The centre is the history. What has happened on this deal, in order, and what your colleagues are saying about it.
Two tabs, and they do genuinely different jobs.
Timeline
Everything that has happened, newest first.
What you log. Notes, calls, emails and meetings.
What happened elsewhere. WhatsApp messages appear inline, along with tasks, contracts and the rest of the record's activity, without anybody copying anything across.
That second part is the whole argument for the surface. In most systems the timeline is a manual log, so it reflects what somebody remembered to record. Here it is largely what actually happened.
The four you log
Note. Anything that is not one of the other three.
Call. What was said and what was agreed.
Email, where it was not sent through the platform.
Meeting.
Log from the left panel: choosing a type there drops you straight into the timeline ready to write, which is faster than scrolling and means the entry lands in the right place.
Write the note for the next person
The most useful thing on this page, and it costs nothing.
A note reading "called, went well" is worth nothing to the colleague who picks this up in March, and worth nothing to you in six weeks.
Three lines. What they wanted, what you agreed, what happens next.
That is enough for somebody else to take the deal over cold, which is the actual test. A pipeline where only the owner understands each deal is a pipeline that stops when somebody leaves.
Write it immediately. The version you write tomorrow is shorter and less accurate, and the version you write at the end of the week does not get written.
What not to log
Do not log what the system already has. WhatsApp, the emails you sent from here, the tasks, the contracts: all of it appears without your help. Duplicating it makes the timeline harder to read.
Do not log activity for the sake of it. A timeline padded with "sent follow-up" entries nobody acted on obscures the three entries that matter.
Filtering the feed
A long-running deal accumulates a lot, and the feed can be narrowed to one kind of activity.
Use it to answer a specific question, not as a way of working. "When did we last actually speak to them" is calls only; "what did we send" is emails. The unfiltered feed is the one that tells you the story, because the gaps between different kinds of activity are usually the point.
Discussions
The second tab, and it is a different thing entirely.
Timeline is a record of the deal. Discussions is your colleagues talking about it, internally, on the record itself.
The customer never sees it.
Use it for the things that do not belong in a note: whether to discount, who should join the call, what you think is really going on. The conversation stays attached to the deal rather than disappearing into a chat channel, so the reasoning is still there when somebody asks in six months why the price moved.
Which of the two to use
Easy test.
Would this matter to somebody taking the deal over? Timeline.
Are you asking a colleague something? Discussions.
The failure is putting internal debate in the timeline, where it reads as fact and clutters the history, or putting decisions in Discussions, where the next owner will not find them.
WhatsApp appears here
Messages on the deal's WhatsApp conversation show inline, in the timeline, rather than living only in the inbox.
That is worth knowing for one practical reason: you do not need to log them, and you should not. A note summarising a WhatsApp exchange that is already visible directly above it is duplication that makes the record harder to read.
What is worth logging is the decision that came out of it, if there was one.
Reading a timeline you did not write
The thing you will do most often, and there is a faster way than reading it top to bottom.
Start at the oldest entry, not the newest. Deals make sense forwards. Reading backwards from the most recent gives you the current state with none of the reasoning.
Look for the gap. The longest silence in the timeline usually explains the deal better than any single entry. Six weeks of nothing followed by a price question is a specific story.
Check the last entry's date before anything else. A deal whose last activity was two months ago is not the stage it claims to be.
Making the timeline searchable later
Small habit, large payoff on a long deal.
Put the specifics in the note. Names, numbers, dates, the exact objection. "Discussed pricing" is not findable; "Priya pushed back on the 12-month term, wants 6" is.
Six months on, the person looking for why the term changed will find it in one search rather than reading forty entries.
Colour means state, not urgency
Activity types are tinted so the feed is scannable, and the tints are deliberately calm.
A meeting is not an alarm. It is not tinted as one. Strong colour is reserved for genuine problems, which is why a busy timeline still reads as a list rather than as a warning board.
Handover, in practice
The real test of a timeline is somebody taking the deal over without speaking to you.
Before you go on leave, add one note stating where it stands and what happens next. It takes ninety seconds and it is the difference between a covered deal and a paused one.
When you inherit a deal, read the timeline forwards, then add your own note saying you have picked it up. It marks the handover in the record rather than in somebody's memory.
Two habits
Log before you leave the record. Not at the end of the day.
Read the timeline before any customer conversation. Ninety seconds, and it is the difference between continuing a relationship and starting one again.
Did this answer your question?
No, ask a person