How to Interpret “Kentō Shimasu” After a Meeting with a Japanese Company

Why context matters

The same phrase can appear after an introduction, demo, quotation, negotiation, final review, or renewal discussion. The stage changes which process evidence is meaningful.

A senior title does not turn tentative wording into approval. A person without final authority may still provide useful information about dates, owners, and procedures.

A specific request for evaluation material can be meaningful process evidence, while a generic brochure request may be routine information collection. Neither proves approval.

Questions about budget and timing can show evaluation activity, but they may also reveal a reason the proposal cannot proceed.

Observable follow-through is more useful than treating one phrase as a cultural code.

This guide does not cover: Claims about what the other party really thinks, win probabilities, pipeline forecasts, contract conclusions, and continued sales contact after an explicit refusal are outside this guide.

What to check first

1. 01

   Record the exact words and the topic immediately before and after them.

2. 02

   Identify the stage: introduction, requirements, demo, quotation, negotiation, final decision, or renewal.

3. 03

   Identify who owns the next action, whether that person has final authority, and whether another approver or department was named.

4. 04

   Record any promised reply date or approximate review window before deciding when to follow up.

5. 05

   Distinguish a specific evaluation request from a generic request for standard material.

6. 06

   Note any stated budget, timing, security, legal, resource, or priority concern without treating it as a result.

7. 07

   Compare promised actions with what actually happened; do not use reply speed alone.

8. 08

   Choose the single smallest clarification that can change your next action: response timing, the next review step, required material, the next contact date, or whether further contact should stop.

Decision framework

For every category, record three things: the observable facts, the information still missing, and the single smallest question that would change the next action. Do not assign a win probability.

Use the observable evidence below to choose the next follow-up. These categories describe the process you can see and the evidence you have; they do not reveal the other party’s private intent.

Example messages

Copy the language only after checking that its stated conditions match the real situation.

先日はお時間をいただき、ありがとうございました。

先日の〇〇のご提案について、今後の予定を調整するため、差し支えなければご回答時期の目安をお知らせいただけますでしょうか。

追加で必要な情報がございましたら、あわせてお知らせください。

〇月〇日頃にご回答予定と伺っておりましたので、状況確認のためご連絡いたしました。

現時点での見通しや、次回確認の目安をお知らせいただけますと幸いです。

先日の〇〇のご提案について、現時点でのご検討が難しい場合は、その旨だけお知らせいただければ、こちらからの追加のご連絡は控えます。

時期を改めてご連絡したほうがよい場合は、その目安もお知らせください。

Expressions to avoid—or use carefully

Cultural context without stereotypes

Start with the process the other party actually described. Some organizations use several approval steps, some smaller teams decide more quickly, and regulated industries may involve legal, security, or procurement review. These are possibilities, not evidence of what is happening in a particular company.

Use the named owner, promised date, requested materials, completed actions, and the normal communication pattern of the relationship before relying on company-size or industry labels.

Fast or slow replies are not a verdict. Compare the timing with the promised date, business calendar, usual communication cadence, and whether the promised action occurred.

When the evidence is incomplete, ask for a date, owner, required item, or next action instead of asking what the other party “really means.”