media currently hold your historical film (for example: LTO tape library, on-prem NAS, cloud object storage, external drives)? Options: LTO tape, On-prem NAS, Cloud object storage, External drives, Mixed/other
• Describe any legal, league, or rights restrictions that affect migrating opponent game film versus your own practice and game footage.
• Who will validate migration completeness and provide final acceptance sign-off for migrated seasons? Options: Head of Scouting, Director of Player Personnel, IT lead, Other

Configure custom tagging taxonomy

• List the existing tagging taxonomy or grading rubric your scouting staff currently uses (for example: play-level tags, player technique tags, scout numeric grades). Options: Play-level tags, Player technique tags, Scout numeric grades, Custom taxonomy, No current taxonomy
• Estimate the approximate number of unique tag labels you expect to require at launch (approximate ranges). Options: Less than 50, 50-200, 200-500, More than 500
• Provide the naming conventions and abbreviations that must be preserved so tags align to your internal scouting reports (include examples).
• Do you require hierarchical tag groups (for example Play > Pass > Screen) and which hierarchies are essential for your grading workflows? Options: Yes - core hierarchies only, Yes - full hierarchical support, No hierarchical groups required
• Assign the person or role that will own ongoing tag governance and change requests after deployment (role name and email).
• Define the acceptance criteria for taxonomy configuration (for example: 95% tag consistency on a 500-play sample; approval from 2 lead scouts).

Deploy automated play-type classification

• List the play-type labels required by your opponent-prep workflows (for example: run, pass, screen, RPO, special teams). Options: Run, Pass, Screen, RPO, Play-action, Special teams, Other
• How accurate must automated classification be on your historical sample for you to accept model performance (select target percent threshold)? Options: >=85%, >=90%, >=95%, Custom threshold
• Describe edge cases the classifier must handle and their impact (for example: pileups, quarterback scrambles, broken plays) with example clips if available.
• Confirm whether you need confidence scores exposed for each play classification to drive reviewer and QA workflows. Options: Yes - expose confidence scores, No - do not expose scores, Expose only for low confidence
• Provide the source and owner of labeled play samples for initial model training and the approximate count per play type you can supply.

Apply event tagging and annotation at scale

• Identify the event types that must be tagged automatically at scale (for example: tackles, targets, pass breakups, pressures). Options: Tackles, Targets, Pass breakups, Pressures, Sacks, Penalties, Other
• Estimate the number of concurrent tagging jobs you expect during peak ingestion windows (for example per-game parallel processing). Options: 1-5 concurrent jobs, 6-20 concurrent jobs, 21-50 concurrent jobs, 50+
• Confirm whether human-in-the-loop review is required for low-confidence tags before they are released to scouts. Options: Yes - require HIL review for low confidence, No - auto-release all tags, HIL only during pilot
• Specify the maximum acceptable tagging latency from ingest completion to tagged-play availability for scout review (select target in hours). Options: Under 2 hours, 2-6 hours, 6-24 hours, Next day
• Assign the QA sampling owner and state the sampling rate required to validate scaled tagging quality (for example 1% of plays, 500 plays/month).

Enable side-by-side player comparison dashboard

• Name the player comparison metrics that must appear side-by-side (for example: snaps, yards after contact, completion percentage, grade by play type). Options: Snaps, Yards after contact, Completion %, Target share, Scout grade, Custom metric
• State the maximum number of players the side-by-side view should support simultaneously during scouting sessions. Options: 2 players, 3-4 players, 5-8 players, 8+
• Specify whether synchronized playback controls and timeline alignment between angles are required when comparing players. Options: Yes - full sync required, Partial sync (seek alignment only), No sync required
• Detail the export formats required for comparison packages to include in scout reports (for example MP4 highlight, CSV metrics, PDF snapshots). Options: MP4 highlights, CSV metrics export, PDF snapshot report, XML/JSON payload
• Identify which roles should have access to player comparison dashboards and list role-based filters required (for example by position group, year, starter/backup).

Integrate with team performance database

• Supply the team performance database or data schema to integrate, including key table names and primary performance fields (for example: snap charts, player load metrics).
• How frequently should synchronizations run between the platform and your performance database (real-time, hourly, nightly)? Options: Real-time/near-real-time, Hourly, Nightly, Manual sync only
• Explain the mapping required between player identifiers in your database (roster IDs) and video metadata to enable reliable joins.
• Select whether bi-directional updates are required (writing analytics back into your database) or whether read-only pulls are sufficient. Options: Bi-directional updates required, Read-only pulls sufficient, Read-only for now, bi-directional later
• Name the technical contact with access to the performance database who can supply schema extracts and test credentials.
• Define the acceptance evidence that will validate the database integration (for example: successful join of roster IDs across 10 sample games; schema mapping document).

Deliver API connector for data export

• Detail the endpoints and payloads required for exports from the platform to downstream systems, including sample payload fields you expect.
• How should exported datasets be authenticated and authorized (for example API key, OAuth 2.0, IP allowlist)? Options: API key, OAuth 2.0, IP allowlist, Mutual TLS, Other
• Indicate whether webhook support is required for event-driven exports (for example new tagged play, new player comparison package). Options: Yes - webhooks required, No - polling acceptable, Pilot webhooks only
• State the throughput and rate limits the connector must support during peak export windows (for example requests per second or MB/min). Options: Low - <10 req/s, Medium - 10-50 req/s, High - 50-200 req/s, Very high - 200+ req/s
• Submit the approver for the API schema and the contact who can provide sample consumer endpoints for connector testing.

Deploy exportable scouting report templates

• Select the report templates required for your scouting workflows (for example draft board reports, weekly opponent pack, player development summaries). Options: Draft board report, Weekly opponent pack, Player development summary, Position-specific reports, Custom templates
• How often should report templates be auto-generated for your staff (for example per game, weekly, per player update)? Options: Per game, Per week, Per player update, On demand
• Indicate the fixed fields and metrics that must appear on each template (for example scout grade, snap count, target share).
• Note whether templates must include conditional sections based on player position or play type (for example separate blocks for linemen vs skill positions). Options: Yes - conditional sections required, No - single template fits all, Conditional for some templates only
• Who signs off on final report templates and define the acceptance evidence that will confirm templates are production-ready (for example sign-off by 2 lead scouts; approval checklist).

Enable real-time feed processing and highlight reels

• Outline the real-time feeds you plan to connect (for example game clock feed, live camera RTMP/HLS, player tracking stream). Options: Game clock feed, Live camera RTMP/HLS, Player tracking stream, Broadcast feed, Other
• How quickly must highlight reels be generated after an event to support same-day scouting (target latency in minutes)? Options: Under 5 minutes, 5-30 minutes, 30-120 minutes, Same-day but not immediate
• Choose whether auto-clip generation is required for every tagged play or only for coach-marked events. Options: Every tagged play, Coach-marked events only, Hybrid - auto for key tags, manual for others
• Indicate the maximum clip length and encoding presets acceptable for highlight exports to your devices (for example 30s MP4 H.264, 1080p).
• Supply the contact who will own real-time feed monitoring during events and the escalation contact for feed failures.

Automate weekly opponent scouting pack generation

• Outline the weekly deliverables the opponent scouting pack must include (for example playbook overlays, opponent tendencies, top matchups, annotated clips).
• How much time after game end should the weekly pack be available to coaches (select target hours)? Options: Under 6 hours, 6-12 hours, 12-24 hours, Next day
• Choose whether narrative summaries in the pack should be written by your scouts or auto-generated by the platform. Options: Scout-written only, Auto-generated only, Hybrid - auto draft, scout edits
• Explain the filters (for example formation, down-distance, player role) that should be applied when building the weekly pack.
• Who approves the final weekly pack before distribution and what QA checks do they expect completed prior to release?

Provision user roles and access controls

• Enumerate the user roles and permission levels required for scouting staff, coaches, analysts, and external evaluators.
• Approximate the number of named users per role you expect to provision at go-live and for year one. Options: 1-10 per role, 11-50 per role, 51-200 per role, 200+
• Clarify whether certain roles require restricted access to sensitive footage (for example draft board clips, contract-sensitive practice film) and describe required restrictions. Options: Yes - restricted access required, No - open access, Restricted for select roles only

• Subscription Agreement / Order Form
• Statement of Work (SOW)
• Master Services Agreement (MSA)
• Service Level Agreement (SLA)
• Data Processing Agreement (DPA)
• Acceptance Test Plan & Sign-off
• Commercial Summary & Payment Schedule
• Change Order Agreement
• Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)

• Go-live Health Check (weeks 1-4)
• First Measurement Review (weeks 4-10)
• Acceptance Gate — Outcome Review and Sign-off (around day 90)
• Quarterly Success Review

• Close verified remediation tickets and document verification evidence in the shared workspace.
• Prepare the acceptance gate data package including raw tagging logs, usage reports, and any comparator baselines from the Solution Scope.
• Restate acceptance criteria and numeric targets
• Produce a documented pass or fail for each acceptance criterion recorded in Solution Scope, with evidence attached.
• Capture a named buyer signatory for the acceptance decision where applicable, or a documented owner-decision for self-service deals.
• Agree remediation items and firm resolution timelines for any non-passing criteria.
• Publish the formal acceptance report including pass/fail outcomes, supporting evidence, and the captured signatory statement.
• Log remediation tickets for failed or conditional items with explicit validation requirements and final verification dates.
• Schedule the follow-up verification meeting for any conditional acceptances within the agreed remediation window.
• Outcomes dashboard review
• Confirm whether weekly active users and tagging accuracy rate meet or continue to progress toward the Solution Scope targets.
• Prioritize the enhancement backlog and assign resolution timelines for the top items to improve tagging quality or user productivity.
• Ensure the shared channel process is active and that open issues have documented owners and response expectations.
• Update the enhancement backlog with priorities, expected delivery quarters, and validation criteria.
• Publish the quarterly adoption and tagging-quality summary to the shared channel for asynchronous review.
• Reconfirm success criteria and owners
• Confirm each deployment deliverable is either validated or has a documented remediation plan with a target date.
• Produce a prioritized list of operational blockers and next-step remediation actions to reduce go-live risk.
• Confirm who will publish the post-check status update and the date it will be shared.
• Log all identified defects and access issues in the shared ticketing channel with reproduction steps and desired resolution dates.
• Provide a migration verification report showing volume counts by source and destination for historical film within 48 hours.
• Publish an updated training completion list for reviewers and a schedule for any required refresh sessions.
• Determine if the two named metrics are trending toward the Solution Scope targets or require remediation.
• Present first-period results against targets
• Agree a prioritized corrective action list with completion dates to close identified gaps before the acceptance gate.
• Confirm the data sources and report extracts that will be used at the acceptance gate meeting.
• Create remediation tickets for tagging-rule and classifier issues with target completion dates and test validation steps.
• Schedule a focused retraining session for reviewers showing low tagging consistency and produce attendance and proficiency records.
• Diagnostic detailed review on gaps
• Adoption and tagging quality detailed review
• Present outcome data against each criterion
• Deployment and migration validation
• Early adoption signals and usage patterns
• Agree corrective actions and timelines
• Enhancement and issue backlog prioritization
• Document pass/fail per criterion and capture formal acceptance
• Confirm readiness for acceptance gate
• Blockers and open issues triage
• Agree remediation plan for any failed or conditional items
• Operationalize the shared issues and enhancements channel
• Short burn-down review of open remediation items
• Publish acceptance record and next steps
• Agree immediate remediation actions