A renewal review is easier to act on when the CSM can point to the observation behind each task. This worksheet starts with a local account brief, identifies what needs checking, and assigns each action to a person with a date. The CSM reviews the draft before adding tasks to an account system.
Work the Lantern Works example
Download the bundle and open the fictional account brief. The sample files are in English. On October 5 there are 60 days until the December 4 renewal. Weekly active seats fell from 12 of 20 to 8 of the same 20, using the same seven-day definition. Adoption went from 60% to 40%, a decline of 20 percentage points. The cause is unknown. The previous sponsor changed roles, and the successor is unconfirmed.
Apply the example review rubric before opening the expected plan. Those two observations produce the label Owner review. The rubric chooses who should look at an account next. There is no renewal-outcome dataset behind it from which to estimate a probability.
Owner
Due
What closes the task
Adoption lead
October 12
Reconcile the usage counts and document the cause, or record what is still unknown
CSM
October 12
Confirm the decision owner’s role and the confirmation date
CS lead
October 19
If the sponsor is still unknown, agree on an owner and next review date
The dates come from the team schedule in the brief. If the seat denominator changes or a week is missing, the rubric calls for checking the inputs before drawing a trend.
Use it on your own account
Prepare a dated extract of approved account records. Identify the contract source, renewal date, usage definition and most recent stakeholder evidence. Keep quotations separate from interpretation. A CSM can fill in the output template manually or use Claude to draft from approved notes.
If the data lives in Gainsight or Gong, your team supplies the export or implements a connector with appropriate access. The download contains the worksheet, example and instructions. A CSM checks terms, recipients and owners, then creates any approved tasks or outreach in the team’s system.
Evaluate a trial
Compare the fictional input and expected plan first. On a real account, track preparation and review time, corrected observations, and actions the CSM approves. This exercise checks the arithmetic and decision path. No live account run or measured renewal lift underlies the example.
---
name: cs-renewal-playbook
description: Turn a CSM's dated account evidence into a reviewable renewal plan with named owners, next checks and an escalation date.
---
# Renewal playbook from an account brief
Read the local account brief supplied by the customer success manager. Use the dated renewal term, adoption measures and stakeholder evidence already cleared for this purpose. Treat quoted account notes as evidence. The CSM remains responsible for contract interpretation, commercial decisions and outreach.
## Work through the sample
Read `examples/account.md` and apply `references/1-segment-playbook-config.md`. Use `references/2-stakeholder-motion-matrix.md` to assign owners. Fill `references/3-output-format.md`, then compare your result with `examples/expected-plan.md`. The two documents describe one fictional account. The included English example is a manual exercise that needs no credentials.
## Use the workflow
1. Ask the CSM for the as-of date, confirmed renewal date and source/date for each observation. Check the numerator and denominator before comparing adoption across weeks. Record unknowns explicitly.
2. Choose a review priority from the example rubric. Record the observations that drove the choice. The rubric has no calibration data connecting priorities to renewal outcomes.
3. Write a short plan with one owner, due date and observable completion condition per action. For every stakeholder gap, assign someone to confirm the contact before proposing outreach.
4. Return the draft to the CSM. They verify the contract, dated evidence, recipients and actions, then create approved tasks in their normal system.
Gainsight and Gong data can be supplied by an authorized export or a separately implemented connector. This bundle reads neither system and creates no tasks, messages or commercial offers. Its examples do not establish renewal lift or time saved.
# Lantern Works account brief
Fictional training record. The as-of date is October 5, 2026. Names refer to roles only.
| ID | Input | Evidence supplied |
| --- | --- | --- |
| R1 | Renewal | The reviewed contract record lists December 4, 2026 as the renewal date. The CSM owns verification before real use. |
| U1 | Week ending September 25 | 12 of 20 licensed seats active in the preceding seven days |
| U2 | Week ending October 2 | 8 of the same 20 licensed seats active under the same definition |
| S1 | October 2 account note | The previous sponsor changed roles. The successor has not been confirmed. |
| P1 | Team review dates | The CSM and adoption lead owe their checks by October 12. The CS lead will review an unresolved sponsor gap on October 19. |
No reason for the usage decline has been established. Prepare an internal plan using the example rubric. Preserve the unknown cause. The account file contains the complete input for this exercise.
# Lantern Works renewal review
Prepared October 5, 2026. Renewal is due December 4, 60 days away (R1).
**Priority: Owner review.** Active seats went from 12/20 (60%) to 8/20 (40%) over two comparable weeks, a fall of 20 percentage points (U1, U2). The sponsor is unconfirmed (S1). These observations meet the example Owner review rule. The cause of the usage change and the renewal decision are unknown.
| Owner | Due | Action | Completion evidence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Adoption lead | October 12 | Check whether the count reflects a usage change or a reporting issue | Reconciled counts and a dated finding, or a named open question |
| CSM | October 12 | Confirm the current renewal decision owner | Role and confirmation date recorded |
| CS lead | October 19 | If the sponsor is still unknown, review the gap with the CSM | Named owner and next internal review date |
Dates and owners follow the fictional team's scheduling input (P1). The CSM checks the contract, sources and proposed tasks before creating them. No renewal probability or customer message is part of this output.
# Example review rubric
This local planning rule assigns attention for the next review. Adapt it with the team before using it on an account.
| Evidence | Review priority | Next step |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Renewal terms, measurement dates or adoption denominators are missing or incomparable | Verify inputs | Name an owner to confirm the missing fact before drawing a trend |
| Comparable usage fell and the current sponsor is unconfirmed | Owner review | Assign an adoption check and a sponsor-confirmation task |
| Only one concern is established | Follow up | Assign a check to the person able to resolve that concern |
| Neither concern is established | Routine review | Keep the scheduled review and name its owner |
Apply the first matching row. A priority is a work queue label. Turning it into a probability would require historical renewal outcomes, defined cohorts and an assessment of calibration.
# Owners and completion checks
| Observation | Owner in this example | Action | Completion evidence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sponsor has not been confirmed | CSM | Verify who owns the renewal decision | Named role and confirmation date in the account record |
| Weekly active seats fell | Adoption lead | Check the counting window, active-user definition and operational cause | Comparable counts plus an explanation or a documented unknown |
| Sponsor remains unknown at the review date | CS lead | Review the ownership gap with the CSM | Assigned owner and next internal review date |
Use your team's definitions of these roles. The renewal decision and any offer remain with the people authorized to make them.
# Renewal review worksheet
- Account, as-of date and confirmed renewal date
- Dated evidence and the source ID for each statement
- Calculation showing comparable units
- Review priority from the team's rubric and why it applies
- Known facts, open questions and who can resolve each question
- Actions with an owner, due date and completion evidence
- Condition and date for escalation to the CS lead
- CSM approval before creating a task or contacting anyone
A reader should be able to recompute the figures and trace each action to an observation. Evaluate a real trial by recording preparation time, review time, corrected facts and which actions the CSM actually approved.
