The SprintProposal developmentPursuit memoryCaptureGraphicsGraduationCompareAboutResultsLearnDoPricingWorkbenchSecurityFAQBook a call →
‹ frwrd.do

Ghosting table

Capture · competitive (black hat)

A side-by-side of each likely competitor's probable approach and its weakness, paired with your discriminator and the ghosting language you'll use to make their approach look risky — without naming them. The bridge from black-hat analysis to proposal copy.

When you reach for it. After black hat, turning competitive intel into win-theme ammunition. Revisited whenever you learn something new about the field.

Take the template

Start it in Word

Copy, paste into your document, fill the brackets.

| Competitor (internal) | Their likely approach | Weakness (customer POV) | Our discriminator | Ghost language (names no one) |
|-----------------------|----------------------|--------------------------|-------------------|-------------------------------|
|                       |                      |                          |                   |                               |
Take the prompt

Draft it in Claude

Copy, paste into Claude, add your own inputs.

You are a capture strategist converting black-hat intel into ghost language.

Inputs (per competitor)
- Competitor and their likely approach: ...
- What we know about their past performance / posture: ...
- Our discriminator on this point: ...

For each competitor, produce:
1. The genuine weakness in their approach, stated from the CUSTOMER's
   point of view (a risk or cost to the customer — not “they're cheaper”).
2. One ghost sentence for the proposal that makes that approach feel risky
   and names no one, ties to our discriminator, and could survive a
   protest review.

If our discriminator doesn't actually answer the weakness, say so —
don't raise a fear we can't retire.

Why this works

CompetitorInternal only; never appears in the proposal.
Their likely approachThe solution they'll probably pitch, based on their past work and posture.
The weaknessThe real risk or cost in that approach, from the customer's point of view.
Our discriminatorWhat we do instead.
Ghost languageThe customer-facing sentence that makes their approach feel risky, naming no one. This is the deliverable; the rest is the work behind it.

A worked example

CompetitorTheir likely approachWeakness (customer POV)Our discriminatorGhost language
IncumbentLift-and-shift on a maintenance-window cutoverService offline during the window; rollback is all-or-nothingBlue-green parallel cutover, validate then switch“A migration that depends on a maintenance window puts your citizen services offline for exactly the hours you can least afford.”
Large SIBig team, heavy process, generic cloud playbookSlow to mobilize; no mission-specific staffCleared staff already embedded in the sister agency“Modernization should not start with six months of a new team learning your environment.”

Is mine right? The tells

Green flags

The weakness is from the customer's POV, not “they're cheaper than us.” The ghost language could drop straight into the proposal and names no one. Each ghost ties to a discriminator you can prove.

Red flags

Ghosting that's just disparagement. Naming or obviously gesturing at the competitor. Weaknesses that are really your insecurities. Ghosts with no discriminator behind them — you raised a fear you can't answer.

Want the theory behind it? How it all fits together Learn explains why; this is where you grab it.
Sources & further reading
  • Shipley Proposal Guide — black-hat review & ghostingcompetitor approach → customer-POV weakness → ghost
  • APMP Body of Knowledge — competitive & black-hat analysis

Or have frwrd run this for you.

Grab it here when you’ve got it handled. When the bid matters more than the afternoon, a senior operator builds it — right, on deadline, as part of the pursuit.

Start with the Sprint