You build the case that holds both. Different hot buttons can support each other — his outcome is the worry ending, hers is the house looking finished — and one project can carry both without either being demoted. What kills the appointment isn't disagreement between the homeowners; it's a rep who sells one of them and leaves the other to veto it later.
The short answer
The probing doctrine treats the two decision makers as two motive sets from the start: never assume they want the same thing, ask the same key questions of both, and listen for disagreement with the same attention you give agreement. Disagreement discovered at the table is workable — you can address it, rank it, design around it. Disagreement discovered in the follow-up call is a cancellation with a story attached.
How it runs
The presentation is where the two motives get braided: each decision maker's desired outcome gets its own moment, in their own words, connected to the same project. Often the homeowners do the braiding themselves — one explains to the other why the outcome they care about is inside this decision, in language you could never use. Your job is to make sure both outcomes are on the table, accurately stated, before any number is. A decision both people can see themselves in is the only kind that survives the night.
Where the difference is about the project itself — scope, timing, whether to do it at all — that's not a motives problem; it's an unresolved decision, and it belongs to the framework and the closes, not to presentation emphasis.
Go deeper
Every guide on this page is a round you can run in Fight Camp — $29/month for the full camp, Round 1 free. Spar before you knock.