Why do commit, best-case, and pipeline forecasts require different closing velocity assumptions?
Three Forecasts, Three Velocities
Direct: Commit assumes baseline closing rate. Best-case adds upside from acceleration. Pipeline counts everything. Each reflects different sales rhythm and deal maturity.
Operator Detail
Three separate forecasts aren't redundancy—they're signal clarity. Each answers a different question for the board.
Commit forecast — what's actually closing:
- Velocity: current stage close rate (85% for Negotiation, 95% for Commitment)
- Timeline: within current quarter
- Data: only deals with documented close date in this quarter, account executive confirmed close risk below 20%
- Formula: (Count of mature deals) × (Historical stage win rate) = $X
Best-case forecast — if everything breaks right:
- Velocity: optimistic stage close rate (85% for Proposal instead of 60%)
- Timeline: within quarter if urgency hits
- Data: Proposal-stage and above deals, no legal holds, buyer consensus documented
- Formula: Commit + (50% of Proposal-stage deals) + (20% of Qualification) = $Y
Pipeline forecast — all available opportunity:
- Velocity: minimum stage close rate (10% for Prospecting, 25% for Qualification)
- Timeline: next 2-4 quarters
- Data: every deal logged, standard weighting per stage
- Formula: Sum of (all deals × stage-specific win rates) = $Z
Why Three, Not One?
OpenView data shows boards demand specificity. Commit builds trust (conservative = credible). Best-case shows growth vector. Pipeline reveals capacity ahead. One number hides all three signals.
CRO Math
If Commit = $1.2M, Best-case = $1.8M, Pipeline = $2.5M:
- Board sees $1.2M locked (confidence builder)
- Board sees $600K upside if reps execute perfectly
- Board plans for $1.3M in Q3 (pipeline minus commit)
TAGS: forecast-methodology,commit-forecast,best-case,pipeline,velocity-modeling,board-reporting
FAQ
Why do commit, best-case, and pipeline forecasts use different velocity assumptions? Commit uses current-stage close rates like 85% for Negotiation, best-case uses optimistic rates such as 85% for Proposal instead of 60%, and pipeline uses minimum rates like 10% for Prospecting.
Each reflects a different deal maturity and answers a different question for the board.
What goes into the commit forecast specifically? Only deals with a documented close date in the current quarter where the AE has confirmed close risk below 20%. The formula is count of mature deals times historical stage win rate, producing the conservative number that builds board trust.
How is the best-case forecast calculated? Best-case takes the commit total and adds 50% of Proposal-stage deals plus 20% of Qualification-stage deals, limited to deals with no legal holds and documented buyer consensus. It shows the upside if urgency hits and everything breaks right within the quarter.
Why run three forecasts instead of a single number? OpenView data shows boards demand specificity: commit builds trust because conservative reads as credible, best-case shows the growth vector, and pipeline reveals capacity ahead. One number hides all three signals.
What does the example spread of $1.2M, $1.8M, and $2.5M tell the board? With commit at $1.2M, best-case at $1.8M, and pipeline at $2.5M, the board sees $1.2M locked, $600K of upside if reps execute perfectly, and about $1.3M to plan for in the next quarter. The separation lets the board read confidence, growth, and future capacity distinctly.