The traditional treatment of objections is as a sales skill. The seller anticipates, acknowledges, reframes and proceeds. Done well, it works often enough to keep the practice alive.
It also guarantees that the objection recurs for every buyer, forever, and that the firm never learns anything from it. An objection resolved in conversation leaves no trace. The next buyer arrives with the same doubt, meets a different seller, and gets a different answer.
Treating it as a fault report
The alternative is to log objections by stage and by frequency, and to read the top of that list as a design brief. An objection that arrives in most conversations is not a buyer problem. It is a statement that something earlier in the journey failed to establish what it needed to establish.
Some of those are answerable upstream and some are not. A doubt about price is often a doubt about scope, and scope can be made legible before the conversation. A doubt about whether this firm has done this before may be true and unanswerable, and then the honest response is to say so and to show the method instead of the record.
What it does to the conversation
When the recurring objections are resolved in the journey, the ones that reach a conversation are the specific ones: this buyer, this situation, this constraint. Those are worth a person's time. The generic ones were never a good use of the most expensive fifteen minutes in the process.
The map is kept and reviewed, because the objections move. What buyers doubted about this category two years ago is not what they doubt now, and a resolution map that has not been re-read is answering a question nobody is asking.