RDC Outreach Playbook

R&D Tax Credit · Outbound Operations Model 1 vs Model 2 · 25-day sequence · 5 phases

Cadence comparison

Both models run the same five phases across 25 days. Click any step for the script. LinkedIn
Phase 01Days 1–3Validate contacts & open
Phase 02Days 4–7First dial & collateral
Phase 03Days 8–12Multithread the account
Phase 04Days 13–18Executive escalation
Phase 05Days 19–25Close the loop
Model 1 · Email-firstopens written · 6 email · 4 call · 5 LinkedIn
Model 2 · Call-firstopens live · 5 email · 5 call · 5 LinkedIn
Research / ops Email Call LinkedIn Closure Set LinkedIn to Skip if Sales Navigator access isn't in place yet — the sequence still runs on email and phone alone.

Response scenarios

The cadence above runs while nobody answers. A reply or a pickup moves the lead onto one of these four paths.

Reply received

Scenarios 1 and 4 — the opener landed

Scenarios 1 and 4 After a reply: acknowledge and send the whitepaper, ask for a time, then branch on whether they respond within one day. Opener sent Reply received? No reply see the chart alongside Acknowledge + whitepaper ask for best time to call Replied in 1 day? S1 · call, book demo time confirmed by client S4 · wait 24h, call whitepaper unanswered Positive reply email, call, book demo No answer follow-up email sent Negative reply close the lead

No reply to the opener

Scenarios 2 and 3 — silence, then the dial

Scenarios 2 and 3 Silence through phase one, then the phase-two dial. Unanswered calls get a same-day email and resume the cadence; answered calls run script one and split three ways. Silent through phase 1 dial in phase 2, day 4 Call answered? S2 · no answer email: tried to reach you S3 · run call script 1 explain the RDC offer Resume cadence Interested whitepaper live, book demo Not interested close the lead Needs time FABs + credit estimate

Objection handling

The five you will hear, in both models.

"We're too small or pre-revenue"

The payroll tax offset exists precisely for qualified small businesses. Pre-revenue is the profile the provision was written for.

"Our CPA handles this"

They may. The question is whether they're capturing product validation, regulatory technical work, and failed development attempts, or only engineering wages. A second look either confirms the claim or finds the gap.

"We tried and it wasn't worth it"

When was that, and what was in scope? Claims that came back small are usually scoping failures rather than eligibility failures.

"Isn't this an audit risk?"

Proper substantiation is what removes the risk. A documented claim tied to the four-part test with contemporaneous evidence is defensible; an undocumented one isn't. Building that file is the work.

"Send me information"

Always agree, always pair it with a time. "Happy to — so I send the right thing, is the priority the qualification criteria or the numbers?"

Occams Advisory · R&D tax credit outbound playbook · 25-day sequence, 5 phases. Every token in a script is a merge field. Replace the trigger paragraph with your own research before every send.

Before a single touch goes out

Two named stakeholders per company, both verified. An account that reaches phase 3 with only one contact has nowhere to multithread, which is where most of these sequences actually convert.

Who you need

Validation checklist

No trigger, no sequence. If you can't find a specific, recent, verifiable event to open on, send the account back to research rather than starting a generic sequence.

Close out phase 1 properly

Three minutes here saves the sequence from silently dying between phases.

The send

SubjectPotential R&D tax credit opportunity for <<Company Name>>

Hi <<Client Name>>,

Congratulations on <<Company Name>>'s recent <<Trigger Event>>. I read that the investment is being used to accelerate development of <<Product / Platform>>, advance product validation, and support commercialization.

I'm <<SDR Agent Name>> from Occams Advisory. We help U.S. companies identify and claim federal and state R&D tax credits for activities such as engineering development, software development, prototype testing, product validation, and regulatory technical work.

Given the stage <<Company Name>> is in, there's a good chance a portion of those development efforts may qualify for R&D tax credits, even if the company has never claimed them before.

Would you be open to a 15–20 minute conversation next week to see whether <<Company Name>> may have any unclaimed R&D tax credit opportunities?

Best regards,
<<SDR Agent Name>>
Occams Advisory

Keep this shape when you rewrite it

Para 1
Proof of research. Names the trigger and what it funds. One word of congratulation, no more.
Para 2
Who you are in one sentence, with qualifying activities listed so they self-identify.
Para 3
The hypothesis, hedged. "May qualify," never "you qualify." The never-claimed-before line pre-empts the most common silent objection.
Para 4
One ask, time-boxed, low commitment.
Do not attach the whitepaper. It's the phase-2 asset. Leading with an attachment costs you both reply rate and deliverability.

Opening

Hi <<Client Name>>, this is <<SDR Agent Name>> from Occams Advisory.

I came across the announcement about <<Company Name>>'s <<Trigger Event>> and your work on <<Product / Platform>>. Congratulations on that milestone.

The reason I'm calling is that companies investing in engineering, software development, prototype testing, and product validation often qualify for federal R&D tax credits, and many early-stage companies in <<Industry Name>> don't realize how much of that work may be eligible.

I wanted to see if you've already reviewed your R&D tax credit position, or if it's worth a brief conversation.

Stop talking. The silence is doing work.

Branches

"We already have this covered"

Good to hear. Out of curiosity, is your CPA capturing the product validation and regulatory technical work, or mainly the engineering wages? That's the piece that usually gets left out.

"We're not profitable yet"

That's the common case, and it's the reason I called rather than waiting. The payroll tax offset lets qualifying small businesses take the credit against payroll taxes now rather than carrying it forward. It's cash this year.

"Who are you again?"

Fair question. <<SDR Agent Name>>, Occams Advisory — we're a U.S. advisory firm specialising in R&D tax credits. Your announcement is public, and <<Industry Name>> is a category where the credit is usually underclaimed, so I reached out directly rather than going through a form.

"Send me an email"

Will do, it'll be with you within the hour. So I send the right thing rather than a brochure — is the priority the qualification criteria, or the numbers?

"Not interested"

Understood — is that timing, or is R&D credit not relevant to how you're set up?

Voicemail — under 20 seconds

<<Client Name>>, <<SDR Agent Name>> from Occams Advisory. Calling about R&D tax credits on the engineering and validation work behind <<Product / Platform>> — a lot of it is likely creditable. I'll follow up by email today. My number is <<Direct Line>>. Thanks.

Variant A — you spoke with them

SubjectFollowing our call — R&D tax credits for <<Company Name>>

Hi <<Client Name>>,

Thanks for taking my call. As promised, our RDC whitepaper is attached.

To recap what we covered: the engineering, software, prototype testing, and product validation work behind <<Product / Platform>> sits squarely in the category of activity that qualifies for federal and state R&D credits. And because <<Company Name>> isn't yet paying income tax, the payroll tax offset is the relevant route — the credit comes back as cash in the current year rather than a carryforward.

The sections worth your time are the four-part qualification test on p. 3 and the payroll offset on p. 7.

<<If time agreed>> I'll send an invite for <<Agreed Time>> as discussed. <<If not>> Would sometime next week work for a 15–20 minute scoping conversation? Happy to work around your calendar.

Best regards,
<<SDR Agent Name>>
Occams Advisory

Variant B — no answer

SubjectR&D tax credits for <<Company Name>> — tried you by phone today

Hi <<Client Name>>,

I called earlier today and left a short voicemail, so here's the written version.

Congratulations on the <<Trigger Event>>. I read that it's funding development of <<Product / Platform>>, product validation, and the path to commercialization.

I'm <<SDR Agent Name>> from Occams Advisory. We help U.S. companies identify and claim federal and state R&D tax credits for exactly that kind of work — engineering development, software and algorithm development, prototype testing, product validation, and regulatory technical work.

Two things are usually true at <<Company Name>>'s stage: more of the spend qualifies than companies expect, and the payroll tax offset makes the credit usable before profitability.

Would you be open to a 15–20 minute conversation next week to see whether there's anything unclaimed here?

Best regards,
<<SDR Agent Name>>
Occams Advisory

Invitation note — 300 characters maximum

Hi <<Client Name>> — saw the news about <<Trigger Event>>. I work with <<Industry Name>> companies on R&D tax credits and sent you a note this week. Happy to connect either way.

Rules for the invite

No Sales Navigator access? Set LinkedIn to Skip at the top of the cadence. The sequence is designed to stand up on email and phone alone — you lose a signal channel, not the path to a meeting.

Goal

Reference the opening email explicitly, then get thirty seconds of attention and one qualifying answer. This is not the pitch call.

Hi <<Client Name>>, this is <<SDR Agent Name>> from Occams Advisory. I sent you a note on <<Day Sent>> about R&D tax credits — did I catch you at a bad time?

Wait. Let them answer.

Appreciate it, I'll be quick. I work with U.S. companies claiming federal and state R&D tax credits, and the reason I reached out is the engineering and product validation work behind <<Product / Platform>>. That category of spend is often creditable, and companies at your stage usually leave it on the table because they assume you need to be profitable to benefit.

Has <<Company Name>> looked at its R&D credit position yet, or is that still on the list?

Branches

"We already claim it"

Good — who's handling it, and are they capturing the validation and software side, or just the engineering wages? That's where most claims come up short. Worth a second look?

"We're pre-revenue"

That's actually the common case. The payroll tax offset lets qualifying small businesses apply the credit against payroll taxes instead of income tax, so it's cash back rather than a future deduction. Worth 15 minutes?

"Send me something"

Happy to. I'll send our RDC whitepaper today. What's the best time next week for a short call once you've had a look?

"Not interested"

Understood. Before I close this out — is that a timing thing, or is R&D credit not relevant to how you're structured?

Voicemail — under 20 seconds

<<Client Name>>, <<SDR Agent Name>>, Occams Advisory. I emailed you <<Day Sent>> about R&D tax credits on the engineering and validation work behind <<Product / Platform>>. Worth a short conversation — I'll follow up by email. My number is <<Direct Line>>. Thanks.

Gatekeeper

I'm trying to reach whoever handles tax strategy or works with your CPA on R&D credits — is that <<Client Name>>, or should I be speaking with someone in finance?

"Send me something" without a time is a soft no. Always pair the send with a slot.

Dial at a different hour than day 1

<<Client Name>> — <<SDR Agent Name>>, Occams Advisory. I called <<Day Called>> and sent you a note the same day about R&D tax credits. One minute?

The specific thing I'd want to check with you is where product validation and design verification are landing in your books. When they're booked as general operating cost, they never get tested against the four-part criteria and the claim comes in 30 to 40 percent light. When they're segmented properly, they're usually creditable.

Do you know how your CPA is treating that spend?

No voicemail on this dial. One message per sequence. Two in four days reads as pressure and raises your opt-out rate.

Once the connection is accepted

Thanks for connecting, <<Client Name>>.

Short version of what I emailed: the engineering and product validation work behind <<Product / Platform>> is usually creditable under the federal R&D programme, and the payroll offset makes it usable before you're paying income tax.

Worth fifteen minutes to check whether any of it is unclaimed? If it isn't a priority, just say so and I'll leave the thread alone.

Rules

Skipping LinkedIn? The email at day 6 or 7 carries this content anyway. Nothing in the sequence depends on the LI message landing.
SubjectRe: Potential R&D tax credit opportunity for <<Company Name>>

Hi <<Client Name>>,

I tried you by phone this week — rather than keep chasing, here's the material itself.

Attached is our RDC whitepaper. Two sections are worth your time: the four-part qualification test on p. 3, which determines whether an activity is creditable at all, and the payroll tax offset on p. 7, which is the route that applies before profitability.

I've also attached our capabilities overview, which covers what a scoping engagement actually involves and what we hand over at the end. It's four pages, not a brochure.

If anything in either raises a question, reply here and I'll answer it in writing — no call needed. If it's not a priority this quarter, tell me and I'll stop.

Best regards,
<<SDR Agent Name>>

Which asset to send

Whitepaper
Default. Send when the contact is finance-side or the conversation hasn't started. It answers "does this apply to us."
Capabilities
Send when they've already accepted the premise and are asking what working together looks like. It answers "what would this cost us in time."
Both
Only when they asked for both, or when the contact is senior enough that a second email would be an imposition.
Reply in thread. This goes on the original thread so the trigger research stays visible above your signature.

Phase 1 gave you two contacts. Now you need the map.

Silence from the primary isn't a verdict on the offer — it's usually a verdict on that person's inbox. Multithreading is how you find out which.

Who to add

Rules

New thread, new subject, new angle

SubjectWhich of <<Company Name>>'s engineering work is creditable

Hi <<Stakeholder 2 Name>>,

You run <<Function>> at <<Company Name>>, so this is more your area than finance's, which is why I'm coming to you directly.

The federal R&D credit is assessed on activity, not on a budget line labelled R&D. Four criteria decide it: whether the work improves a product's function or performance, whether there was real technical uncertainty at the outset, whether you resolved it through a process of experimentation, and whether it rests on engineering or computer science.

The part teams are usually surprised by is that failed attempts count. The approach that didn't work is creditable in the same way as the one that shipped.

I'm not asking you to own a tax conversation. I'd just like fifteen minutes to understand what your team actually spent time on this year, so we can tell whether there's anything material here worth taking to <<Client Name>>.

Best regards,
<<SDR Agent Name>>
Occams Advisory

Why this works when the finance thread stalls

You've removed the thing that made the first email easy to defer. The technical reader isn't being asked to make a tax decision, evaluate a vendor, or spend budget — only to describe their own work, which is the one topic they're fluent in and under no pressure about.

Never reference the unanswered thread. No "I reached out to your colleague and haven't heard back." It reads as escalation-by-guilt and it travels internally.

Hi <<Stakeholder 2 Name>>, <<SDR Agent Name>> from Occams Advisory. I'll be quick — this is a technical question, not a sales call.

Let that land.

We work on federal R&D tax credits, and the criteria are about engineering activity rather than accounting categories. Improvements to product function or performance, technical uncertainty at the start, a process of experimentation, resting on engineering or computer science. Failed attempts included.

From the outside, the work behind <<Product / Platform>> looks like it clears all four. What I can't see is how it's documented or where the spend is booked. Is that something you'd know, or does it sit with finance?

Either answer is useful

Invitation note

Hi <<Stakeholder 2 Name>> — I work with <<Industry Name>> teams on federal R&D tax credits, which turn on engineering activity rather than accounting categories. Sent you a note this week on how it applies to <<Product / Platform>>. Happy to connect regardless.

Rules

Skipping LinkedIn? The multithread email and dial carry this phase on their own. LinkedIn adds acceptance signal, not the message itself.
SubjectRe: Potential R&D tax credit opportunity for <<Company Name>>

Hi <<Client Name>>,

Rather than chase you again, here's the substance of what I'd have said on a call.

What usually qualifies at a company like yours. Core engineering on <<Product / Platform>>. Software and algorithm development. Prototype builds and iteration. Test protocol design and bench testing. Design verification and validation tied to <<Regulatory Milestone>>. Engineering time spent resolving technical uncertainty — including the attempts that failed.

Why it matters before profitability. Qualified small businesses can apply up to a set annual amount of the federal credit against payroll taxes rather than income tax. For a venture-funded company that isn't paying income tax yet, that turns the credit into cash in the current year instead of a carryforward.

Why companies miss it. The credit is claimed on activity, not on a budget line called R&D. If product validation and regulatory technical work are booked as operating cost, they never get tested against the four-part criteria, and the claim comes in materially smaller than it should.

What we'd do. Scope the qualifying activities, quantify the credit across the open lookback years, prepare the substantiation, and support it if it's ever examined. Nothing changes with your existing CPA relationship.

If any of that is worth 15 minutes, let me know a day that works. If not, I'll stop here.

Best regards,
<<SDR Agent Name>>

Short, plain, and honest about the ask

SubjectFifteen minutes on <<Company Name>>'s R&D credit position

Hi <<Executive Name>>,

I've been in touch with <<Client Name>> and <<Stakeholder 2 Name>> about federal and state R&D tax credits on the development work behind <<Product / Platform>>. Coming to you directly because it's a decision that sits at your level, not because anything has gone wrong lower down.

To be plain about what I'm asking for: a brief qualification conversation, not a sales process. Fifteen minutes to establish whether <<Company Name>> has a claim worth pursuing. If the answer is no, that's a useful outcome and I'll close the file the same day.

The reason I think it's worth the fifteen minutes: at your technical headcount, and given the validation and engineering work the <<Trigger Event>> is funding, the qualifying base is likely material. And because you're not yet paying income tax, the payroll offset would return it as cash this year rather than a carryforward.

Is there a slot in the next two weeks? If someone else should own this instead, point me at them and I'll go there.

Best regards,
<<SDR Agent Name>>
Occams Advisory

What makes an escalation land

Transparency
Say you've spoken to their team. Executives find out anyway, and hiding it costs you the meeting.
No blame
"Not because anything has gone wrong lower down" protects your other two contacts. You'll need them later.
Named ask
"Qualification conversation, not a sales process" is the whole point of this email. Say it in those words.
Easy no
Offering to close the file the same day is what makes fifteen minutes feel cheap.
One escalation per account. Going above someone twice destroys the relationship with your original contacts and rarely produces the meeting.

<<Executive Name>>, <<SDR Agent Name>> from Occams Advisory. Twenty seconds and then I'll let you decide.

We handle federal R&D tax credits. I've been talking to your team about the engineering and validation work behind <<Product / Platform>>, and from the outside it looks like a material claim that isn't being made.

I'm not asking for a sales process. Fifteen minutes to qualify it in or out. Is that worth putting in the diary, or should I close the file?

Then stop. Let them decide.

Handling the executive brush-off

"Talk to finance"

Happy to — I've been in touch with <<Client Name>> already. Would you be comfortable with me saying you've asked me to pick it back up with them?

"Send me something"

I'll keep it to one page. So it's the right page — is the question whether you qualify, or what it's worth?

"We're not looking at this now"

Understood. Is that a this-quarter thing, or is R&D credit not relevant to how you're structured? Either answer helps me stop wasting your time.

No voicemail on the executive dial. An unanswered exec call followed by a message reads as pursuit. The day 14 or 18 email carries it instead.

Two lines, no more

Hi <<Executive Name>> — sent you a note this week about <<Company Name>>'s R&D credit position. Asking for fifteen minutes to qualify it in or out, not a sales process.

If it's not for you, tell me who it should be and I'll leave you alone.

Rules

Skipping LinkedIn? Move the day-17 dial forward to day 15 to keep the phase-4 pressure even. Everything else stays.
SubjectRe: R&D tax credits for <<Company Name>> — rough numbers

Hi <<Client Name>>,

I put some rough numbers together so this isn't abstract.

Based on <<Company Name>>'s publicly visible technical headcount of roughly <<Technical Headcount>> in engineering, software, and validation roles, and typical R&D compensation in <<Industry Name>>, a qualifying wage base in the range of <<Wage Base Range>> is plausible. Applied against the federal credit and the applicable state credit, that would model to somewhere in the region of <<Credit Range>> per year, with additional value from the open lookback years.

Those are estimates built on public data and industry benchmarks, not a quote. The real number depends on which activities pass the four-part test and what your actual books show — which is exactly what a scoping call establishes. It could land higher or lower.

If the range is roughly in the zone where it's worth an hour of your finance team's time, I'll set up a call. If it isn't, tell me and I'll close this out properly.

Best regards,
<<SDR Agent Name>>

Range, never a single figure. State the assumptions inside the email. No sourced headcount means no numbers — move straight to the phase-5 close instead.

<<Client Name>>, <<SDR Agent Name>> from Occams Advisory — last call from me on this.

I'm closing the file on the R&D credit conversation this week. If there's any interest at all, now's the moment to say so. If not, no hard feelings and I'll stop calling.

That question closes both ways and both answers are useful. A clean no frees the seat. Anything that isn't a no is an opening — take the smallest next step they'll agree to, even if it's "come back next quarter."

If voicemail, leave nothing. Let the day 25 email close it in writing.

One line, no ask

Closing my file on the R&D credit question, <<Client Name>> — no reply needed. Staying connected here in case the timing changes after your next raise or <<Regulatory Milestone>>.

Why send it at all

The email thread is closing, but the connection persists. This message costs nothing, removes any sense of pursuit, and means that when the trigger recurs in two quarters you're already connected and can open with a message rather than a cold invite.

Skipping LinkedIn? Drop this touch entirely. The day 25 email already carries the reconnect language.

The close

SubjectRe: R&D tax credits for <<Company Name>> — closing the loop

Hi <<Client Name>>,

I've reached out a few times over the last few weeks and haven't managed to connect, so I'm going to take the hint that the timing isn't right. That's a fair answer and I'd rather respect it than keep landing in your inbox.

Before I close the file, here's the specific thing we identified, so it's on record rather than lost in a thread. Based on the development work behind <<Product / Platform>> and a technical headcount of roughly <<Technical Headcount>>, we'd expect a qualifying wage base in the region of <<Wage Base Range>>, modelling to somewhere around <<Credit Range>> a year before the open lookback years. That's an estimate from public data rather than a quote, but it's the reason we kept in touch.

Two things worth keeping. The credit has a lookback window, so the work happening now doesn't expire when this year closes. And the point where this usually becomes worth revisiting is at your next raise, at <<Regulatory Milestone>>, or when engineering headcount steps up.

Unless there's someone else on your side I should be coordinating with, I'll plan to reconnect next quarter. If there is, point me at them and I'll go there instead.

Best regards,
<<SDR Agent Name>>
Occams Advisory

The four jobs this email does

Acknowledge
Names the timing as the reason, not their interest. Gives them a face-saving read of the silence.
Restate
Puts the specific opportunity in writing one last time. This is the paragraph that gets forwarded internally months later.
Reconnect
Sets next quarter as the default rather than asking permission for it.
Redirect
The last line is the highest-yield sentence in the sequence. A meaningful share of closed accounts reply here with a name.

Disposition

Close as no-response with a 90-day nurture flag. Tag the trigger event so research can re-approach on the next milestone. If the reply names a new contact, open a fresh sequence at phase 1 against that person — don't forward the old thread.

Do not run a second sequence back-to-back. The 90-day gap is what protects domain reputation and keeps the next approach credible.

What counts as a reply

A human answer, positive or negative. Three things that look like replies but aren't, and must not trigger the whitepaper send:

Out-of-office auto-reply

Suppress the sequence and resume on their stated return date. Don't send the whitepaper to an empty desk.

Hard bounce

The email leg has failed silently. Send the record back to research for a data fix before another touch burns a day of the cadence.

Wrong contact, right company

Ask for the referral in the same reply, then re-enter at phase 1 against the new name. Don't carry the old thread across.

If it is a real reply

The lead leaves the standing cadence immediately. Acknowledge the same day — a reply that waits 48 hours for a response is a reply you've wasted.

SubjectRe: Potential R&D tax credit opportunity for <<Company Name>>

Hi <<Client Name>>,

Thanks for coming back to me — appreciated.

I've attached our RDC whitepaper. The two sections worth your time are the four-part qualification test on p. 3, which is what determines whether an activity is creditable, and the payroll tax offset on p. 7, which is the route that applies before profitability.

What's the best time in the next week or so for a 15–20 minute call? I'll work around your calendar.

Best regards,
<<SDR Agent Name>>

Then wait one day

If they come back with a time, you're in Scenario 1. If the whitepaper email goes unanswered, you're in Scenario 4 — wait 24 hours and dial.

Why one day

The whitepaper was requested, or near enough. Interest at that moment is the highest it will be in the whole sequence, and it decays fast. Waiting three days to chase turns a warm asset into a cold one.

Either way, you call

A reply with a time is Scenario 1 — you're calling to book. Silence is Scenario 4 — you're calling about the thing they asked for, which is a reason rather than a chase. Only the framing changes.

On the call

You have a warm, expected conversation. Do not re-pitch. Establish three things and book the demo:

Which activities

Walk me through what your engineering and validation teams actually spent time on this year — particularly anything where the outcome wasn't certain at the start.

Tax position

Are you paying income tax yet, or would the payroll offset be the relevant route?

Open years

Have you filed for the last two or three years, and has an R&D credit been claimed in any of them?

Close

Book the technical scoping session with the delivery team while you're still on the line. Send the invite before you hang up, not after.

Hi <<Client Name>>, <<SDR Agent Name>> from Occams Advisory. You'd asked me to send the whitepaper over — I wanted to check it arrived and see whether anything in it raised a question.

Let them answer before continuing.

The part most people ask about is the four-part test on p. 3, because it's not obvious from the outside which activities pass it. If it's easier, I can walk you through where <<Company Name>>'s work likely sits in about ten minutes.

This is a reason to call, not a chase. You are following up on something they asked for.

Move the same day

Interest decays fast at this stage. Send a short confirmation email with two concrete slots, then call to lock one in rather than waiting for a reply.

SubjectRe: Potential R&D tax credit opportunity for <<Company Name>>

Hi <<Client Name>>,

Good to speak just now. To make this easy — I have <<Slot 1>> or <<Slot 2>> open. Say the word and I'll send the invite.

On the call we'll cover which of your activities meet the four-part test, whether the payroll offset applies, and what the open lookback years are worth. Twenty minutes, no preparation needed on your side.

Best regards,
<<SDR Agent Name>>

SubjectRe: Potential R&D tax credit opportunity for <<Company Name>>

Hi <<Client Name>>,

Tried you by phone just now — I was following up on the whitepaper rather than chasing a decision.

If a question came up on the four-part test or on how the payroll offset would apply to <<Company Name>>, reply here and I'll answer it in writing. Otherwise, give me a time that suits and I'll work around it.

Best regards,
<<SDR Agent Name>>

Then

Return the lead to the standing cadence at the next scheduled touch. Do not restart the sequence from phase 1.

One probe, then close

Understood, and thanks for telling me rather than leaving it hanging. Last question and I'll leave you alone — is that a timing thing, or is R&D credit not relevant to how <<Company Name>> is structured?

The answer decides the disposition. Timing gets a 90-day nurture flag with the reason logged. Structural non-fit gets closed as disqualified so research stops surfacing the account.

Log the reason, not just the outcome. "Not interested" with no reason is the least useful record in the CRM.

Why the gap before the dial

Phase 1 closes on day 3. The first dial lands on day 4 — long enough that the email has been seen or buried, short enough that the trigger event is still current. Dialling on day 2 reads as automated; dialling in week two loses the reference.

What the gap buys you

The call opens with a true statement — "I sent you a note on Monday" — rather than an awkward same-day double touch. If the LinkedIn invite was accepted in between, you also open warmer than a pure cold dial.

Log four dispositions, not two

Answered, voicemail, gatekeeper, wrong number. Only one of them means keep dialling; one of them means send the record back to research.

Four dispositions, not two

"No answer" bundles outcomes that need completely different handling. Log which one you actually got:

Answered

Run script 1. You're in Scenario 3.

Voicemail or rang out

Scenario 2. One message, one same-day email, back into the cadence.

Gatekeeper

Not a failed call. Ask for the routing: "I'm trying to reach whoever handles tax strategy or works with your CPA on R&D credits — is that <<Client Name>>, or someone in finance?"

Wrong number

A data problem, not a prospect problem. Send the record to research rather than burning three more dials on a dead line.

SubjectRe: Potential R&D tax credit opportunity for <<Company Name>>

Hi <<Client Name>>,

I tried you by phone earlier today and left a brief voicemail — apologies for the double touch.

The short version: the engineering, software, and product validation work behind <<Product / Platform>> is exactly the category of spend that qualifies for federal and state R&D credits, and companies at <<Company Name>>'s stage can often apply the credit against payroll tax rather than waiting for profitability.

If it's easier, reply with a time that suits you next week and I'll work around it. If R&D credits aren't a priority right now, just say so and I'll leave it there.

Best regards,
<<SDR Agent Name>>

Then resume

The lead goes back into the standing cadence at the next scheduled touch. No restart, no extra voicemail.

Next scheduled touch, not a restart

An unanswered call doesn't reset the clock. If the day 4 dial went to voicemail, the lead's next touch is the phase-2 collateral email on day 6 or 7 — not a fresh phase 1.

What does reset it

Only a new trigger event: a fresh raise, a regulatory milestone, a leadership change, or a step up in engineering headcount. Research surfaces those; the SDR doesn't invent them.

After day 25, stop. Close as no-response with a 90-day nurture flag. Running a second sequence back-to-back is how domains get burned.

Hi <<Client Name>>, this is <<SDR Agent Name>> from Occams Advisory. I sent you a note on <<Day Sent>> about R&D tax credits — did I catch you at a bad time?

Wait for the answer.

Appreciate it, I'll be quick. I work with U.S. companies claiming federal and state R&D tax credits, and the reason I reached out is the engineering and product validation work behind <<Product / Platform>>. That category of spend is often creditable, and companies at your stage usually leave it on the table because they assume you need to be profitable to benefit.

Has <<Company Name>> looked at its R&D credit position yet, or is that still on the list?

Listen for which of the three outcomes below you're in before you keep talking.

Send it while they're on the line

Let me send that across right now while we're talking — give me ten seconds. It should be with you now. Open it to page 3, the four-part test.

Four criteria. Permitted purpose: you're improving a product's function or performance. Technical uncertainty: at the start you didn't know whether the approach would work. Process of experimentation: you tried things, some failed. Technological in nature: it rests on engineering, physical, or computer science.

Everything I've read about your work passes all four on the face of it. What I can't tell from the outside is how much of it is documented and how the spend is booked — which is the twenty-minute conversation I'd like to book with you.

Book while you're on the phone. Send the invite before you hang up. A demo agreed verbally and scheduled later is a demo that slips.

Understood, and I appreciate you being straight with me. One question before I let you go — is that timing, or is R&D credit genuinely not relevant to how <<Company Name>> is set up?

Then, whatever the answer:

That's useful, thank you. I'll close this out so you don't hear from me again on it. If the position changes at your next raise or filing, my details are in the email I sent <<Day Sent>>.

Pass and close. Don't attempt a second angle on a stated no. Log the reason and release the record.

Wrap the call first

That's fair. Let me do this — I'll put the specifics in an email today, including a rough sense of what the credit could be worth at your headcount, so you've got something concrete to look at when the timing is better. No pressure attached to it.

Then send

SubjectRe: Potential R&D tax credit opportunity for <<Company Name>> — as promised

Hi <<Client Name>>,

Good to speak earlier. As promised, the specifics.

What qualifies. Core engineering. Software and algorithm development. Prototype builds and iteration. Test protocol design and bench testing. Design verification and validation tied to <<Regulatory Milestone>>. And engineering time spent on approaches that didn't work.

Why it's usable now. Qualified small businesses can apply the federal credit against payroll taxes rather than income tax. Pre-profitability, that's cash this year instead of a carryforward.

Rough scale. From <<Company Name>>'s publicly visible technical headcount of roughly <<Technical Headcount>> and typical compensation in <<Industry Name>>, a qualifying wage base of <<Wage Base Range>> looks plausible, modelling to somewhere around <<Credit Range>> a year before lookback years. That's an estimate from public data, not a quote — the real figure depends on the four-part test and your books.

Nothing needed from you now. When the timing works, reply here and we'll pick it up.

Best regards,
<<SDR Agent Name>>

Set a real follow-up date. "Needs time" without a diarised date is a lead you will lose. Ask when, and put it in the CRM before you close the record.