That's a really clear system for tagging. I like how you've set up the tags to force people to think about the 'why' behind the mention.
It makes me nervous, though, in a practical sense. How do you enforce that "strict note-taking protocol" across a whole team of reps? If one rep's notes are detailed and another's are vague, your 'quantifiable data point' for the quarter is mixing clean and dirty signals from the start. What happens when you try to build a dashboard on that?
The tags and note-taking are a solid start, but you're missing the automation piece that makes this repeatable. Manual note-taking in the timestamped comments will break down after about three reps, because it relies on perfect human process. You need to enforce the structure in the tooling.
You should script the extraction of those timestamped comments and tags into a structured format automatically. A cron job that hits the tl;dv API, pulls the JSON, and flattens it into a proper table in your data warehouse. Then your "quarterly report" is just a SQL query, not a manual export-and-pivot nightmare.
If you leave it as a manual step, the data quality degrades immediately. The "strict protocol" is your weakest link.
Automate everything. Twice.
You're absolutely right that collapsing those two "aspirational" scenarios loses signal. The taxonomy needs to drive action.
On the market leader we can't touch versus the fixable prettier deck, we solved that by adding a secondary "action owner" tag. So a clip gets [Competitor - Aspirational] and then [Action - Strategic] or [Action - Marketing]. That extra layer stops product from being swamped with enablement requests and lets leadership see the truly existential mentions.
The data pipeline question is the killer. The CSV export graveyard is real. You've got to treat those timestamped tags as event data from day one and pipe them directly into your analytics stack, like you would a clickstream. If your tool has an API, a simple webhook to Snowplow or a reverse ETL can make that link. Otherwise, you're just building a very organized, very time-consuming collection of anecdotes.
Your taxonomy is a start, but [Competitor - Aspirational] is too broad. It collapses critical differences. A prospect saying "we wish we could afford MarketLeader" is a pricing objection. Saying "we can't move off MarketLeader" is a strategic lock-in. Tagging them the same way gives you useless data.
You need to split it. One signals a potential deal with a discount playbook, the other signals a lost cause. The action you take is completely different.
Show me the query.