Blue Sky Capital — January Engagement Clarification

Overview

Blue Sky Capital had previously agreed to begin an engagement in January but backed out earlier in the month, claiming they could not move forward. The client appears to be disputing or walking back a prior commitment that was documented in email. Mark and Melissa flagged this as a priority item to resolve before the new year.

Situation

Blue Sky Capital verbally (and apparently in writing via email) agreed to a January start date.
Earlier in December, the client indicated they did not think they could move forward in January.
The client's position seems to be that they did not agree — contradicting the documented email record.
This is categorized alongside other late/at-risk accounts (Didion, Quora Italia, Sona Plot, American Extractions, Scallon's) as a collections and retention concern.

Key Decisions

Both Mark and Melissa will reach out to Blue Sky Capital to address the discrepancy.
The approach: reference the prior email agreement directly, then pivot to realigning on scope and outcomes rather than forcing a confrontation.
Goal is to salvage the engagement, not just win the argument — get them back on board with a clear, mutually agreed scope.

Action Items

[ ] Melissa — Email Blue Sky Capital referencing the prior agreement; clarify scope and confirm outcomes for the January engagement.
[ ] Mark — Follow up separately to understand what outcome or conditions would get them to commit; frame around what they need to see to move forward.

Recommended Outreach Approach

Per discussion, the suggested framing for outreach:

"I'm a little confused — it says right here that you agreed. Can we nail down exactly what we're going to do for you and make sure we're aligned on outcomes?"

The intent is to acknowledge the prior commitment without being adversarial, then use the conversation to lock down a concrete scope so the engagement can proceed.

^[1]
^[2]