Shane Murphy: Distinguishing a Bahamas Proposal From a Completed Transaction

By Shane Ian Murphy | Dual Party Capital founder commentary

The language around a developing opportunity can move faster than the work itself. An introductory discussion becomes a “partnership”; a draft becomes an “agreement.” In a hypothetical Bahamas project example, I would keep the stage description close to the evidence. No completed transaction or actual Bahamas undertaking is asserted here.

Imagine that two parties have exchanged a concept note and agreed to speak again. That may be useful progress. The accurate update describes the exchange and the planned conversation. It should not create the impression that commercial terms, responsibilities or funding have already been settled when they remain open.

Technical and commercial milestones also need separate descriptions. Preparing a presentation, building a prototype and completing a document review are different activities. A milestone should say what changed and what still needs to happen. A broad phrase such as “the project is ready” can obscure the very questions a reader wants answered.

I would prefer an update containing a date, a specific event and a clearly identified next step. Where a condition remains unresolved, it should stay visible. That helps colleagues avoid making plans based on an assumption that has quietly become stronger each time the story is retold.

The same discipline applies to public communication. An external reader may encounter only one sentence from a longer discussion. That sentence should carry the right stage description on its own. A qualification buried several paragraphs later may not correct the impression created by a confident headline.

A useful exercise is to write the update as a sequence of observable events. The concept note was circulated, comments were received, and a revised discussion was proposed. Each sentence should be supported by the corresponding record. This can reveal where a confident stage label has replaced a more limited event. The author does not need to make the update sound unimportant. They need to explain why the actual event matters without promoting it into a different category of achievement.

I would also test the wording against a postponed meeting. If a discussion moves to a later date, which parts of the earlier update remain accurate? A statement that the parties intend to speak can be revised straightforwardly. A statement suggesting that an arrangement is already agreed may require a much larger correction. Precise stage descriptions make ordinary changes easier to communicate because the earlier wording has not created expectations that the underlying work was never ready to support.

Internal language deserves attention before it reaches an external audience. A team may use a short label for convenience, knowing the qualifications behind it. A person outside the team does not share that background. When preparing a public update, the author should expand the label into a description that remains accurate without the private conversation. This is especially important when a sentence may be repeated in a profile, presentation or short announcement that gives a reader little surrounding context to interpret it.

The final question is what evidence would justify the next stage description. Name the document, completed activity or explicit decision that the team would need to observe. This keeps the discussion practical and prevents progress reports from depending on changes in tone alone. In the invented example, an unresolved condition remains unresolved until the relevant evidence changes. Describing that position clearly supports planning, helps colleagues manage expectations and gives future updates a consistent basis that another person can review without relying on the author's confidence.

For Dual Party Capital, the standard I want to encourage is straightforward: describe progress accurately and give uncertainty a name. In this invented Bahamas example, an honest account of an early stage offers more practical value than language that makes unfinished work sound complete.

Disclosure: This founder commentary was drafted with AI assistance. Illustrative cover photograph; it does not depict a company project or asset.