Most dental AI sales-enablement teams that adopted the "Competitor A or Competitor B" battlecard convention to anonymize their Voicify content stopped one step short: they built the cards, named the files, and dropped them in a shared drive without running a single review pass. Then a rep opened the Competitor B card in a DSO call where Voicify was actually the incumbent, hit a pricing line that contradicted what the appendix said two pages later, and lost the room. This post is the checklist that stops that. Thirty-five line items a sales-enablement lead works through on every Voicify "Competitor A or Competitor B" card before any rep sees it.

TL;DR

One owner, one pass, thirty minutes per card pair. The QA checklist runs in seven sections — slot integrity, proof-point freshness, internal consistency, tone discipline, file hygiene, regulatory and claim safety, and rep-readability. A sales-enablement lead, not the card author, runs it. Failed cards go back for rewrite with a 5-business-day SLA. Cards that clear go into the field-ready library with a quarter-stamped approval line. The single biggest payoff is catching the slot-A versus slot-B contradictions a rep would otherwise discover live in a DSO discovery call.

Key Takeaways

  • 35 line items across 7 sections — slot integrity, proof-point freshness, internal consistency, tone discipline, file hygiene, regulatory/claim safety, rep readability.
  • Owner: a sales-enablement lead or sales-ops director — never the card author, never the rep who will use it, never an AE running a live deal against it.
  • Cadence: once per quarter on each Voicify Competitor A/B card pair, scheduled in week one so cards are field-ready by week two; mid-quarter spot checks when Voicify ships pricing or named-customer news.
  • Time budget: 30–45 minutes per card pair on refresh, 60–75 minutes for a brand-new pair.
  • Fail flow: card pulled from the field-ready library, author has 5 business days to rewrite, reps already in deals finish on the prior approved version.

Section 1: Slot Integrity (5 items)

The first section is the one most teams skip because it feels obvious. It is not. Slot integrity is the difference between a card that holds together in the field and one that reads as a displacement card in the first three paragraphs and a defense card by the time the rep gets to the pricing section. The QA owner reads the card top to bottom asking only one question: does this read as the slot it is supposed to be in.

Slot Integrity

  • The opening line names a pain (A-slot/displacement) or names a production-data fact (B-slot/defense), not a feature.
  • The win zones lead with switch-cost honesty (A-slot) or operational stability (B-slot), not a mixed framing.
  • The lose zones are written as disqualification triggers, not as cards-to-fix-later.
  • The trap-setters target the platform-vs-dental-pure framing (A-slot) or Voicify implementation timeline (B-slot).
  • The closing tone is patient and proof-heavy (A-slot) or confident and production-data-driven (B-slot).

For the full slot framing each item is checked against, see our Voicify side-by-side cards walkthrough and the naming-rules rulebook.

Section 2: Proof-Point Freshness (6 items)

The proof appendix is the engine of both cards. A pricing line more than a quarter old or an integration claim that predates a Voicify product release is a contradiction waiting to surface in front of a buyer. The QA owner runs the freshness check against the most recent Voicify product announcement, the most recent published Voicify pricing tier, and the team's own implementation timeline data from the last three DSO deployments.

Proof-Point Freshness

  • Every pricing line in both cards traces to the shared appendix, and the appendix carries a date stamp inside the last 90 days.
  • The Voicify product version referenced is the current shipping version, not the version from the last refresh.
  • The PMS integration claims (Open Dental, Dentrix, Dentrix Ascend, eaglesoft, Curve) are verified against the Voicify integration catalog at the time of review.
  • The implementation timeline data cites three named deployments at the DSO scale of the anchor deal, not a marketing-slide average.
  • The Voicify renewal-window logic in the A-slot card matches the actual contract terms in the deals the team is targeting.
  • Any third-party stat (call-capture rate, after-hours benchmark, staff retention) carries a citation the rep can read out loud without paraphrasing.

Section 3: Internal Consistency Across the Two Cards (5 items)

This is the section that catches the failure mode that costs the most deals. The same anchor deal appears in both cards. The same proof points should read identically in both cards. The framing around those proof points is the only thing that should change. The QA owner reads the two cards in parallel, line by matching line, looking for a pricing number that differs, a timeline that drifted, or a feature claim that contradicts itself.

Internal Consistency

  • The pricing band in the A-slot card matches the pricing band in the B-slot card, down to the discount tier.
  • The implementation timeline in the A-slot card and the B-slot card cite the same underlying deployment evidence.
  • The PMS integration depth statement in both cards uses the same verb tense and the same named PMSes.
  • The named DSO scenario (location count, call volume, current after-hours capture) is identical in both cards.
  • The card metadata (date stamp, quarter, version number) is identical in both cards.

Section 4: Tone Discipline (4 items)

Tone is the part of a battlecard that does not show up in a static review but ruins the card the moment a rep reads it out loud. The QA owner reads each card aloud once, listening for the framing that does not match the slot. A displacement card that sounds confident in the opening line is a deal-loser. A defense card that sounds patient and proof-heavy is a deal-loser.

Tone Discipline

  • The A-slot card opening reads as patient and curious, not aggressive or product-led.
  • The B-slot card opening reads as confident and data-anchored, not defensive or apologetic.
  • The trap-setter questions are short enough to fit in a discovery-call cadence (one breath, one question).
  • The closing line in each card names a next step the rep can execute in the same meeting, not a follow-up email.

Section 5: File Hygiene (4 items)

File hygiene is the discipline that prevents a rep from grabbing the wrong card at 8 am before a DSO call. The QA owner does not approve a card pair until the file names, the shared drive location, and the version-stamp matches the convention the team agreed to in the naming-rules rulebook.

File Hygiene

  • The displacement card is named "Voicify-displacement-2026Q2.pdf" and the defense card is named "Voicify-defense-2026Q2.pdf" — neither uses A or B in the filename, and the quarter stamp updates every refresh.
  • Both cards live in the same shared-drive folder, sorted next to each other, with the appendix in the parent directory.
  • The internal version number on the card cover page matches the version in the file name and the version in the shared appendix.
  • The prior quarter's cards are archived to a /archive subfolder, not deleted — reps in mid-deal need access to the card the deal started on.

Section 6: Regulatory and Claim Safety (5 items)

Dental AI sales claims are not subject to FDA marketing review the way medical device claims are, but the cards still carry liability exposure for unsupported clinical efficacy claims, undisclosed comparative data, and BAA/HIPAA framing that overstates the vendor's compliance posture. The QA owner runs the claim-safety pass against legal's last sign-off on the proof appendix.

Regulatory and Claim Safety

  • No card line claims clinical outcomes (caries detection, treatment acceptance) — sales claims stay confined to operational metrics.
  • Every comparative claim against Voicify cites a source the rep can produce on request, not a paraphrase.
  • HIPAA and BAA language matches Voicify's published posture, not the team's interpretation of it.
  • No card line references protected health information, even anonymized, as a proof point.
  • The legal-review date stamp on the proof appendix is inside the last 12 months and matches the version the cards cite.

Section 7: Rep Readability and Sign-Off (6 items)

The final pass is the readability check. The QA owner picks a rep who has not seen the card before, asks them to read the opening line and the trap-setters out loud, and watches for hesitation. Hesitation in the dry-run is a signal that the card will not survive a discovery call. The owner does not approve a card until the dry-run rep can read it cold without stumbling.

Rep Readability and Sign-Off

  • A rep who did not write the card reads the opening line cold without stumbling.
  • The trap-setters fit in a single breath each and do not require the rep to paraphrase.
  • The pricing-section language matches the way reps actually talk about pricing in the team's discovery calls.
  • The card carries the QA owner's name and a date stamp on the cover page.
  • The card carries a "valid through" date 90 days from the QA pass.
  • The approved card is announced in the team's sales-enablement channel with a one-line summary of what changed since the last quarter.

How Often to Run the Checklist

The full 35-point pass runs once per quarter on each Voicify "Competitor A or Competitor B" card pair, scheduled in the first week of the quarter so the cards are field-ready by the second week. A mid-quarter spot check — slot integrity, proof-point freshness, internal consistency only — is appropriate whenever Voicify ships a pricing change or a named-customer announcement that touches a deal the team is in. For the broader cadence and rebuild discipline, see our 60-minute Competitor A vs B battlecard sprint, the objections-tested counters, and the Voicify-worked template.