---
name: L0 Strategy - mql-enrichment-service
description: Strategic posture for mql-enrichment-service. Names why it exists, who sponsors, the funding source, and the primary success metric. Quarterly review against metric.
type: layer-artifact
layer: L0
populated_from: Q1, Q2
Owner: {{exec_vp_revops}}
---

# L0 Strategy - mql-enrichment-service

- **Last reviewed:** 2026-04-05
- **Review cadence:** quarterly + on sponsor change
- **Status:** active

## Maturity self-assessment

| Aspect | State | Evidence |
|--------|-------|----------|
| Why this capability exists | mature | Documented sponsor narrative; quarterly metric review evidence in `sessions/2026-04-15-quarterly-review.md` |
| Sponsor named and reachable | mature | {{exec_vp_revops}}, weekly RevOps-AI standup attendance, escalation path live |
| Funding source identified | mature | FY26 line item RevOps-AI-001, $420K annualized; tracked in {{cutting_edge_saas_company}} finance dashboards |
| Primary success metric quantified | mature | 42% SDR-accepted-MQL rate target; tracked daily in {{observability_platform}} board `revops-mql-pipeline-001`; current trailing-30 at 44.1% |

## Function identity

- **Name:** `mql-enrichment-service`
- **Purpose:** Enrich inbound MQLs from {{cutting_edge_saas_company}}'s paid acquisition channels with firmographic and intent signals before routing to the SDR queue.
- **Type:** `internal-platform`

## Sponsorship and success

- **Sponsor:** VP of Revenue Operations, {{exec_vp_revops}} ({{cutting_edge_saas_company}} executive team)
- **Funding source:** RevOps operating budget; FY26 line item RevOps-AI-001, $420K annualized
- **Primary success metric:** SDR-accepted-MQL rate from enriched leads at >= 42% (vs. 27% baseline pre-enrichment)
- **Tiebreak rule:** if SDR-accepted rate ties two consecutive quarters, optimize for time-to-first-touch reduction (target: under 4 business hours)

Trailing performance:

- 2026-Q1: 41.3% accepted rate (1.7pp under target; carryover from baseline period)
- 2026-Q1 ending state: 44.1% rolling 30-day at end of March (target met)
- TTFT: 3.2 hours rolling 30-day (target met)

## Strategic posture

### Build vs. buy

**Build.** Vendor solutions evaluated in 2025-Q4 (`{{vendor_a}}`, `{{vendor_b}}`, `{{vendor_c}}`); none could ingest the proprietary intent-signal weighting derived from {{cutting_edge_saas_company}}'s closed-won customer corpus. The signal weighting is the moat; off-the-shelf enrichment is commodity.

Decision recorded in `decisions/ADR-0001-build-vs-buy.md`.

### Capability portfolio fit

`mql-enrichment-service` sits between `paid-acquisition` (upstream; produces the raw MQL stream) and `sdr-queue` (downstream; consumes enriched MQLs). Adjacent capabilities:

- `account-scoring` (Sales Engineering) - scores accounts, not individual MQLs; complementary signal source
- `intent-data-pipeline` (RevOps Data) - feeds the intent-signal feature layer this service consumes
- `crm-sync-worker` (RevOps Engineering) - persists routing decisions back to {{crm_name}}

### Risk appetite

**Medium.** False-positive enrichment (over-scoring a low-intent MQL) costs SDR time and pipeline pollution. False-negative under-enrichment (missing genuine intent) costs deal velocity. Customer trust is not directly at risk because the function is internal; SDRs see enriched records but customers do not.

Acceptable failure modes:

- Brief enrichment service downtime (queue absorbs; SDRs work the unenriched queue manually for the duration)
- Drift in intent-signal accuracy (caught by quarterly eval refresh; corrective prompt or model bump)
- Cost ceiling breach on a single MQL (logged + soft-fail; no customer impact)

Unacceptable failure modes:

- PII leak across tenants (would breach SOC 2; ADR-mandated guardrail)
- Consent-revoked enrichment (would breach GDPR; ADR-0003 enforces)
- Silent overwrite of SDR manual edits (would erode SDR trust; L2 red line enforces)

## Inheritance and dependencies

This L0 inherits from: {{cutting_edge_saas_company}} corporate AI policy (org-level; named in Confluence at `corp/ai-policy`). Aligned: yes. Conflicts: none observed.

This L0 is inherited by: L1 brand posture (returns N/A given internal-platform type); L2 philosophy (red lines align with corporate AI policy); L3 framework contract (ship thresholds derive from primary metric); every L5 instance dossier under this strategy.

## Cross-references inside this instance

- `policies/philosophy.md` (L2)
- `policies/framework-contract.md` (L3)
- `OPERATING-MODEL.md`
- `decisions/ADR-0001-build-vs-buy.md`
- `MATURITY-SCORECARD.md`
- `LOCALIZATION-ANSWERS.md` Q1, Q2
