Checking-for-Agreement Questions — Catalog

Nine Questions That Keep the Prospect in the Room

A 10-minute presentation delivered as monologue loses the prospect's attention by minute 4. The book's corrective: throughout the presentation, the operator deploys agreement-checking questions that maintain mutual presence, detect attention-drift, and convert the monologue into a dialogue. The recommendation is 5-10 such questions per presentation.¹

What This Actually Is

The book's catalog of agreement-check questions²:

• "Does that make sense?"
• "Are we on the same page?"
• "What are your thoughts on that?"
• "Are you with me on this?"
• "Do you see how that works?"
• "Do you see how that could help you?"
• "How do you see that helping you the most?"
• "Any questions on that?"
• "Is there anything else I should add?"

Plus concern-checking variants³:

• "Would you be comfortable with this?"
• "How does this feel so far?"
• "How does this look to you?"
• "Is there anything you would like to address with me at this point?"

The catalog provides variation. The operator who uses "Does that make sense?" five times in a row sounds canned. The operator who rotates through three or four constructions sounds engaged. The catalog gives operators enough variety to deploy 5-10 agreement-checks per presentation without repetition.

Internal Logic

The mechanism: each agreement-check question converts a one-way information-delivery moment into a two-way conversational moment. The prospect has to respond — usually with confirmation, sometimes with clarification, occasionally with a surfaced concern. Each response gives the operator real-time information about whether the presentation is landing.

The questions also do attention-maintenance work. Knowing that an agreement-check is coming keeps the prospect attentive throughout the presentation. Without them, the prospect can mentally drift because the cost of drifting is low; with them, drifting risks getting caught.

The book frames the mechanism⁴: "These questions engage the customer during the presentation and create feedback and buy-in. They increase the effectiveness of your presentations tenfold. They make you appear credible in their eyes and more of an authority."

Synergies & Handshakes

Pairs with Three-Pillar Presentation Formula (where the agreement-checks operate structurally — one per pillar minimum), Three-Step Proposal Architecture (the broader document the presentation walks through), and Voice as Sales Instrument (the tonality discipline the agreement-checks integrate with).

Analytical Case Study

A B2B operator delivering an 8-minute presentation. Without agreement-checks: operator talks for 8 minutes uninterrupted; prospect's attention drifts at minute 3; by minute 8 the prospect has missed most of the back half. The pricing-conversation that follows lands on incomplete-attention. Deal stalls.

With agreement-checks at minute 2, 4, 5.5, and 7: each check produces 30-90 seconds of prospect-response, which restarts the attention-engagement. Each check also surfaces small clarifications or concerns the operator can address before they accumulate. By minute 8 the prospect has been engaged throughout. The pricing-conversation lands on full-attention. Deal moves forward.

Same operator, same content. Different attention-management. Different outcomes.

Implementation Workflow

You audit your last presentation recording. Count the agreement-check questions. Most operators discover they used 0-2 — far below the 5-10 prescription. You commit for two weeks to one discipline: minimum 5 agreement-checks per presentation. The discipline initially feels like over-checking; after a few presentations it integrates naturally.

You also build personal-preference variety. Pick four agreement-check questions from the catalog that feel natural in your voice. Use them in rotation. By month two, the rotation is automatic.

The Agreement-Check Failure (Diagnostic Signs)

• Zero agreement-checks: monologue mode
• Same question repeated: "Does that make sense?" three times in a row reads as canned
• Closed-end agreement-checks only: "Does that make sense?" produces yes/no; "What are your thoughts on that?" produces material
• Agreement-checks delivered without pause: operator asks "does that make sense?" and immediately continues; the check has no time to function
• Agreement-checks without responding to the responses: prospect surfaces a small concern; operator notes it and continues without addressing

Evidence / Tensions / Open Questions

The cognitive mechanism (engagement-maintenance through periodic interaction) has empirical support in attention research and instructional-design literature. The specific 5-10-checks-per-presentation prescription is practitioner-derived.

Author Tensions & Convergences

Joint Acuff/Miner. Cross-source with Hormozi: less explicit treatment of agreement-checking during presentation; Hormozi's tighter 3-minute presentation timing has less room for multiple checks.

Cross-Domain Handshakes

• Creative Practice — Teacher Checking for Understanding: instructional-design and teaching literature treats periodic comprehension-checks as foundational. Same mechanism in a different domain.

• Psychology — Active Engagement and Attention Maintenance: cognitive psychology research on attention-maintenance during extended listening tasks supports the mechanism.

The Live Edge

Sharpest Implication. Most operators deliver presentations as monologues because they were trained to. The agreement-check discipline converts presentations into dialogues. The investment is small (memorize four questions); the return is significant uplift on presentation-stage outcomes.

Generative Questions.

• What's the optimal interval between agreement-checks? Every 90 seconds? Every 2 minutes?
• The instructional-design literature has decades of research on comprehension-checking. Could it inform a more rigorous sales-training approach?

Connected Concepts

• Three-Pillar Presentation Formula
• Three-Step Proposal Architecture
• Voice as Sales Instrument
• Open Listening Without Judgment
• Sales Hub

Footnotes