Mean 0.940 · 29/40 perfect tests · $3.67 total · modalities in: text, image, file · out: text · each card: the prompt → the correct answer (gold) → this model's actual answer
Modalities in means what you can send this model: text, images, files, video, or audio. Modalities out means what it can send back. Bench tasks feed text extracts, so modalities do not change the score. They are here so you know what this model can handle in real work.
Definitions - DS2+: current stage DS2, DS3, DS4, or DS5. - Why-buys non-compliant: blank, under 15 characters, or a placeholder. `LONG(n)` is compliant. - Missing DS1: `t_ds1` is blank. - Regressed: an earlier-stage timestamp is later than a populated later-stage timestamp. Results - Overall why-buys non-compliance: 101 / 124 = 81.5% - By owner: - Bryce Harmon: 15 / 18 = 83.3% - Dana Mercer: 18 / 22 = 81.8% - Alex Franklin: 48 / 61 = 78.7% - Cole Ingram: 19 / 22 = 86.4% - Farid Osman: 1 / 1 = 100.0% - Elena Sinclair: 0 DS2+ deals; percentage not applicable - Deals with no DS1 timestamp: 0 - Deals that regressed: 0 Process fixes 1. Block advancement into DS2+ unless why-buys contains at least 15 non-placeholder characters. 2. Automatically stamp immutable stage-entry dates on every stage transition. 3. Add a weekly owner-level exception report for missing/invalid why-buys and out-of-order timestamps.
Deals resolved: 156 Deals with unmatched owner IDs: None Deal owner IDs mapped to archived/deactivated owners: None - Gavin Porter (1520255671) and Hugo Lindqvist (77260721) are archived but own no listed open deals. Total pipeline by resolved owner: - Bryce Harmon (119337721), 35 deals: $24,000 + $19,656 + $13,500 + $7,000 + $2,520 + $240,000 + $99,000 + $72,000 + $70,000 + $63,600 + $45,000 + $1 + $21,000 + $23,400 + $13,680 + $5,502 + $8,160 + $1 + $11,400 + $1 + $36,000 + $31,500 + $6,000 + $10,800 + $30,275 + $17,400 + $12,600 + $18,000 + $37,440 + $18,828 + $2,880 + $36,000 + $20,880 + $10,920 + $25,200 = $1,054,144 - Alex Franklin (84342457), 67 deals: $14,850 + $13,770 + $11,200 + $9,000 + $6,360 + $5,400 + $3,240 + $2,484 + $1,920 + $1,080 + $7,200 + $19,000 + $2,880 + $1,400 + $4,800 + $1,632 + $10,000 + $9,300 + $2,700 + $2,160 + $1,800 + $3,600 + $3,840 + $15,000 + $1,968 + $4,000 + $3,600 + $4,800 + $3,120 + $2,520 + $9,000 + $2,400 + $62,000 + $5,400 + $5,100 + $16,700 + $4,400 + $1,620 + $2,600 + $7,200 + $18,000 + $17,000 + $8,316 + $8,100 + $18,000 + $12,600 + $24,000 + $15,000 + $9,000 + $7,200 + $3,780 + $16,200 + $7,200 + $4,680 + $1,800 + $18,000 + $2,730 + $2,400 + $3,060 + $18,000 + $12,000 + $1,800 + $4,400 + $31,200 + $7,200 + $1,600 + $60,000 = $624,310 - Dana Mercer (83155923), 24 deals: $11,250 + $10,500 + $9,000 + $9,000 + $5,400 + $4,800 + $4,600 + $1,920 + $15,000 + $4,200 + $18,900 + $27,000 + $43,875 + $20,000 + $60,000 + $8,100 + $16,250 + $3,150 + $5,000 + $2,100 + $23,400 + $5,400 + $7,350 + $25,000 = $341,195 - Cole Ingram (83155924), 22 deals: $2,760 + $1,330 + $7,225.40 + $3,360 + $5,616 + $2,700 + $7,781.20 + $6,947.50 + $40,000 + $12,168 + $2,480.40 + $11,116 + $11,193 + $1,875 + $31,750 + $32,175 + $4,779.88 + $3,334.80 + $58,529.25 + $4,140 + $18,000 + $18,900 = $288,161.43 - Farid Osman (716654662), 7 deals: $1,249 + $1 + $1 + $1 + $2,880 + $1 + $1 = $4,134 - Elena Sinclair (701163055), 1 deal: $2,100 = $2,100
(a) Orphans: 30 of 67 Gong rows. Arithmetic: 67 total Gong rows − 37 rows matched to `deals_open` = 30 orphan rows. Sample orphan aliases: - Deal-8FA85D - Deal-8FC3F9 - Deal-3B7945 - Deal-42B265 - Deal-9CCC42 (b) Duplicate conversation keys: 0 rows. Every row has `calls_90d = distinct_conversation_keys`; therefore, no duplicate conversation keys are indicated. (c) DS3-or-later call coverage: 25 of 85 open deals. Arithmetic: 25 ÷ 85 = 0.2941 = 29.4%.
```sql
SELECT
'Cannot produce the requested per-company query from this catalog: no recognition/giving event table or giver identifier is provided, and PRODUCTION.PLG.COMPANY_COHORT_SUMMARY does not document a company identifier. M1_USERS is not documented as unique givers, and M1_GIVES cannot support a distinct-giver calculation. The redemption source documents only STATE, but no company key or event date needed to assign successful redemptions to the first calendar month as a customer.' AS MISSING_DATA;
```
CRM COMPLETENESS
Deals
- No deals extract was provided.
- Owner, stage, amount, close date, and why-buys completeness cannot be calculated.
- Pipeline amount at stake cannot be calculated or attributed to fixes.
Companies — 34 records
- Industry: 34 / 34 = 100.00%
- Employee count: 25 / 34 = 73.53%
- HQ country: 28 / 34 = 82.35%
Contacts — 52 records
- Email populated: 52 / 52 = 100.00%
- Email syntactically valid: 48 / 52 = 92.31%
- Title: 39 / 52 = 75.00%
- Persona: 37 / 52 = 71.15%
MISSING COMPANY FIELDS AND ENRICHMENT FIXES
Safe fills supported by matching enrichment rows:
- C-EC3025: employee_count blank → 400
- C-96039F: employee_count blank → 400
- C-44EA29: employee_count blank → 400
- C-D04904: employee_count blank → 400
- C-B23205: employee_count blank → 400
- C-60C75F: employee_count blank → 400
- C-7BBDFA: employee_count blank → 400
- C-50D386: employee_count blank → 400
After these fills:
- Employee count: (25 + 8) / 34 = 33 / 34 = 97.06%
Missing fields that cannot be filled from the enrichment export:
- C-93C8BF: employee_count missing; no matching enrichment row
- C-2D1F1B: hq_country missing; matching enrichment value also blank
- C-D73B89: hq_country missing; matching enrichment value also blank
- C-44EA29: hq_country missing; matching enrichment value also blank
- C-D04904: hq_country missing; matching enrichment value also blank
- C-2C60E5: hq_country missing; matching enrichment value also blank
- C-EE9FFB: hq_country missing; no matching enrichment row
No industry values are missing.
CRM–ENRICHMENT DISAGREEMENTS
Recommendation: use enrichment for industry taxonomy and country standardization because its values are more consistently formatted. Preserve the previous CRM value in audit history. The data does not establish which source is factually authoritative.
- C-66D1FC
- industry: CRM “tech”; enrichment “Computer Software” → recommend enrichment
- hq_country: CRM “US”; enrichment “United States” → recommend enrichment as standardized form
- C-950043
- hq_country: CRM “US”; enrichment “United States” → recommend enrichment as standardized form
- C-EC3025
- industry: CRM “Technology”; enrichment “Computer Software” → recommend enrichment
- hq_country: CRM “USA”; enrichment “United States” → recommend enrichment as standardized form
- C-96039F
- hq_country: CRM “USA”; enrichment “United States” → recommend enrichment as standardized form
- C-44EA29
- industry: CRM “tech”; enrichment “Computer Software” → recommend enrichment
- C-92D97D
- industry: CRM “Technology”; enrichment “Computer Software” → recommend enrichment
- C-D04904
- industry: CRM “Technology”; enrichment “Computer Software” → recommend enrichment
- C-77A95A
- industry: CRM “Technology”; enrichment “Computer Software” → recommend enrichment
- hq_country: CRM “US”; enrichment “United States” → recommend enrichment as standardized form
- C-AA8DDA
- industry: CRM “Technology”; enrichment “Computer Software” → recommend enrichment
- C-B23205
- hq_country: CRM “US”; enrichment “United States” → recommend enrichment as standardized form
- C-E51FB7
- hq_country: CRM “USA”; enrichment “United States” → recommend enrichment as standardized form
- C-D0662E
- hq_country: CRM “US”; enrichment “United States” → recommend enrichment as standardized form
- C-B25F40
- industry: CRM “Technology”; enrichment “Computer Software” → recommend enrichment
- C-60C75F
- industry: CRM “tech”; enrichment “Computer Software” → recommend enrichment
- C-425E2A
- industry: CRM “Tech ”; enrichment “Computer Software” → recommend enrichment
- hq_country: CRM “USA”; enrichment “United States” → recommend enrichment as standardized form
- C-2D7423
- hq_country: CRM “USA”; enrichment “United States” → recommend enrichment as standardized form
DUPLICATE COMPANY CLUSTERS
Company names were not provided, so name-variant matching cannot be performed. Shared-domain matching identifies two clusters.
1. acme-corp.com
- Records: C-0A092931, C-0A092932
- Survivor: C-0A092931, using the lowest alias as a deterministic tie-break
- Conflict requiring review:
- industry: C-0A092931 = “Technology”; C-0A092932 = “tech”
- employee_count: C-0A092931 = 500; C-0A092932 = 510
- hq_country: C-0A092931 = “US”; C-0A092932 = “USA”
- Fix: merge records, preserve both source values in audit history, and do not choose between 500 and 510 without another source.
2. globex.io
- Records: C-0A092933, C-0A092934
- Survivor: C-0A092933, using the lowest alias as a deterministic tie-break
- Conflict requiring review:
- industry: C-0A092933 = “SaaS”; C-0A092934 = “Technology”
- Matching values:
- employee_count = 200
- hq_country = “US”
- Fix: merge records and retain the conflicting industry values for review.
INVALID EMAILS
- CT-0010: “user0@”
- CT-0080: “user0@”
- CT-0081: “user1@”
- CT-0192: “user2@”
Fix: replace only from a verified source or clear the invalid value and queue it for enrichment. No replacement email was provided.
DOMAIN MISMATCHES
- CT-0011: email domain “other-domain.com” does not match contact/company domain “66d1fc.com”
Fix: verify company affiliation or correct the email from a trusted source. The provided data does not establish which value is correct.
MISSING CONTACT FIELDS
Missing title — 13:
- CT-0000
- CT-0022
- CT-0072
- CT-0080
- CT-0081
- CT-0092
- CT-0120
- CT-0121
- CT-0122
- CT-0132
- CT-0141
- CT-0162
- CT-0170
Missing persona — 15:
- CT-0000
- CT-0022
- CT-0041
- CT-0060
- CT-0070
- CT-0081
- CT-0082
- CT-0092
- CT-0110
- CT-0132
- CT-0162
- CT-0171
- CT-0172
- CT-0180
- CT-0181
Fix: enrich or manually research these fields; no source values were provided, so none can be safely filled.
TOP 10 FIXES BY PIPELINE AMOUNT AT STAKE
Cannot be produced: the deals extract—including deal aliases, company associations, amounts, owners, stages, close dates, and why-buys—was not provided. Therefore, no fix can be ranked by pipeline amount without inventing data.
Classifications Pricing — 5 - Deal-7ED004 — buyer - Deal-7B2236 — buyer - Deal-C33D91 — buyer - Deal-DAFB82 — buyer - Deal-8A119B — buyer Competitor — 22 - Deal-F7F635 — unknown - Deal-381C8C — unknown - Deal-F1E8A6 — unknown - Deal-DDAB52 — Bonusly - Deal-ACE061 — unknown - Deal-2D2F8D — unknown - Deal-0F96AA — unknown - Deal-1BCA50 — unknown - Deal-7CC678 — unknown - Deal-A2C349 — buyer - Deal-C7156E — unknown - Deal-8A0992 — buyer - Deal-D0C698 — buyer - Deal-EECC02 — unknown - Deal-5AD03E — unknown - Deal-47F1A1 — buyer - Deal-BF2A98 — buyer - Deal-1E7DA9 — unknown - Deal-286F9C — Bonusly - Deal-369281 — buyer - Deal-9FCD0D — buyer - Deal-64B19A — buyer No decision — 32 - Deal-AC944F — unknown - Deal-214060 — unknown - Deal-13E9CF — buyer - Deal-21B045 — unknown - Deal-ED9AE7 — buyer - Deal-988493 — unknown - Deal-F308CA — unknown - Deal-70F704 — unknown - Deal-4664E1 — unknown - Deal-E74A73 — buyer - Deal-D48E0B — unknown - Deal-583ADB — unknown - Deal-8E27DA — buyer - Deal-E0441F — unknown - Deal-7CB44D — unknown - Deal-FAC17C — buyer - Deal-50E5D8 — buyer - Deal-AFA56C — unknown - Deal-413C56 — buyer - Deal-2A292B — buyer - Deal-D1AABF — unknown - Deal-2BBA21 — unknown - Deal-7FBAC6 — buyer - Deal-386F6E — unknown - Deal-3F86A0 — unknown - Deal-096750 — unknown - Deal-F325A5 — buyer - Deal-79E61A — unknown - Deal-AE7C4E — unknown - Deal-DAB4F1 — unknown - Deal-B4B50F — unknown - Deal-5885B9 — unknown Timing — 22 - Deal-DB0AAC — buyer - Deal-91A056 — buyer - Deal-29326C — unknown - Deal-831B7B — buyer - Deal-39E25C — buyer - Deal-B3ABED — buyer - Deal-B6AC09 — buyer - Deal-E6E80A — buyer - Deal-B038F0 — buyer - Deal-175756 — buyer - Deal-BB78F3 — buyer - Deal-15DA99 — buyer - Deal-F4AF5D — buyer - Deal-79B7A1 — unknown - Deal-9F176A — buyer - Deal-5E64CE — buyer - Deal-69CF3D — unknown - Deal-ECBF89 — unknown - Deal-D1A623 — unknown - Deal-FEDBCB — buyer - Deal-55867E — unknown - Deal-2FEDDB — buyer Product gap — 7 - Deal-F97C37 — Bonusly - Deal-422BA6 — Bonusly - Deal-242273 — Bonusly - Deal-9048EB — Bonusly - Deal-3618CC — Bonusly - Deal-981AD4 — Bonusly - Deal-DC77FE — Bonusly Champion left — 0 Other — 2 - Deal-5DB9B0 — buyer - Deal-ABD14C — buyer Category-count arithmetic 5 pricing + 22 competitor + 32 no decision + 22 timing + 7 product gap + 0 champion left + 2 other = 90 deals Side split - Buyer: 41 - Bonusly: 9 - Unknown: 40 41 + 9 + 40 = 90 deals Clear tag/free-text disagreements — 3 - Deal-8E27DA: tag says “Feature Request”; text says the buyer chose only a swag provider and did not want R&R currently → no decision. - Deal-9048EB: tag says “MIA”; text explicitly reports a bad fit and multiple feature gaps → product gap. - Deal-3618CC: tag says “Lost DM”; text says “Wanted Surveys” → product gap. Two patterns most worth acting on 1. No decision and timing dominate: 32 + 22 = 54 of 90 deals. The recurring evidence is inactivity, deprioritization, pauses, and future reconnect dates. The actionable focus is stronger priority/timeline qualification and a structured re-engagement motion for explicitly deferred deals. 2. Competitive and product-related losses total 22 + 7 = 29 deals. All 7 explicit product-gap losses are assigned to Bonusly, involving broader offerings, integrations, points functionality, surveys, UI/UK fit, or customization. The actionable focus is product-gap prioritization plus competitive enablement tied to those documented differentiators.
{"tier_counts":{"LOCK":3,"ACTION":11,"BUILD":37,"REVIVE":18,"WATCH":50,"RISKY":36},"tier_examples":{"LOCK":["Deal-D348E1","Deal-C26D20","Deal-403845"],"ACTION":["Deal-25F752","Deal-944310","Deal-3974EB"],"BUILD":["Deal-D73B89","Deal-523604","Deal-CA7DC0"],"REVIVE":["Deal-2D1F1B","Deal-66D1FC","Deal-950043"],"WATCH":["Deal-6787C2","Deal-C9C286","Deal-332637"],"RISKY":["Deal-E53952","Deal-5408B0","Deal-9AAE5F"]},"risky_deals":["Deal-E53952","Deal-5408B0","Deal-9AAE5F","Deal-C61CF7","Deal-62D607","Deal-C6D97A","Deal-7B3B0F","Deal-F9A08A","Deal-0660B4","Deal-BA571A","Deal-FC22A3","Deal-7BBDFA","Deal-60C2C2","Deal-4A13AD","Deal-8AD4A5","Deal-15D24F","Deal-9D0060","Deal-690476","Deal-635B8E","Deal-ED725A","Deal-55164C","Deal-3BA5EA","Deal-5FDCE4","Deal-F336B6","Deal-5EED42","Deal-BA3DDC","Deal-7599B8","Deal-F9A3C1","Deal-FA32A0","Deal-547B2B","Deal-B7EBD1","Deal-A2B47C","Deal-2465CE","Deal-A5E80A","Deal-FD9F4E","Deal-499BF6"],"lock_violations":0,"pipeline_shape":"The pipeline is forecast-fragile: 3 LOCK + 11 ACTION + 37 BUILD = 51 actively supported deals, while 18 REVIVE + 50 WATCH = 68 need reactivation or monitoring; 36 RISKY deals have forecast categories unsupported by stage and/or meeting evidence. Arithmetic: 3 + 11 + 37 + 18 + 50 + 36 = 155 total deals."}
[
{
"transcript_id": "TX-001",
"deal_alias": "Deal-CFE7F4",
"why_buys": [
"Automating anniversary and birthday awards",
"The HR team of three cannot keep up with the process manually"
],
"pain_points": [
"Awards are tracked in a spreadsheet",
"People slip through the cracks"
],
"stakeholders": [
"Prospect (VP People)",
"Prospect (HR Admin)"
],
"budget_signal": "About $40k earmarked for engagement tools this fiscal year",
"timeline_signal": "Ideally live before open enrollment in November",
"competitor_mentioned": "Achievers",
"next_step": "Security review on September 12",
"objections": [
"Achievers was too heavy for a team of their size",
"SSO and audit logs are required for IT sign-off"
],
"confidence": "high"
},
{
"transcript_id": "TX-002",
"deal_alias": "Deal-70BB30",
"why_buys": [
"Tie recognition to retention for the hourly workforce"
],
"pain_points": [
"Regretted turnover among the hourly workforce is over 30%"
],
"stakeholders": [
"Prospect (Head of Total Rewards)",
"Prospect (CFO)"
],
"budget_signal": "$25k pilot budget approved for this quarter",
"timeline_signal": "Decision by end of September",
"competitor_mentioned": null,
"next_step": "Send the pilot agreement; the prospect will route it to legal this week",
"objections": [
"Integration with Workday has to be rock solid"
],
"confidence": "high"
},
{
"transcript_id": "TX-003",
"deal_alias": "Deal-530B50",
"why_buys": [
"Make recognition visible across 12 retail locations"
],
"pain_points": [
"Store managers have zero budget autonomy for on-the-spot recognition"
],
"stakeholders": [
"Prospect (People Ops Manager)"
],
"budget_signal": null,
"timeline_signal": "No rush until Q1",
"competitor_mentioned": "Bucketlist",
"next_step": "Schedule a call with the CEO; the prospect will send two times",
"objections": [
"The CEO has to be sold first and decides anything people-related"
],
"confidence": "high"
},
{
"transcript_id": "TX-004",
"deal_alias": "Deal-180D02",
"why_buys": [
"Consolidate three separate recognition tools into one"
],
"pain_points": [
"The company is paying for three tools",
"None of the three tools communicate with the HRIS"
],
"stakeholders": [
"Prospect (VP People)",
"Prospect (IT Security Lead)"
],
"budget_signal": "The VP People can approve an annual price under $15k without going to the board",
"timeline_signal": "Procurement takes a minimum of six to eight weeks",
"competitor_mentioned": null,
"next_step": null,
"objections": [
"The security review took three months for the last vendor",
"A CFO follow-up was not confirmed"
],
"confidence": "high"
},
{
"transcript_id": "TX-005",
"deal_alias": "Deal-F8767A",
"why_buys": [
"Automate service milestones",
"Provide analytics on recognition equity across departments"
],
"pain_points": [
"Night-shift teams feel invisible",
"Night-shift engagement scores are 20 points lower"
],
"stakeholders": [
"Prospect (HR Director)",
"Prospect (People Ops Coordinator)"
],
"budget_signal": "$12k approved under the engagement line",
"timeline_signal": "Running before the January all-hands",
"competitor_mentioned": "Nectar",
"next_step": "Present to the exec team on October 2",
"objections": [
"The company is mid-pilot with Nectar, and the proposed experience would need to beat it",
"The exec team is skeptical after a failed rollout two years ago"
],
"confidence": "high"
},
{
"transcript_id": "TX-006",
"deal_alias": "Deal-EE195F",
"why_buys": [
"Cut the administrative time spent on service awards"
],
"pain_points": [
"The HR Manager spends five hours per month ordering and shipping plaques"
],
"stakeholders": [
"Prospect (HR Manager)"
],
"budget_signal": "Budget is not the issue; time is",
"timeline_signal": "The fiscal year resets in February, making a Q1 start realistic",
"competitor_mentioned": null,
"next_step": "Send the one-page overview; the prospect will forward it to the COO this week",
"objections": [
"The COO usually prefers building things in-house",
"The prospect is comparing the product against continuing to handle the process internally"
],
"confidence": "high"
}
]
1. Deal-547B2B — $11,200 Why close: DS5/COMMIT; redlines are clean, signing page is out, and VP People said they are signing tomorrow. What is left: Signature. 2. Deal-403845 — $9,000 Why close: DS5/COMMIT; Slack says the order form is already with the finance team. What is left: Finance approval and signature. No more specific steps are provided. 3. Deal-A2B47C — $6,360 Why close: DS5/COMMIT; Slack confirms it is still warm and moving at a normal legal-review pace. What is left: Complete legal review, then signature. No timing is provided. Combined amount: $11,200 + $9,000 + $6,360 = $26,560.
Candidate assessment 1. Deal-EC3025 — Amount: not provided Prospect: “We need SCIM user provisioning — our security team will not approve any tool that requires manual account management.” Classification: Real gap Basis: Product docs state that SCIM user provisioning is not currently listed as supported. 2. Deal-D0D6B5 — Amount: not provided Prospect: “Our payroll runs on ADP Workforce Now and I don't see ADP anywhere in your integration list — that's a dealbreaker for us.” Classification: Real gap Basis: Product docs state that ADP Workforce Now integrations are not currently listed as supported. 3. Deal-CFE7F4 — Amount: not provided Prospect: “I tried to build a custom report combining recognition frequency with turnover and couldn't — is that possible on our current plan?” Classification: Plan gate Basis: The custom report builder exists, but only on the Enterprise tier. 4. Deal-84DBA6 — Amount: not provided Prospect: “We turned on the Slack integration in July, but half our managers still haven't given a single recognition — nobody ever trained them on it.” Classification: Rollout/enablement issue Basis: Slack integration is supported on all plans; the stated problem is lack of manager training. Excluded: Deal-36C33F. The mobile-app limitation was raised by Alex Franklin, not the prospect, so it does not count as prospect voice. Summary: true product gaps - Deal-EC3025 — SCIM user provisioning — Amount: not provided - Deal-D0D6B5 — ADP Workforce Now integration — Amount: not provided Arithmetic: 2 real gaps = 4 prospect-raised candidates − 1 plan gate − 1 rollout/enablement issue. Total associated amount cannot be calculated because no deal amounts were provided.
Bryce Harmon - Deal-2D1F1B | Bryce Harmon | DS1 | $240,000 | 81 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-06-16) - Deal-66D1FC | Bryce Harmon | DS1 | $99,000 | 16 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-20) - Deal-950043 | Bryce Harmon | DS1 | $70,000 | 19 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-17) - Deal-B23205 | Bryce Harmon | DS1 | $45,000 | 16 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-20) - Deal-7BBDFA | Bryce Harmon | DS3 | $37,440 | 46 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-07-21) - Deal-332637 | Bryce Harmon | DS2 | $36,000 | 9 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-27) - Deal-1BEEBF | Bryce Harmon | DS1 | $31,500 | 19 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-17) - Deal-A414F6 | Bryce Harmon | DS1 | $25,200 | 19 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-17) - Deal-C5658B | Bryce Harmon | DS1 | $23,400 | 16 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-20) - Deal-40522D | Bryce Harmon | DS3 | $21,000 | 19 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-17) - Deal-C1FA6D | Bryce Harmon | DS1 | $18,000 | 16 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-20) - Deal-01E193 | Bryce Harmon | DS1 | $12,600 | 8 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-28) - Deal-F0EBBB | Bryce Harmon | DS3 | $11,400 | 24 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-12) - Deal-927338 | Bryce Harmon | DS1 | $10,920 | 18 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-18) - Deal-E25A09 | Bryce Harmon | DS1 | $6,000 | 9 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-27) - Deal-C9C286 | Bryce Harmon | DS2 | $5,502 | 9 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-27) - Deal-3795AD | Bryce Harmon | DS2 | $1 | 8 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-28) - Deal-012CB1 | Bryce Harmon | DS1 | $1 | 23 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-13) Subtotal: 18 stale deals; Σ amounts = $692,964. Dana Mercer - Deal-44EA29 | Dana Mercer | DS2 | $60,000 | 10 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-26) - Deal-E51FB7 | Dana Mercer | DS2 | $43,875 | 12 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-24) - Deal-B42F46 | Dana Mercer | DS1 | $27,000 | 19 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-17) - Deal-BA3DDC | Dana Mercer | DS3 | $23,400 | 15 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-21) - Deal-9DDE86 | Dana Mercer | DS2 | $20,000 | 15 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-21) - Deal-215CCA | Dana Mercer | DS3 | $18,900 | 17 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-19) - Deal-57887A | Dana Mercer | DS2 | $15,000 | 8 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-28) - Deal-944310 | Dana Mercer | DS4 | $10,500 | 33 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-03) - Deal-B7EBD1 | Dana Mercer | DS5 | $9,000 | 16 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-20) - Deal-3974EB | Dana Mercer | DS4 | $9,000 | 8 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-28) - Deal-F40F04 | Dana Mercer | DS2 | $8,100 | 15 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-21) - Deal-7599B8 | Dana Mercer | DS3 | $7,350 | 18 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-18) - Deal-87DDD1 | Dana Mercer | DS1 | $5,000 | 19 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-17) - Deal-F336B6 | Dana Mercer | DS3 | $4,200 | 15 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-21) - Deal-0660B4 | Dana Mercer | DS4 | $1,920 | 16 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-20) Subtotal: 15 stale deals; Σ amounts = $263,245. Alex Franklin - Deal-CC08D1 | Alex Franklin | DS1 | $24,000 | 16 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-20) - Deal-E73427 | Alex Franklin | DS3 | $18,000 | 10 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-26) - Deal-885F45 | Alex Franklin | DS2 | $9,300 | 12 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-24) - Deal-C2FF3C | Alex Franklin | DS1 | $8,316 | 10 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-26) - Deal-3EED2C | Alex Franklin | DS2 | $7,200 | days unavailable—no engagements-table row - Deal-0D2F7A | Alex Franklin | DS3 | $5,100 | 12 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-24) - Deal-6C60D4 | Alex Franklin | DS3 | $4,800 | 12 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-24) - Deal-13FEBD | Alex Franklin | DS2 | $4,680 | 12 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-24) - Deal-819506 | Alex Franklin | DS1 | $4,400 | 8 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-28) - Deal-9D0060 | Alex Franklin | DS3 | $3,840 | 12 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-24) - Deal-690476 | Alex Franklin | DS2 | $3,600 | 18 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-18) - Deal-C6D97A | Alex Franklin | DS4 | $3,240 | 8 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-28) - Deal-EE195F | Alex Franklin | DS3 | $3,120 | 8 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-28) - Deal-635B8E | Alex Franklin | DS3 | $2,600 | 18 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-18) - Deal-6883F3 | Alex Franklin | DS1 | $2,400 | 16 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-20) - Deal-4A13AD | Alex Franklin | DS3 | $2,160 | 26 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-10) - Deal-F67D31 | Alex Franklin | DS2 | $1,800 | 8 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-28) - Deal-5FDCE4 | Alex Franklin | DS3 | $1,600 | 12 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-24) - Deal-BA571A | Alex Franklin | DS4 | $1,080 | 18 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-18) Subtotal: 19 stale deals; Σ amounts = $111,236. Cole Ingram - Deal-D04904 | Cole Ingram | DS2 | $58,529.25 | 11 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-25) - Deal-B25F40 | Cole Ingram | DS3 | $40,000 | 8 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-28) - Deal-813836 | Cole Ingram | DS2 | $32,175 | 11 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-25) - Deal-1BA595 | Cole Ingram | DS2 | $31,750 | 11 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-25) - Deal-CFE1E8 | Cole Ingram | DS3 | $18,000 | 11 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-25) - Deal-627646 | Cole Ingram | DS3 | $11,193 | 11 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-25) - Deal-FF809F | Cole Ingram | DS2 | $7,781.20 | 11 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-25) - Deal-AF932D | Cole Ingram | DS2 | $7,225.40 | 11 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-25) - Deal-A71728 | Cole Ingram | DS2 | $6,947.50 | 11 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-25) - Deal-8BC9F5 | Cole Ingram | DS2 | $5,616 | 10 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-26) - Deal-175395 | Cole Ingram | DS3 | $4,779.88 | 11 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-25) - Deal-481E24 | Cole Ingram | DS3 | $4,140 | 10 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-26) - Deal-C7F9BF | Cole Ingram | DS2 | $3,360 | 11 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-25) - Deal-342E96 | Cole Ingram | DS2 | $2,700 | 24 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-12) - Deal-E568D5 | Cole Ingram | DS3 | $1,875 | 11 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-25) - Deal-FD9F4E | Cole Ingram | DS5 | $1,330 | 10 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-26) Subtotal: 16 stale deals; Σ amounts = $237,402.23. Farid Osman - Deal-8BA24E | Farid Osman | DS1 | $2,880 | 8 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-28) - Deal-8FDCD2 | Farid Osman | DS1 | $1 | 15 days (2026-09-05 − 2026-08-21) Subtotal: 2 stale deals; $2,880 + $1 = $2,881. Elena Sinclair - Deal-57FF13 | Elena Sinclair | DS1 | $2,100 | days unavailable—no engagements-table row Subtotal: 1 stale deal; Σ amounts = $2,100.
30-day window: 2026-08-06 through 2026-09-05, inclusive. | Efficiency rank | Rep | Emails | Calls | Meetings | Total activities | Activity mix (email/call/meeting) | DS2 entries | Activities per DS2 | |---:|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---|---:|---:| | 1 | Alex Franklin | 307 | 36 | 41 | 307 + 36 + 41 = 384 | 79.9% / 9.4% / 10.7% | 17 | 384 ÷ 17 = 22.59 | | 2 | Bryce Harmon | 162 | 0 | 43 | 162 + 0 + 43 = 205 | 79.0% / 0.0% / 21.0% | 4 | 205 ÷ 4 = 51.25 | | 3 | Cole Ingram | 96 | 14 | 1 | 96 + 14 + 1 = 111 | 86.5% / 12.6% / 0.9% | 2 | 111 ÷ 2 = 55.50 | | 4 | Farid Osman | 38 | 0 | 34 | 38 + 0 + 34 = 72 | 52.8% / 0.0% / 47.2% | 1 | 72 ÷ 1 = 72.00 | | 5 | Dana Mercer | 84 | 18 | 11 | 84 + 18 + 11 = 113 | 74.3% / 15.9% / 9.7% | 1 | 113 ÷ 1 = 113.00 | | Unranked | Elena Sinclair | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 + 0 + 0 = 0 | Undefined: no activities | 0 | Undefined: no DS2 entries | Qualifying DS2 entries: - Alex Franklin: Deal-403845, Deal-1FC049, Deal-3EED2C, Deal-7FA0C3, Deal-E531A6, Deal-5296C9, Deal-EE195F, Deal-F436DA, Deal-317E6F, Deal-D1E6C2, Deal-D9A72E, Deal-CA5E44, Deal-4F775F, Deal-898FC5, Deal-46988D, Deal-E73427, Deal-92D97D - Bryce Harmon: Deal-25F752, Deal-D73B89, Deal-CA7DC0, Deal-1CCE5C - Cole Ingram: Deal-42326B, Deal-1BA595 - Farid Osman: Deal-499BF6 - Dana Mercer: Deal-57887A - Elena Sinclair: none Most efficient rep: Alex Franklin, at 22.59 activities per DS2 entry. Highest-volume rep: Alex Franklin, with 384 activities. They do not differ.
Alex Franklin — QTD Scorecard as of 2026-09-05 Bookings vs. quota - Q3 bookings: $150,000 - Q3 quota: $200,000 - Attainment: $150,000 ÷ $200,000 = 75.0% - Remaining to quota: $200,000 − $150,000 = $50,000 - Wins: 8 Q3 closed-won deals: Deal-A1C3E5, Deal-F2C7D8, Deal-B7D2F4, Deal-C9E1A6, Deal-A8B4D6, Deal-D4B8C2, Deal-E6F3A9, Deal-C5D9E2. Deal-B3E6F1 ($24,000; closed 2026-06-20) is excluded because it closed before Q3. New vs. expansion - New: 5 wins totaling $113,500 - $40,000 + $35,000 + $21,000 + $11,000 + $6,500 = $113,500 - $113,500 ÷ $150,000 = 75.7% of bookings - Expansion: 3 wins totaling $36,500 - $20,000 + $12,000 + $4,500 = $36,500 - $36,500 ÷ $150,000 = 24.3% of bookings Active pipeline by stage - DS1: 20 deals | $284,621 - DS2: 28 deals | $353,760 - DS3: 67 deals | $552,705 - DS4: 5 deals | $23,574 - DS5: 5 deals | $45,730 - Total: 125 deals | $1,260,390 Rolling 90-day DS2-to-won rate - Window: 2026-06-08 through 2026-09-05 - Deals entering DS2: 111 - Won: 8 - Rate: 8 ÷ 111 = 7.2% QTD outcomes - Wins: 8 - Losses: 27 - Top loss reason: Lost- Timing (1 year or more) — 13 losses - Share of losses: 13 ÷ 27 = 48.1% Last-30-day activity - Emails: 807 - Calls: 112 - Meetings: 128 - Notes: 50 Coaching observations 1. Alex is $50,000 short of quota with $1,260,390 in active pipeline, but only $69,304 is in DS4–DS5 ($23,574 + $45,730). Coaching should focus on advancing qualified DS2–DS3 opportunities rather than relying on total pipeline volume. 2. The rolling DS2-to-won rate is 7.2% (8 ÷ 111), indicating substantial leakage or long cycle time after DS2. Review qualification and next-step discipline at DS2. 3. “Lost- Timing (1 year or more)” represents 48.1% of QTD losses. Tightening urgency and timing qualification earlier could reduce time spent on opportunities unlikely to close this year.
Active cutoff: 2026-09-05 − 60 days = 2026-07-07. Former contacts are excluded. Open/closed status, deal amount, and stage are not provided. Therefore, I cannot verify which deals are open or determine the most valuable persona based on stage. Assuming every listed deal is open, these 11 deals are flagged: | Deal | Flag / active-contact arithmetic | Amount | Stage | Personas present | Personas missing | Most valuable persona to add | On-file unengaged contact who fits a missing persona | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | Deal-EC3025 | Single-threaded: 1 active = CT-047C54; CT-F2C1AE excluded as former | Missing | Missing | champion | economic buyer, HR admin, IT security, finance | Cannot determine—stage missing | CT-6827DB, Chief People Officer, economic buyer | | Deal-92D97D | Single-threaded: 1 active = CT-01F5B4; CT-A902AE excluded because 2026-06-01 < 2026-07-07 | Missing | Missing | HR admin | economic buyer, champion, IT security, finance | Cannot determine—stage missing | None on file | | Deal-50D386 | Under-threaded: 2 active = CT-AA41B2 + CT-B9C35B | Missing | Missing | champion, HR admin | economic buyer, IT security, finance | Cannot determine—stage missing | CT-A1C4B3, Chief People Officer, economic buyer | | Deal-D0D6B5 | Under-threaded: 3 active, but all 3 are champion | Missing | Missing | champion | economic buyer, HR admin, IT security, finance | Cannot determine—stage missing | CT-1FA4DB, Chief People Officer, economic buyer | | Deal-5BFE3B | Under-threaded: 2 active = CT-57123B + CT-5CE757; both are champion | Missing | Missing | champion | economic buyer, HR admin, IT security, finance | Cannot determine—stage missing | None on file | | Deal-36C33F | Single-threaded: 1 active = CT-4FE556; CT-405B45 and CT-86B22F excluded as former | Missing | Missing | IT security | economic buyer, champion, HR admin, finance | Cannot determine—stage missing | CT-1DB73E, Chief People Officer, economic buyer | | Deal-885F45 | Under-threaded: 2 active = CT-51C81E + CT-D9A0E8 | Missing | Missing | economic buyer, champion | HR admin, IT security, finance | Cannot determine—stage missing | CT-B3F25D, IT Security Lead, IT security | | Deal-FCBE5B | Single-threaded: 1 active = CT-4A5317 | Missing | Missing | champion | economic buyer, HR admin, IT security, finance | Cannot determine—stage missing | None on file | | Deal-5408B0 | Under-threaded: 2 active = CT-D33AE4 + CT-8742FD | Missing | Missing | champion, HR admin | economic buyer, IT security, finance | Cannot determine—stage missing | CT-07FA76, Chief People Officer, economic buyer | | Deal-C6D97A | Under-threaded: 3 active, but all 3 are champion | Missing | Missing | champion | economic buyer, HR admin, IT security, finance | Cannot determine—stage missing | None on file | | Deal-F9A08A | Single-threaded: 1 active = CT-931B10; CT-913581 excluded because 2026-06-20 < 2026-07-07 | Missing | Missing | champion | economic buyer, HR admin, IT security, finance | Cannot determine—stage missing | CT-697541, Chief People Officer, economic buyer |
1. First-five-minute lead - Customer outcome story: 8/10 calls (80%) — Deal-D348E1, Deal-5408B0, Deal-547B2B, Deal-C61CF7, Deal-60C2C2, Deal-EDC141, Deal-D9A12F, Deal-84DBA6. > “Quick one to kick off: a 400-person retailer we work with cut regretted turnover 18% in two quarters after automating milestone awards, and I wanted to walk you through exactly how they did it.” - Agenda: 1/10 (10%) — Deal-403845. > “I put together a short agenda — security review first, then pricing.” - Pricing: 1/10 (10%) — Deal-1E2498. > “You asked for straight pricing last time, so let's start there.” - In Deal-C61CF7, the rep also proactively positioned against Workhuman at minute 2. 2. Three most common objections and handling - Budget locked: 4/10 calls (40%) — Deal-D348E1, Deal-547B2B, Deal-60C2C2, Deal-84DBA6. He reframes the purchase around turnover savings and finance approval. > “Totally fair. Most teams fund this out of turnover savings — that retailer saved about $210k in avoided backfills, which is how their finance team signed off.” - Timing/open-enrollment workload: 3/10 calls (30%) — Deal-5408B0, Deal-C61CF7, Deal-D9A12F. He proposes a limited 90-day pilot to create data before planning. > “Makes sense. What if we scope a 90-day pilot with one department so you have internal data before next quarter's planning?” - Existing spreadsheet and gift-card process: 3/10 calls (30%) — Deal-403845, Deal-EDC141, Deal-1E2498. He differentiates through automated milestones and recognition analytics. > “Spreadsheets work until they scale — the difference is automation: milestones fire without HR lifting a finger, and you get analytics on who is being recognized.” 3. Concrete next-step rate 7 calls with an agreed date, time, and attendee ÷ 10 total calls = 70%. Agreed: Deal-D348E1, Deal-5408B0, Deal-547B2B, Deal-C61CF7, Deal-60C2C2, Deal-D9A12F, Deal-1E2498. Not agreed: Deal-403845, Deal-EDC141, Deal-84DBA6. > “Yes, Thursday at 2pm works — send the invite and I'll bring our HRIS manager.” 4. Competitors raised by prospects - Awardco — Deal-547B2B. > “We're also in late talks with Awardco — their rewards catalog looks bigger than yours.” - Kudos — Deal-EDC141. > “How are you different from Kudos? Our CEO used them at her last company.” Workhuman was raised by the rep, not a prospect. Coaching notes 1. Preserve the outcome-led opening, but replace the repeated retailer story with discovery tied to each prospect’s situation; 8/10 calls use exactly the same opener. 2. When prospects defer to a committee or express no urgency, do not end with acknowledgment alone. Diagnose decision criteria and secure a concrete follow-up, since all three calls without an agreed next step ended this way.
# Q3 2026 forecast Only deals closing from 2026-07-01 through 2026-09-30 are included. | Forecast category | Deal count | Total amount | Forecast weight | Weighted amount | |---|---:|---:|---:|---:| | COMMIT | 7 | $44,729.00 | 100% | $44,729.00 | | BEST_CASE | 24 | $203,565.00 | 35% | $71,247.75 | | PIPELINE | 23 | $201,637.40 | 0% | $0.00 | COMMIT arithmetic: $11,200 + $9,000 + $9,000 + $6,360 + $5,400 + $2,520 + $1,249 = $44,729 BEST_CASE arithmetic: $38,935 + $24,000 + $19,656 + $16,250 + $11,116 + $10,800 + $10,500 + $9,890 + $9,720 + $9,000 + $7,200 + $3,840 + $3,780 + $3,600 + $3,240 + $3,150 + $3,120 + $3,060 + $2,916 + $2,760 + $2,484 + $2,100 + $1,920 + $528 = $203,565 Weighted forecast: ($44,729 × 100%) + ($203,565 × 35%) + ($201,637.40 × 0%) = $44,729 + $71,247.75 + $0 = **$115,976.75** ## Top 5 BEST_CASE deals inside Q3 | Rank | Deal | Amount | Close date | |---:|---|---:|---| | 1 | Deal-2D7423 | $38,935 | 2026-09-30 | | 2 | Deal-25F752 | $24,000 | 2026-09-25 | | 3 | Deal-E53952 | $19,656 | 2026-09-30 | | 4 | Deal-5EED42 | $16,250 | 2026-09-30 | | 5 | Deal-FA32A0 | $11,116 | 2026-09-25 | ## Excluded for being outside Q3 **32 deals totaling $227,575.00**, all with close dates after 2026-09-30: | Deal | Category | Amount | Close date | |---|---|---:|---| | Deal-E51FB7 | PIPELINE | $43,875 | 2026-10-01 | | Deal-B936FE | PIPELINE | $18,000 | 2026-10-09 | | Deal-D9A12F | PIPELINE | $17,000 | 2026-10-15 | | Deal-D348E1 | COMMIT | $13,770 | 2026-10-15 | | Deal-4062CF | PIPELINE | $10,800 | 2026-10-15 | | Deal-293AF3 | PIPELINE | $9,000 | 2026-10-09 | | Deal-034D49 | PIPELINE | $9,000 | 2026-10-15 | | Deal-E0ADD8 | PIPELINE | $7,920 | 2026-10-15 | | Deal-9F2E43 | PIPELINE | $7,690 | 2026-10-08 | | Deal-FCBE5B | PIPELINE | $7,500 | 2026-10-07 | | Deal-712010 | PIPELINE | $7,200 | 2026-10-15 | | Deal-6691E0 | PIPELINE | $5,700 | 2026-10-15 | | Deal-C61CF7 | BEST_CASE | $5,400 | 2026-10-09 | | Deal-600CD9 | PIPELINE | $5,400 | 2026-10-02 | | Deal-A92065 | PIPELINE | $5,400 | 2026-10-15 | | Deal-1D532E | PIPELINE | $5,400 | 2026-10-15 | | Deal-48B656 | BEST_CASE | $5,160 | 2026-10-15 | | Deal-E531A6 | PIPELINE | $4,800 | 2026-10-15 | | Deal-D1E6C2 | PIPELINE | $4,400 | 2026-10-09 | | Deal-D9E112 | PIPELINE | $4,300 | 2026-10-09 | | Deal-5AD94B | PIPELINE | $4,000 | 2026-10-15 | | Deal-901332 | BEST_CASE | $3,600 | 2026-10-15 | | Deal-47AE31 | BEST_CASE | $3,600 | 2026-10-09 | | Deal-15D24F | BEST_CASE | $3,600 | 2026-10-09 | | Deal-766C74 | PIPELINE | $3,300 | 2026-10-14 | | Deal-ED725A | BEST_CASE | $2,400 | 2026-10-08 | | Deal-8AD4A5 | BEST_CASE | $1,800 | 2026-10-07 | | Deal-D7E999 | PIPELINE | $1,800 | 2026-10-15 | | Deal-ED13B0 | PIPELINE | $1,680 | 2026-10-09 | | Deal-5FDCE4 | BEST_CASE | $1,600 | 2026-10-01 | | Deal-7FA0C3 | PIPELINE | $1,400 | 2026-10-01 | | Deal-F5A622 | BEST_CASE | $1,080 | 2026-10-08 | Excluded-total arithmetic: $185,565 PIPELINE + $28,240 BEST_CASE + $13,770 COMMIT = **$227,575** ## Data quality Owner is blank on 85 of 86 deals, preventing reliable ownership and accountability analysis. The `why_buys_chars` value is zero on 72 of 86 deals, indicating largely missing qualification evidence. Four deals remained open despite close dates before the 2026-09-05 extraction date, suggesting stale close dates. Stage/category combinations such as DS1 COMMIT and DS5 BEST_CASE indicate possible forecast-category or stage-governance problems.
24-month retention by first-month activation signals: | Cohort | Cohort size | Retained (`active`) | Retention rate | |---|---:|---:|---:| | Both signals: `m1_users >= 5` and `m1_redemptions >= 1` | 47 | 31 | 31 ÷ 47 = **66.0%** | | Givers-only: `m1_users >= 5` and `m1_redemptions = 0` | 49 | 23 | 23 ÷ 49 = **46.9%** | | Redemption-only: `m1_users < 5` and `m1_redemptions >= 1` | 29 | 9 | 9 ÷ 29 = **31.0%** | | Neither: `m1_users < 5` and `m1_redemptions = 0` | 95 | 38 | 38 ÷ 95 = **40.0%** | Total denominator: 47 + 49 + 29 + 95 = **220 companies**. Excluded: **0 companies**. Every company has the required first-month signal fields and `current_status`, and the extract states all companies are at least 25 months old. `active` was counted as retained; all other statuses were counted as not retained. Hypothesis result: **Supported descriptively.** The both-signals cohort retained at **66.0%**, versus **46.9%** for givers-only, **31.0%** for redemption-only, and **40.0%** for neither. Single signal with the largest retention lift: - Givers-only versus neither: 46.9% − 40.0% = **+6.9 percentage points** - Redemption-only versus neither: 31.0% − 40.0% = **−9.0 percentage points** Therefore, **5+ unique givers is the single signal with the largest positive retention lift**. This proves a descriptive association within this 2023 extract: companies showing both signals had the highest observed 24-month retention. It does **not** prove causality, statistical significance, or that the result generalizes beyond this cohort; other company characteristics or selection effects could explain the differences.
ARR reconciliation as of 2026-09-05 Sign convention: Variance = CRM ARR − active billing ARR. Totals - CRM ARR: $603,581.76 - Billing ARR: $50,394.94 MRR × 12 = $604,739.28 - Variance: $603,581.76 − $604,739.28 = -$1,157.52 Variance decomposition - Status mismatch: $4,905.24 + $8,253.24 = +$13,158.48 - Rounding: $16.00 + $20.00 = +$36.00 - Missing records: $16,497.24 − $28,449.24 = -$11,952.00 - Other: $24,396.00 − $26,796.00 = -$2,400.00 - Total: $13,158.48 + $36.00 − $11,952.00 − $2,400.00 = -$1,157.52 Mismatched accounts | Company alias | CRM ARR | Billing ARR | Variance | Bucket | Suggested owner | |---|---:|---:|---:|---|---| | C-0C8323BF | $4,905.24 | $0.00 | +$4,905.24 | Status mismatch: billing cancelled | CRM/RevOps | | C-0DC4FB8C | $8,253.24 | $0.00 | +$8,253.24 | Status mismatch: billing cancelled | CRM/RevOps | | C-0D66DF9E | $23,200.00 | $1,932.00 × 12 = $23,184.00 | +$16.00 | Rounding | CRM/RevOps | | C-14D70CE0 | $18,200.00 | $1,515.00 × 12 = $18,180.00 | +$20.00 | Rounding | CRM/RevOps | | C-0D5BBE3A | $16,497.24 | $0.00 | +$16,497.24 | Missing billing record | Billing Operations | | C-21629AA4 | $0.00 | $2,370.77 × 12 = $28,449.24 | -$28,449.24 | Missing CRM record | CRM/RevOps | | C-0F7269D7 | $24,396.00 | $2,233.00 × 12 = $26,796.00 | -$2,400.00 | Other; cause not provided | CRM/RevOps and Billing Operations | Non-12-month term violations | Subscription | Company alias | Term | Violation | Suggested owner | |---|---|---:|---|---| | SUB-0002 | C-1794A52C | 24 months | `cf_agreement_end_date` is blank | Billing Operations | | SUB-0019 | C-22170CA1 | 36 months | `cf_agreement_end_date` is blank | Billing Operations |
| KVM | 2026-08 value | 2026-07 prior | Absolute change | Relative change | Direction | |---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---| | Giving rate | 0.602713 | 0.602297 | +0.000417 | +0.069% | Up | | Redemptions per user | 1.730163 | 1.729983 | +0.000180 | +0.010% | Up | | 1:1 meetings engagement | 0.447177 | 0.446887 | +0.000290 | +0.065% | Up | | Pulse check engagement | 0.508610 | 0.600587 | −0.091977 | −15.314% | Down | Arithmetic: each monthly value is the unweighted mean across 30 companies. Absolute change = August − July. Relative change = (August − July) ÷ July × 100. Pulse check engagement had the largest relative move. The `enterprise` size_band drove it: 0.549980 → 0.274280; absolute change = −0.275700; relative change = −0.275700 ÷ 0.549980 × 100 = −50.129%. For comparison, `smb` moved −0.225% and `mid_market` +0.211%. The `plan_tier` data does not identify a driver because every company is `tier_three`.
Redemption section — through 2026-08 Last completed month: 2026-08 - Redemption count: 378 - Spend: $27,846.00 - Unique redeemers: 235 - Redemptions per redeemer: 378 ÷ 235 = 1.6085, or 1.61 Provider mix by spend: - custom: $10,873.00 ÷ $27,846.00 = 39.05% - Tremendous: $8,505.00 ÷ $27,846.00 = 30.54% - Snappy: $5,238.00 ÷ $27,846.00 = 18.81% - TangoCard: $3,230.00 ÷ $27,846.00 = 11.60% - Total: 39.05% + 30.54% + 18.81% + 11.60% = 100.00% Top 5 countries by redemption count: 1. US: 244 2. CA: 24 3. AU: 21 4. GB: 17 5. NL: 17
Eligibility requires all three rules: health score <60, churn-save eligible amount >$0, and renewal within 120 days of 2026-09-05 (through 2027-01-03). Qualified accounts | Account | Amount at stake | Best-fit play | Justifying signal | |---|---:|---|---| | C-0F6C0F34 | $49,707.00 | Executive touch | `champion_active=false`; usage is growing, so lack of an active champion is the clearest risk signal. | | C-0B827671 | $25,365.00 | Usage revival | `usage_trend_3m=declining`; only 113 of 202 seats are used (113 ÷ 202 = 55.9%). | | C-0B360C78 | $35,748.00 | Commercial concession | Health is 57 with renewal in 53 days, despite growing usage and an active champion; no usage- or champion-led intervention is indicated. | | C-0B0F1BAB | $5,494.00 | Executive touch | `champion_active=false`; renewal is in 18 days. | | C-0CA21961 | $16,829.00 | Usage revival | Only 84 of 325 seats are used (84 ÷ 325 = 25.8%); usage is flat. | | C-0E9C27D1 | $41,235.00 | Commercial concession | Health is 39 with renewal in 19 days, while 134 of 157 seats are used (85.4%) and the champion is active; adoption and champion signals do not support the other plays. | | C-0CEF69FD | $32,621.00 | Executive touch | `champion_active=false`; usage is growing, making executive relationship coverage the clearer need. | | C-0D3278C7 | $17,602.00 | Usage revival | `usage_trend_3m=declining`; only 126 of 380 seats are used (126 ÷ 380 = 33.2%). | Total amount at stake: $49,707 + $25,365 + $35,748 + $5,494 + $16,829 + $41,235 + $32,621 + $17,602 = $224,601.00 The files document eligibility rules but do not document play-assignment rules. The play selections above are therefore best fits based strictly on the supplied usage, seat-utilization, champion, health, and renewal signals. At risk but not qualified | Account | Why it does not qualify | |---|---| | C-0BC71BDD | Health 55 and renewal in 52 days, but `churn_save_eligible_amount=$0.00`, failing R2. | | C-0BA71F12 | Health 52 and eligible amount $6,824.00, but renewal is 218 days after the snapshot, failing R3. | | C-0F6694C3 | Health 43, but eligible amount is $0.00 and renewal is 197 days away, failing R2 and R3. | | C-0BE96399 | Health 54 and renewal in 54 days, but eligible amount is $0.00, failing R2. | | C-0F876796 | Health 47 and eligible amount $19,958.00, but renewal is 154 days away, failing R3. | | C-0FCCD2DF | Health 43, but eligible amount is $0.00 and renewal is 230 days away, failing R2 and R3. | | C-10A56B0F | Health 54 and renewal in 98 days, but eligible amount is $0.00, failing R2. |
Seat coverage - 150 licensed seats / 400 employees = 37.5% coverage. Usage health - Monthly active users increased every month, from 88 in March to 126 in August. - Growth: 126 − 88 = 38 users, or 38 / 88 = 43.2%; August utilization was 126 / 150 = 84.0% of licensed seats. Expansion headroom - Current rate: $9,000 ARR / 150 seats = $60 per seat annually. - Seat headroom: 400 − 150 = 250 seats. - ARR headroom: 250 × $60 = $15,000 ARR. - Full coverage ARR: 400 × $60 = $24,000. Reply and buying authority - Maria S., People Operations Coordinator, replied. - She explicitly said she is not the purchasing decision-maker. Right buyer - Dana R., VP People. Maria S. identified Dana R. as responsible for budget and seat expansion. Reply email Hi Maria, Thanks for the context—and great to hear the team loves Bonusly. Monthly active users increased from 88 in March to 126 in August, so it makes sense that Dana has been asking about usage. An introduction to Dana R. would be very helpful. I can share the usage trend and discuss whether your current 150-seat allocation still fits the team’s needs. No pressure to make changes; the goal would simply be to give her the numbers and understand what she’s considering. Thanks again for offering to connect us. Best, Cole
C-0D284E42 — Mid-onboarding call prep Complete - Slack integration connected: 2026-08-12 - Allowance set: 2026-08-13 - Admins added: 2 - First recognition given: 2026-08-15 at 14:22 Not complete - HRIS integration: no completion date provided - First redemption: no redemption date provided Early engagement signals - Active givers increased from 3 on 2026-08-11 to 15 on 2026-09-04. - Increase: 15 − 3 = 12 active givers - Percentage increase: (12 ÷ 3) × 100 = 400% - First 7-day average: (3 + 3 + 4 + 4 + 5 + 4 + 7) ÷ 7 = 30 ÷ 7 = 4.3 active givers - Last 7-day average: (11 + 13 + 13 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15) ÷ 7 = 97 ÷ 7 = 13.9 active givers Three things to cover on the call 1. Identify what is blocking the HRIS integration and agree on next steps. 2. Review the redemption process and address why no first redemption is recorded. 3. Review the growth in active givers and discuss how to sustain or broaden early participation.
90-Day Renewal Risk Brief Window: 2026-09-05–2026-12-04 Date policy: Use Chargebee for multi-year contracts because ChurnZero multi-year dates are known to be wrong. Where dates agree, both systems support the date. | Company | CSM | ARR | Date used | Seat utilization | 3-month usage trend (Jun→Jul→Aug) | Risk | Evidence | |---|---|---:|---|---:|---|---|---| | C-0B7D2C30 | Dana Mercer | $65,901 | 2026-09-15 (Chargebee) ⚠ | 274 ÷ 476 = 57.6% | 97→94→84; -13 (-13.4%) | High | Moderate utilization and a 13.4% three-month usage decline indicate material adoption risk. | | C-0BCDB8C2 | Cole Ingram | $54,427 | 2026-09-18 (Chargebee) ⚠ | 232 ÷ 424 = 54.7% | 127→118→110; -17 (-13.4%) | High | Utilization is 54.7% and usage declined 13.4% over three months. | | C-0D2AB865 | Elena Sinclair | $38,022 | 2026-09-22 (Chargebee) ⚠ | 250 ÷ 407 = 61.4% | 125→117→109; -16 (-12.8%) | High | Usage declined every month and fell 12.8% overall despite 61.4% seat utilization. | | C-0BBE3E60 | Dana Mercer | $30,993 | 2026-09-26 (Chargebee) ⚠ | 74 ÷ 114 = 64.9% | 39→35→33; -6 (-15.4%) | High | The 15.4% usage decline is the steepest in the renewal group. | | C-0F5D2323 | Cole Ingram | $90,647 | 2026-09-29 (Chargebee) ⚠ | 111 ÷ 390 = 28.5% | 20→21→18; -2 (-10.0%) | High | Only 28.5% of seats are utilized and usage declined 10.0%. | | C-0EC6999D | Elena Sinclair | $79,419 | 2026-10-03 (both) | 31 ÷ 112 = 27.7% | 17→16→15; -2 (-11.8%) | High | The combination of 27.7% utilization and an 11.8% usage decline creates severe adoption risk. | | C-0B20DB64 | Dana Mercer | $21,770 | 2026-10-07 (both) | 214 ÷ 378 = 56.6% | 294→298→294; 0 (0.0%) | Medium | Usage is stable, but only 56.6% of contracted seats are utilized. | | C-0BBC4E7A | Cole Ingram | $56,374 | 2026-10-10 (both) | 228 ÷ 337 = 67.7% | 142→141→139; -3 (-2.1%) | Medium | Utilization is 67.7% and usage has declined slightly for two consecutive months. | | C-0FD551AB | Elena Sinclair | $48,815 | 2026-10-14 (both) | 210 ÷ 376 = 55.9% | 123→122→126; +3 (+2.4%) | Medium | Usage increased overall, but 55.9% seat utilization leaves meaningful unused capacity. | | C-0F9F8F13 | Dana Mercer | $46,230 | 2026-10-18 (both) | 199 ÷ 352 = 56.5% | 185→185→182; -3 (-1.6%) | Medium | Utilization is only 56.5%, while usage was flat and then declined modestly. | | C-0BC34584 | Cole Ingram | $16,740 | 2026-10-22 (both) | 327 ÷ 494 = 66.2% | 104→104→106; +2 (+1.9%) | Medium | Usage is slightly positive, but one-third of seats remain unutilized. | | C-0B7A7546 | Elena Sinclair | $35,062 | 2026-10-25 (both) | 182 ÷ 205 = 88.8% | 64→65→63; -1 (-1.6%) | Low | High 88.8% seat utilization offsets the small 1.6% usage decline. | | C-0B369871 | Dana Mercer | $85,128 | 2026-10-29 (both) | 317 ÷ 422 = 75.1% | 326→330→333; +7 (+2.1%) | Low | Utilization is 75.1% and usage increased in each of the last three months. | | C-0B144C78 | Cole Ingram | $30,899 | 2026-11-02 (both) | 169 ÷ 224 = 75.4% | 101→101→106; +5 (+5.0%) | Low | Utilization is 75.4% and usage increased 5.0%. | | C-0FC4DBB8 | Elena Sinclair | $94,732 | 2026-11-05 (both) | 356 ÷ 464 = 76.7% | 189→191→193; +4 (+2.1%) | Low | Utilization is 76.7% and usage increased consistently. | | C-0D5BBE3A | Dana Mercer | $39,740 | 2026-11-09 (both) | 85 ÷ 102 = 83.3% | 88→90→91; +3 (+3.4%) | Low | Strong 83.3% utilization is supported by consistent usage growth. | | C-0FB9D5AF | Cole Ingram | $63,158 | 2026-11-13 (both) | 144 ÷ 199 = 72.4% | 173→173→176; +3 (+1.7%) | Low | Utilization exceeds 70% and usage is stable to increasing. | | C-0B344485 | Elena Sinclair | $64,384 | 2026-11-16 (both) | 224 ÷ 287 = 78.0% | 238→240→244; +6 (+2.5%) | Low | Utilization is 78.0% and usage increased in both monthly intervals. | | C-0CB2C1B4 | Dana Mercer | $40,628 | 2026-11-20 (both) | 386 ÷ 473 = 81.6% | 47→48→49; +2 (+4.3%) | Low | Strong 81.6% seat utilization and 4.3% usage growth support renewal. | | C-22170CA1 | Cole Ingram | $45,646 | 2026-11-24 (both) | 251 ÷ 294 = 85.4% | 143→148→146; +3 (+2.1%) | Low | Utilization is 85.4% and usage remains 2.1% above June despite an August dip. | Date disagreements - C-0B7D2C30: ChurnZero 2026-09-10 vs. Chargebee 2026-09-15; use Chargebee because the contract is multi-year. - C-0BCDB8C2: ChurnZero 2027-09-18 vs. Chargebee 2026-09-18; use Chargebee because the contract is multi-year. - C-0D2AB865: ChurnZero 2026-09-10 vs. Chargebee 2026-09-22; use Chargebee because the contract is multi-year. - C-0BBE3E60: ChurnZero 2027-09-26 vs. Chargebee 2026-09-26; use Chargebee because the contract is multi-year. - C-0F5D2323: ChurnZero 2026-09-10 vs. Chargebee 2026-09-29; use Chargebee because the contract is multi-year. Totals - Total ARR renewing: $65,901 + $54,427 + $38,022 + $30,993 + $90,647 + $79,419 + $21,770 + $56,374 + $48,815 + $46,230 + $16,740 + $35,062 + $85,128 + $30,899 + $94,732 + $39,740 + $63,158 + $64,384 + $40,628 + $45,646 = $1,048,715. - ARR at risk (High + Medium): $359,409 High + $189,929 Medium = $549,338.
Broad patterns — ranked by ARR exposure 1. HRIS provisioning/sync failures - Count: 12 - Share: 12 ÷ 80 = 15.0% - Distinct accounts: 3 - ARR affected: $30,000 + $36,000 + $48,000 = $114,000 - Example tickets: IC-460059, IC-460062 - Recommendation: Prioritize HRIS sync reliability and add alerts for skipped provisioning events and silent log failures. 2. Redemption and gift-card failures - Count: 18 - Share: 18 ÷ 80 = 22.5% - Distinct accounts: 7 - ARR affected: $8,900 + $10,700 + $9,600 + $8,700 + $11,000 + $9,600 + $10,300 = $68,800 - Example tickets: IC-460025, IC-460024 - Recommendation: Investigate checkout failures end-to-end and prevent point deductions until gift-card fulfillment succeeds. 3. Recognition points not posting - Count: 20 - Share: 20 ÷ 80 = 25.0% - Distinct accounts: 9 - ARR affected: $3,500 + $4,500 + $2,700 + $3,400 + $4,200 + $2,900 + $2,500 + $2,900 + $4,500 = $31,100 - Example tickets: IC-460004, IC-460016 - Recommendation: Audit recognition-to-balance processing and add reconciliation for delivered recognitions with missing points. 4. Slack integration/command failures - Count: 14 - Share: 14 ÷ 80 = 17.5% - Distinct accounts: 4 - ARR affected: $4,400 + $5,400 + $3,900 + $5,200 = $18,900 - Example tickets: IC-460041, IC-460049 - Recommendation: Stabilize Slack authentication, sync-toggle persistence, and slash-command execution. Single-account noise — ranked by ARR exposure 5. Billing seat-count/tier errors - Count: 16 - Share: 16 ÷ 80 = 20.0% - Distinct accounts: 1 - ARR affected: $52,000 - Account: C-0E9C27D1 - Example tickets: IC-460071, IC-460078 - Recommendation: Escalate an account-specific billing correction and audit C-0E9C27D1’s seat-count and renewal-tier configuration.
Using one point per exact field match: 1 (tie). C-11C31562 — 3/4 = 75% - Size band: Mid-Market - Use case: employee_recognition - Region: NA-West - Industry differs: Manufacturing vs. Technology 1 (tie). C-64171065 — 3/4 = 75% - Industry: Technology - Size band: Mid-Market - Use case: employee_recognition - Region differs: NA-East vs. NA-West 1 (tie). C-A13C193D — 3/4 = 75% - Industry: Technology - Size band: Mid-Market - Region: NA-West - Use case differs: retention vs. employee_recognition Arithmetic: 3 exact matches ÷ 4 comparison fields × 100 = 75% each. All three have public case studies.
Trailing 6 months: March–August 2026 Paid channels | Channel | Spend | SQMs | SQOs | Cost/SQM | Cost/SQO | SQM→SQO | Pipeline | Pipeline/$ | |---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:| | paid_search | $36,000 | 40 | 18 | $900 | $2,000 | 45.0% | $720,000 | $20.00 | | linkedin_ads | $24,000 | 25 | 8 | $960 | $3,000 | 32.0% | $96,000 | $4.00 | | paid_social | $18,000 | 0 | 0 | undefined | undefined | undefined | $0 | $0.00 | | webinars | $9,000 | 12 | 5 | $750 | $1,800 | 41.7% | $60,000 | $6.67 | | Total | $87,000 | 77 | 31 | $1,129.87 | $2,806.45 | 40.3% | $876,000 | $10.07 | Arithmetic: - paid_search spend = 6 × $6,000 = $36,000 - Cost/SQM = $36,000 ÷ 40 = $900 - Cost/SQO = $36,000 ÷ 18 = $2,000 - SQM→SQO = 18 ÷ 40 = 45.0% - Pipeline = 18 × $40,000 = $720,000 - Pipeline/$ = $720,000 ÷ $36,000 = $20.00 - linkedin_ads spend = 6 × $4,000 = $24,000 - Cost/SQM = $24,000 ÷ 25 = $960 - Cost/SQO = $24,000 ÷ 8 = $3,000 - SQM→SQO = 8 ÷ 25 = 32.0% - Pipeline = 8 × $12,000 = $96,000 - Pipeline/$ = $96,000 ÷ $24,000 = $4.00 - paid_social spend = 6 × $3,000 = $18,000 - Zero SQMs; cost/SQM, cost/SQO, and conversion rate are undefined - Pipeline/$ = $0 ÷ $18,000 = $0.00 - webinars spend = 6 × $1,500 = $9,000 - Cost/SQM = $9,000 ÷ 12 = $750 - Cost/SQO = $9,000 ÷ 5 = $1,800 - SQM→SQO = 5 ÷ 12 = 41.7% - Pipeline = 5 × $12,000 = $60,000 - Pipeline/$ = $60,000 ÷ $9,000 = $6.67 Organic channels | Channel | Volume | SQOs | SQO rate | Pipeline | |---|---:|---:|---:|---:| | organic_search | 30 | 10 | 33.3% | $90,000 | | referral | 15 | 6 | 40.0% | $48,000 | | Total organic | 45 | 16 | 35.6% | $138,000 | Arithmetic: - organic_search: 10 ÷ 30 = 33.3%; 10 × $9,000 = $90,000 - referral: 6 ÷ 15 = 40.0%; 6 × $8,000 = $48,000 - Total organic: 16 ÷ 45 = 35.6%; $90,000 + $48,000 = $138,000 Data-quality flags — SQO date precedes SQM date: - CT-000044: SQM 2026-07-23; SQO 2026-07-18 - CT-000041: SQM 2026-06-14; SQO 2026-06-09 These rows are included in the reported metrics because no exclusion rule was provided. Recommendation: Reallocate paid_social’s $18,000 because it produced zero SQMs. Prioritize paid_search, which has the highest pipeline per dollar ($20.00) and the largest paid sample (40 SQMs, 18 SQOs). A smaller test allocation to webinars is also supportable because it has the lowest cost/SQO ($1,800), but its sample is only 12 SQMs and 5 SQOs. Consider reducing linkedin_ads before webinars because linkedin_ads produced only $4.00 of pipeline per dollar. Confidence: Moderate. paid_search has the strongest supporting sample, but webinars and linkedin_ads have small SQO samples, and two linkedin_ads records contain invalid date sequencing. paid_social’s zero-SQM result is clear for this period, but the data provides no campaign-level detail explaining why.
# Battlecard: Rivally ## One-line positioning Points-based employee recognition with an engagement-survey add-on, emphasizing distributed European teams and multi-language support. [S02, S06, S12] ## Pricing - Current list price: Recognition Starter is $7/user/month with annual billing, dated 2026-08-12. [S17] - Deal evidence: an 800-seat prospect reported a $7/user/month list price and a 15% discount for a three-year term, dated 2026-08-14. [S18] - Conflict: the public price was previously $5/user/month on 2026-04-01, while a 500-seat prospect reported a $6.50/user/month annual quote on 2026-06-02. [S08, S13] - Newer source wins: use $7/user/month annually as the current public starting price. [S17] - Rivally Pulse is separately priced rather than bundled; its price is not provided. [S23] ## Where they win - Engaging points-based recognition feed. [S02, S16] - Fast implementation: one mid-market reviewer reported setup in under a week. [S04] - Slack integration reportedly works out of the box. [S04] - Strong fit for distributed EU teams, including praised multi-language support. [S12] - EU data residency became generally available. [S15] - Support response time was praised as under four hours. [S22] ## Where we win - Analytics depth: reviewers describe Rivally’s analytics and reporting as limited or basic, and an 800-seat prospect selected Bonusly over Rivally specifically because of analytics depth. [S02, S07, S25] - Enterprise user administration: Rivally reportedly lacks SCIM provisioning, making user management manual. [S10] - Admin tooling: reviewers say it lags peers and lacks bulk recognition editing. [S16, S24] - Data portability: analytics exports are reportedly CSV-only, and one reviewer described migration away from Rivally as difficult. [S20] - EMEA rewards breadth: a reviewer reported that Rivally’s EMEA rewards catalog is thinner than its US catalog. [S14] ## Objections and responses - Objection: “Rivally is cheaper.” Response: Current public pricing is $7/user/month annually; request a term-matched, seat-matched comparison that includes add-ons and discounts. [S17, S18, S23] - Objection: “Rivally is easy to deploy.” Response: A reviewer did report setup in under a week and an out-of-the-box Slack integration; evaluate post-launch administration separately because reviewers report missing SCIM, lagging admin tooling, and no bulk recognition editing. [S04, S10, S16, S24] - Objection: “Rivally is stronger for Europe.” Response: Its multi-language support and EU data residency are credible strengths, but validate rewards coverage because one review reports a thinner EMEA catalog. [S12, S14, S15] - Objection: “Rivally covers engagement surveys too.” Response: Rivally Pulse is a lightweight survey add-on and is separately priced rather than bundled; detailed feature depth and price are not provided. [S06, S23] - Objection: “Rivally has sufficient reporting.” Response: Multiple reviewers characterize its analytics as limited or basic, and one competitive decision favored Bonusly because of analytics depth. [S02, S07, S25] ## Recent changes - 2026-09-01: Rivally Pulse exited beta as a separately priced add-on. [S23] - 2026-08-20: Microsoft Teams app v2 entered public preview. [S19] - 2026-08-12: Recognition Starter increased to $7/user/month annually. [S17] - 2026-07-01: Rivally opened a Dublin office and made EU data residency generally available. [S15] - 2026-05-09: Rivally hired a former Workday VP EMEA to lead European expansion. [S11] - 2026-03-06: Rivally launched the lightweight Rivally Pulse engagement-survey add-on. [S06] - 2025-11-04: Rivally announced a $40M Series C led by Northgate Ventures. [S01] ## Our 12-month win/loss record against Rivally Period: 2025-09 through 2026-08. - Wins: 13 - Losses: 7 - Total: 13 + 7 = 20 - Win rate: 13 ÷ 20 × 100 = 65% - Loss rate: 7 ÷ 20 × 100 = 35% Wins: Deal-A9FD43, Deal-7AA785, Deal-44C524, Deal-0D0CD6, Deal-D5B790, Deal-5C636E, Deal-67BE14, Deal-1B6969, Deal-F03E7B, Deal-072E31, Deal-F65C8F, Deal-E46EAB, Deal-1D2392. Losses: Deal-7767F5, Deal-5645A5, Deal-C6FFAA, Deal-D263E0, Deal-935746, Deal-9066A6, Deal-72A02F. The deal records do not contain snippet IDs, so snippet citations cannot be supplied for this section. ## Unverified or corrected claims from the old card - “Points-based recognition for mid-market”: points-based recognition is supported, but the supplied evidence does not establish “mid-market” as Rivally’s positioning. Mark “mid-market” unverified. [S02] - “Starts at $5/user/month”: outdated; the newer public price is $7/user/month annually. [S08, S17] - “Rivally lacks a Slack integration”: contradicted by a reviewer reporting that its Slack integration worked out of the box. [S04] - “Rivally was acquired by WorkHuman in 2025”: unverified; no supplied snippet supports this claim. - “Strong in EU enterprise with multi-language support”: supported by an EU enterprise review. [S12]
Rates use totals across all steps: metric ÷ sent. - New Logo Nurture: sent 1,386; open 490/1,386 = 35.35%; reply 90/1,386 = 6.49%; meeting 27/1,386 = 1.95%. Weakest: step 3—18/428 = 4.21% reply; 6/428 = 1.40% meeting. - Expansion Nurture: sent 875; reported open 565/875 = 64.57%; reply 59/875 = 6.74%; meeting 12/875 = 1.37%. Weakest: step 3—12/275 = 4.36% reply; 3/275 = 1.09% meeting. Open rate is unreliable due to the tracking error below. - Cold Outbound - HR Leaders: sent 1,785; open 545/1,785 = 30.53%; reply 8/1,785 = 0.45%; meeting 0/1,785 = 0.00%. Weakest: step 3—1/590 = 0.17% reply and 0/590 = 0% meeting. - Cold Outbound - People Ops: sent 1,163; open 340/1,163 = 29.23%; reply 29/1,163 = 2.49%; meeting 6/1,163 = 0.52%. Weakest: step 3—6/377 = 1.59% reply; 1/377 = 0.27% meeting. Tracking error: Expansion Nurture step 2 reports 340 opens on 300 sent: 340/300 = 113.33%, or 40 excess opens. Audience overlap: - Cold Outbound - HR Leaders / Cold Outbound - People Ops: 21 contacts: CT-000849, CT-000884, CT-000890, CT-000908, CT-001033, CT-001097, CT-001101, CT-001103, CT-001105, CT-001130, CT-001153, CT-001159, CT-001217, CT-001227, CT-001236, CT-001255, CT-001258, CT-001277, CT-001285, CT-001311, CT-001345. - New Logo Nurture / Expansion Nurture: CT-000301, CT-000624. Under-2% reply failure modes: HR Leaders fails at every step despite measurable opens, indicating post-open message/offer mismatch; exact cause is unavailable. People Ops step 3 indicates follow-up fatigue or weak step-3 relevance; exact cause is unavailable. Changes: - HR Leaders: replace the sequence copy with an HR-specific value proposition and CTA. - People Ops: replace step 3 with a materially different angle. Fix HR Leaders first: 0.45% replies and zero meetings.
Q3-2026 weekly marketing goals update — 66 of 92 days elapsed (66 ÷ 92 = 71.74%) | Metric | QTD actual | Target | Delta (actual − target) | Pace | |---|---:|---:|---:|---| | SQMs | 230 | 300 | 230 − 300 = **−70** | **Ahead**: 230 ÷ 300 = 76.67%, versus 71.74% elapsed | | SQOs | 84 | 120 | 84 − 120 = **−36** | **Behind**: 84 ÷ 120 = 70.00%, versus 71.74% elapsed | | DS2s | 40 | 75 | 40 − 75 = **−35** | **Behind**: 40 ÷ 75 = 53.33%, versus 71.74% elapsed | | Closed-lost MIA rate | 5 ÷ 25 = **20.00%** | ≤10.00% | 20.00% − 10.00% = **+10.00 pp unfavorable** | **Behind**: current rate exceeds the maximum target | | Same-quarter close count | 10 | 20 | 10 − 20 = **−10** | **Behind**: 10 ÷ 20 = 50.00%, versus 71.74% elapsed | | Active pipeline coverage | $3,000,000 ÷ $4,000,000 = **75.00% (0.75×)** | $4,000,000 | $3,000,000 − $4,000,000 = **−$1,000,000** | **Ahead**: 75.00% of target, versus 71.74% elapsed | What moved this week cannot be determined: the provided data contains only current QTD values and no prior-week figures or weekly changes.
Plan Q3 at $115,976.75: $44,729 COMMIT + 35% × $203,565 BEST_CASE ($71,247.75), across 54 of 86 in-quarter deals; PIPELINE contributes $0. Another 32 deals worth $227,575 are excluded, including COMMIT Deal-D348E1 at $13,770 dated 2026-10-15. Caveat: all 7 in-quarter COMMIT deals lack documented why-buys, so the $44,729 committed base is unsupported.
Subject: Follow-up on 150-seat pricing Hi, Following up on my August 5 recap of the July 28 demo and pricing for 150 seats. Would you be open to a brief call to discuss next steps? Best, Alex Franklin
**Marketing:** Marketing delivered 46 SQMs against a weekly target of 52, reaching 88.5% of goal (46 ÷ 52 × 100). The webinar channel contributed 18 SQMs, or 39.1% of the total (18 ÷ 46 × 100). Paid search cost per SQM held at $150. **Sales:** Sales converted 14 SQOs, set 9 DS2 meetings, and created $310,000 in new pipeline. The team also recorded 3 same-quarter closes this week—solid momentum to recognize as the quarter moves forward. **CS:** CS saved 2 renewals this week, while Team NPS moved to 61. Looking ahead, the team enters next week with 3 open red-flag accounts requiring attention. **PLG:** PLG welcomed 412 new signups, with activation at 31% (412 × 31% = 127.72 calculated activations; an exact activated-user count was not provided). Additionally, 38 companies reached the aha moment of 10 recognition gives.
Partner Digest: 2026-08-24 to 2026-09-04 - Apex Rewards Co — 2 partner-sourced opportunities totaling $275,000 ($180,000 + $95,000): Deal-DDAAF2 and Deal-2CF33E. Both are in DS1. Co-webinar scheduled for 09-15. - HRCloud Partners — 1 partner-sourced opportunity totaling $140,000: Deal-F1CDA5. Security review closed; opportunity moved to DS2. - CultureBridge — 2 partner-sourced opportunities totaling $135,000 ($60,000 + $75,000): Deal-096E1D and Deal-067213. Both are early stage. - WorkWell Group — 0 partner-sourced opportunities totaling $0. Joint-playbook planning call scheduled for 09-09, with a potential Q4 restart. - Recogniq — Quiet; 0 partner-sourced opportunities totaling $0. - KudosWave — Quiet; 0 partner-sourced opportunities totaling $0. - PeopleFirst Advisors — Quiet; 0 partner-sourced opportunities totaling $0. - TotalPerk — Quiet; 0 partner-sourced opportunities totaling $0. Partner-sourced pipeline: 5 opportunities totaling $550,000. Arithmetic: 2 + 1 + 2 + 0 = 5 opportunities; $275,000 + $140,000 + $135,000 + $0 = $550,000.
Q1. Yes. Customer data is encrypted at rest using AES-256. [P1] Q2. Yes. Data in transit is encrypted using TLS 1.2 or higher. [P1] Q3. Yes. Bonusly maintains a SOC 2 Type II report, renewed annually. Prospects can obtain the report under NDA. [P2] Q4. Customer data is retained for 90 days after contract termination, then deleted from production systems. [P3] Q5. The current subprocessor list is published at trust.bonusly.com. Customers receive 30 days’ notice before a new subprocessor is added. [P4] Q6. Yes. SAML 2.0 single sign-on is available on the Enterprise plan. [P5] Q7. Production databases are backed up daily. Backups are encrypted and retained for 35 days. [P6] Q8. Unanswerable from the provided excerpts. An ISO 27001 certificate or certification statement would answer this question. Q9. Unanswerable from the provided excerpts. The contractual Service Level Agreement or uptime policy would answer this question. Q10. Unanswerable from the provided excerpts. Bonusly’s HIPAA/BAA policy or standard Business Associate Agreement terms would answer this question.
1. CRITICAL · MERGE — `comms-drafter` and `email-drafter` Finding: Their ALWAYS-trigger phrases substantially duplicate each other, including `"write me an email"`, `"draft a follow-up"`, `"help me reply"`, `"what should I say"`, `"bump email"`, `"contract nudge"`, and requests to review or rewrite customer-facing email copy. Proposal: Merge `email-drafter` into `comms-drafter`; retain `comms-drafter` because it covers email plus support, partner, rewards, broker, and channel communications. 2. CRITICAL · REVIEW — Circular delegation chain Chain: `deal-strategy-coach` → `email-drafter` → `deal-strategy-coach` Evidence: - `deal-strategy-coach`: “use the `email-drafter` skill” for manager-to-prospect emails. - `email-drafter`: points strategy, diagnosis, and coaching back to `deal-strategy-coach`. Proposal: Establish one-way ownership: `deal-strategy-coach` may delegate drafting to the surviving communications skill, but that drafting skill must return the draft without delegating the same request back. 3. CRITICAL · UPDATE_BODY — Dangling target `bonusly-brand` Referenced by: - `comms-drafter` - `email-drafter` - `sales-forecast` - `signalforge-claim-compressor` No manifest row or supplied skill file exists. Proposal: Add the missing skill to both manifest and file set, or remove these delegations and place the required brand rules in an existing skill. 4. CRITICAL · UPDATE_BODY — Dangling target `prospect-research-multithreading` Referenced by: - `comms-drafter` - `email-drafter` - `deal-strategy-coach` No manifest row or supplied skill file exists. Proposal: Add the target to both manifest and file set, or replace the handoffs with a target that exists. 5. CRITICAL · UPDATE_BODY — Dangling target `bonusly-data-questions` Delegated to by `analysis-validator`; no manifest row or supplied file exists. Proposal: Add the target or remove its specialist delegation entry. 6. CRITICAL · UPDATE_BODY — Dangling target `bonusly-product-questions` Delegated to by `analysis-validator`; no manifest row or supplied file exists. Proposal: Add the target or remove its specialist delegation entry. 7. CRITICAL · UPDATE_BODY — Dangling target `bonusly-business-reporting-questions` Delegated to by `analysis-validator`; no manifest row or supplied file exists. Proposal: Add the target or remove its specialist delegation entry. 8. CRITICAL · UPDATE_BODY — Dangling target `bonusly-rewards-questions` Delegated to by `analysis-validator`; no manifest row or supplied file exists. Proposal: Add the target or remove its specialist delegation entry. 9. CRITICAL · UPDATE_BODY — Dangling target `bonusly-ppp-questions` Delegated to by `analysis-validator`; no manifest row or supplied file exists. Proposal: Add the target or remove its specialist delegation entry. 10. CRITICAL · UPDATE_BODY — Dangling target `bonusly-feature-flag-questions` Delegated to by `analysis-validator`; no manifest row or supplied file exists. Proposal: Add the target or remove its specialist delegation entry. 11. CRITICAL · UPDATE_BODY — Dangling target `bonusly-deal-desk-questions` Delegated to by `analysis-validator`; no manifest row or supplied file exists. Proposal: Add the target or remove its specialist delegation entry. 12. CRITICAL · UPDATE_BODY — Dangling target `bonusly-datadog-questions` Delegated to by `analysis-validator`; no manifest row or supplied file exists. Proposal: Add the target or remove its specialist delegation entry. 13. WARNING · UPDATE_BODY — `analysis-validator` version conflict Finding: - Declared current version: `3.6` - Header and changelog latest version: `3.6` - Validation Trail template still says `analysis-validator v3.2` Proposal: Keep `analysis-validator` v3.6 and update the stale v3.2 trail reference. No competing skill should survive; the surviving version is v3.6. 14. INFO · REVIEW — Manifest descriptions over 1,024 characters Arithmetic: - Manifest rows: 14 - Descriptions over 1,024 characters: 0 - Largest value: `pipeline-intelligence-report` = 1,006 - `1,006 ≤ 1,024` Proposal: No trimming is required under the stated 1,024-character limit. 15. WARNING · UPDATE_BODY — Hardcoded values in `analysis-validator` Hardcoded dates include `April 26, 2026`, `May 4, 2026`, and `May 9, 2026`. Hardcoded person names include `Manish`, `Amani`, `Bryce Harmon`, `Hugo Lindqvist`, `Dana Mercer`, `Alex Franklin`, `Cole Ingram`, `Gavin Porter`, `Alaina Loori`, `Shealagh Coughlin`, `Colleen Perry`, `Ellie Barton`, `Ashley Reyer`, `Ashley Le`, `Megan Franz`, `Elena Sinclair`, `Tracy`, `Youssef Elkhateeb`, `Amanda Czenkus`, `Ben Castelli`, `Amani Phipps`, `John Thomas`, and `Yasmin Wahid`. Proposal: Move dated rosters, escalation contacts, and effective-date metadata to a live reference source; leave only lookup instructions in the body. 16. WARNING · UPDATE_BODY — Hardcoded dates in `closed-lost-analysis` Examples include `May 2026`, `May 4–12`, and dated scenario references such as `"demo on 4/13"`. Proposal: Move historical examples into a dated reference file and keep the operating taxonomy date-independent. 17. WARNING · UPDATE_BODY — Hardcoded values in `deal-strategy-coach` Hardcoded Confluence page ID: `2257879045`. Hardcoded dates include `April 2026`, `2026`, and multiple six-month lookback references tied to that pricing year. Hardcoded person aliases include `Perseus` and `Farid`. Proposal: Replace the page ID and named routing owners with configurable references and move year-specific pricing into a versioned pricing reference. 18. WARNING · UPDATE_BODY — Hardcoded dates in `model-selection` Hardcoded dates include `2026-05-19`, `2026-05-05`, model retirement/deprecation dates, and fixed knowledge-cutoff dates. Proposal: Keep model registry data in a separately refreshed reference and have the body describe only the update procedure. 19. WARNING · UPDATE_BODY — Hardcoded values in `partner-digest` Hardcoded page/folder IDs include: - `2286616609` - `2286321666` - `2265382925` - `2236940297` - `2237825028` - `2239365136` - `2238283777` Hardcoded dates include `May 16, 2026`, `May 19, 2026`, `June 2, 2026`, `Q2/Q3 2026`, and `2026-05-17`. Hardcoded person names include `Amani Phipps`, `Kelli`, `Jen Lee`, `Hani`, `Bryce`, and `Sara`. Proposal: Move destination IDs, canonical-page IDs, partner contacts, and dated examples into a configurable partnerships reference. 20. WARNING · UPDATE_BODY — Hardcoded values in `pipeline-intelligence-report` Hardcoded dates include `May 2026` and `March 2023`. Hardcoded person names include `Bryce Harmon`, `Dana Mercer`, `Cole Ingram`, `Alex Franklin`, and `Gavin Porter`. Proposal: Resolve the AE roster dynamically and move system-state dates into a live data-source reference. 21. WARNING · UPDATE_BODY — Hardcoded values in `sales-forecast` Hardcoded Confluence page IDs: - `2232811524` - `2232582148` Hardcoded dates include `Q2`, `Q3 2026`, `July 9, 2026`, `April 27, 2026`, and the fixed 13-week cadence examples. Hardcoded person name: `Alaina`. Proposal: Parameterize the Confluence destination, derive quarter/date examples at runtime, and resolve forecast ownership dynamically. 22. INFO · UPDATE_BODY — Hardcoded dates in `signalforge-claim-compressor` Hardcoded date: `2026-05-09`. Proposal: Move changelog metadata outside the operational body or retain it in a versioned metadata field. 23. WARNING · UPDATE_BODY — Hardcoded values in `signalforge-feedback` Hardcoded Confluence page IDs: - `2295136266` - `2232811524` - `2234417154` - `2247295002` Proposal: Move all feedback-log destinations into configuration and reference them by logical name. 24. WARNING · UPDATE_BODY — Hardcoded values in `stale-pipeline-report` Hardcoded dates include `2026-06-10` and examples such as `5/7`, `5/15`, and `5/19`. Hardcoded person name: `Alaina`. Proposal: Replace dated examples with relative placeholders and resolve leadership names dynamically. 25. WARNING · UPDATE_BODY — Hardcoded values in `weekly-pipeline-report` Hardcoded dates include `April 1 – June 30, 2026`, `Q1 2026`, and fixed Q1/Q2 figures. Hardcoded person name: `Ben Lavin`. Proposal: Derive quarter windows and reviewer identity at runtime; move historical Q1 figures to a dated reference. 26. INFO · REVIEW — Files with no manifest row Arithmetic: - Supplied skill files: 14 - Files matched to manifest rows: 14 - Files with no manifest row: `14 − 14 = 0` Proposal: No action required; continue enforcing file-to-manifest reconciliation. 27. INFO · REVIEW — Manifest rows with no file Arithmetic: - Manifest rows: 14 - Rows matched to supplied files: 14 - Manifest rows with no file: `14 − 14 = 0` Proposal: No action required; continue enforcing manifest-to-file reconciliation.
# Reward-worker Queue Incident Runbook | Step | Command or action taken | Who ran it | Success verification | Rollback | Trace | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1 | Acknowledge the PagerDuty alert for reward-worker queue depth >10k and take incident command. Exact command/action sequence needs confirmation. | Bryce Harmon | No separate verification stated. | Not stated. | [M01] | | 2 | Run `bundle exec rake sidekiq:queue_depth`. | Farid Osman | Reward queue reported 48,213 pending jobs; normal is under 500. | Not applicable; read-only check. | [M02] | | 3 | Inspect the dead set. Exact command needs confirmation. | Farid Osman | Found 112 jobs, all showing `Redis::TimeoutError` from around 13:58. | Not applicable; inspection only. | [M03] | | 4 | Pause enqueue with `bin/rails runner 'FeatureFlag.disable(:auto_recognition_enqueue)'`. | Farid Osman | No immediate verification stated. | `bin/rails runner 'FeatureFlag.enable(:auto_recognition_enqueue)'` | [M04] | | 5 | Clear the dead set from the console. Exact console command/action needs confirmation. | Elena Sinclair | No verification stated. | No rollback stated; needs confirmation. | [M05] | | 6 | Scale reward workers from 3 to 6 with `kubectl scale deployment/reward-worker --replicas=6`. | Bryce Harmon | Queue depth later fell to 9,400 at approximately 1,200 jobs per minute. | `kubectl scale deployment/reward-worker --replicas=3` | [M06], [M07] | | 7 | Run `bundle exec rake sidekiq:queue_depth` and check the Datadog error rate. | Cole Ingram | Command returned 0; Datadog error rate was back to baseline. | Not applicable; verification only. | [M08] | | 8 | Re-enable enqueue with `bin/rails runner 'FeatureFlag.enable(:auto_recognition_enqueue)'`. | Bryce Harmon | 40 new jobs processed cleanly during the next 3 minutes. | The thread contains the pause command `bin/rails runner 'FeatureFlag.disable(:auto_recognition_enqueue)'`, but does not explicitly identify it as this step’s rollback; needs confirmation. | [M09], [M04] | | 9 | Scale reward workers back to 3 with `kubectl scale deployment/reward-worker --replicas=3`. | Bryce Harmon | Queue remained stable at 0; incident declared resolved. | No rollback explicitly stated for this step. The thread’s prior scale-up command was `kubectl scale deployment/reward-worker --replicas=6`; using it as rollback needs confirmation. | [M10], [M06] |
- First error: `2026-09-03T14:01:12Z` — `reward-service` logged `Redis::TimeoutError: Connection to Redis at redis-primary:6379 timed out after 5s`. - Cascade, in order: 1. `14:01:20Z–14:01:40Z` — `reward-service` exhausted retries for `RewardGiveJob`. 2. `14:01:40Z` onward — `sidekiq` reported repeated `RewardGiveJob` failures and retries. 3. `14:01:46Z` onward — individual `RewardGiveJob` failures appear in `sidekiq_jobs.csv`; the earliest is `J-00005`. 4. `14:02:30Z` — Sidekiq queue `reward` depth exceeded 10,000. 5. `14:03:05Z` onward — `api-gateway` returned 502 upstream timeouts calling `reward-service`. 6. `14:03:30Z` onward — `web-app` give-form submissions failed because of upstream 502s. 7. `14:22:10Z` — `reward-service` reported that the Redis connection was restored and job processing resumed. 8. `14:24:45Z` — queue `reward` depth fell below 500. - Service and job involved: `reward-service`; `RewardGiveJob`. `RecognitionDigestJob` also recorded Redis timeout failures in `sidekiq_jobs.csv`, but it is not named in the application-log cascade. - Datadog query to confirm the first error: `service:reward-service status:error "Redis::TimeoutError" "redis-primary:6379"` Time window: around `2026-09-03T14:01:12Z`. - The logs do not show why `redis-primary:6379` became unreachable or slow, any Redis host/service logs or infrastructure metrics, the triggering request or job ID for the first timeout, or whether data was lost or duplicated.
| Flag | State | What it controls per code excerpt | Targeting rule / enabled population | Company count | |---|---|---|---|---:| | `recognition_streaks_v2` | On | Records recognition activity through `StreakTracker.record(give)`. | `segment:beta_companies`; company identities are not provided. | 42 | | `points_budget_guardrails` | On | Enforces giver point budgets through `BudgetService.new(company).enforce!(giver, points)`. | `all_companies`. | 220 | | `slack_dm_nudges` | On | Allows `SlackDm.send_nudge(user)`; the job exits when the flag is not enabled. | `segment:region_na`; company identities are not provided. | 87 | | `redeem_flow_redesign` | Off | Selects `RedeemV2Component` when enabled and `RedeemV1Component` otherwise. It currently uses V1 because the flag is off. | `targeted_list`; the 12 company identities are not provided. No companies are shown as enabled. | 12 | | `analytics_dashboard_v3` | On | Assigns the company’s dashboard to `AnalyticsV3`. | `segment:tier_three`; company identities are not provided. | 65 | | `ms_teams_app_v2` | Off | Enables installation through `TeamsAppV2.install(company)`. Installation is disabled while the flag is off. | `targeted_list`; the 9 company identities are not provided. No companies are shown as enabled. | 9 | | `legacy_give_modal` | Off | No code reference is provided, so what it controls is unknown. | `segment:legacy_plan`; 14 companies are associated with the rule, but none are shown as enabled. | 14 | | `survey_boosters_q3` | On | No code reference is provided, so what it controls is unknown. | `segment:legacy_plan`; company identities are not provided. | 7 | | `paused_offboard_cleanup` | Off | No code reference is provided, so what it controls is unknown. | No targeting rule and no targets. | 0 | Count check: - On flags: 42 + 220 + 87 + 65 + 7 = **421** - Off flags: 12 + 9 + 14 + 0 = **35** - Exported company-count total: 421 + 35 = **456** The export does not establish whether companies overlap across flags, so **456 is not necessarily a unique-company count**.
NDA-1 — GREEN — Standard mutual NDA: two-year term, three-year survival, Delaware law, and complete carve-outs, including information that “is independently developed” and “must be disclosed by law or court order.” NDA-2 — YELLOW — Counsel review due to the embedded 18-month non-solicit: “During the term of this Agreement and for eighteen (18) months thereafter, neither party shall solicit for employment or hire any employee of the other party with whom it came into contact under this Agreement.” NDA-3 — RED — Full legal review due to the broad three-year non-compete (“Recipient shall not, directly or indirectly, engage in or provide services to any business that competes with Discloser's business”), unusual Republic of Ireland law and exclusive jurisdiction (“the parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of its courts”), five-year one-way term, and absence of confidentiality carve-outs.