ForgeSales · WM cost tables · revised 6 Aug 2026
Checked against Salesforce and against WM's own requirement documents. The count of deals is right; the cost tables are the problem — and one of them is quietly showing the wrong client's work.
The WM account carries exactly two open opportunities, and each one is backed by its own document that WM wrote. Driving Safety is a refuse-truck pilot: two training centres in Arizona and Florida, 15–20 seats, scenarios for following distance, rollover on curves, and backing down residential alleyways. Heavy Equipment is a different animal entirely — landfill operations, daily equipment inspections, spacing, loading and staging, 6–8 seats. Different machines, different sites, different trainees, different questionnaires. Two deals, not one.
The Driving Safety opportunity's cost-table link works — and that is worse than if it were broken. It opens a workbook whose ten line items are about emergency-response decision scenarios: branching dialogue trees, voice acting, multi-language audio. Nothing about refuse trucks, nothing about WM. Anyone who clicks that link to check our pricing sees $90,000 / $230,000 / $400,000 for work nobody has proposed. The Heavy Equipment link, by contrast, simply fails — it points into the duplicate folder tree and returns nothing. A dead link gets noticed. A confident wrong answer does not.
The two workbooks that do carry WM content are priced identically — to the dollar. Same ten features, same ten numbers: $20,000, $22,000, $24,500, $28,000, $46,000, $52,000, $43,000, $58,000, $39,000, $47,000. One is a refuse truck on a residential route. The other is heavy equipment on a landfill. Two materially different builds cannot cost exactly the same by coincidence — this is a template with the client's name pasted in, not an estimate.
WM did not ask for a feature ladder. For Driving Safety they sent a sixty-line vendor pricing form with its own sections and its own totals: platform and per-seat licensing for twenty seats, workstations, force-feedback steering wheels, pedal sets, instructor stations, a local server, integration with their Kahuna learning system, installation crews at both Arizona and Florida, warranty tiers, and expansion pricing for up to a hundred more sites. Our workbooks answer almost none of that. There is also a stated budget in the room — the questionnaire asks what $250,000 realistically buys for a six-to-twelve-month pilot — and none of the five workbooks is built around that number.
| Workbook | Where | What's actually in it | Prices | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Driving Safety draft WM_WM-Driving-Safety-Training-Simulator_Cost_Table_DRAFT.xlsx |
Right folder | Ten generic fleet-driving features. No refuse truck, no Kahuna, no hardware, no two-site install. | $94,500 $235,500 $379,500 |
Best base |
| Heavy Equipment draft WM_WM-Heavy-Equipment-Operator-Simulator_Cost_Table_DRAFT.xlsx |
Right folder | Ten generic heavy-equipment features. No landfill, no daily inspections, no loading and staging. | $94,500 $235,500 $379,500 |
Best base |
| Emergency-response strawman WM_Wm_Driving_Safety_..._STRAWMAN-DRAFT.xlsx |
Right folder | Wrong subject entirely. This is what the Driving Safety deal record links to. | $90,000 $230,000 $400,000 |
Junk |
| Its twin WM_Wm_Driving_Safety_..._STRAWMAN-DRAFT.xlsx |
Phantom folder | Byte-for-byte the same wrong subject, filed a week later. | $90,000 $230,000 $400,000 |
Junk |
| Heavy Equipment strawman WM_WM_Heavy_Equipment_..._STRAWMAN-DRAFT.xlsx |
Phantom folder | Same ten features as the Heavy Equipment draft, but split into packages correctly. This is what the Heavy Equipment deal record links to — and it fails to open. | $66,500 $140,500 $379,500 |
Right shape, wrong place |
A detail worth keeping: our own pricing rules say the small package is the first three features and the middle is the first five. Both "drafts" use four and seven instead — they break the rule. The misfiled Heavy Equipment strawman is the only one of the five that follows it, which is where its cheaper $66,500 and $140,500 come from. Same features, same prices, honest package boundaries.
Two deals need two cost tables. Collapsing to a single workbook would merge a landfill machine trainer into a residential refuse-route trainer, and the resulting number would be wrong for both. The achievable clean state is one cost table per deal, each in the real WM folder, each pointed at by its own deal record.
Consolidating the five would leave two workbooks that are template pricing wearing WM's name. That is tidier, not truer. The deadline is 19 August for Heavy Equipment and 31 August for Driving Safety — there is time to build these properly from what WM actually sent.
The emergency-response workbook and its twin have nothing to do with WM in any reading. Removing both is defensible on content alone. But the Driving Safety deal record points at one of them, so that link has to be repointed in the same motion or the deal is left pointing at nothing.
Nothing was moved, deleted, renamed, or repointed. No Salesforce field was edited. Every finding above came from reading files and querying records, because getting to one file per deal destroys shared content and changes CRM records, and that needs your word first.
The deadlines were wrong. The first version said both proposals were two weeks past due. That came from the workbooks' own notes pages, which say 22 July and are stale. Salesforce is the authority and says Heavy Equipment is due 19 August and Driving Safety 31 August. Neither is late; the nearer one is thirteen days out.
The Driving Safety link was described as broken. It is not. It resolves, to the wrong client's content — which is the more dangerous failure and is now the lead finding above.
| WM account | 001Uh00000vhMakIAE · wm.com · Industry "Waste Management" · exactly 2 opportunities, both stage "Proposal Due" |
|---|---|
| Driving Safety | 006Uh00000pncuqIAA · Proposal_Due__c 2026-08-31 · CloseDate 2030-05-08 · Amount null · created 2026-05-08 |
| Heavy Equipment | 006Uh00000uLjTJIA0 · Proposal_Due__c 2026-08-19 · CloseDate 2026-07-10 · Amount null · created 2026-07-01 |
| DS Cost_Table__c | Proposals/WM/WM_Wm_Driving_Safety_Training_Simulator_Cost_Table_ForgeFX-AI-STRAWMAN-DRAFT.xlsx?web=1 — resolves; content is emergency-response scenarios |
| HE Cost_Table__c | Proposals/WM/WM_WM_Heavy_Equipment_Operator_Simulator_Cost_Table_ForgeFX-AI-STRAWMAN-DRAFT.xlsx?web=1 — 404; file is in the phantom tree |
| Client source, DS | WM_Simulator_Pricing_Request - Final.xlsx — 3 sheets, 60 priced lines, sections A–G, Kahuna LMS, AZ + FL sites, 20 seats, enterprise rollout model to 100+ sites. Also Simulation Vendor Questions - WM.xlsx (5 tabs, answered, with Devin and River comments). |
| Client source, HE | Heavy Equipment Simulator Training Vendor Questions.xlsx — "HEO Onboarding Training Simulator Requirements", landfill environments, DEIs, controls/implements, backing, spacing, loading and staging, 6–8 concurrent users |
| Identical feature prices | Both DRAFT workbooks: 20000, 22000, 24500, 28000, 46000, 52000, 43000, 58000, 39000, 47000 |
| Tier rule | .forgebot/skills/sales-cost-table/SKILL.md — Baby = features 1–3, Mama = 1–5, Papa = all 10. Both DRAFT files use 1–4 / 1–7 / 1–10. |
| Phantom folder | TeamSite/Internal/Documents/TeamSite/Internal/Documents/Proposals/WM · item 012J7IDQKSHC7MJQ7BQZD25X2U36ARBSGS · created 2026-07-27 · 2 files |
| Third WM folder | TeamSite/Documents/Proposals/WM · 1 file (HEO vendor questions copy) · no cost tables |