Stakeholder maps for company-to-company engagement.

Quorom takes your recorded meetings, works out who actually attended from a target company, checks whether those people are in your CRM and attached to the right account, then identifies the other stakeholders there who should be part of the relationship.

What the map tells you.

One target company at a time. Three questions, answered from systems you already own — your meeting recorder and your CRM.

Who was actually in the room

Attendees reconciled company by company. Meeting identity is the signal; the CRM is the system of record. Where the two disagree, you see it rather than inherit it.

Whether your CRM knows them

Every attendee checked for a contact record on the right account. People who were met but never made it into the CRM come back as explicit rows, not as silence.

Who else is worth approaching

The other stakeholders at that company who fit your ideal customer profile — seniority, company size, HQ geography — drawn from contacts you already hold.

The engagement model.

There are two different actions, and they follow two different rules.

Tier 1

LinkedIn connection

Broad, low cost, many-to-many. Any senior person on your side can reasonably connect with several people at the target company — a CEO with their VP Product, Head of RevOps and CRO is all fine. Not seniority-constrained.

Tier 2

Meeting request

Narrow, high cost, seniority-matched. Only pursue meetings with genuine counterparts — a CEO asks their CEO or CRO, not their Director of RevOps. One or two names per person on your side.

Two kinds of engagement, not two labels to stamp on people

The asymmetry governs who is worth approaching at all. It does not follow that each person gets one action stamped on them. Real outreach is a sequence, not a branch: it starts with a connection if one isn't already in place, may become a message, and may or may not become a meeting request. So the map distinguishes the two by who it puts in front of you and how senior they are, not by printing an instruction beside each name. It says who is worth considering, and stops.

What you can trust about the output.

Gaps are output, not failure

Companies, people and titles will sometimes be wrong. That is expected in an exercise nobody is doing by hand today.

Source for every field

Every value records where it came from — your CRM, a provider, a meeting attendee record, or manual research. Manually verified values outrank everything and are never overwritten by an automated run.

Missing shows up as missing

When a person or a company cannot be resolved, they appear as a labelled row — never filled in from somewhere else, never quietly dropped. The holes in the map are the real holes, so you can act on the rest of it without checking the whole thing by hand first.

As shipped, it spends nothing

No enrichment provider is wired up and a run costs nothing to execute. Every field in the output comes from systems you already pay for.

It runs inside your trust boundary.

Build once, deploy per customer. Each deployment is single-tenant, inside your own environment, reading your own systems. Your database holds the meeting-identity graph. Sensitive contact fields — email, phone — pass through to your CRM and are never persisted by Quorom. No data and no credentials live in Quorom. Data residency is solved by where it runs.

Important relationships belong to teams, not individuals.

The code is public. You can read it, and you can run it in your own environment.