Which artifacts the agent draws on

The three artifacts that decide this campaign

New workspaces start with eight foundational templates: ICP, Sales Process, Lead Routing, Deal Registration, Meeting Prep, Product Overview, Account Plan and Lead Research questions. They exist so the library is not an empty page, and the tour describes them plainly as starting points to fill in and extend.

Teams that treat them as furniture rather than as work end up running campaigns from a half-completed ICP and a Product Overview nobody edited. Before a campaign of any size, three artifacts are worth opening and actually reading, because they determine different things about the copy.

Three are worth opening before a campaign of any size, because each decides something different about the copy, and the third is the one reviewers notice and the hardest to fix one asset at a time.

• ICP — who the copy assumes it is addressing
• Product Overview — what it claims you do, and the fastest to go stale
• Messaging guidance and value propositions — the argument it makes

Versioning makes the loop visible

Each artifact carries an owner, a last-updated date and a version stamp, and every save creates a new version. That turns an otherwise invisible relationship into an auditable one. When drafts change character, you can look at what changed in the library and when, instead of debating whether the output "feels different lately".

It also makes the maintenance rhythm concrete. The highest-leverage artifacts belong on a quarterly review in your operating cadence with a named owner, rather than being edited only when somebody notices the output has drifted. The artifact you publish is the same one referenced from plays, account plans and QBRs, so the effort is not campaign-specific work. It is the thing that keeps every generated surface on message at once.

A worked pre-campaign audit

Twenty minutes before the example campaign generates anything: open the ICP, the Product Overview, and the messaging guidance, and read each against one question: would I sign off on this being argued to 60 accounts this week?

The ICP turns out to describe the enterprise segment you targeted two years ago; the mid-market motion this campaign addresses is a paragraph at the bottom marked "emerging". That gets fixed first, because every asset would have been subtly addressed to the wrong company size. The Product Overview mentions the governance capability the brief leads with only in passing, so one paragraph gets added, with the concrete audit-trail detail the copy will need. The messaging guidance is current. Version stamps update on save, so the campaign record now sits alongside evidence of what the library said at generation time.

Twenty minutes, against the alternative: sixty assets arguing an outdated position fluently, and passing review because the reviewer is checking them against the same outdated source. It is the highest-leverage twenty minutes in the whole campaign.