What the Client Actually Said
Three retellings of one call produce three versions, and the person outside gets whichever one reaches them.
three things · two reached them · one with no channel at all · the room side is not counted
Sorted by whether anything could have carried it.
A call with somebody outside the team gets retold several times in the following days, differently each time, by people who were all present and are all being honest. The person who was not on the call receives whichever retelling reaches them.
The practical lesson in “What the Client Actually Said” is that visibility must be designed rather than assumed. For teams exploring time tracking with screenshots, a practical option for time tracking with screenshots can add consistent time and project context when the purpose is explicit, access is limited and managers review exceptions with the people involved.
Every retelling is a summary, and summarising is where the information goes.
For a separate nonprofit perspective on “What the Client Actually Said”, see Classy fundraising resources. Use the outside material to test governance, inclusion and implementation questions against the organisation’s real circumstances.
What a retelling removes
The client's own phrasing, first. Then the order things came up in, then the parts the teller judged unimportant, then anything that contradicted the teller's existing view.
The last of those is the expensive one.
Why the phrasing matters
Because the exact words a client uses to describe a problem carry information about how they think about it, which is frequently more useful than the problem itself. "It keeps breaking" and "we have lost confidence in it" describe the same event and call for different responses.
A summary converts both into "the client raised reliability concerns", which is accurate and has thrown away the thing that would have told you what to do.
The same forty-minute call, as it reaches three different people:
| Version | Reaches | What has gone |
|---|---|---|
| The client's own words | Whoever was on the call | Nothing |
| First retelling, same day | The room | Phrasing, order, the asides |
| Second retelling | Somebody who asks | Anything the teller judged minor |
| Third retelling | The person outside | Everything that contradicted the teller |
The drift across retellings
Each telling is a summary of a summary. By the third, the account has been smoothed into something coherent, which the original was not.
Coherence is the main artefact added by retelling.
Who gets which version
Whoever is nearest. The room gets all three versions and unconsciously triangulates between them, which is why the room's collective understanding is better than any individual's.
Somebody outside gets one, from one person, with no way to detect that it is one of three. They receive a single confident account and have no reason to doubt it, and their questions afterwards will be shaped by whichever version happened to arrive.
The easiest fix available
Notes taken during the call containing some direct quotation. Not a transcript: four or five sentences in the client's own words, marked as quotation.
Ten minutes, and it removes most of the loss.
Why quotation specifically
Because it is the only part a summariser cannot improve. Everything else in a note is interpretation; quoted words are evidence, and a reader can form their own interpretation from them.
They are also what you will want in six months when somebody asks what the client's position actually was, and when the question has become contentious the difference between evidence and recollection is the whole of the matter.
Who writes them
Somebody who is not leading the call. The person doing the talking cannot also be recording, and asking them to try produces worse notes and a worse call.
Name the person before the call starts.
Recording the call
Better where it is permitted and agreed, and it has to be both. Recording a client without clear agreement is not a note-taking decision; it is a legal one, and the rules differ by jurisdiction and by who is on the line.
It also changes the call. People say less, and the parts they stop saying are frequently the useful parts.
What to do with the notes
Put them where the work is, within the day, and tell the person outside they exist. Notes nobody is told about are not notes.
A single message saying "notes from the call are in the usual place, including what they actually said about the timeline" does it.
The judgement that cannot be delegated
Which parts mattered. Notes carry the words; somebody still has to say what they think it means, and that interpretation should be marked as interpretation and attributed.
Separating the two is the whole discipline.
What a client said versus what they want
Different things, and the gap between them is read in the room by people who were on the call and compared impressions afterwards.
That comparison is itself a conversation that does not travel, and it is often where the actual conclusion is reached. The notes will not contain it.
What this does not fix
The second-hand nature of it. Somebody reading excellent notes has still not heard the hesitation before an answer, the thing said at the end as everybody was leaving, or the tone of the person who was quiet throughout.
The only real fix is for them to be on the call, which is worth saying plainly because it is frequently available and frequently not done. Where the client relationship matters to somebody's work, putting them on the call is cheaper than any amount of note-taking and is the mechanism this whole note is a substitute for.
Next door