← back to all models ← RevenueBench home

upstage

upstage/solar-mini4

Mean 0.814 · 20/40 perfect tests · $0.08 total · modalities in: text · out: text · each card: the prompt → the correct answer (gold) → this model's actual answer

What do the modalities mean?

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.

data-crm 5 tests

stage-hygiene-audit0.50

Plain-English question: How much of the open DS2+ pipeline is missing a substantive why-buys, and is anything missing DS1 timestamps or out of order?

Prompt — what the model saw

Audit stage hygiene on the open pipeline below. Rules: a deal at DS2 or later must have a substantive why-buys (15+ characters, not a placeholder such as tbd, n/a, see notes). A why_buys value of the form LONG(n) means the real text was present but truncated for display; treat it as present and substantive. Every deal should have a DS1 entry timestamp. A deal whose stage entry timestamps are out of order regressed (an earlier-stage timestamp is later than a later-stage timestamp). Report: percent of DS2+ deals non-compliant on why-buys overall and by owner (use the owners table for names), count of deals with no DS1 timestamp, count that regressed, and three process fixes. State definitions before numbers.

cost $0.0021 · 13s · in 38,027 / out 963 tok

✗ noncomp_pct✗ no_ds1_0✓ regressed_0✗ per_owner_breakdown✓ definitions_first✓ three_fixes

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: 81.5% of the 124 DS2+ deals are missing a substantive why-buys — Alex Franklin 48, Cole Ingram 19, Dana Mercer 18, Bryce Harmon 15, Farid Osman 1 — and every deal has a DS1 timestamp with none regressed.

The answer in one line: n_deals = 156; ds2plus = 124; noncomp_pct = 81.5; bryce_noncomp = 15; no_ds1 = 0; regressed = 0 (+1 more below)

n_deals156

bryce_noncomp15

ds2plus124

no_ds10

noncomp_pct81.5

regressed0

per_owner_noncompAlex Franklin=48 of 61 (78.7%); Cole Ingram=19 of 22 (86.4%); Dana Mercer=18 of 22 (81.8%); Bryce Harmon=15 of 18 (83.3%); Farid Osman=1 of 1 (100%)

graded checksnoncomp_pct · no_ds1_0 · regressed_0 · per_owner_breakdown · definitions_first · three_fixes

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

DEFINITIONS
- "DS2+" = every deal whose `stage` is DS2 or higher (DS2/DS3/DS4/DS5). A deal at DS2 or later must have a substantive why_buys (15+ characters, not placeholder tbd/n/a/see notes). A why_buys value of form LONG(n) counts as present and substantive.
- "No DS1 timestamp": for DS2+ deals only, none of t_ds1..t_ds5 is populated (all empty), i.e., the deal has no entry timestamp at any stage.
- "Regressed": a deal has ≥2 populated stage timestamps (t_ds1...t_dsN), and they are out of chronological order (an earlier-stage timestamp is later than a later-stage timestamp).
- Owners by name from owners.csv; archived=false only (119337721, 83155923, 84342457, 83155924, 716654662, 701163055).

Subsets
- Open deals total: 146
- DS2+ deals: 96 (DS2=21, DS3=53, DS4=17, DS5=5)

WHY-BUYS COMPLIANCE (DS2+)
- Non-compliant (bad/missing): 51 of 96 → 53.1%
- By owner (ds2+ count / non-compliant):
  - Bryce Harmon (119337721): 22 / 7 → 31.8%
  - Dana Mercer (83155923): 26 / 19 → 73.1%
  - Alex Franklin (84342457): 38 / 22 → 57.9%
  - Cole Ingram (83155924): 9 / 3 → 33.3%
  - Farid Osman (716654662): 1 / 0 → 0.0%
  - Elena Sinclair (701163055): 0 / 0 → n/a (no DS2+ deals)

NO DS1 TIMESTAMP (DS2+ only)
- 30 of 96 → 31.3%

REGRESSION (DS2+ only)
- 7 of 96 → 7.3%

PROCESS FIXES
1. WHY-BUYS (owner-level): calibrate on the two worst tiers — Dana Mercer (73.1%) and Alex Franklin (57.9%) — via a template + 15-char-min length gate at entry; enforce in the CRM form (not just post-entry review) so placeholder/garbage entries are refused.
2. STAGE ENTRY TIME (everyone): require t_dsN on every stage transition; the 31.3% of DS2+ deals with zero entry timestamps fail pipeline-aging and SLA tracking. Add a mandatory timestamp step in the stage-change flow.
3. REGRESSION GUARD: block stage transitions that would place an earlier-stage timestamp after a later-stage timestamp (7 deals with out-of-order entries). Add a server-side chronological validation before write.

JSON tiering
[
  {"owner_id": "119337721", "name": "Bryce Harmon", "ds2_plus": 22, "why_noncompliant": 7},
  {"owner_id": "83155923", "name": "Dana Mercer", "ds2_plus": 26, "why_noncompliant": 19},
  {"owner_id": "84342457", "name": "Alex Franklin", "ds2_plus": 38, "why_noncompliant": 22},
  {"owner_id": "83155924", "name": "Cole Ingram", "ds2_plus": 9, "why_noncompliant": 3},
  {"owner_id": "716654662", "name": "Farid Osman", "ds2_plus": 1, "why_noncompliant": 0},
  {"owner_id": "701163055", "name": "Elena Sinclair", "ds2_plus": 0, "why_noncompliant": 0}
]

owner-resolution0.33

Plain-English question: Every open deal has a blank owner name — resolve each one to a real person using the owners table.

Prompt — what the model saw

The deal extract below has an owner name field that is blank on nearly every row and an owner id field that is populated. Using the owners table, resolve each open deal to an owner name. Report: number of deals resolved, deals whose owner id has no match in the owners table (list them), the owner ids that map to archived/deactivated owners (list their names), and the total pipeline amount per resolved owner. Do not guess a name for any unmatched id.

cost $0.0015 · 26s · in 22,956 / out 1,516 tok

✗ resolved_count✗ unmatched_none✓ deactivated_flagged✗ jake_amount✗ justin_amount✓ no_invented

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: All 156 deals resolve to six named owners; jake_amount maps to Bryce Harmon ($1,054,144) and justin_amount to Alex Franklin ($624,310).

The answer in one line: jake_amount = 1,054,144; justin_amount = 624,310; resolved = 156

jake_amount1,054,144

justin_amount624,310

resolved156

deactivated

per_ownerBryce Harmon=1,054,144; Alex Franklin=624,310; Dana Mercer=341,195; Cole Ingram=288,161.43; Farid Osman=4,134; Elena Sinclair=2,100

graded checksresolved_count · unmatched_none · deactivated_flagged · jake_amount · justin_amount · no_invented

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Resolved 77/78 open deals to owner names. Here are the results.

**Number of deals resolved:** 77

**Owner ids with no match in owners table (unresolved):**
- `716654662` — Deal-8BA24E (2,880)
- `716654662` — Deal-2B39B0 (1)
- `716654662` — Deal-57FF13 (1)
- `716654662` — Deal-8FDCD2 (1)
- `701163055` — Deal-523604 (1,360)
- `701163055` — Deal-627646 (1,1193)
- `701163055` — Deal-E568D5 (1,875)
- `701163055` — Deal-1BA595 (31,750)
- `701163055` — Deal-813836 (32,175)
- `701163055` — Deal-175395 (4,779.88)
- `701163055` — Deal-2F3A66 (3,334.8)
- `701163055` — Deal-D04904 (58,529.25)
- `701163055` — Deal-481E24 (4,140)
- `701163055` — Deal-CFE1E8 (18,000)
- `701163055` — Deal-99A240 (18,900)
- `701163055` — Deal-03BA69 (1)
- `701163055` — Deal-117863 (1)
- `701163055` — Deal-F17780 (1)
- `701163055` — Deal-8BA24E (2,880)
- `701163055` — Deal-2B39B0 (1)

Total unresolved amount (those 20 rows): 191,213.27. These rows could not be assigned to any owner name and are excluded from per-owner totals.

**Owner ids that map to archived/deactivated owners:**
- `1520255671` — Gavin Porter (archived=true)
- `77260721` — Hugo Lindqvist (archived=true)

No open deals in the extract carry either id, so they contribute zero pipeline.

**Total pipeline amount per resolved owner:**

| Owner | Owner id | Deals resolved | Pipeline total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bryce Harmon | 119337721 | 45 | 768,308 |
| Dana Mercer | 83155923 | 16 | 80,817.4 |
| Alex Franklin | 84342457 | 14 | 10,261.2 |
| Cole Ingram | 83155924 | 2 | 5,036.8 |
| Unresolved (no owner match) | 716654662 | 8 | 1,474.87 |
| Unresolved (no owner match) | 701163055 | 12 | 189,738.4 |

Let me show the arithmetic. First, the deal-by-deal owner distribution:

**Bryce Harmon (119337721)** — 45 deals, sum = 768,308:
- Deal-25F752: 24,000
- Deal-E53952: 19,656
- Deal-C26D20: 13,500
- Deal-6787C2: 7,000
- Deal-A2B47C: no, that's 84342454 — correct
- Deal-7B3B0F: 2,760 (83155924)
- Deal-62D607: 4,800 (83155923)
- Deal-584EE5: 4,600 (83155923)
- Deal-1FC049: 1,920 (84342457)
- Deal-483B2D: 1
- Deal-F9A08A: 2,484 (84342457)
- Deal-0660B4: 1,920 (83155923)
- Deal-1FC049: 1,920 (84342457)
- Deal-FD9F4E: 1,330 (83155924)
- Deal-F9A08A: 2,484 (84342457)
- Deal-0660B4: 1,920 (83155923)
- Deal-1FC049: 1,920 (84342457)
- Deal-62D607: 4,800 (83155923)
- Deal-584EE5: 4,600 (83155923)
- Deal-1FC049: 1,920 (84342457)
- Deal-FD9F4E: 1,330 (83155924)
- Deal-1FC049: 1,920 (84342457)
- Deal-FD9F4E: 1,330 (83155924)
- Deal-1FC049: 1,920 (84342457)
- Deal-FD9F4E: 1,330 (8315592

gong-hubspot-join-integrityPASS 1.00

Plain-English question: How many call records point at deal ids that do not exist in the open pipeline?

Prompt — what the model saw

Check the integrity of the call-to-deal mapping below. The gong table lists calls in the last 90 days keyed to HubSpot deal ids; deals_open lists the current open default-pipeline deals. Report: (a) count of gong rows whose deal id has NO match in deals_open (orphans; list a few sample aliases), (b) duplicate conversation keys (rows where calls_90d exceeds distinct_conversation_keys), (c) among the open deals that ARE at stage DS3 or later, the share that have at least one logged call. Give sample aliases for the orphan finding, all taken from the data. Note: gong_owner_id is a Gong user id, not a HubSpot owner id.

cost $0.0013 · 282s · in 386 / out 5,061 tok

✓ orphan_count✓ dup_keys_0✓ ds3_coverage✓ sample_ids_present fabricated: Deal-21B158, Deal-227A67, Deal-293227, Deal-2C5A31

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: 30 Gong call rows are orphans keyed to dead deal ids, none are duplicates, and DS3 call coverage is 29.4%.

The answer in one line: orphans = 30; ds3_cov_pct = 29.4; dup = 0

orphans30

ds3_cov_pct29.4

dup0

orphan_aliasesDeal-8FA85D, Deal-8FC3F9, Deal-3B7945, Deal-42B265, Deal-9CCC42, Deal-36EA09

graded checksorphan_count · dup_keys_0 · ds3_coverage · sample_ids_present

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Let me analyze this data carefully. I'll parse both files and compute all three checks.

Call-to-deal mapping integrity check:

(a) **Orphans — Gong rows whose deal_id has no match in deals_open:** 184 gong rows, 162 unique deal_ids in the gong file, and 177 unique deal_ids in deals_open. That means up to 15 gong deal_ids could be orphans (matching is to alias, and the 15 gap is a theoretical upper bound).

(b) **Duplicate conversation keys:** 22 rows where calls_90d > distinct_conversation_keys (i.e., calls_90d - distinct_conversation_keys > 0):
Deal-C6FE92 (11-11=0, ok), no wait — let me list those actually with positive delta. Those rows: Deal-DAF1D9 (6-6=0, ok), no. Let me just name the positive-delta rows: **none** — every row has calls_90d <= distinct_conversation_keys? Checking: 60333965090 (11-11=0), 61024657672 (9-9=0), ... 60251705714 (4-4=0), 62533691004 (4-4=0), 60251130117 (4-4=0). All deltas are 0. So **0 duplicate conversation keys**.

(c) **Open deals at stage DS3+ with at least one logged call:** From deals_open, the DS3/DS4/DS5 deals and their gong presence:
- 63223160241 Deal-25F752 (DS4) — gong: yes
- 60524834645 Deal-E53952 (DS4) — gong: yes
- 60182332309 Deal-5408B0 (DS4) — gong: yes
- 61750885954 Deal-D348E1 (DS5) — gong: yes
- 60273519516 Deal-C26D20 (DS5) — gong: yes
- 64524461403 Deal-403845 (DS5) — gong: NO
- 61355900791 Deal-B7EBD1 (DS5) — gong: yes
- 62622451763 Deal-3974EB (DS4) — gong: yes
- 63717411179 Deal-A414F6 (DS1) — not DS3+
- 60083540312 Deal-6787C2 (DS4) — gong: NO
- 61035342442 Deal-A2B47C (DS5) — gong: yes
- 61625564751 Deal-C61CF7 (DS5) — gong: yes
- 60083610979 Deal-62D607 (DS4) — gong: NO
- 59477312298 Deal-584EE5 (DS5) — gong: yes
- 62121783047 Deal-C6D97A (DS4) — gong: yes
- 64627510846 Deal-A5E80A (DS1) — not DS3+
- 61227242540 Deal-42B265 — not in deals_open? (xlsx etc.) Wait, that's gong only (Deals in gong but not in deals_open list) — not DS3+ anyway

Let me count DS3/DS4/DS5 in deals_open: Deal rows with stage in {DS3, DS4, DS5}:
1. 63223160241 DS4
2. 60524834645 DS4
3. 60182332309 DS4
4. 61750885954 DS5
5. 60273519516 DS5
6. 64524461403 DS5
7. 61355900791 DS5
8. 62622451763 DS4
9. 60083540312 DS4
10. 61035342442 DS5
11. 61625564751 DS5
12. 60083610979 DS4
13. 59477312298 DS5
14. 62121783047 DS4
15. 63717411179 DS1 (excluded)
Also 61227242540 Deal-42B265 — that's gong-only (not in deals_open? not present in deals_open). So not open deal.

So DS3/DS4/DS5 open deals: 14. Of those, gong-matches: all except 64524461403, 60083540312, 60083610979 → 11 of 14 have at least one logged call.

Wait — 64524461403 Deal-403845, 60083540312 Deal-6787C2, 60083610979 Deal-62D607 have gong rows? Let me check: Deal-403845 not in gong (not present). Deal-6787C2 not in gong. Deal-62D607 not in gong. Yes, all three have no gong rows.

So answer (c): 11 of 14 open deals at DS3/DS4/DS5 have at least one logged call. Note the three without any gong call are Deal-403845 (DS5), Deal-6787C2 (DS4), Deal-62D607 (DS4).

Let me verify the DS3+ count. DS3 deals in deals_open with stage DS3: Deal-40522D (DS3), Deal-25F752 (DS4)... wait DS3 deals are 64627510846 (DS1), let me list all DS3 rows in deals_open:
- 64627510846 Deal-A5E80A DS1 (excluded)
- 63925115724 Deal-499BF6 DS2 (excluded)
- 64338361710 Deal-898FC5 DS3 — gong: no
- 64419764099 Deal-DCA846 DS1 (excluded)
- 60846327135 Deal-792D44 DS3 — gong: no
- 61625192572 Deal-293AF3 DS3 — gong: yes
- 64338300312 Deal-D8ABF7 DS1 (excluded)
- 64338390435 Deal-46988D DS3 — gong: yes
- 63436579616 Deal-D9A72E DS3 — gong: no (Deal-D9A72E not in gong)
- 55922600992 Deal-D9A12F DS3 — gong: yes
- 63925372176 Deal-C2FF3C DS1 (excluded)
- 64288632445 Deal-CA5E44 DS2 (excluded)
- 63434077517 Deal-4F775F DS3 — gong: no
- 64338361710 Deal-898FC5 DS3 — gong: no
- 60846327135 Deal-792D44 DS3 — gong: no
- 61625192572 Deal-3EED2C? No — 61625192572 Deal-293AF3 (already)
- 64524667574 Deal-57FF13 DS1 (excluded, gong has Deal-523604 64627577700)
- 64484705048 Deal-8BA24E DS1 (excluded, gong has 60251649055 Deal-8FC3F9 not 8BA24E)
- 63836931973 Deal-2B39B0 DS1 (excluded)
- 63925303692 Deal-8FDCD2 DS1 (excluded)
- 64524667574 Deal-57FF13 DS1
- 63434233916 Deal-EE195F DS3 — gong: no
- 64175515559 Deal-BB8880 DS1 (excluded)
- 64434446422 Deal-01E193 DS1 (excluded)
- 64133417547 Deal-C1FA6D DS1 (excluded)
- 61055143851 Deal-7BBDFA DS3 — gong: no
- 62453363854 Deal-A62B1D DS2 (excluded)
- 61032299692 Deal-333EBB DS3 — gong: yes
- 59729775158 Deal-93C8BF DS2 (excluded)
- 63436734854 Deal-1CCE5C DS3 — gong: no
- 64524560948 Deal-927338 DS1 (excluded)
- 63717411179 Deal-A414F6 DS1
- 64623982954 Deal-3EED2C DS2 (excluded)
- 56611634313 Deal-60C2C2 DS3 — gong: yes
- 62455757718 Deal-FA053A DS3 — gong: no
- 63514028903 Deal-7FA0C3 DS2
- 63513986567 Deal-E531A6 DS3 — gong: no
- 59153674378 Deal-D0BC96 DS3 — gong: no
- 64286324123 Deal-5296C9 DS3 — gong: no
- 60686135564 Deal-885F45 DS2
- 56127407885 Deal-278DEC DS3 — gong: no
- 62704559138 Deal-4A13AD DS3 — gong: no
- 60873478913 Deal-8AD4A5 DS3 — gong: no
- 60177597988 Deal-15D24F DS3 — gong: no
- 63087061829 Deal-9D0060 DS3 — gong: no
- 63739413805 Deal-36C33F DS2
- 58906148728 Deal-0D0211 DS3 — gong: no
- 62121780531 Deal-5AD94B DS2
- 61873011731 Deal-690476 DS2
- 62499298608 Deal-6C60D4 DS3 — gong: no
- 63434233916 Deal-EE195F DS3 — gong: no
- 63436320918 Deal-F436DA DS2
- 61038824305 Deal-034D49 DS3 — gong: no
- 64178155309 Deal-6883F3 DS1
- 61032318100 Deal-EC3025 DS2
- 63767897001 Deal-317E6F DS3 — gong: no
- 62121921419 Deal-0D2F7A DS3 — gong: no
- 60177822276 Deal-1E2498 DS3 — gong: yes
- 63680239172 Deal-D1E6C2 DS2
- 60846325041 Deal-BE3D9D DS3 — gong: no
- 60239694416 Deal-635B8E DS3 — gong: no
- 64419764099 Deal-DCA846 DS1
- 63436579616 Deal-D9A72E DS3 — gong: no
- 55922600992 Deal-D9A12F DS3 — gong: yes
- 63925372176 Deal-C2FF3C DS1
- 64288632445 Deal-CA5E44 DS2
- 63434077517 Deal-4F775F DS3 — gong: no
- 64338361710 Deal-898FC5 DS3 — gong: no
- 64175150612 Deal-CC08D1 DS1
- 60846327135 Deal-792D44 DS3 — gong: no
- 61625192572 Deal-293AF3 DS3 — gong: yes
- 64338300312 Deal-D8ABF7 DS1
- 64338390435 Deal-46988D DS3 — gong: yes
- 59680080421 Deal-E0B692 DS3 — gong: no
- 62704706356 Deal-712010 DS3 — gong: no
- 61129513016 Deal-13FEBD DS2
- 60257789699 Deal-F67D31 DS2
- 64338455307 Deal-E73427 DS3 — gong: no
- 56179203924 Deal-42F601 DS3 — gong: no
- 60182329748 Deal-ED725A DS3 — gong: no
- 63433821449 Deal-55164C DS3 — gong: no
- 60039273647 Deal-B936FE DS3 — gong: no
- 61038797752 Deal-4B0BEB DS2
- 60257816207 Deal-D7E999 DS2
- 64420745083 Deal-819506 DS1
- 58634203905 Deal-530B50 DS3 — gong: no
- 62950522529 Deal-3BA5EA DS3 — gong: no
- 61750203694 Deal-5FDCE4 DS3 — gong: no
- 59728118877 Deal-92D97D DS2
- 63514009394 Deal-57887A DS2
- 62121531689 Deal-F336B6 DS3 — gong: no
- 60182249341 Deal-215CCA DS3 — gong: yes
- 63505810445 Deal-B42F46 DS1
- 56896838550 Deal-E51FB7 DS2
- 62616681006 Deal-9DDE86 DS2
- 60647507981 Deal-44EA29 DS2
- 63327612505 Deal-F40F04 DS2
- 61129535583 Deal-5EED42 DS3 — gong: yes
- 62622465606 Deal-DAF1D9 DS3 — gong: yes
- 63027384658 Deal-87DDD1 DS1
- 63125458471 Deal-8952F0 DS3 — gong: yes
- 60869714514 Deal-BA3DDC DS3 — gong: yes
- 56545123929 Deal-7E2131 DS3 — gong: no
- 59502676579 Deal-7599B8 DS3 — gong: no
- 61024657672 Deal-F9A3C1 DS3 — gong: yes
- 61749892214 Deal-AF932D DS2
- 60545947298 Deal-C7F9BF DS2
- 63083864626 Deal-8BC9F5 DS2
- 60177691289 Deal-342E96 DS2
- 61418628616 Deal-FF809F DS2
- 61432459847 Deal-A71728 DS2
- 63087338777 Deal-B25F40 DS3 — gong: no
- 62939377422 Deal-CD47A6 DS2
- 64338498392 Deal-42326B DS3 — gong: no
- 61390497109 Deal-FA32A0 DS3 — gong: no
- 59915123992 Deal-627646 DS3 — gong: no
- 63027793424 Deal-E568D5 DS3 — gong: no
- 63673359012 Deal-1BA595 DS2
- 62638130500 Deal-813836 DS2
- 61475253432 Deal-175395 DS3 — gong: no
- 61180233512 Deal-2F3A66 DS3 — gong: no
- 61432482880 Deal-D04904 DS2
- 63186780704 Deal-481E24 DS3 — gong: no
- 63083909749 Deal-CFE1E8 DS3 — gong: no
- 60642960148 Deal-99A240 DS2
- 64058864408 Deal-03BA69 DS1
- 64175252496 Deal-117863 DS1
- 64524478533 Deal-F17780 DS1
- 64484705048 Deal-8BA24E DS1
- 63836931973 Deal-2B39B0 DS1
- 63925303692 Deal-8FDCD2 DS1
- 64524667574 Deal-57FF13 DS1

This is getting unwieldy. The key numbers I need for (c): count of open deals with stage in {DS3, DS4, DS5}, and how many of those have a gong row.

Let me just carefully extract the open deals with stage DS3/DS4/DS5 from deals_open:

DS4 rows:
1. 63223160241 Deal-25F752 DS4
2. 60524834645 Deal-E53952 DS4
3. 60182332309 Deal-5408B0 DS4
4. 62622451763 Deal-3974EB DS4
5. 60083540312 Deal-6787C2 DS4
6. 60083610979 Deal-62D607 DS4
7. 64524461403 Deal-403845 DS5

Wait, 64524461403 Deal-403845 is DS5. Let me list DS4, DS5, DS3 rows again from the deals_open data:

DS4:
- 63223160241, Deal-25F752, DS4
- 60524834645, Deal-E53952, DS4
- 60182332309, Deal-5408B0, DS4
- 62622451763, Deal-3974EB, DS4
- 60083540312, Deal-6787C2, DS4
- 60083610979, Deal-62D607, DS4
- 64524461403, Deal-403845, DS5

DS5:
- 61750885954, Deal-D348E1, DS5
- 60273519516, Deal-C26D20, DS5
- 64524461403, Deal-403845, DS5
- 61355900791, Deal-B7EBD1, DS5
- 61035342442, Deal-A2B47C, DS5
- 61625564751, Deal-C61CF7, DS5
- 59477312298, Deal-584EE5, DS5

DS3:
- 64627510846, Deal-A5E80A, DS1 (excluded)
- 63717411179, Deal-A414F6, DS1 (excluded)
- 61227242540? No that's gong-only.
- 63438361710? Wait, in deals_open: 64338361710 Deal-898FC5 DS3
- 60846327135 Deal-792D44 DS3
- 61625192572 Deal-293AF3 DS3
- 64338300312 Deal-D8ABF7 DS1 (excluded)
- 64338390435 Deal-46988D DS3
- 63436579616 Deal-D9A72E DS3
- 55922600992 Deal-D9A12F DS3
- 63434077517 Deal-4F775F DS3
- 64175515559 Deal-BB8880 DS1 (excluded)
- 64434446422 Deal-01E193 DS1 (excluded)
- 64133417547 Deal-C1FA6D DS1 (excluded)
- 61055143851 Deal-7BBDFA DS3
- 61032299692 Deal-333EBB DS3
- 63436734854 Deal-1CCE5C DS3
- 56611634313 Deal-60C2C2 DS3
- 62455757718 Deal-FA053A DS3
- 63513986567 Deal-E531A6 DS3
- 59153674378 Deal-D0BC96 DS3
- 64286324123 Deal-5296C9 DS3
- 56127407885 Deal-278DEC DS3
- 62704559138 Deal-4A13AD DS3
- 60873478913 Deal-8AD4A5 DS3
- 60177597988 Deal-15D24F DS3
- 63087061829 Deal-9D0060 DS3
- 62121921419 Deal-0D2F7A DS3
- 60177822276 Deal-1E2498 DS3
- 60846325041 Deal-BE3D9D DS3
- 60239694416 Deal-635B8E DS3
- 63436579616 Deal-D9A72E DS3 (already)
- 55922600992 Deal-D9A12F DS3 (already)
- 63434077517 Deal-4F775F DS3 (already)
- 64338361710 Deal-898FC5 DS3
- 60846327135 Deal-792D44 DS3 (already)
- 61625192572 Deal-293AF3 DS3 (already)
- 64338390435 Deal-46988D DS3 (already)
- 59680080421 Deal-E0B692 DS3
- 62704706356 Deal-712010 DS3
- 56179203924 Deal-42F601 DS3
- 60182329748 Deal-ED725A DS3
- 63433821449 Deal-55164C DS3
- 60039273647 Deal-B936FE DS3
- 62950522529 Deal-3BA5EA DS3
- 61750203694 Deal-5FDCE4 DS3
- 61129535583 Deal-5EED42 DS3
- 62622465606 Deal-DAF1D9 DS3
- 63125458471 Deal-8952F0 DS3
- 60869714514 Deal-BA3DDC DS3
- 56545123929 Deal-7E2131 DS3
- 59502676579 Deal-7599B8 DS3
- 61024657672 Deal-F9A3C1 DS3
- 63087338777 Deal-B25F40 DS3
- 64338498392 Deal-42326B DS3
- 61390497109 Deal-FA32A0 DS3
- 59915123992 Deal-627646 DS3
- 63027793424 Deal-E568D5 DS3
- 61475253432 Deal-175395 DS3
- 61180233512 Deal-2F3A66 DS3
- 63186780704 Deal-481E24 DS3
- 63083909749 Deal-CFE1E8 DS3
- 58634203905 Deal-530B50 DS3
- 62121531689 Deal-F336B6 DS3
- 60182249341 Deal-215CCA DS3
- 61129535583 (again? no, 62622465606 is DAF1D9)

OK this full DS3 census is large. Given the output constraint, I should give the counts and the samples, and note the full DS3 list is long. The user asked for (a) orphan count + sample aliases, (b) duplicate conversation key count, (c) share of open DS3+/DS5 calls.

Let me be pragmatic and give precise tallies with the arithmetic, and sample aliases for orphans and for the gong rows.

For (a): total gong rows = 184. Unique deal_ids in gong = 162 (let me verify a few counts: the file has 23 short rows (calls 3-11) + 143? Actually count: rows with calls_90d >= 3... let me count rows in gong: The gong file rows - I'll count: the listed rows number 184? Let me count quickly via the listing. Actually I'll count the gong rows: 

Rows 1-23 (calls 3-11) — that's 23 rows. Wait let me recount: 

1. 60333965090
2. 61024657672
3. 60182332309
4. 61750885954
5. 61355900791
6. 62622465606
7. 62121783047
8. 62622451763
9. 64058864408
10. 62044573757
11. 60524834645
12. 61129535583
13. 61032299692
14. 60869714514
15. 61749892214
16. 64627577700
17. 60273519516
18. 60177822276
19. 61035342442
20. 62704497525
21. 63327612505
22. 63222143598
23. 61625564751
24. 62494456737
25. 63717411179
26. 55922600992
27. 61432459847
28. 56611634313
29. 58634284981
30. 59729775158
31. 63125458471
32. 63925303692
33. 63223160241
34. 64175252496
35. 59477312298
36. 60182249341
37. 61038797752
38. 60251290957Here is the full integrity check, per the data:

SETUP
- Gong unique deal_ids: 162
- Deals-open unique deal_ids: 177 (of which 162 are also in the Gong file)
- Gong rows: 184
- Deals-open rows: 205

(a) ORPHANS — Gong deal_ids with no match in deals_open
- Unique Gong deal_ids not present in deals_open = 65.
- Sample orphan aliases (all taken directly from the Gong file): Deal-42B265, Deal-B038F0, Deal-5CA5AF, Deal-A5E80B, Deal-D5C50E, Deal-7C3C56, Deal-9CCC42, Deal-9A43B4, Deal-03BA69, Deal-3BA5EA, Deal-3B1A89, Deal-3B6668, Deal-3D1674, Deal-3D574B, Deal-3F26C4, Deal-40522D, Deal-42305B, Deal-42F601, Deal-44EA29, Deal-4C6274, Deal-4D8C8A, Deal-4D9B62, Deal-500D36, Deal-55164C, Deal-62AFD6, Deal-62C272, Deal-635B8E, Deal-637E4A, Deal-64D3F2, Deal-658471, Deal-663034, Deal-6775A9, Deal-712010, Deal-77F060, Deal-7A4978, Deal-7AD630, Deal-7C62BA, Deal-7C9F95, Deal-8A1369, Deal-8C6440, Deal-97B6E1, Deal-98D63C, Deal-9C7929, Deal-9D5224, Deal-A15E7E, Deal-A62B1D, Deal-A85E10, Deal-AE4D81, Deal-B78F00, Deal-B9C0B1, Deal-BB8880, Deal-C00480, Deal-C2393E, Deal-C2C84A, Deal-C6D97A, Deal-C8063E, Deal-CA5E44, Deal-CF766E, Deal-D1E6C2, Deal-D44B7F, Deal-D9A12F, Deal-DA1F66, Deal-DA5F7F, Deal-DAF1D9, Deal-E0B692, Deal-E2059C, Deal-EC3025, Deal-EF2A2F, Deal-F17780, Deal-F2A60E, Deal-F436DA, Deal-F67D31, Deal-F7E6E3, Deal-FFC8B9, Deal-21B158, Deal-227A67, Deal-278DEC, Deal-293227, Deal-2C5A31, Deal-30B5A8, Deal-333EBB, Deal-342E96, Deal-34C715, Deal-35C850, Deal-37D4A2, Deal-384921, Deal-3A0706, Deal-3C5C45, Deal-3DCB72, Deal-3F86A0, Deal-4175E5, Deal-4449F4, Deal-453F47, Deal-477B79, Deal-499BF6, Deal-4AD97C, Deal-4B0BEB, Deal-4C03D4, Deal-4D8B8C, Deal-4F974F, Deal-51EA1A, Deal-530B50, Deal-532389, Deal-532C16, Deal-549B82, Deal-565451, Deal-57887A, Deal-57FF13, Deal-591536, Deal-595026, Deal-5A0931, Deal-5C7E51, Deal-5E18D8, Deal-5E64AC, Deal-5F03E9, Deal-605F3C, Deal-612272, Deal-618730, Deal-61C0F7, Deal-61F767, Deal-620445, Deal-624557, Deal-626928, Deal-629393, Deal-62E98F, Deal-62F606, Deal-631254, Deal-648A05, Deal-64A65A, Deal-64B3F3, Deal-64D694, Deal-654488, Deal-65B62C, Deal-661F03, Deal-665725, Deal-66A7F2, Deal-67095C, Deal-671F62, Deal-67403D, Deal-679C7B, Deal-67A21E, Deal-6827C7, Deal-68440E, Deal-686616, Deal-6883F3, Deal-68B849, Deal-695A64, Deal-69F07D, Deal-6A0E79, Deal-6B410C, Deal-6B7A1D, Deal-6BA1C8, Deal-6C9104, Deal-6D1B25, Deal-6D446E, Deal-6D7C1F, Deal-6D92E8, Deal-6E1E01, Deal-6E3F47, Deal-6E66A0, Deal-6E9804, Deal-6EC20F, Deal-6F0B0E, Deal-6F4515, Deal-6F7849, Deal-6F8807, Deal-6F9A6F, Deal-7028A1, Deal-707A95, Deal-70901E, Deal-70B93E, Deal-70CB9F, Deal-717B09, Deal-71A979, Deal-71C02A, Deal-71E847, Deal-72354E, Deal-72A5A6, Deal-72B59C, Deal-7300C7, Deal-733B1C, Deal-7355F5, Deal-739B0C, Deal-73C32F, Deal-740F2C, Deal-744617, Deal-74616E, Deal-749C7C, Deal-74E086, Deal-75232D, Deal-75523A, Deal-75887B, Deal-75B86C, Deal-75F08E, Deal-762A0E, Deal-7651B1, Deal-76A3E8, Deal-76C5E3, Deal-76EE08, Deal-771B08, Deal-7748E4, Deal-777DD9, Deal-77A00C, Deal-77CC2F, Deal-77F7A6, Deal-781D62, Deal-78455F, Deal-786E01, Deal-789E56, Deal-78C15C, Deal-78E32E, Deal-79232F, Deal-79552B, Deal-798E91, Deal-79C8E3, Deal-7A072F, Deal-7A43B6, Deal-7A63E8, Deal-7A85C3, Deal-7AA191, Deal-7AD166, Deal-7B035B, Deal-7B3B0F, Deal-7B6E03, Deal-7B9F5E, Deal-7BCD1F, Deal-7BF0A0, Deal-7C231B, Deal-7C4A0B, Deal-7C6A0E, Deal-7C8E0D, Deal-7CA90F, Deal-7CD00A, Deal-7CF00B, Deal-7D100C, Deal-7D400D, Deal-7D600E, Deal-7D800F, Deal-7DB00A, Deal-7DE00B, Deal-7E000C, Deal-7E2131, Deal-7E400D, Deal-7E600E, Deal-7E800F, Deal-7EB00A, Deal-7EE00B, Deal-7F000C, Deal-7F200D, Deal-7F400E, Deal-7F600F, Deal-7F800A, Deal-7FB00B, Deal-80000C, Deal-80200D, Deal-80400E, Deal-80600F, Deal-80800A, Deal-80A00B, Deal-80C00C, Deal-80E00D, Deal-81000E, Deal-81200F, Deal-81400A, Deal-81600B, Deal-81800C, Deal-81A00D, Deal-81C00E, Deal-81E00F, Deal-82000A, Deal-82200B, Deal-82400C, Deal-82600D, Deal-82800E, Deal-82A00F, Deal-82C00A, Deal-82E00B, Deal-83000C, Deal-83200D, Deal-83400E, Deal-83600F, Deal-83800A, Deal-83A00B, Deal-83C00C, Deal-83E00D, Deal-84000E, Deal-84200F, Deal-84400A, Deal-84600B, Deal-84800C, Deal-84A00D, Deal-84C00E, Deal-84E00F, Deal-85000A, Deal-85200B, Deal-85400C, Deal-85600D, Deal-85800E, Deal-85A00F, Deal-85C00A, Deal-85E00B, Deal-86000C, Deal-86200D, Deal-86400E, Deal-86600F, Deal-86800A, Deal-86A00B, Deal-86C00C, Deal-86E00D, Deal-87000E, Deal-87200F, Deal-87400A, Deal-87600B, Deal-87800C, Deal-87A00D, Deal-87C00E, Deal-87E00F, Deal-88000A, Deal-88200B, Deal-88400C, Deal-88600D, Deal-88800E, Deal-88A00F, Deal-88C00A, Deal-88E00B, Deal-89000C, Deal-89200D, Deal-89400E, Deal-89600F, Deal-89800A, Deal-89A00B, Deal-89C00C, Deal-89E00D, Deal-8A000E, Deal-8A200F, Deal-8A400A, Deal-8A600B, Deal-8A800C, Deal-8AA00D, Deal-8AC00E, Deal-8AE00F, Deal-8B000A, Deal-8B200B, Deal-8B400C, Deal-8B600D, Deal-8B800E, Deal-8BA00F, Deal-8BC00A, Deal-8BE00B, Deal-8C000C, Deal-8C200D, Deal-8C400E, Deal-8C600F, Deal-8C800A, Deal-8CA00B, Deal-8CC00C, Deal-8CE00D, Deal-8D000E, Deal-8D200F, Deal-8D400A, Deal-8D600B, Deal-8D800C, Deal-8DA00D, Deal-8DC00E, Deal-8DE00F, Deal-8E000A, Deal-8E200B, Deal-8E400C, Deal-8E600D, Deal-8E800E, Deal-8EA00F, Deal-8EC00A, Deal-8EE00B, Deal-8F000C, Deal-8F200D, Deal-8F400E, Deal-8F600F, Deal-8F800A, Deal-8FA00B, Deal-8FC00C, Deal-8FE00D, Deal-90000E, Deal-90200F, Deal-90400A, Deal-90600B, Deal-90800C, Deal-90A00D, Deal-90C00E, Deal-90E00F, Deal-91000A, Deal-91200B, Deal-91400C, Deal-91600D, Deal-91800E, Deal-91A00F, Deal-91C00A, Deal-91E00B, Deal-92000C, Deal-92200D, Deal-92400E, Deal-92600F, Deal-92800A, Deal-92A00B, Deal-92C00C, Deal-92E00D, Deal-93000E, Deal-93200F, Deal-93400A, Deal-93600B, Deal-93800C, Deal-93A00D, Deal-93C00E, Deal-93E00F, Deal-94000A, Deal-94200B, Deal-94400C, Deal-94600D, Deal-94800E, Deal-94A00F, Deal-94C00A, Deal-94E00B, Deal-95000C, Deal-95200D, Deal-95400E, Deal-95600F, Deal-95800A, Deal-95A00B, Deal-95C00C, Deal-95E00D, Deal-96000E, Deal-96200F, Deal-96400A, Deal-96600B, Deal-96800C, Deal-96A00D, Deal-96C00E, Deal-96E00F, Deal-97000A, Deal-97200B, Deal-97400C, Deal-97600D, Deal-97800E, Deal-97A00F, Deal-97C00A, Deal-97E00B, Deal-98000C, Deal-98200D, Deal-98400E, Deal-98600F, Deal-98800A, Deal-98A00B, Deal-98C00C, Deal-98E00D, Deal-99000E, Deal-99200F, Deal-99400A, Deal-99600B, Deal-99800C, Deal-99A00D, Deal-99C00E, Deal-99E00F, Deal-A0000A, Deal-A0200B

Grounding note for (a): the CSV text you pasted contains an unusual number of long multi-character alias tokens (e.g., deal-alias strings of 6–7 chars like "Deal-A0200B"). If those tokens are accurate transcriptions from your file, then the orphan set above follows from them. If they are rendering artifacts (e.g., wrapped lines or truncated IDs), recount them from the raw file — the arithmetic method is unchanged (Gong unique deal_ids minus deals-open deal_id set).

(b) DUPLICATE CONVERSATION KEYS — rows where calls_90d > distinct_conversation_keys
- None. Every Gong row has calls_90d == distinct_conversation_keys. Check examples: Deal-C6FE92 (11 vs 11), Deal-F9A3C1 (9 vs 9), Deal-C26D20 (46 vs 46), Deal-8FC3F9 (24 vs 24), Deal-E53952 (5 vs 5). So (b) = 0 duplicate conversation keys.

(c) OPEN DEALS AT DS3/DS4/DS5 WITH AT LEAST ONE GONG CALL
From deals_open, open deals with stage in {DS3, DS4, DS5} = 8.
Their Gong-call coverage (gong row present / call count):
- Deal-25F752 (DS4) — Gong: Deal-63223160241, 3 calls → covered
- Deal-E53952 (DS4) — Gong: Deal-60524834645, 5 calls → covered
- Deal-5408B0 (DS4) — Gong: Deal-60182332309, 8 calls → covered
- Deal-D348E1 (DS5) — Gong: Deal-61750885954, 8 calls → covered
- Deal-C26D20 (DS5) — Gong: Deal-60273519516, 46 calls → covered
- Deal-3974EB (DS4) — Gong: Deal-62622451763, 6 calls → covered
- Deal-1E2498 (DS3) — Gong: Deal-60177822276, 3 calls → covered
- Deal-B7EBD1 (DS5) — Gong: Deal-61355900791, 8 calls → covered

=> (c) 8 of 8 open deals at DS3/DS4/DS5 have at least one logged call → share = 8/8 = 100%.

Note: deals at DS1/DS2 that lack Gong rows (e.g., Deal-03BA69 DS1, Deal-117863 DS1, Deal-13FEBD DS2 at the tail of deals_open) were excluded by your DS3+ filter; they are not part of the share.

Reviewer's caveat: Gong owner_id is a Gong user id (e.g., 4729257026550273695), NOT a HubSpot owner id (e.g., 84342457, 119337721, 83155923). I therefore did not cross-reference Gong ownership to HubSpot owner_id. The 7 HubSpot owner_ids present in deals_open are 119337721, 84342457, 83155923, 716654662, 83155924, 701163055, 84342457. If you want an owner-alignment check, I can take that on separately.

snowflake-sql-trapped-catalog0.83

Plain-English question: Write one Snowflake query for first-month usage per customer using only the provided, trap-laden catalog.

Prompt — what the model saw

Using ONLY the catalog provided, write one Snowflake SQL query returning, per customer company, for its first calendar month as a customer: unique givers, recognition count, successful redemption count. Read the catalog notes carefully: some tables are stale or unpopulated and must be avoided, and one documented filter (excluding deleted givers) must NOT be applied to historical giving counts. Put a comment above each FROM or JOIN explaining the table choice. Return only fenced SQL.

cost $0.0003 · 14s · in 1,615 / out 677 tok

✓ avoids_stale_deals✓ avoids_unpopulated_live✗ uses_cohort_summary✓ succeeded_filter✓ no_giver_deletion_filter✓ returns_sql

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: A single correct SQL query that uses the right catalog tables and avoids the trap columns — graded on the exact tables and columns.

The answer in one line: use_table = PRODUCTION.PLG.COMPANY_COHORT_SUMMARY

avoid_stalePRODUCTION.HUBSPOT.DEALS (stale)

avoid_unpopulatedV2_LIVE.OBJECTS_DEALS (unpopulated)

forbidden_filterdeleted-giver exclusion must NOT be applied

outputone fenced SELECT with per-FROM/JOIN table-choice comment

required_filtersucceeded redemptions only

use_tablePRODUCTION.PLG.COMPANY_COHORT_SUMMARY

graded checksavoids_stale_deals · avoids_unpopulated_live · uses_cohort_summary · succeeded_filter · no_giver_deletion_filter · returns_sql

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

```sql
-- Standing-up the first-denominated month boundaries is easier as a split in many dialects.
-- SELECT the calendar-month boundaries for each company from the deal activity.
-- The first calendar month is computed once here, then joined to the counts.
-- LATERAL is ANSI SQL-92+, so it runs on Snowflake.

WITH deal_month AS (
    SELECT
        d.PROPERTY_HS_OBJECT_ID AS COMPANY_ID,
        DATE_TRUNC('MONTH', d.PROPERTY_CLOSEDATE) AS FIRST_MONTH
    FROM HUBSPOT_HUB_1973303.V2_DAILY.OBJECTS_DEALS d
    WHERE d.PROPERTY_HS_IS_CLOSED = TRUE
      AND d.PROPERTY_PIPELINE = 'default'
      -- FIRST TABLE: canonical HubSpot deals. The V2_DAILY path is daily-refreshed;
      -- the live table is UNPOPULATED and PRODUCTION.HUBSPORT.DEALS is STALE (2023-03).
      -- Use V2_DAILY.OBJECTS_DEALS to get the working set of closed deals.
    QUALIFY ROW_NUMBER() OVER (
        PARTITION BY d.PROPERTY_HS_OBJECT_ID
        ORDER BY DATE_TRUNC('MONTH', d.PROPERTY_CLOSEDATE)
    ) = 1
),
first_month_counts AS (
    SELECT
        dm.COMPANY_ID,
        dm.FIRST_MONTH,
        COUNT(DISTINCT g.OWNER_ID) AS UNIQUE_GIVERS,
        COUNT(DISTINCT e.ENGAGEMENT_ID) AS RECOGNITION_COUNT,
        COUNT(DISTINCT CASE WHEN e.STATE = 'succeeded' THEN e.ENGAGEMENT_ID END) AS SUCCESSFUL_REDEMPTION_COUNT
    FROM deal_month dm
    LEFT JOIN HUBSPOT_HUB_1973303.V2_DAILY.ASSOCIATIONS_DEALS_TO_CONTACTS ac
        ON ac.DEAL_OBJECTID = dm.COMPANY_ID
    LEFT JOIN HUBSPOT_HUB_1973303.V2_DAILY.OBJECTS_CONTACTS oc
        ON oc.PROPERTY_HS_OBJECT_ID = ac.CONTACT_OBJECTID
    LEFT JOIN PRODUCTION.HUBSPOT.HS_ENGAGEMENTS_ENRICHED e
        ON e.COMPANY_ID = dm.COMPANY_ID
        AND e.CREATED_AT >= dm.FIRST_MONTH
        AND e.CREATED_AT < DATEADD('MONTH', 1, dm.FIRST_MONTH)
    LEFT JOIN PRODUCTION.DEPRECATED_RECOGNITION.REDEMPTION_RECORDS_V2 g
        ON g.CONTACT_ID = oc.PROPERTY_HS_OBJECT_ID
        AND g.CREATED_AT >= dm.FIRST_MONTH
        AND g.CREATED_AT < DATEADD('MONTH', 1, dm.FIRST_MONTH)
    GROUP BY dm.COMPANY_ID, dm.FIRST_MONTH
)
SELECT
    f.COMPANY_ID,
    f.FIRST_MONTH AS FIRST_CUSTOMER_MONTH,
    f.UNIQUE_GIVERS,
    f.RECOGNITION_COUNT,
    f.SUCCESSFUL_REDEMPTION_COUNT
FROM first_month_counts f
ORDER BY f.COMPANY_ID, f.FIRST_MONTH;
```

crm-completeness-enrichment0.80

Plain-English question: Audit the CRM for missing and invalid fields, and propose the fixes.

Prompt — what the model saw

Audit the CRM extract for completeness and propose fixes. Deals need owner, stage, amount, close date, why-buys; companies need industry, employee count, HQ country; contacts need email, title, persona. Report completeness percent per field. Identify duplicate company clusters (name variants, shared domain) with a survivor per cluster. List invalid emails and domain mismatches. Fill missing company fields only where the enrichment export has a matching row; where CRM and enrichment disagree list both and recommend a source. Never invent a value. End with the 10 fixes with the most pipeline amount at stake.

cost $0.0004 · 10s · in 3,713 / out 575 tok

✓ dup_clusters✓ invalid_emails✓ survivor_language✓ completeness_pct✗ no_invent

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: 9 companies missing employee count, 6 missing HQ country, 4 invalid emails, 1 domain mismatch, 2 duplicate clusters, and 25 enrichment matches.

The answer in one line: n_contacts = 52; n_companies = 34; enrichment_matches = 25; invalid_email_count = 4; n_dup_clusters = 2; domain_mismatch_count = 1 (+4 more below)

n_contacts52

domain_mismatch_count1

enrichment_matches25

invalid_email_count4

n_companies34

n_dup_clusters2

company_missingindustry=0; employee_count=9; hq_country=6

domain_mismatchesCT-0011

duplicate_clusters['C-0A092931', 'C-0A092932'], ['C-0A092933', 'C-0A092934']

invalid_emailsCT-0010, CT-0080, CT-0081, CT-0192

graded checksdup_clusters · invalid_emails · survivor_language · completeness_pct · no_invent

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Audit complete. Below is the field-level completeness, duplicate clusters with survivors, invalid/mismatched emails, and the 10 fixes with the most pipeline amount at stake. Arithmetic and evidence shown inline.

## 1. Completeness per field (deal rows excluded; only companies/contacts)

**companies.csv (27 rows)**
- industry: 23/27 = 85.2%
- employee_count: 14/27 = 51.9%
- hq_country: 19/27 = 70.4%

**contacts.csv (44 rows)**
- email: 39/44 = 88.6%
- title: 28/44 = 63.6%
- persona: 23/44 = 52.3%

## 2. Duplicate company clusters

| Cluster | Aliases | Shared domain | Survivor |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | C-0A092931 acme-corp.com; C-0A092932 acme-corp.com | acme-corp.com | C-0A092931 (industry Technology, 500, US) |
| D2 | C-0A092933 globex.io; C-0A092934 globex.io | globex.io | C-0A092933 (SaaS, 200, US) |

Both clusters are same-domain duplicates with conflicting attribute values. C-0A092932 has inconsistent industry ("tech" vs "Technology") and hq_country ("USA" vs "US"). No other aliases share domains or names in the file.

## 3. Invalid emails
- CT-0012, C-66D1FC: user2@66d1fc.com with domain 66d1fc.com — valid format, but the company domain is 66d1fc.com; it is not inconsistent. Not flagged.

Actually, re-checking: no malformed emails (no missing @, no spaces, no missing domain). The invalid/mismatch list is the domain mismatches below.

## 4. Domain mismatches (contact email domain ≠ company domain)

| Contact | Company | Email domain | Company domain |
|---|---|---|---|
| CT-0011, C-66D1FC | 66d1fc.com | other-domain.com | 66d1fc.com |
| CT-0192, C-425E2A | 425e2a.com | 425e2a.com | 425e2a

deal-intelligence 5 tests

closed-lost-classification0.80

Plain-English question: Why did we lose the last six months of deals — one primary category per deal, and whose side is the reason on?

Prompt — what the model saw

Classify every deal lost in the last 6 months below into one primary category: pricing, competitor, no decision, timing, product gap, champion left, or other. Also assign a side (Bonusly, buyer, unknown). Then summarize: category counts, the side split, the number of deals where the structured closed_lost_tag clearly disagrees with the free-text reason, and the two patterns most worth acting on. Base everything only on the tag and free-text provided.

cost $0.0024 · 75s · in 25,451 / out 5,839 tok

✗ total_90✓ competitor_top✓ category_counts_present✓ side_split✓ two_patterns

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: Every closed-lost deal gets exactly one category (pricing, competitor, no decision, timing, product gap, champion left, other) plus a side, per the computed classification.

The answer in one line: total_lost_6mo = 90; top_reason = competitor (26)

total_lost_6mo90

categoriespricing, competitor, no decision, timing, product gap, champion left, other

patternstwo most actionable, tag-vs-text disagreements counted

sideBonusly / buyer / unknown per deal

top_reasoncompetitor (26)

graded checkstotal_90 · competitor_top · category_counts_present · side_split · two_patterns

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Here is the structured analysis of every deal lost in the last 6 months (close dates 2026-03-26 through 2026-09-30) based only on the `closed_lost_tag` and `closed_lost_reason_text`:

## 1. Primary lost category per deal

| deal_alias | owner_id | tag as provided | Free-text | Assigned category | Side |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deal-DB0AAC | 83155923 | Lost- Timing (1 year or more) | rescheduled a lot of meetings and let me know they are putting this on pause for now. working on getting timeline to reconnect. | timing | Bonusly |
| Deal-F7F635 | 119337721 | Competitor | Thank you so much for reaching out. After evaluating our options the group decided to go in another direction. We will definitely keep Bonusly in mind if an opportunity arises. | competitor | Bonusly |
| Deal-AC944F | 83155923 | MIA | unresponsive | other | unknown |
| Deal-214060 | 83155923 | MIA | unresponsive | other | unknown |
| Deal-91A056 | 83155923 | Lost- Timing (1 year or more) | asked to reconnect early in 2027 | timing | Bonusly |
| Deal-29326C | 84342457 | Lost- Timing (1 year or more) | Timing | timing | Bonusly |
| Deal-5DB9B0 | 84342457 | Lost- Does not fit ICP (write in notes) | Spam. | other | Bonusly |
| Deal-831B7B | 84342457 | Lost- Timing (1 year or more) | I'm hoping we'll be able to look at this again in the new year if you could circle back then that would be great. Thank you again for your time! | timing | Bonusly |
| Deal-F97C37 | 84342457 | Competitor | My feedback is they thought other vendor had more diversified offerings in addition to rewards and recognition. They did not go into any detail, but they had all the information and links you gave me. | competitor | Bonusly |
| Deal-13E9CF | 119337721 | Doing nothing/Not a priority/Cost | Not a budget issue - R&R program has been deprioritized by the org. Need to reach out next year | no decision | Bonusly |
| Deal-39E25C | 84342457 | Lost- Timing (1 year or more) | Timing, reconenct next year. | timing | Bonusly |
| Deal-7ED004 | 83155923 | Lost- Budget/Price | Did not get budget approval | pricing | Bonusly |
| Deal-21B045 | 84342457 | MIA | MIA | other | unknown |
| Deal-B3ABED | 84342457 | Lost- Timing (1 year or more) | MIA- We'll revisit this again likely in Q2 next year to try and get budget for in 2028. | timing | Bonusly |
| Deal-422BA6 | 119337721 | Competitor | Executive team chose a competing vendor over Bonusly. Deciding factor: the other vendor is a preferred ADP TotalSource PEO partner. Preferred partnership brings pre-built integrations, dedicated ADP contacts, and additional benefits. | competitor | buyer |
| Deal-ED9AE7 | 84342457 | Lost DM | Timing, budget, authroity. | timing | Bonusly |
| Deal-988493 | 84342457 | MIA | mia | other | unknown |
| Deal-381C8C | 83155923 | Competitor | working on getting additional context - only let us know they were not going to be moving forward with Bonusly | competitor | Bonusly |
| Deal-F308CA | 119337721 | MIA | No contact since intro in April - has ignored multiple pieces of outreach from me and the ADR | other | unknown |
| Deal-F1E8A6 | 83155923 | Competitor | said they are not going to be moving forward with Bonusly | competitor | Bonusly |
| Deal-B6AC09 | 83155923 | Lost- Timing (1 year or more) | revisiting in 2027 | timing | Bonusly |
| Deal-70F704 | 83155923 | Lost DM | They were only looking to automate anniversary awards and have been MIA - will reopen if they reach back out | no decision | Bonusly |
| Deal-E6E80A | 84342457 | Lost- Timing (1 year or more) | Got pushed into early 2027 | timing | Bonusly |
| Deal-B038F0 | 84342457 | Lost- Timing (1 year or more) | Got pushed back into early 2027 | timing | Bonusly |
| Deal-4664E1 | 119337721 | MIA | No contact after intro - ignored outreach from me and the ADR | other | unknown |
| Deal-175756 | 83155923 | Lost- Timing (1 year or more) | Due to other priorities they are putting this on hold until 2027 | timing | Bonusly |
| Deal-E74A73 | 716654662 | Doing nothing/Not a priority/Cost | The team would first like to test the points calculation manually, to see whether employees really engage with the project, before investing in an external platform. We may well be in touch again sometime next year! | product gap | Bonusly |
| Deal-DDAB52 | 716654662 | Competitor | Rippl - platform offers a lot more at the same cost, and without dealing with exchange rate differences (easier to budget). | competitor | Bonusly |
| Deal-ACE061 | 119337721 | Competitor | They wouldn't tell me directly, but I feel they went with HeyTaco. Thanks so much for the time to meet with me last week! We've decided to go in a different direction, but I really appreciate your time. | competitor | buyer |
| Deal-BB78F3 | 119337721 | Lost- Timing (1 year or more) | Bonusly is still something we're interested in pursuing as an end goal. However, leadership would like us to roll out a few plant-specific action items from our recent survey first. | timing | buyer |
| Deal-D48E0B | 84342457 | MIA | MIA | other | unknown |
| Deal-15DA99 | 84342457 | Lost- Timing (1 year or more) | Timing, looking to bring it back up eaerly 2027. | timing | Bonusly |
| Deal-F4AF5D | 84342457 | Lost- Timing (1 year or more) | Timing looking at early next year. | timing | Bonusly |
| Deal-79B7A1 | 84342457 | Lost- Timing (1 year or more) | Timing | timing | Bonusly |
| Deal-583ADB | 84342457 | MIA | MIA | other | unknown |
| Deal-8E27DA | 84342457 | Feature Request | They moved forward with just a swag provider and didn't want R&R, currently. | product gap | Bonusly |
| Deal-2D2F8D | 716654662 | Competitor | Decided to move in a different direction. | competitor | unknown |
| Deal-E0441F | 119337721 | MIA | Was stale when I inherited it from a departed rep. No contact from consultant nor prospect | other | unknown |
| Deal-7CB44D | 119337721 | MIA | No meaningful contact since demo. Ignored multiple pieces of outreach from me and the ADR | other | unknown |
| Deal-0F96AA | 119337721 | Competitor | Thanks for the time and effort Bonusly put into our Rewards & Recognition RFP. After a thorough evaluation, we won't be advancing Bonusly to the finalist demo stage at this time. | competitor | buyer |
| Deal-1BCA50 | 119337721 | Competitor | It was mostly about the budget and details regarding gift cards and similar items. And the other stakeholder was already way down the path with another vendor. | competitor | buyer |
| Deal-7CC678 | 83155924 | Competitor | Nothing specific provided. | competitor | unknown |
| Deal-FAC17C | 119337721 | Lost DM | Contract has been out two months but they couldn't get final approval from the Executive IT Director | pricing | unknown |
| Deal-242273 | 83155923 | Competitor | Both of our top two vendors were able to help us solution our need to digitize our internal points currency and allow our employees to spend their points at our onsite facilities. Ultimately this was the biggest differentiator. | competitor | Bonusly |
| Deal-50E5D8 | 83155923 | Doing nothing/Not a priority/Cost | Leadership decided the company is going to pause on this for now- said she will reach out in the future if that changes. | no decision | Bonusly |
| Deal-A2C349 | 119337721 | Competitor | After evaluating our options, we've decided to stick with Awardco for our recognition needs and add their surveying functionality. | competitor | buyer |
| Deal-9F176A | 119337721 | Lost- Timing (1 year or more) | We've put a pause on this work and I don't anticipate it picking back up until closer to the end of the year. | timing | Bonusly |
| Deal-7B2236 | 119337721 | Doing nothing/Not a priority/Cost | It was a combination of budget and a shift in what they wanted out of the Kudos board. They would prefer something simpler and cheaper for now! | product gap | Bonusly |
| Deal-AFA56C | 83155924 | MIA | unresponsive | other | unknown |
| Deal-C7156E | 119337721 | Competitor | Thank you for all of the time and information you've shared with us throughout our evaluation process. After careful consideration we have selected another vendor. | competitor | buyer |
| Deal-C33D91 | 83155923 | Lost- Budget/Price | company going through significant budget cuts and was not able to get this approved. | pricing | Bonusly |
| Deal-9048EB | 119337721 | MIA | Confirmed with CS and Sales leadership moving to C/L is the best move. No meaningful contact since April and it was a bad fit based on their desired setup and multiple feature gaps | product gap | unknown |
| Deal-5E64CE | 83155923 | Doing nothing/Not a priority/Cost | The fee for getting out of the Nectar agreement is a lot and their agreement is through October 2027 - she is planning to reach out when they are closer to contract end to move over to Bonusly | other | Bonusly |
| Deal-8A0992 | 83155924 | Competitor | Went with a Canadian provider that more closely aligns. | competitor | unknown |
| Deal-D0C698 | 83155923 | Competitor | Her client is a past user of Kudos and wants to use that platform again - she will reach out if anything changes there. | competitor | Bonusly |
| Deal-69CF3D | 84342457 | Lost- Timing (1 year or more) | On Hold | timing | Bonusly |
| Deal-ECBF89 | 84342457 | Lost- Timing (1 year or more) | On Hold for now | timing | Bonusly |
| Deal-3618CC | 84342457 | Lost DM | Wanted Surveys | other | Bonusly |
| Deal-EECC02 | 83155924 | Competitor | Went another direction. | competitor | unknown |
| Deal-5AD03E | 84342457 | Competitor | Wanted more defined budget access | pricing | Bonusly |
| Deal-D1A623 | 84342457 | Lost- Timing (1 year or more) | timing | timing | Bonusly |
| Deal-413C56 | 83155924 | Doing nothing/Not a priority/Cost | Back to school is priority and CEO not ready. | no decision | unknown |
| Deal-47F1A1 | 83155924 | Competitor | Staying with WorkTango for another 12 months. | competitor | unknown |
| Deal-BF2A98 | 84342457 | Competitor | Recently deployed HiThrive within the org | competitor | Bonusly |
| Deal-2A292B | 83155923 | Doing nothing/Not a priority/Cost | going to build something simple internally | product gap | Bonusly |
| Deal-D1AABF | 83155924 | MIA | No response. | other | unknown |
| Deal-FEDBCB | 83155923 | Doing nothing/Not a priority/Cost | Wanted to reconnect closer to the end of the year but was not super engaged - will reopen if things change | no decision | Bonusly |
| Deal-1E7DA9 | 119337721 | Competitor | Thank you for all the time, attention, and support you've provided throughout our evaluation process. We have selected another platform. | competitor | buyer |
| Deal-2BBA21 | 119337721 | MIA | No contact since intro call. Ignored four nudges in the last 1.5 months | other | unknown |
| Deal-286F9C | 119337721 | Competitor | Thank you very much for the conversation we had! But we decided to go with another platform. Bonusly sounds great but it's not really a good fit for us. | product gap | buyer |
| Deal-7FBAC6 | 119337721 | Doing nothing/Not a priority/Cost | I really appreciate you meeting with me to walk me through Bonusly again. Unfortunately, Leadership has made the decision to pause (again) for now. | no decision | Bonusly |
| Deal-369281 | 83155923 | Competitor | went with what they have in paylocity | competitor | Bonusly |
| Deal-386F6E | 83155924 | MIA | No response. | other | unknown |
| Deal-9FCD0D | 84342457 | Competitor | I don't think it fell short of anything. The team chose to go with a Canadian company as that was important to our CEO if it was possible. | competitor | Bonusly |
| Deal-55867E | 84342457 | Lost- Timing (1 year or more) | Thank you for checking in and for your patience throughout our evaluation process. After careful consideration, I don't think we'll be moving forward with Bonusly at this time. | timing | Bonusly |
| Deal-DAFB82 | 83155923 | Lost- Budget/Price | Right now there are too many other company priorities that budget is needed for and they don't see this being budgeted in until 2028 - but said she loves Bonusly and is going to loop back. | pricing | Bonusly |
| Deal-2FEDDB | 83155923 | Doing nothing/Not a priority/Cost | Unsure on timing that she is going to be able to get this moving. | timing | Bonusly |
| Deal-64B19A | 83155923 | Competitor | Likely stayed with Motivosity | competitor | Bonusly |
| Deal-096750 | 119337721 | MIA | No meaningful contact after intro. Ignored four attempts to revive | other | unknown |
| Deal-F325A5 | 83155923 | Lost DM | Layoffs and Change in Leadership - this is no longer a priority right now | no decision | Bonusly |
| Deal-ABD14C | 83155924 | Doing nothing/Not a priority/Cost | Not interested in signing up for our program. | other | unknown |
| Deal-79E61A | 83155924 | MIA | Unresponsive. | other | unknown |
| Deal-8A119B | 83155924 | Lost- Budget/Price | Didn't get approval. | pricing | unknown |
| Deal-AE7C4E | 83155924 | MIA | Unresponsive. | other | unknown |
| Deal-DAB4F1 | 83155924 | MIA | Unresponsive. | other | unknown |
| Deal-B4B50F | 83155924 | MIA | Unresponsive. | other | unknown |
| Deal-981AD4 | 83155924 | Feature Request | Doesn't fit UI and not UK focused. | product gap | unknown |
| Deal-DC77FE | 84342457 | Competitor | Bonusly was a very strong contender, and you were competitive in price so that wasn't a factor. Ultimately, I found a system that offered a bit more in terms of customization, such as being able to label points as dollars. | competitor | Bonusly |
| Deal-5885B9 | 84342457 | MIA | MIA | other | unknown |

## 2. Category counts

| Category | Count | Sum of amounts ($) |
|---|---|---|
| competitor | 33 | 421,693.40 |
| timing | 30 | 238,204.40 |
| pricing | 10 | 292,671.96 |
| no decision | 17 | 206,519.40 |
| product gap | 8 | 130,315.00 |
| other | 21 | 119,341.60 |
| **Total** | **139** | **1,415,845.76** |

## 3. Side split

| Side | Count |
|---|---|
| Bonusly | 85 |
| buyer | 17 |
| unknown | 37 |

## 4. Deals where closed_lost_tag clearly disagrees with free-text reason

**Disagreements (tag doesn't match the reason):**

1. Deal-F325A5 — tag `Lost DM`, free-text: "Layoffs and Change in Leadership - this is no longer a priority right now" → tag should be `no decision`
2. Deal-7CB44D — tag `MIA`, free-text: "No meaningful contact since demo. Ignored multiple pieces of outreach from me and the ADR" → tag should be `other` (a lost reason, not a passive MIA)
3. Deal-F308CA — tag `MIA`, free-text: "No contact since intro in April - has ignored multiple pieces of outreach from me and the ADR" → tag should be `other`
4. Deal-0F96AA — tag `Competitor`, free-text: "Thanks ... won't be advancing Bonusly to the finalist demo stage at this time" → this is a soft no, not clearly a competitor loss → tag should be `no decision`
5. Deal-79E61A — tag `MIA`, free-text: "Unresponsive." → tag should be `other`
6. Deal-AE7C4E — tag `MIA`, free-text: "Unresponsive." → tag should be `other`
7. Deal-DAB4F1 — tag `MIA`, free-text: "Unresponsive." → tag should be `other`
8. Deal-B4B50F — tag `MIA`, free-text: "Unresponsive." → tag should be `other`
9. Deal-E0441F — tag `MIA`, free-text: "Was stale when I inherited it from a departed rep. No contact from consultant nor prospect" → tag should be `other`
10. Deal-FAC17C — tag `Lost DM`, free-text: "contract out two months but they couldn't get final approval from the Executive IT Director" → tag should be `pricing`
11. Deal-386F6E — tag `MIA`, free-text: "No response." → tag should be `other`
12. Deal-D1AABF — tag `MIA`, free-text: "No response." → tag should be `other`
13. Deal-2BBA21 — tag `MIA`, free-text: "No contact since intro call. Ignored four nudges in the last 1.5 months" → tag should be `other`
14. Deal-ECBF89 — tag `Lost- Timing (1 year or more)`, free-text: "On Hold for now" → tag should be `timing` (partial match; "on hold" ≈ timing/pause)
15. Deal-69CF3D — tag `Lost- Timing (1 year or more)`, free-text: "On Hold" → tag should be `timing`
16. Deal-D48E0B — tag `MIA`, free-text: "MIA" → tag should be `other`
17. Deal-583ADB — tag `MIA`, free-text: "MIA" → tag should be `other`
18. Deal-988493 — tag `MIA`, free-text: "mia" → tag should be `other`
19. Deal-21B045 — tag `MIA`, free-text: "MIA" → tag should be `other`
20. Deal-3618CC — tag `Lost DM`, free-text: "Wanted Surveys" → this is product gap, not lost DM
21. Deal-096750 — tag `MIA`, free-text: "No meaningful contact after intro. Ignored four attempts to revive" → tag should be `other`
22. Deal-981AD4 — tag `Feature Request`, free-text: "Doesn't fit UI and not UK focused." → tag and reason actually agree
23. Deal-9FCD0D — tag `Competitor`, free-text: "I don't think it fell short of anything. The team chose to go with a Canadian company as that was important to our CEO if it was possible." → tag should be `competitor` (agreement)
24. Deal-9F176A — tag `Lost- Timing (1 year or more)`, free-text: "We've put a pause on this work and I don't anticipate it picking back up until closer to the end of the year." → tag should be `timing` (agreement)
25. Deal-F1E8A6 — tag `Competitor`, free-text: "said they are not going to be moving forward with Bonusly" → tag should be `no decision` (a soft no, not clearly competitor-driven)

So the structured tag clearly disagrees in **15 deals** (the MIA/MIA, Unresponsive rows, plus the 3 tagged-`Lost DM`/`MIA`/`Feature Request` mismatches and Deal-0F96AA). If you count the 2 deals where tag and free-text partially align (`Deal-ECBF89`, `Deal-69CF3D`, `Deal-F1E8A6`), the count is 18. I'd state it as **15 clear disagreements**, with 3 near-misses.

## 5. Two patterns most worth acting on

1. **MIA / silent-loss crowding-out** — 23 of 139 deals are `MIA` with free-text "unresponsive," "No response," "MIA," or "No meaningful contact ... ignored outreach." These are not competitor losses; they are follow-up and nurture failures. The tag column itself is unreliable for these rows, and the team is likely spending outreach on deals that went nowhere instead of re-engaging or looping these owners.

2. **Timing/pause + product gap = "win while price doesn't matter"** — 30 deals are timing/pause and 8 are product gap, and both overlap with "not a competitor loss" (several explicitly say "Bonusly sounds great but it's not really a good fit"). The top evidence of a real product-problem signal here is Deal-7FBAC6 (leadership paused), Deal-286F9C ("Bonusly sounds great but it's not really a good fit"), and Deal-7CB44D/E74A73 ("test the points calculation manually before investing"). These are regions where product-market fit (points calculation, UK focus, survey functionality) is a live objection, not a strategic decision.

pipeline-tiering0.80

Plain-English question: Score all 156 open deals into exactly one of LOCK / ACTION / BUILD / REVIVE / WATCH / RISKY.

Prompt — what the model saw

Score the open pipeline below on these signals: forecast category, stage, meetings_30d, contact count, and engagement recency. Assign exactly one tier per deal: LOCK, ACTION, BUILD, REVIVE, WATCH, or RISKY (RISKY = the forecast category disagrees with the engagement evidence). Never tier a deal LOCK if it has zero meetings_30d. Do NOT list every deal. Return ONLY a compact JSON object with exactly these keys: - "tier_counts": object mapping each tier to the number of deals in it (must sum to the total deal count), - "tier_examples": object mapping each tier to up to 3 example deal aliases from the data, - "risky_deals": array of the deal aliases you tiered RISKY, - "lock_violations": number of deals tiered LOCK that have zero meetings_30d (should be 0), - "pipeline_shape": one short paragraph on the overall pipeline shape. Note: inbound_emails_30d is 0 for every row due to a data defect, so treat meetings_30d as the inbound signal.

cost $0.0024 · 15s · in 45,226 / out 784 tok

✓ json_returned✓ tier_vocabulary✗ tier_counts_sum✓ risky_deals_listed✓ no_lock_violation_claimed

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: All 156 open deals tiered exactly once across the six tiers using forecast category, stage, meetings, contacts, and recency.

The answer in one line: total = 156

total156

graded checksjson_returned · tier_vocabulary · tier_counts_sum · risky_deals_listed · no_lock_violation_claimed

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

{
  "tier_counts": {
    "LOCK": 0,
    "ACTION": 2,
    "BUILD": 6,
    "REVIVE": 6,
    "WATCH": 27,
    "RISKY": 21,
    "TOTAL": 62
  },
  "tier_examples": {
    "ACTION": ["60273519516", "60333965090"],
    "BUILD": ["62622465606", "63436734854", "49757401138"],
    "REVIVE": ["61750885954", "60273519516", "60333965090"],
    "WATCH": ["64627577700", "64175252496", "64420745083"],
    "RISKY": ["60083540312", "60177822276", "61055143851"]
  },
  "risky_deals": [
    "60083540312",
    "60177822276",
    "61055143851",
    "61355726336",
    "61625564751",
    "62499298608",
    "62704497525",
    "62704706356",
    "63083864626",
    "63087338777",
    "63125458471",
    "63361066820",
    "63433821449",
    "63434077517",
    "63436579616",
    "63673359012",
    "63739413805",
    "63767897001",
    "64175150612",
    "64175515559",
    "64288632445"
  ],
  "lock_violations": 0,
  "pipeline_shape": "The DS1/PIPELINE cohort is the largest single group (27 deals), but it has virtually no outbound engagement; several deals have both zero meetings_30d and zero or near-zero n_contacts, so they cannot be LOCK even where the forecast category is COMMIT. The DS4/BEST_CASE core (8 deals) is the most engagement-active tier, with 3 tied for ACTION and 1–2 tied for RISKY, but its volumes are small and it lacks enough 30-day meetings or contact density to justify more locks. Channel-wise, DIRECT_TRAFFIC and ORGANIC_SEARCH carry the only meaningful meeting-active rows, while OFFLINE rows consistently show zero outbound engagement. Overall the pipeline is forecast-heavy but engagement-thin: all 62 deals would need 1–2 more 30-day meetings + a real re-engagement touchpoint before any could move to LOCK."
}

call-transcript-extractionPASS 1.00

Plain-English question: Extract the CRM write-back fields from each call transcript as JSON.

Prompt — what the model saw

For each transcript, extract CRM write-back fields as JSON: why-buys (prospect statements only), pain points, stakeholders from the speaker list, budget signal (prospect-stated or null), timeline signal, competitor mentioned (only if the prospect raised it), next step (only if explicitly agreed), objections, confidence. Never fill a field from what the rep said or hoped.

cost $0.0006 · 23s · in 2,552 / out 1,773 tok

✓ json_emitted✓ budget_signal✓ null_discipline✓ stakeholders✓ competitor_prospect_only

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: Per transcript: prospect-only why-buys, pain points, stakeholders, budget and timeline signals, and competitors — e.g. TX-001: '$40k earmarked', live before open enrollment.

The answer in one line: rep = Alex Franklin

allowed_newTX-001, TX-002, TX-003, TX-004, TX-005, TX-006, Achievers, Bucketlist, Nectar

per_transcript{"TX-001": {"why_buys": ["automating anniversary and birthday awards"], "pain_points": ["HR team of three cannot keep up with it manually", "track everything in a spreadsheet, and people slip through

repAlex Franklin

rep_sourced_nulls{"TX-003": ["budget_signal \u2014 only the rep mentioned pricing/budget"], "TX-004": ["next_step \u2014 rep proposed, prospect said 'no promises'"], "TX-006": ["budget_signal \u2014 rep decoy, prospec

graded checksjson_emitted · budget_signal · null_discipline · stakeholders · competitor_prospect_only

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

The JSON below contains the CRM write-back fields extracted from the six transcripts. Values come only from prospect statements (per your rule); fields the rep raised or that were never agreed to are left empty rather than filled in.

```json
{
  "TX-001": {
    "deal_alias": "Deal-CFE7F4",
    "why-buys": [
      "Automating anniversary and birthday awards because the HR team of three cannot keep up with it manually",
      "Right now tracking everything in a spreadsheet and people slip through the cracks"
    ],
    "pain_points": [
      "HR team of three cannot keep up with anniversary and birthday awards manually",
      "Tracking everything in a spreadsheet and people slip through the cracks"
    ],
    "stakeholders": [
      "Alex Franklin",
      "Prospect (VP People)",
      "Prospect (HR Admin)"
    ],
    "budget_signal": "prospect-stated",
    "budget_value": "about $40k earmarked for engagement tools this fiscal year",
    "timeline_signal": "Ideally live before open enrollment in November",
    "competitor_mentioned": "Achievers",
    "competitor_context": "We looked at Achievers last year, but it was too heavy for a team our size",
    "next_step": "Security review scheduled for September 12",
    "objections": [],
    "confidence": "medium"
  },
  "TX-002": {
    "deal_alias": "Deal-70BB30",
    "why-buys": [
      "Tie recognition to retention for the hourly workforce",
      "Regretted turnover there is over 30%"
    ],
    "pain_points": [
      "Need to tie recognition to retention for the hourly workforce",
      "Regretted turnover over 30%"
    ],
    "stakeholders": [
      "Alex Franklin",
      "Prospect (Head of Total Rewards)",
      "Prospect (CFO)"
    ],
    "budget_signal": "prospect-stated",
    "budget_value": "$25k pilot budget for this quarter, approved by Finance",
    "timeline_signal": "Decision by end of September",
    "competitor_mentioned": null,
    "next_step": "Pilot agreement — prospect to route to legal this week",
    "objections": [],
    "confidence": "high"
  },
  "TX-003": {
    "deal_alias": "Deal-530B50",
    "why-buys": [
      "Make recognition visible across 12 retail locations",
      "Store managers have zero budget autonomy for on-the-spot recognition today"
    ],
    "pain_points": [
      "Need to make recognition visible across 12 retail locations",
      "Store managers have zero budget autonomy for on-the-spot recognition"
    ],
    "stakeholders": [
      "Alex Franklin",
      "Prospect (People Ops Manager)"
    ],
    "budget_signal": null,
    "budget_value": null,
    "timeline_signal": "No rush on our side until Q1",
    "competitor_mentioned": "Bucketlist",
    "competitor_context": "My CEO used Bucketlist at her last company and liked it",
    "next_step": "Schedule a call with the CEO; prospect will send two times",
    "objections": [],
    "confidence": "medium"
  },
  "TX-004": {
    "deal_alias": "Deal-180D02",
    "why-buys": [
      "Consolidate three separate recognition tools into one",
      "Paying for three tools and none of them talk to our HRIS"
    ],
    "pain_points": [
      "Consolidating three separate recognition tools",
      "Paying for three tools that do not talk to the HRIS"
    ],
    "stakeholders": [
      "Alex Franklin",
      "Prospect (VP People)",
      "Prospect (IT Security Lead)"
    ],
    "budget_signal": "prospect-stated",
    "budget_value": "Under $15k annually, VP can approve without going to the board",
    "timeline_signal": "Procurement cycle runs six to eight weeks minimum; security review took three months for the last vendor",
    "competitor_mentioned": null,
    "next_step": [],
    "objections": [
      "Procurement cycle runs six to eight weeks minimum",
      "Security review took three months for last vendor"
    ],
    "confidence": "low"
  },
  "TX-005": {
    "deal_alias": "Deal-F8767A",
    "why-buys": [
      "Automate service milestones",
      "Analytics on recognition equity across departments",
      "Night-shift teams feel invisible — engagement scores run 20 points lower"
    ],
    "pain_points": [
      "Need to automate service milestones",
      "Need analytics on recognition equity across departments",
      "Night-shift teams feel invisible; engagement scores 20 points lower",
      "Mid-pilot with Nectar, so you would need to beat that experience",
      "Exec team is skeptical after a failed rollout two years ago"
    ],
    "stakeholders": [
      "Alex Franklin",
      "Prospect (HR Director)",
      "Prospect (People Ops Coordinator)"
    ],
    "budget_signal": "prospect-stated",
    "budget_value": "$12k approved under the engagement line",
    "timeline_signal": "Need this running before the January all-hands",
    "competitor_mentioned": "Nectar",
    "competitor_context": "We're mid-pilot with Nectar right now, so you'd need to beat that experience",
    "next_step": "Alex Franklin to present directly to the exec team on October 2",
    "objections": [
      "Night-shift teams feel invisible; engagement scores 20 points lower",
      "Mid-pilot with Nectar — vendor must beat that experience",
      "Exec team skeptical after a failed rollout two years ago"
    ],
    "confidence": "medium"
  },
  "TX-006": {
    "deal_alias": "Deal-EE195F",
    "why-buys": [
      "Cut admin time on service awards",
      "HR Manager personally spends five hours a month ordering and shipping plaques"
    ],
    "pain_points": [
      "Admin time on service awards",
      "Spending five hours a month ordering and shipping plaques"
    ],
    "stakeholders": [
      "Alex Franklin",
      "Prospect (HR Manager)"
    ],
    "budget_signal": null,
    "budget_value": null,
    "timeline_signal": "Fiscal year resets in February, so a Q1 start is realistic",
    "competitor_mentioned": null,
    "next_step": "One-page overview to forward to the COO this week",
    "objections": [
      "Budget is not the issue — time is",
      "COO usually prefers building things in-house"
    ],
    "confidence": "low"
  }
}
```

Notes on extraction logic applied:
- `why-buys` = only statements from the prospect (not Alex Franklin) that express a buying motive or desired outcome.
- `competitor_mentioned` = only when the prospect raised the vendor; rep-raised or implied vendors are not included (e.g., Bucketlist in TX-003 and Nectar in TX-005 are included because the prospect named them).
- `next_step` = only explicitly agreed next actions (TX-001 security review date; TX-002 pilot agreement routing; TX-003 CEO call scheduling; TX-005 exec presentation date; TX-006 one-page to COO). TX-004 has no agreed next step — the VP said "maybe" about checking the CFO's calendar, which is not an agreement.
- `budget_signal` = "prospect-stated" when the prospect gave a number/budget scope; otherwise `null`.
- `confidence` = my read of deal momentum based only on the stated data (e.g., TX-002 high — explicit pilot agreement + decision date; TX-004 and TX-006 low due to no committed next steps); this is an analyst judgment, not a prospect statement.

next-to-close0.50

Plain-English question: Which 3 deals are closest to signature right now?

Prompt — what the model saw

Which 3 deals are closest to signature right now? Use the CRM data and the Slack thread; Slack often has the real status before the CRM does. For each: deal, amount, why it is close, what is left. Under 250 words.

cost $0.0003 · 11s · in 2,043 / out 288 tok

✗ exactly_three✗ top3_named✓ slack_first✓ blocked_excluded

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: Deal-547B2B ($11,200), Deal-B7EBD1 ($9,000), and Deal-403845 ($9,000) — all DS5 COMMIT deals closing September 10-11, with what is left on each.

blocked_excludeddeal_alias=Deal-2465CE; reason=champion left + procurement freeze (Slack #sales-sparring 2026-09-04)

exactly_three1

ranking_ruleSlack signature-imminent deal ranks first; remaining ranked by stage (DS5>DS4), forecast (COMMIT>BEST_CASE>PIPELINE), close_date asc, amount desc

top3rank=1; deal_alias=Deal-547B2B; amount=11200; stage=DS5; forecast_category=COMMIT; close_date=2026-09-11 | rank=2; deal_alias=Deal-B7EBD1; amount=9000; stage=DS5; forecast_category=COMMIT; close_date=2026-09-10 | rank=3; deal_alias=Deal-403845; amount=9000; stage=DS5; forecast_category=COMMIT; close_date=2026-09-11

graded checksexactly_three · top3_named · slack_first · blocked_excluded

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

The 3 deals closest to signature, based on the CRM + Slack:

1. **Deal-547B2B** — $11,200 (DS5/COMMIT) — Slack says redlines clean, signing page live, VP People signing tomorrow; nothing left but signature.
2. **Deal-403845** — $9,000 (DS5/COMMIT) — Order form with Finance; "moving fine" per owner.
3. **Deal-D348E1** — $13,770 (DS5/COMMIT) — Slack: "still warm, just normal legal-review pace."

Deal-2465CE ($5,400, DS5/COMMIT) is NOT close — Dana says her champion left, procurement froze new vendors, pulling it out of commit; realistically Q4 now. Top DS5 COMMIT in the CRM is Deal-3974EB ($9,000), but its close date is 2026-09-11 with no Slack mention; the three above are the only ones Slack flags signature-imminent.

Note: Chen Deal-3974EB and Deal-C61CF7 ($5,400, DS5/BEST_CASE) have no Slack status and should be verified before treating as close.

product-gap-detectionPASS 1.00

Plain-English question: Which prospect complaints are true product gaps versus rollout or enablement issues?

Prompt — what the model saw

Surface true product gaps raised by prospects in active deals. For each candidate: quote the prospect line, classify as real gap, plan gate, or rollout/enablement issue using the product docs excerpt, and name the deal and amount. Only real gaps go in the summary. Rep language does not count as prospect voice.

cost $0.0005 · 16s · in 4,698 / out 785 tok

✓ real_gaps✓ plan_gate_classified✓ enablement_classified✓ gap_summary

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: Two real gaps (SCIM provisioning, ADP Workforce Now integration) separated from plan gates and enablement issues, each with the prospect quote and deal.

allowed_newTG-001, TG-002, TG-003, TG-004, TG-005, SCIM user provisioning, ADP Workforce Now integration, Custom report builder

enablement_issuestranscript_id=TG-004; deal_alias=Deal-84DBA6; amount=16000; feature=Slack integration recognition adoption; quote=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.; why_enablement=Slack integration exists on all plans; managers were never trained

excluded_rep_voicetranscript_id=TG-005; line=Full transparency — we don't have a native mobile app for hourly workers yet, though it's on the roadmap.; reason=rep voice, not prospect-raised

plan_gatestranscript_id=TG-003; deal_alias=Deal-CFE7F4; amount=32000; feature=Custom report builder; tier_required=Enterprise; quote=I tried to build a custom report combining recognition frequency with turnover and couldn't — is that possible on our current plan?

real_gapstranscript_id=TG-001; deal_alias=Deal-EC3025; amount=62000; feature=SCIM user provisioning; quote=We need SCIM user provisioning — our security team will not approve any tool that requires manual account management.; why_real=not listed in product docs at any tier | transcript_id=TG-002; deal_alias=Deal-D0D6B5; amount=23800; feature=ADP Workforce Now integration; quote=Our payroll runs on ADP Workforce Now and I don't see ADP anywhere in your integration list — that's a dealbreaker for us.; why_real=supported HRIS list is Workday/BambooHR/Gusto/Rippling only

graded checksreal_gaps · plan_gate_classified · enablement_classified · gap_summary

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

The gaps below come only from the provided transcript lines and product docs. No numbers besides deal aliases/amounts are available — no deal values are given in the source files.

Synced to memory: `transcripts_gaps.csv` and `product_docs.md` for gap analysis.

## 1. SCIM user provisioning (Deal-EC3025)

- **Prospect line:** "We need SCIM user provisioning — our security team will not approve any tool that requires manual account management."
- **Classification:** Real gap
- **Why:** Product docs explicitly list SCIM user provisioning as "NOT currently listed as supported."
- **Deal/amount:** Deal-EC3025; amount not specified in source.

## 2. ADP Workforce Now integration (Deal-D0D6B5)

- **Prospect line:** "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
- **Why:** HRIS integrations listed in docs are Workday, BambooHR, Gusto, Rippling only; ADP Workforce Now is explicitly "NOT currently listed as supported."
- **Deal/amount:** Deal-D0D6B5; amount not specified in source.

## 3. Custom report builder on current plan (Deal-CFE7F4)

- **Prospect line:** "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 (not a real product gap)
- **Why:** Docs show custom report builder is Enterprise-only ("Custom report builder | — | — | yes"), so it's unavailable on lower tiers — the prospect isn't asking for something unbuildable, just not on their current plan.
- **Deal/amount:** Deal-CFE7F4; amount not specified in source.

## 4. Slack integration manager adoption (Deal-84DBA6)

- **Prospect line:** "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
- **Why:** Slack integration IS supported on all plans; the issue is adoption/training, not a missing capability. The doc is silent on training then Alex's response ("That's fixable — I'll set up a manager enablement session") confirms it's an enablement matter.
- **Deal/amount:** Deal-84DBA6; amount not specified in source.

## 5. Mobile app for hourly workers (Deal-36C33F)

- **Prospect line:** "Good to know. The web version should be fine for our office staff for now." (Prospect voice; the gap line is Alex's statement.)
- **Gap line (prospect-adjacent):** "we don't have a native mobile app for hourly workers yet, though it's on the roadmap" — attributed to Alex Franklin in the transcript, so this is rep language, not prospect voice, and is excluded by your instructions.
- **Classification:** Not counted as a real gap (rep language / roadmap item; no prospect question or unmet request)
- **Deal/amount:** Deal-36C33F; amount not specified in source.

## Summary — only real product gaps

1. **SCIM user provisioning** — open, not supported (Deal-EC3025)
2. **ADP Workforce Now HRIS integration** — open, not supported (Deal-D0D6B5)

All other flagged items are plan-tier constraints or rollout/enablement issues and are excluded from the real-gap summary per your criteria. No amounts were provided in the data, so no deal values can be reported.

rep-performance 5 tests

stale-pipeline-by-rep0.17

Plain-English question: Which open deals have had no email, call, or meeting in the last 7 days?

Prompt — what the model saw

The snapshot date is 2026-09-05. Using the open deals and the engagements-by-deal table, list every open deal with no logged email, call, or meeting in the last 7 days. Compute recency from the engagements table's last_email/last_call/last_meeting fields, NOT from any date field on the deal (the deal's last_contacted_field is unreliable). For each stale deal give: deal alias, owner name, stage, amount, days since last contact. Group by owner, order by amount descending within each owner. Then state, per owner, how many stale deals they carry and the total stale amount. (Do not write outreach text.)

cost $0.0016 · 16s · in 26,901 / out 860 tok

✗ stale_recall_ge_80✓ grouped_by_owner✗ jake_top_amount✗ kevin_stale_amt✗ jenn_stale_amt✗ stale_count

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: 65 open deals are stale; the largest is Deal-2D1F1B at $240,000, with Bryce Harmon carrying the most stale dollars at $626,243.

The answer in one line: jake_amt = 626,243; jenn_amt = 261,645; kevin_amt = 252,905.03; top_amount = 240,000; stale_count = 65; top_alias = Deal-2D1F1B

jake_amt626,243

jenn_amt261,645

kevin_amt252,905.03

stale_count65

top_amount240,000

top_aliasDeal-2D1F1B

graded checksstale_recall_ge_80 · grouped_by_owner · jake_top_amount · kevin_stale_amt · jenn_stale_amt · stale_count

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Using snapshot 2026-09-05, I treated "no logged email/call/meeting in the last 7 days" as having last_email/last_call/last_meeting all before 2026-08-29. I computed days since last contact from those fields only (value = snapshot date − most recent of those three).

Stale open deals (most recent contact < 2026-08-29):

- Bryce Harmon (119337721): 5 stale deals
  1. Deal-012CB1 — DS1, PIPELINE, $1 — 20 days
  2. Deal-CA7DC0 — DS2, PIPELINE, $8,160 — 16 days
  3. Deal-3EED2C — DS2, PIPELINE, $7,200 — 10 days
  4. Deal-93C8BF — DS2, PIPELINE, $36,000 — 0 days
  5. Deal-317E6F — DS3, PIPELINE, $5,400 — 15 days

- Alex Franklin (84342457): 4 stale deals
  1. Deal-58634284981 — DS5, COMMIT, $11,200 — 58 days
  2. Deal-0D0211 — DS3, PIPELINE, $1,968 — 46 days
  3. Deal-B936FE — DS3, PIPELINE, $18,000 — 7 days
  4. Deal-D0BC96 — DS3, PIPELINE, $1,632 — 31 days

- Dana Mercer (83155923): 2 stale deals
  1. Deal-B42F46 — DS1, PIPELINE, $27,000 — 25 days
  2. Deal-C9C286 — DS2, PIPELINE, $5,502 — 16 days

- Cole Ingram (83155924): 3 stale deals
  1. Deal-342E96 — DS2, PIPELINE, $2,700 — 15 days
  2. Deal-FF809F — DS2, PIPELINE, $7,781.20 — 8 days
  3. Deal-C7F9BF — DS2, PIPELINE, $3,360 — 8 days

- Elena Sinclair (701163055): 1 stale deal
  1. Deal-627646 — DS3, PIPELINE, $11,193 — 7 days

- Farid Osman (716654662): 0 stale deals

Stale totals per owner: Bryce Harmon $55,761; Alex Franklin $23,500 (wait, recompute: 11,200 + 1,968 + 18,000 + 1,632 = 32,800; not 23,500). Let me correct that: Alex Franklin $32,800. Dana Mercer $32,502. Cole Ingram $13,841.20. Elena Sinclair $11,193.

Note: Deal-5FFD1A30A6 was excluded because its engagements file row has empty last_email/last_call/last_meeting — that data point is missing from the engagements file, so it could not be classified as stale here. Please confirm whether those 3 fields were genuinely absent from the data or were truncated.

activity-mix-vs-outcome0.60

Plain-English question: Per rep, what did the last 30 days of emails, calls, and meetings look like next to the deals that advanced?

Prompt — what the model saw

The snapshot date is 2026-09-05. For each sales rep (owner), compute the last-30-day totals of emails, calls, and meetings from the engagements table, and the number of deals that entered DS2 in the last 30 days (t_ds2 within 30 days of the snapshot). Report per rep: the activity mix as percentages (emails/calls/meetings share of that rep's total activities), total activities per DS2 entry, and rank the reps by that efficiency ratio (lowest activities per DS2 entry = most efficient). Name the most efficient rep and the highest-volume rep, and note if they differ. Do not attribute cause.

cost $0.0015 · 239s · in 196 / out 6,105 tok

✓ alex_ds2_30d✓ justin_volume_high✗ efficient_named✗ mix_present✓ no_causal_claim

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: Alex Franklin is the standout signal with 18 deals entering DS2 in 30 days (next closest: Bryce Harmon with 4), alongside per-rep activity totals.

The answer in one line: alex_ds2_30d = 18; bryce_ds2_30d = 4; note = legacy alias justin_ds2=4 actually held Bryce Harmon count; Alex Franklin entered 18 deals into DS2 in the 30d window

alex_ds2_30d18

bryce_ds2_30d4

notelegacy alias justin_ds2=4 actually held Bryce Harmon count; Alex Franklin entered 18 deals into DS2 in the 30d window

graded checksalex_ds2_30d · justin_volume_high · efficient_named · mix_present · no_causal_claim

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

I'll compute the required metrics from the data. Let me work through this systematically.

**Key date: 2026-09-05. Last 30 days = 2026-08-06 to 2026-09-05.**

### Step 1: Identify active owners and their deals

Active owners: 119337721 (Bryce Harmon), 83155923 (Dana Mercer), 84342457 (Alex Franklin), 83155924 (Cole Ingram), 716654662 (Farid Osman), 701163055 (Elena Sinclair). (1520255671 and 77260721 are archived.)

### Step 2: DS2 entries in last 30 days (t_ds2 within 2026-08-06 to 2026-09-05)

Scanning the deals table for `t_ds2` values in range, with at least one of `t_ds1`...`t_ds5` set (i.e., the deal actually entered DS2). Records where t_ds2 is populated and t_ds1..t_ds5 show progression (at least one non-empty after t_ds2 or the deal reached DS2):

- 63925115724, Deal-499BF6, owner 716654662, t_ds2=2026-08-26 ✓
- 63929536155, Deal-D73B89, owner 119337721, t_ds2=2026-09-03 ✓
- 57938907984, Deal-C9C286, owner 119337721, t_ds2=2026-07-28 ✗ (before 08-06)
- 63222143598, Deal-CA7DC0, owner 119337721, t_ds2=2026-08-12 ✓
- 62704497525, Deal-3795AD, owner 119337721, t_ds2=2026-07-17 ✗
- 62494458497, Deal-332637, owner 119337721, t_ds2=2026-07-23 ✗
- 60862757952, Deal-F0EBBB, owner 119337721, t_ds2=2026-07-02 ✗
- 63436734854, Deal-1CCE5C, owner 119337721, t_ds2=2026-08-28 ✓
- 63739413805, Deal-36C33F, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-08-12 ✓
- 62121780531, Deal-5AD94B, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-07-17 ✗
- 61873011731, Deal-690476, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-07-06 ✗
- 63925372176, Deal-C2FF3C, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-08-14 ✓
- 63767897001, Deal-317E6F, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-08-28 ✓
- 64433982954, Deal-3EED2C, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-09-03 ✓
- 63514028903, Deal-7FA0C3, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-08-07 ✓
- 63717411179, Deal-A414F6, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-08-11 ✓
- 61038797752, Deal-4B0BEB, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-06-12 ✗
- 60177822276, Deal-1E2498, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-05-19 ✗
- 63680239172, Deal-D1E6C2, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-08-11 ✓
- 60846325041, Deal-BE3D9D, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-06-09 ✗
- 60239694416, Deal-635B8E, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-05-13 ✗
- 64419764099, Deal-DCA846, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-08-27 ✓
- 63434077517, Deal-4F775F, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-08-17 ✓
- 64338361710, Deal-898FC5, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-08-28 ✓
- 64175150612, Deal-CC08D1, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-08-19 ✓
- 60846327135, Deal-792D44, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-06-12 ✗
- 61625192572, Deal-293AF3, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-07-01 ✗
- 63433821449, Deal-55164C, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-08-05 ✗ (just before 08-06)
- 60039273647, Deal-B936FE, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-05-15 ✗
- 61038824305, Deal-034D49, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-06-11 ✗
- 61129513016, Deal-13FEBD, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-08-04 ✗
- 60257789699, Deal-F67D31, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-05-14 ✗
- 58634203905, Deal-530B50, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-05-12 ✗
- 60177691289, Deal-342E96, owner 83155924, t_ds2=2026-07-31 ✗
- 63083864626, Deal-8BC9F5, owner 83155924, t_ds2=2026-07-24 ✗
- 60545947298, Deal-C7F9BF, owner 83155924, t_ds2=2026-05-22 ✗
- 61418628616, Deal-FF809F, owner 83155924, t_ds2=2026-06-22 ✗
- 61432459847, Deal-A71728, owner 83155924, t_ds2=2026-06-22 ✗
- 63087338777, Deal-B25F40, owner 83155924, t_ds2=2026-07-27 ✗
- 62939377422, Deal-CD47A6, owner 83155924, t_ds2=2026-07-21 ✗
- 64338498392, Deal-42326B, owner 83155924, t_ds2=2026-08-26 ✓
- 61390497109, Deal-FA32A0, owner 83155924, t_ds2=2026-06-22 ✗
- 59915123992, Deal-627646, owner 83155924, t_ds2=2026-06-29 ✗
- 63027793424, Deal-E568D5, owner 83155924, t_ds2=2026-07-23 ✗
- 63673359012, Deal-1BA595, owner 83155924, t_ds2=2026-08-10 ✓
- 62638130500, Deal-813836, owner 83155924, t_ds2=2026-07-31 ✗
- 61475253432, Deal-175395, owner 83155924, t_ds2=2026-06-30 ✗
- 61180233512, Deal-2F3A66, owner 83155924, t_ds2=2026-06-17 ✗
- 61432482880, Deal-D04904, owner 83155924, t_ds2=2026-06-22 ✗
- 63186780704, Deal-481E24, owner 83155924, t_ds2=2026-07-31 ✗
- 63083909749, Deal-CFE1E8, owner 83155924, t_ds2=2026-07-31 ✗
- 60642960148, Deal-99A240, owner 83155924, t_ds2=2026-06-22 ✗
- 64058864408, Deal-03BA69, owner 716654662, t_ds2=2026-08-17 ✓
- 64175252496, Deal-117863, owner 716654662, t_ds2=2026-08-21 ✓
- 64524478533, Deal-F17780, owner 716654662, t_ds2=2026-09-01 ✓
- 64484705048, Deal-8BA24E, owner 716654662, t_ds2=2026-08-28 ✓
- 63836931973, Deal-2B39B0, owner 716654662, t_ds2=2026-08-14 ✓
- 63925303692, Deal-8FDCD2, owner 716654662, t_ds2=2026-08-21 ✓
- 63836931973, Deal-2B39B0, owner 716654662 — already counted
- 60083540312, Deal-6787C2, owner 119337721 — t_ds2=2026-05-20 ✗
- 61035342442, Deal-A2B47C, owner 84342457 — t_ds2=2026-06-12 ✗
- 61355900791, Deal-B7EBD1, owner 83155923 — t_ds2=2026-06-22 ✗
- etc.

Let me be more careful and systematic. I'll list every deal whose `t_ds2` date is within [2026-08-06, 2026-09-05]:

**716654662 (Farid Osman):**
- 63925115724, Deal-499BF6, t_ds2=2026-08-26 ✓
- 64058864408, Deal-03BA69, t_ds2=2026-08-17 ✓
- 64175252496, Deal-117863, t_ds2=2026-08-21 ✓
- 64524478533, Deal-F17780, t_ds2=2026-09-01 ✓
- 64484705048, Deal-8BA24E, t_ds2=2026-08-28 ✓
- 63836931973, Deal-2B39B0, t_ds2=2026-08-14 ✓
- 63925303692, Deal-8FDCD2, t_ds2=2026-08-21 ✓

Count: 7

**119337721 (Bryce Harmon):**
- 63929536155, Deal-D73B89, t_ds2=2026-09-03 ✓
- 63222143598, Deal-CA7DC0, t_ds2=2026-08-12 ✓
- 63436734854, Deal-1CCE5C, t_ds2=2026-08-28 ✓
- 63222761335, Deal-7B3B0F, owner 83155924 — no
- 62494458497, Deal-332637, t_ds2=2026-07-23 ✗
- 62704497525, Deal-3795AD, t_ds2=2026-07-17 ✗
- 60862757952, Deal-F0EBBB, t_ds2=2026-07-02 ✗
- 60083540312, Deal-6787C2, t_ds2=2026-05-20 ✗
- 57938907984, Deal-C9C286, t_ds2=2026-07-28 ✗

Count: 3

**84342457 (Alex Franklin):**
- 63739413805, Deal-36C33F, t_ds2=2026-08-12 ✓
- 63925372176, Deal-C2FF3C, t_ds2=2026-08-14 ✓
- 63767897001, Deal-317E6F, t_ds2=2026-08-28 ✓
- 64433982954, Deal-3EED2C, t_ds2=2026-09-03 ✓
- 63514028903, Deal-7FA0C3, t_ds2=2026-08-07 ✓
- 63717411179, Deal-A414F6, t_ds2=2026-08-11 ✓
- 63680239172, Deal-D1E6C2, t_ds2=2026-08-11 ✓
- 64419764099, Deal-DCA846, t_ds2=2026-08-27 ✓
- 63434077517, Deal-4F775F, t_ds2=2026-08-17 ✓
- 64338361710, Deal-898FC5, t_ds2=2026-08-28 ✓
- 64175150612, Deal-CC08D1, t_ds2=2026-08-19 ✓
- 63433821449, Deal-55164C, t_ds2=2026-08-05 ✗ (before 08-06)
- 61038797752, Deal-4B0BEB, t_ds2=2026-06-12 ✗
- 60177822276, Deal-1E2498, t_ds2=2026-05-19 ✗
- 60846325041, Deal-BE3D9D, t_ds2=2026-06-09 ✗
- 60239694416, Deal-635B8E, t_ds2=2026-05-13 ✗
- 61625192572, Deal-293AF3, t_ds2=2026-07-01 ✗
- 62121780531, Deal-5AD94B, t_ds2=2026-07-17 ✗
- 61873011731, Deal-690476, t_ds2=2026-07-06 ✗
- 61129513016, Deal-13FEBD, t_ds2=2026-08-04 ✗
- 60257789699, Deal-F67D31, t_ds2=2026-05-14 ✗
- 58634203905, Deal-530B50, t_ds2=2026-05-12 ✗
- 60039273647, Deal-B936FE, t_ds2=2026-05-15 ✗
- 60846327135, Deal-792D44, t_ds2=2026-06-12 ✗
- 60846327135 — handled
- 61038824305, Deal-034D49, t_ds2=2026-06-11 ✗
- 60647507981, Deal-44EA29, owner 83155923 — no
- 60686135564, Deal-885F45, owner 84342457, t_ds2=2026-07-02 ✗
- 61355726336, Deal-B23205, owner 119337721 — no
- 61355900791, Deal-B7EBD1, owner 83155923 — no
- 60333965090, Deal-C6FE92, owner 119337721 — no
- 60489878902, Deal-FC22A3, owner 119337721 — no
- 60647507981, Deal-44EA29, owner 84342457 — wait, check: 60647507981, Deal-44EA29, owner 84342457. In the CSV: `60647507981,Deal-44EA29,84342457,DS2,PIPELINE,60000,...` Let me recheck. The CSV line: `60647507981,Deal-44EA29,83155923,DS2,PIPELINE,60000` — wait, it's `83155923`. Let me re-read: "60647507981,Deal-44EA29,83155923,DS2,PIPELINE,60000,2026-05-26,2026-06-03,...,LONG(1155),2026-08-26,3,DIRECT_TRAFFIC". Yes, 83155923.

Let me recount Alex Franklin (84342457) carefully from the raw data, skipping records that are clearly not DS2 in window:

From the CSV, I'll scan all lines with owner 84342457 and check t_ds2 in [2026-08-06, 2026-09-05]:

1. 47659847193 — DS4, t_ds2=2026-04-07 ✗
2. 58634284981 — DS5, t_ds1..t_ds5=2026-03-31..04-27 ✗
3. 62044573757 — DS4, no t_ds2 ✗
4. 60273519516 — DS5, t_ds2=2026-05-26 ✗
5. 60647507981 — owner 83155923 ✗
6. 61035342442 — DS5, t_ds2=2026-06-12 ✗
7. 60182329748 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-05-12 ✗
8. 60182332309 — DS4, t_ds2=2026-05-13 ✗
9. 60182249341 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-06-02 ✗
10. 60257789699 — DS2, t_ds2=2026-05-14 ✗
11. 60333965090 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-06-09 ✗
12. 60545947298 — DS2, t_ds2=2026-05-22 ✗
13. 60647507981 — 83155923 ✗
14. 60686135564 — DS2, t_ds2=2026-07-02 ✗
15. 60846325041 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-06-09 ✗
16. 60846327135 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-06-12 ✗
17. 60844003447 — DS1 ✗
18. 60862757952 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-07-02 ✗
19. 60869714514 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-06-04 ✗
20. 60873478913 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-06-09 ✗
21. 61032299692 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-06-17 ✗
22. 61032318100 — DS2, t_ds2=2026-06-12 ✗
23. 61035342442 — ✗
24. 6103824305 — t_ds2=2026-06-11 ✗
25. 61038797752 — DS2, t_ds2=2026-06-12 ✗
26. 61055143851 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-06-18 ✗
27. 61129513016 — DS2, t_ds2=2026-08-04 ✗
28. 61129535583 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-07-01 ✗
29. 61129636004 — DS1 ✗
30. 61355726336 — DS1 ✗
31. 61355900791 — DS5, t_ds2=2026-06-22 ✗
32. 61418628616 — DS2, t_ds2=2026-06-22 ✗
33. 61432459847 — DS2, t_ds2=2026-06-22 ✗
34. 61432482880 — DS2, t_ds2=2026-06-22 ✗
35. 61475253432 — DS3 ✗
36. 61625192572 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-07-01 ✗
37. 61625564751 — DS5, t_ds2=2026-07-01 ✗
38. 61749892214 — owner 83155924 ✗
39. 61750203694 — owner 83155924 ✗
40. 61750885954 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-07-02 ✗
41. 61873011731 — DS2, t_ds2=2026-07-06 ✗
42. 62044573757 — ✗
43. 62121780531 — DS2, t_ds2=2026-07-17 ✗
44. 62121783047 — DS4, t_ds2=2026-07-02 ✗
45. 62121783047 — ✗
46. 62121921419 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-07-06 ✗
47. 62453363854 — DS2, t_ds2=2026-07-21 ✗
48. 62455757718 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-07-09 ✗
49. 62494456737 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-08-04 ✗
50. 62494458497 — DS2, t_ds2=2026-07-23 ✗
51. 62499298608 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-07-30 ✗
52. 62616681006 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-07-27 ✗
53. 62622451763 — DS4, t_ds2=2026-07-13 ✗
54. 62622465606 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-07-13 ✗
55. 62638130500 — DS2, t_ds2=2026-07-31 ✗
56. 62640955704 — DS1 ✗
57. 62657821564 — DS1 ✗
58. 62704497525 — DS2, t_ds2=2026-07-17 ✗
59. 62704559138 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-07-13 ✗
60. 62704706356 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-07-17 ✗
61. 62939377422 — DS2, t_ds2=2026-07-21 ✗ (owner 83155924)
62. 62950522529 — DS3 ✗
63. 63027384658 — DS1 ✗
64. 63027793424 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-07-23 ✗
65. 63083864626 — DS2, t_ds2=2026-07-24 ✗
66. 63083909749 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-07-31 ✗
67. 63087061829 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-07-24 ✗
68. 63087338777 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-07-24 ✗
69. 63125458471 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-07-27 ✗
70. 63186780704 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-07-31 ✗
71. 63222761335 — owner 83155924 ✗
72. 63222917228 — DS4, t_ds2=2026-07-29 ✗
73. 63223160241 — DS4, t_ds2=2026-08-10 ✗
74. 63327612505 — DS2, t_ds2=2026-07-31 ✗
75. 63361066820 — DS1 ✗
76. 63433821449 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-08-03 ✗
77. 63433974644 — DS1 ✗
78. 63434077517 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-08-17 ✓
79. 63434233916 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-08-06 ✓ (2026-08-06 is within window!)
80. 63436579616 — DS3, t_ds2=2026-08-19 ✗
81Let me finalize from where I left off and verify the remaining counts.

**84342457 (Alex Franklin) — continuing:**
- 63434233916, t_ds2=2026-08-06 ✓
- 63434077517, t_ds2=2026-08-17 ✓
- 64419764099, t_ds2=2026-08-27 ✓
- 64338361710, t_ds2=2026-08-28 ✓
- 64175150612, t_ds2=2026-08-19 ✓
- 63717411179, t_ds2=2026-08-11 ✓
- 63739413805, t_ds2=2026-08-12 ✓
- 63925372176, t_ds2=2026-08-14 ✓
- 63514028903, t_ds2=2026-08-07 ✓
- 63767897001, t_ds2=2026-08-28 ✓
- 64433982954, t_ds2=2026-09-03 ✓
- Plus 63436320918, t_ds2=2026-08-19 ✓

Count: 12

**83155923 (Dana Mercer) — re-scanning for t_ds2 in [2026-08-06, 2026-09-05]:**
Reviewing all Dana's DS2 rows (t_ds2 set within window):
- 63083864626, t_ds2=2026-07-24 ✗
- 60545947298, t_ds2=2026-05-22 ✗
- 60647507981, t_ds2=2026-06-03 ✗
- 60686135564, t_ds2=2026-07-02 ✗
- 61038797752, t_ds2=2026-06-12 ✗
- 61129513016, t_ds2=2026-08-04 ✗
- 61418628616, t_ds2=2026-06-22 ✗
- 61432459847, t_ds2=2026-06-22 ✗
- 61475253432, t_ds2=2026-06-30 ✗
- 62657821564, owner 119337721 ✗
- 62704706356, t_ds2=2026-07-17 ✗
- 62939377422, t_ds2=2026-07-21 ✗
- 63186780704, t_ds2=2026-07-31 ✗
- 63327612505, t_ds2=2026-07-31 ✗
- 63514009394, owner 83155923, t_ds2=2026-08-07 ✓
- 63673359012, owner 83155924 ✗
- 63836973647, owner 119337721 ✗
- 63925372176, owner 84342457 ✗
- 63925303692, owner 716654662 ✗
- 64058864408, owner 716654662 ✗
- 64175252496, owner 716654662 ✗
- 64288632445, owner 84342457 ✗
- 64338455307, owner 84342457 ✗
- 64338498392, owner 83155924 ✗
- 64420745083, owner 84342457 ✗
- 64524667574, owner 701163055 ✗
- 64627577700, owner 119337721 ✗
- 64627627692, owner 84342457 ✗
- 64627510846, owner 119337721 ✗
- 64627504483, owner 119337721 ✗
- 64627510846 — handled
- 63514009394, Deal-57887A, owner 83155923, t_ds2=2026-08-07 ✓
- 63083864626, t_ds2=2026-07-24 ✗
- 61038797752, t_ds2=2026-06-12 ✗
- 61418628616, t_ds2=2026-06-22 ✗
- 61432459847, t_ds2=2026-06-22 ✗
- 63087338777, t_ds2=2026-07-27 ✗
- 62704706356, t_ds2=2026-07-17 ✗
- 62939377422, t_ds2=2026-07-21 ✗
- 63186780704, t_ds2=2026-07-31 ✗
- 63327612505, t_ds2=2026-07-31 ✗
- 61038797752 — handled
- 61418628616 — handled
- 61432459847 — handled
- 63083864626 — handled
- 61038797752 — handled

Count: 1

**716654662 (Farid Osman) — re-scanning:**
- 63925115724, t_ds2=2026-08-26 ✓
- 64058864408, t_ds2=2026-08-17 ✓
- 64175252496, t_ds2=2026-08-21 ✓
- 64524478533, t_ds2=2026-09-01 ✓
- 64484705048, t_ds2=2026-08-28 ✓
- 63836931973, t_ds2=2026-08-14 ✓
- 63925303692, t_ds2=2026-08-21 ✓

Count: 7

**119337721 (Bryce Harmon) — re-scanning:**
- 63929536155, t_ds2=2026-09-03 ✓
- 63222143598, t_ds2=2026-08-12 ✓
- 63436734854, t_ds2=2026-08-28 ✓

Count: 3

### Step 3: Activity totals (emails_30d + calls_30d + meetings_30d) per owner

I'll sum the engagements_by_deal_90d columns per owner using each deal's emails_30d, calls_30d, meetings_30d.

**Bryce Harmon (119337721):** deals (non-archived owners only; Bryce's deals):
63223160241: e8 c0 m3 = 11
60524834645: 5+0+0 = 5
60182332309: 4+4+0 = 8
60273519516: 4+0+4 = 8
60083540312: 2+0+0 = 2
61035342442 — wait that's Alex. Bryce's deals: let me list all Bryce deals from CSV:
- 63223160241, 60524834645, 60182332309, 60273519516, 60083540312, 61035342442? No. Let me filter owner=119337721:

From the deals CSV, owner 119337721 rows:
63223160241 (Deal-25F752)
60524834645 (Deal-E53952)
60182332309 (Deal-5408B0)
60273519516 (Deal-C26D20)
62044573757 (Deal-944310)
61750885954 (Deal-D348E1)
60083540312 (Deal-6787C2)
61035342442 (Deal-A2B47C) — wait, this is 84342457. Let me re-check. Row: "61035342442,Deal-A2B47C,84342457,DS5,COMMIT..." Yes Alex. Not Bryce.

Continuing Bryce rows:
61035342442? No.
61355726336 (Deal-B23205)
61355900791? No, that's 83155923.
61035342442? No.
60333965090 (Deal-C6FE92)
59609928460 (Deal-950043)
63929536155 (Deal-D73B89)
61355726336 (Deal-B23205)
63836973647 (Deal-012CB1)
62494456737 (Deal-40522D)
63361066820 (Deal-C5658B)
64627577700 (Deal-523604)
57938907984 (Deal-C9C286)
63222143598 (Deal-CA7DC0)
64627504483 (Deal-483B2D)
60862757952 (Deal-F0EBBB)
62704497525 (Deal-3795AD)
62494458497 (Deal-332637)
61032299692 (Deal-333EBB)
59729775158 (Deal-93C8BF)
63436734854 (Deal-1CCE5C)
64524560948 (Deal-927338)
63717411179 (Deal-A414F6)
64623982954 (Deal-3EED2C) — owner 84342457, exclude
62453363854 (Deal-A62B1D) — owner 84342457, exclude
61032299692 (Deal-333EBB)
62657821564 (Deal-E25A09)
48987890209 (Deal-FC22A3)
60257789699? No, that's 84342457.
64175515559 (Deal-BB8880)
64434446422 (Deal-01E193)
64133417547 (Deal-C1FA6D)
61055143851 (Deal-7BBDFA)
61032299692 (Deal-333EBB)
59729775158 (Deal-93C8BF)
63436734854 (Deal-1CCE5C)
64524560948 (Deal-927338)
63717411179 (Deal-A414F6)
62494458497 (Deal-332637)
61032299692 (Deal-333EBB)
60862757952 (Deal-F0EBBB)
62704497525 (Deal-3795AD)
62494458497 (Deal-332637)
61032299692 (Deal-333EBB)
62657821564 (Deal-E25A09)
59729775158 (Deal-93C8BF)
63436734854 (Deal-1CCE5C)
64524560948 (Deal-927338)
63717411179 (Deal-A414F6)
64623982954 (Deal-3EED2C) — Alex, exclude
62453363854 (Deal-A62B1D) — Alex, exclude
61032299692 (Deal-333EBB)
62657821564 (Deal-E25A09)
48987890209 (Deal-FC22A3)
60257789699? Alex. Exclude.
64175515559 (Deal-BB8880)
64434446422 (Deal-01E193)
64133417547 (Deal-C1FA6D)
61055143851 (Deal-7BBDFA)
61032299692 (Deal-333EBB)
59729775158 (Deal-93C8BF)
63436734854 (Deal-1CCE5C)
64524560948 (Deal-927338)
63717411179 (Deal-A414F6)
64623982954 — Alex
62453363854 — Alex
61032299692
62657821564
48987890209
60257789699? Alex
64175515559
64434446422
64133417547
61055143851
61032299692 (Deal-333EBB) — already counted
59729775158 (Deal-93C8BF) — already
63436734854 (Deal-1CCE5C) — already
64524560948 (Deal-927338) — already
63717411179 (Deal-A414F6) — already
64623982954 — Alex
62453363854 — Alex
61032299692
62657821564
48987890209
60257789699? Alex
64175515559
64434446422
64133417547
61055143851

Let me just carefully enumerate every Bryce deal once:
Bryce (119337721) deals:
1. 63223160241
2. 60524834645
3. 60182332309
4. 60273519516
5. 62044573757
6. 61750885954
7. 60083540312
8. 61355726336
9. 60333965090
10. 59609928460
11. 63929536155
12. 63836973647
13. 62494456737
14. 63361066820
15. 64627577700
16. 57938907984
17. 63222143598
18. 64627504483
19. 60862757952
20. 62704497525
21. 62494458497
22. 61032299692
23. 59729775158
24. 63436734854
25. 64524560948
26. 63717411179
27. 62657821564
28. 48987890209
29. 64175515559
30. 64434446422
31. 64133417547
32. 61055143851

Now sum emails/calls/meetings from engagements file:
1. 63223160241: 8,0,3 → 11
2. 60524834645: 5,0,0 → 5
3. 60182332309: 4,4,0 → 8
4. 60273519516: 4,0,4 → 8
5. 62044573757: 0,0,2 → 2
6. 61750885954: 14,1,1 → 16
7. 60083540312: 2,0,0 → 2
8. 61355726336: 1,0,0 → 1
9. 60333965090: 10,0,3 → 13
10. 59609928460: 2,0,0 → 2
11. 63929536155: 14,0,2 → 16
12. 63836973647: 3,0,1 → 4
13. 62494456737: 2,0,0 → 2
14. 63361066820: 2,0,0 → 2
15. 64627577700: 3,0,5 → 8
16. 57938907984: 7,0,0 → 7
17. 63222143598: 5,0,1 → 6
18. 64627504483: 1,0,2 → 3
19. 60862757952: 1,0,0 → 1
20. 62704497525: 6,0,1 → 7
21. 62494458497: 2,0,0 → 2
22. 61032299692: 4,0,0 → 4
23. 59729775158: 8,0,0 → 8
24. 63436734854: 13,0,3 → 16
25. 64524560948: 8,0,3 → 11
26. 63717411179: 5,0,2 → 7
27. 62657821564: 2,0,0 → 2
28. 48987890209: 2,0,0 → 2
29. 64175515559: 7,0,2 → 9
30. 64434446422: 4,0,3 → 7
31. 64133417547: 7,0,3 → 10
32. 61055143851: 0,0,0 → 0

Totals:
Emails: 8+5+4+4+0+14+2+0+10+0+14+3+2+2+3+7+5+1+0+6+1+7+0+2+8+6+2+7+0+16+2+0
Let me sum step by step:
8+5=13
13+4=17
17+4=21
21+0=21
21+14=35
35+2=37
37+0=37
37+10=47
47+0=47
47+14=61
61+3=64
64+2=66
66+2=68
68+3=71
71+7=78
78+5=83
83+1=84
84+0=84
84+6=90
90+1=91
91+7=98
98+0=98
98+2=100
100+8=108
108+6=114
114+2=116
116+7=123
123+0=123
123+16=139
139+2=141
141+0=141
**Emails = 141**

Calls: 0+0+4+0+0+1+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+

ae-qtd-scorecard0.83

Plain-English question: Build Alex Franklin's QTD scorecard: bookings versus quota, pipeline, and conversion.

Prompt — what the model saw

Build a QTD scorecard for the named AE as of 2026-09-05: bookings vs quota with attainment percent, new vs expansion split, active pipeline by stage with amount, rolling 90-day DS2-to-won rate, win and loss counts with top loss reason, activity volume by type in the last 30 days. Exclude any closed-won deal dated before the quarter. Close with three coaching observations grounded in the numbers.

cost $0.0021 · 44s · in 31,544 / out 2,648 tok

✓ bookings✓ quota✓ attainment✗ new_expansion_split✓ top_loss_reason✓ coaching_obs

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: 75% attainment ($150,000 on a $200,000 quota), $113,500 new versus $36,500 expansion, pipeline by stage, and the rolling DS2-to-won rate.

The answer in one line: quota = 200000; bookings = 150000; new_bookings = 113500; expansion_bookings = 36500; open_deals_count = 125; attainment_pct = 75; owner = Alex Franklin (+12 more below)

quota200,000

attainment_pct75

bookings150,000

expansion_bookings36,500

expansion_count3

losses_qtd27

new_bookings113,500

new_count5

open_deals_count125

wins_qtd8

activity_30d_totalsemails_30d=807; calls_30d=112; meetings_30d=128; notes_30d=50

allowed_new18 items — e.g. Deal-A1C3E5, Deal-B7D2F4, Deal-C9E1A6, Deal-D4B8C2

ds2_to_wonwindow_start=2026-06-07; won_in_window=8; closed_in_window=35; rate=0.2286

ownerAlex Franklin

pipeline_by_stage{"DS1": {"count": 20, "amount": 284621}, "DS2": {"count": 28, "amount": 353760}, "DS3": {"count": 67, "amount": 552705}, "DS4": {"count": 5, "amount": 23574}, "DS5": {"count": 5, "amount": 45730}}

prior_quarter_excludeddeal_alias=Deal-B3E6F1; close_date=2026-06-20; amount=24000

quarter2026-Q3

snapshot_date2026-09-05

top_loss_reasonreason=Lost- Timing (1 year or more); count=13

graded checksbookings · quota · attainment · new_expansion_split · top_loss_reason · coaching_obs

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

QTD scorecard — Alex Franklin (owner), as of 2026-09-05, 2026-Q3.

QUOTA & ATTAINMENT
- Quota (Q3): $200,000
- Closed-won bookings through 2026-09-05:
  - Deal-B7D2F4 (won 2026-07-31): $35,000 — new
  - Deal-A1C3E5 (won 2026-07-15): $40,000 — new
  - Deal-C9E1A6 (won 2026-08-12): $21,000 — new
  - Deal-D4B8C2 (won 2026-08-21): $11,000 — new
  - Deal-A8B4D6 (won 2026-08-19): $12,000 — expansion
  - Deal-F2C7D8 (won 2026-07-24): $20,000 — expansion
  - Deal-E6F3A9 (won 2026-09-02): $6,500 — new
  - Deal-C5D9E2 (won 2026-09-03): $4,500 — expansion
  - Deal-5885B9..Deal-39E25C are all CLOSED_LOST — excluded.
- Total closed-won: $150,000
- New: $133,500 | Expansion: $16,500
- Attainment: $150,000 / $200,000 = 75.0%

NEW vs EXPANSION (closed-won through 2026-09-05)
- New: $133,500
- Expansion: $16,500
- Split: new = 89% / expansion = 11%

ACTIVE PIPELINE BY STAGE (open deals only)
- DS1: $46,600
- DS2: $90,780
- DS3: $279,478
- DS4: $19,200
- DS5: $32,160
- Total active pipeline: $468,218

(Stage amounts are the open-stage rows in the file, including deals closing after 2026-09-05 — those are included because they remain open as of the snapshot date.)

ROLLING 90-DAY DS2-TO-WON RATE
- DS2 deals with entered_ds2 date on/after 2026-06-07 (90 days before 2026-09-05):
  - Deal-7A2454, DS2, $2,520, entered 2026-08-19 — open (not won)
  - Deal-6A544F, DS2, $3,240, entered 2026-08-04 — open
  - Deal-D1E6C2, DS2, $4,400, entered 2026-08-11 — open
  - Deal-600CD9, DS2, $5,400, entered 2026-08-10 — open
  - Deal-4062CF, DS2, $4,000, entered 2026-07-17 — open
  - Deal-5AD94B, DS2, $4,000, entered 2026-07-17 — open
  - Deal-6691E0, DS2, $5,700, entered 2026-05-15 — open (outside 90-day window)
  - Deal-E0ADD8, DS2, $7,920, entered 2026-09-02 — open
  - Deal-5913B3, DS2, $7,500, entered 2026-09-03 — open
  - Deal-635B8E, DS2, $2,600, entered 2026-05-13 — open (outside window)
  - Deal-BA571A, DS2, $8,100, entered 2026-08-24 — open
  - Deal-42F601, DS2, $2,730, entered 2026-02-12 — open (outside window)
  - Deal-57F4C2, DS2, $15,000, entered 2026-07-29 — open
  - Deal-D0662E, DS2, $4,100, entered 2026-08-11 — open
  - Deal-84DBA6, DS2, $16,000, entered 2026-08-28 — open
  - Deal-9DA22E, DS2, $1,800, entered 2026-08-11 — open
  - Deal-0D2F7A, DS2, $5,100, entered 2026-07-06 — open
  - Deal-3EED2C, DS2, $7,200, entered 2026-09-03 — open
  - Deal-71590D, DS2, $6,000, entered 2026-09-02 — open
  - Deal-36C33F, DS2, $15,000, entered 2026-08-11 — open
  - Deal-13FEBD, DS2, $4,680, entered 2026-08-04 — open
  - Deal-A181B3, DS2, $7,200, entered 2026-08-11 — open
  - Deal-690476, DS2, $3,600, entered 2026-07-06 — open
  - Deal-70BB30, DS2, $30,000, entered 2026-05-05 — open (outside window)
  - Deal-87C1AC, DS2, $20,000, entered 2026-08-28 — open
  - Deal-1E2498, DS2, $16,700, entered 2026-05-19 — open (outside window)
  - Deal-92D97D, DS2, $60,000, entered 2026-09-02 — open
- DS3-level I booked in DS2: none of the 90-day DS2 deals reached won. The only won deals in the file are new/expansion. So DS2-to-won = 0/24 = 0.0%.
- Note: there are no CLOSED_WON deals with a DS2 entry in the file at all. Only 2 closed-won deals (Deal-A1C3E5 and Deal-A8B4D6) have entered_ds2 populated (2026-06-22 and 2026-07-09 respectively), and neither was a DS2 entry. Confirmed: 0/24 = 0.0% in the rolling 90-day window.

WIN & LOSS COUNTS WITH TOP LOSS REASON
- Closed-won: 8 (all dated 2026-06-20 onward, so all in quarter).
- Closed-lost: 40 (all dated 2026-07-29 to 2026-09-02, all in quarter).
  - Winner count: 8
  - Loser count: 40
- Loss total value: sum of all 40 CLOSED_LOST amounts = $605,491
- Top loss reasons (counted by number of deals):
  - "Lost- Timing (1 year or more)": 18 deals
  - "Competitor": 8 deals
  - "MIA": 6 deals
  - "Lost DM": 3 deals
  - "Lost- Does not fit ICP (write in notes)": 1 deal
  - "Feature Request": 1 deal
- Top loss reason: "Lost- Timing (1 year or more)" — 18 of 40 losses (45%).

ACTIVITY VOLUME BY TYPE, LAST 30 DAYS (emails/calls/meetings/notes, 2026-08-06 to 2026-09-05)
Years: emails 496, calls 92, meetings 62, notes 58. Total activity = 708.

CLOSED-WON EXCLUSION CHECK
- All 8 closed-won deals are dated 2026-06-20 through 2026-09-03 — all within Q3, so none were excluded by the "before the quarter" rule. No rows had to be dropped for being pre-quarter.

COACHING OBSERVATIONS
1. Hit the number but heavily skewed to new: 75% attainment ($150k/$200k) is close, but 89% of closed-won is new business ($133.5k vs $16.5k expansion). Expansion is 11% of target — the lowest lever in the book. Any slowdown in new deals hits attainment directly with no offsetting expansion.

2. Zero DS2-to-won in the last 90 days (0/24). Every deal that entered DS2 since 2026-06-07 is still open. Alex is not converting deals past the early DS2 stage — the adoption/conversion rate from DS2 is effectively zero. This is a structural risk to the pipeline floor, not a sprint issue.

3. "Lost- Timing (1 year or more)" is the top loss reason (18 of 40, 45%), and 21 of 22 deals with entered_ds2 dates in the 90-day window are DS2/DS3 stages — the timing losses cluster on deals that entered workflow many months earlier. Combined with that, the pipeline ($468k) is front-loaded in DS2/DS3 with no clear stage movement, which helps explain the timing losses: the pipeline is broad but not converting. Coaching should focus on: (a) DS2 conversion path (needs a clear next-step play), and (b) de-prioritizing/staging 1-year+ timing deals so rep energy goes to revenue-intent deals.

Usage note: the engagement file provides emails/calls/meetings/notes per deal (a 30-day window), but the data doesn't include per-day timestamps, so the last-30-days activity is scoped to deals closed-within the window whose engagement rows exist — I treated all open deals and closed deals in the file as in-window because no dates beyond entered_ds2/won/lost dates were available. If a strict date-bound on emails/calls/meetings was required, that granularity isn't in the file.

multithreading-gapPASS 1.00

Plain-English question: Which open deals are single-threaded or under-threaded?

Prompt — what the model saw

Find every open deal that is single-threaded (fewer than 2 active contacts) or under-threaded (fewer than 3, or all contacts in one persona). Active means engaged in the last 60 days and not marked former. Personas: economic buyer, champion, HR admin, IT security, finance. For each flagged deal: amount, stage, active contact count, personas present, personas missing, the most valuable persona to add given the stage, and any on-file unengaged contact at that company who fits; otherwise say none on file.

cost $0.0010 · 53s · in 2,943 / out 3,871 tok

✓ flagged_recall✓ persona_language✓ single_thread_term✓ on_file_fit

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: Deals with fewer than 2 active contacts (single-threaded) or fewer than 3, or all in one persona (under-threaded), each flagged with the missing persona.

The answer in one line: active_window_start = 2026-07-07

active_window_start2026-07-07

allowed_new59 items — e.g. C-077A0E, C-0D15DF, C-1BDFE0, C-2AE3AA

best_persona_ruleDS2/DS3: economic buyer > IT security > finance > HR admin > champion; DS4/DS5: economic buyer > finance > IT security > HR admin > champion; first persona not present among active contacts

flag_ruleflag if active_contacts < 2 (single-threaded) or active_contacts < 3 or all active contacts share one persona (under-threaded); active = engaged within 60 days and not former

flaggeddeal_alias=Deal-36C33F; amount=15000; stage=DS2; active_count=1; reason=single-threaded; best_persona_to_add=economic buyer | deal_alias=Deal-50D386; amount=36000; stage=DS2; active_count=2; reason=under-threaded; best_persona_to_add=economic buyer | deal_alias=Deal-5408B0; amount=14850; stage=DS4; active_count=2; reason=under-threaded; best_persona_to_add=economic buyer | deal_alias=Deal-5BFE3B; amount=18000; stage=DS2; active_count=2; reason=under-threaded; best_persona_to_add=economic buyer | deal_alias=Deal-885F45; amount=9300; stage=DS2; active_count=2; reason=under-threaded; best_persona_to_add=IT security | deal_alias=Deal-92D97D; amount=60000; stage=DS2; active_count=1; reason=single-threaded; best_persona_to_add=economic buyer … (+5 more)

healthy_not_flaggedDeal-4B0BEB, Deal-84DBA6, Deal-D348E1

persona_universeeconomic buyer, champion, HR admin, IT security, finance

graded checksflagged_recall · persona_language · single_thread_term · on_file_fit

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Open (active) deals: 16. Flagged: 12 open deals under/athread. Arithmetic shown per block.

1. Deal-EC3025 / C-FDD0C7
- Amount: not in file. Amount: not provided.
- Stage: not provided.
- Active contacts: 1 (CT-047C54).
- Personas present: champion (1), economic buyer (1 former → excluded).
- Personas missing: economic buyer, HR admin, IT security, finance.
- Most valuable persona to add: economic buyer (was contact before, then left → re-engage).
- On-file unengaged fit: Chief People Officer, economic buyer (CT-6827DB). Yes → CT-6827DB.

2. Deal-92D97D / C-E23238
- Active contacts: 2 (CT-01F5B4, CT-A902AE); both not former.
- Personas present: HR admin, champion.
- Personas missing: economic buyer, IT security, finance.
- Most valuable: economic buyer.
- On-file unengaged: Chief People Officer (CT-01F5B4? no—CT-01F5B4 is HRIS Manager, active). On-file: CT-01F5B4 is HRIS Manager (active); file only lists C-E23238 as CT-01F5B4? No—unengaged file for C-E23238 has no entry → none.

Wait, C-E23238 unengaged file: no row. So: none on file.

3. Deal-50D386 / C-EB10E4
- Active contacts: 2 (CT-AA41B2, CT-B9C35B), both false.
- Personas: champion, HR admin.
- Missing: economic buyer, IT security, finance.
- Most valuable: economic buyer.
- Unengaged: C-EB10E4 → CT-A1C4B3 Chief People Officer (economic buyer). Yes → add CT-A1C4B3.

4. Deal-D0D6B5 / C-32918E
- Active: 3 (CT-87CED4, CT-DE6D7C, CT-FD70B2), all false.
- Personas: champion x3 only.
- Missing: economic buyer, HR admin, IT security, finance.
- Most valuable: economic buyer.
- Unengaged: C-32918E → CT-1FA4DB Chief People Officer (economic buyer). Yes → CT-1FA4DB.

5. Deal-5BFE3B / C-535D36
- Active: 2 (CT-57123B, CT-5CE757), both not former.
- Personas: champion x2 only.
- Missing: economic buyer, HR admin, IT security, finance.
- Most valuable: economic buyer.
- Unengaged: none for C-535D36 → none on file.

6. Deal-84DBA6 / C-BE9BE0
- Active: 3 (CT-BAA9D3 champion, CT-60834D economic buyer, CT-3F23A4 IT security), all false.
- Personas: champion, economic buyer, IT security.
- Missing: HR admin, finance.
- Personas in one persona? No—3 personas. Not flagged on that rule.
- Contact count 3 ≥ 2 → not under-threaded. Also ≥1 of each? It's single-threaded? No, 3 contacts.
- NOT flagged (multi-threaded, ≥2 active contacts across ≥2 personas).

7. Deal-36C33F / C-077A0E
- Contacts: CT-4FE556 IT security (2026-08-15, false), CT-405B45 champion (2026-08-10, true), CT-86B22F economic buyer (2026-07-30, true).
- Active (not former): 1 (CT-4FE556).
- Personas present: IT security.
- Missing: champion, economic buyer, HR admin, finance, HR admin.
- Most valuable: champion (undercap in champion) — for an IT-security-led deal, champion is the key missing.
- Unengaged: C-077A0E → CT-1DB73E Chief People Officer (economic buyer). Yes → CT-1DB73E.

8. Deal-4B0BEB / C-1BDFE0
- Active: 4 contacts, all not former, 3 personas (champion, economic buyer, HR admin, finance).
- Personas present: champion, economic buyer, HR admin, finance.
- Not flagged (5 contacts, 4 personas).

Wait count: CT-A96531 champion, CT-DE5BDC economic buyer, CT-1543C8 HR admin, CT-3E135F finance = 4 active contacts, 4 personas. NOT flagged.

9. Deal-885F45 / C-5E8EFB
- Active: 2 (CT-51C81E economic buyer, CT-D9A0E8 champion), both false.
- Personas: champion, economic buyer.
- Missing: HR admin, IT security, finance.
- Most valuable: IT security.
- Unengaged: C-5E8EFB → CT-B3F25D IT Security Lead (IT security). Yes → CT-B3F25D.

10. Deal-FCBE5B / C-737030
- Active: 1 (CT-4A5317 People Ops Manager, champion, not former).
- Personas: champion only.
- Missing: economic buyer, HR admin, IT security, finance.
- Most valuable: economic buyer.
- Unengaged: none for C-737030.

Wait, unengaged file has no C-737030 row → none on file.

11. Deal-5408B0 / C-2AE3AA
- Active: 2 (CT-D33AE4 champion, CT-8742FD HR admin), both false.
- Personas: champion, HR admin.
- Missing: economic buyer, IT security, finance.
- Most valuable: economic buyer.
- Unengaged: C-2AE3AA → CT-07FA76 Chief People Officer (economic buyer). Yes → CT-07FA76.

12. Deal-D348E1 / C-804F29
- Active: 5 contacts, 5 personas (champion, economic buyer, IT security, finance, HR admin).
- Not flagged.

13. Deal-C6D97A / C-5A8FC2
- Active: 3 contacts, all not former. Personas: champion x3 only (CT-223DDC champion, CT-B03555 champion, CT-4E8A2B champion).
- Missing: economic buyer, HR admin, IT security, finance.
- Most valuable: economic buyer.
- Unengaged: none for C-5A8FC2.

14. Deal-F9A08A / C-0D15DF
- Active: 2 (CT-931B10 champion, CT-913581 economic buyer), both not former.
- Personas: champion, economic buyer.
- Missing: HR admin, IT security, finance.
- Most valuable: IT security.
- Unengaged: C-0D15DF → CT-697541 Chief People Officer (economic buyer). CT already present (economic buyer). Unengaged fit → none on file for IT security/HR admin/finance; for IT security → none on file.

So IT security missing and on-file? No IT security unengaged for C-0D15DF → none.

Summary of flagged deals:

Deal-EC3025 | C-FDD0C7 | amount/stage N/A | active 1 | champion only (economic buyer former) | missing {economic buyer, HR admin, IT security, finance} | add economic buyer | CT-6827DB
Deal-92D97D | C-E23238 | N/A | active 2 | {HR admin, champion} | missing {economic buyer, IT security, finance} | add economic buyer | none
Deal-50D386 | C-EB10E4 | N/A | active 2 | {champion, HR admin} | missing {economic buyer, IT security, finance} | add economic buyer | CT-A1C4B3
Deal-D0D6B5 | C-32918E | N/A | active 3 | {champion} | missing {economic buyer, HR admin, IT security, finance} | add economic buyer | CT-1FA4DB
Deal-5BFE3B | C-535D36 | N/A | active 2 | {champion} | missing {economic buyer, HR admin, IT security, finance} | add economic buyer | none
Deal-36C33F | C-077A0E | N/A | active 1 | {IT security} | missing {champion, economic buyer, HR admin, finance} | add champion | CT-1DB73E
Deal-885F45 | C-5E8EFB | N/A | active 2 | {champion, economic buyer} | missing {HR admin, IT security, finance} | add IT security | CT-B3F25D
Deal-C6D97A | C-5A8FC2 | N/A | active 3 | {champion} | missing {economic buyer, HR admin, IT security, finance} | add economic buyer | none
Deal-F9A08A | C-0D15DF | N/A | active 2 | {champion, economic buyer} | missing {HR admin, IT security, finance} | add IT security | none
Deal-FCBE5B | C-737030 | N/A | active 1 | {champion} | missing {economic buyer, HR admin, IT security, finance} | add economic buyer | none

Not flagged: Deal-84DBA6 (3 active, 3 personas), Deal-4B0BEB (4 active, 4 personas), Deal-D348E1 (5 active, 5 personas).

Present compactly. Flag that amounts/stages are not in the file. Total flagged: 11. Hmm recount: EC3025, 92D97D, 50D386, D0D6B5, 5BFE3B, 36C33F, 885F45, C6D97A, F9A08A, FCBE5B = 10. 36C33F flagged too = 10. Wait 92D97D flagged. That's 10.

Check 92D97D again: active 2, both false. Single-threaded? 2 is not < 2. Under-threaded? <3 → yes, 2 < 3 → flagged. Correct.

Count flagged: 10.

Present table plus the not-flagged note and data gaps. Keep concise. Show arithmetic.

Final output:

Flaged (10):

deal_alias | company | amount | stage | active cnt | personas present | personas missing | add persona | on-file fit
Deal-EC3025 | C-FDD0C7 | — | — | 1 | champion† | EB, HR admin, IT sec, finance | economic buyer | CT-6827DB (CPO, EB)
Deal-92D97D | C-E23238 | — | — | 2 | champion, HR admin | EB, IT sec, finance | economic buyer | none on file
Deal-50D386 | C-EB10E4 | — | — | 2 | champion, HR admin | EB, IT sec, finance | economic buyer | CT-A1C4B3 (CPO, EB)
Deal-D0D6B5 | C-32918E | — | — | 3 | champion | EB, HR admin, IT sec, finance | economic buyer | CT-1FA4DB (CPO, EB)
Deal-5BFE3B | C-535D36 | — | — | 2 | champion | EB, HR admin, IT sec, finance | economic buyer | none on file
Deal-36C33F | C-077A0E | — | — | 1 | IT security | champion, EB, HR admin, finance | champion | CT-1DB73E (CPO, EB)
Deal-885F45 | C-5E8EFB | — | — | 2 | champion, EB | HR admin, IT sec, finance | IT security | CT-B3F25D (IT Sec, IT sec)
Deal-C6D97A | C-5A8FC2 | — | — | 3 | champion | EB, HR admin, IT sec, finance | economic buyer | none on file
Deal-F9A08A | C-0D15DF | — | — | 2 | champion, EB | HR admin, IT sec, finance | IT security | none on file
Deal-FCBE5B | C-737030 | — | — | 1 | champion | EB, HR admin, IT sec, finance | economic buyer | none on file

†CT-F2C1AE (EB) was contact but is_former=true, so excluded.

Not flagged (3): Deal-84DBA6 (3 active, personas champion/EB/IT sec), Deal-4B0BEB (4 active, 4 personas), Deal-D348E1 (5 active, 5 personas).

Data gaps: amount and stage not present in deal_contacts.csv → "—" / say not in file explicitly. Not needed elsewhere.

Data is missing → said.

Present final. Keep to the point. Show arithmetic inline. Done.10 flags. Amount and stage are not in the file — I show them as "—".

Flagged (10) — single-threaded (<2 active) or under-threaded (<3 active, or all one persona):

deal_id | company | active | personas present | personas missing | most valuable add | on-file unengaged fit
--- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
Deal-EC3025 | C-FDD0C7 | 1 | champion† | EB, HR admin, IT sec, finance | economic buyer | CT-6827DB (CPO, EB) ✓
Deal-92D97D | C-E23238 | 2 | champion, HR admin | EB, IT sec, finance | economic buyer | none
Deal-50D386 | C-EB10E4 | 2 | champion, HR admin | EB, IT sec, finance | economic buyer | CT-A1C4B3 (CPO, EB) ✓
Deal-D0D6B5 | C-32918E | 3 | champion | EB, HR admin, IT sec, finance | economic buyer | CT-1FA4DB (CPO, EB) ✓
Deal-5BFE3B | C-535D36 | 2 | champion | EB, HR admin, IT sec, finance | economic buyer | none
Deal-36C33F | C-077A0E | 1 | IT security | champion, EB, HR admin, finance | champion | CT-1DB73E (CPO, EB) ✓
Deal-885F45 | C-5E8EFB | 2 | champion, EB | HR admin, IT sec, finance | IT security | CT-B3F25D (IT sec, IT sec) ✓
Deal-C6D97A | C-5A8FC2 | 3 | champion | EB, HR admin, IT sec, finance | economic buyer | none
Deal-F9A08A | C-0D15DF | 2 | champion, EB | HR admin, IT sec, finance | IT security | none
Deal-FCBE5B | C-737030 | 1 | champion | EB, HR admin, IT sec, finance | economic buyer | none

†Deal-EC3025 also had an economic buyer contact, but CT-F2C1AE is_former=true, so excluded.

Not flagged (3): Deal-84DBA6 (3 active; champion, EB, IT sec), Deal-4B0BEB (4 active; champion, EB, HR admin, finance), Deal-D348E1 (5 active; champion, EB, IT sec, finance, HR admin).

Notes:
- "Most valuable persona to add" = the highest-value persona still missing; for deals already missing champion, champion is most valuable.
- "On-file unengaged" = unengaged contact at the same company who matches the target persona; none on file where blank, e.g., C-535D36, C-5A8FC2, C-737030.
- Amount and stage are NOT present in deal_contacts.csv, so they show as —.

talk-track-from-transcriptsPASS 1.00

Plain-English question: From this rep's last 10 calls: how do they open, handle objections, and how often do they lock a next step?

Prompt — what the model saw

From this rep's last 10 calls: what they lead with in the first five minutes, how they handle the three most common objections, how often a concrete next step is agreed (rate), and every competitor a prospect raised. Quote at most one line per finding and only lines that appear in the transcripts. End with two coaching notes.

cost $0.0005 · 18s · in 3,649 / out 1,084 tok

✓ objection_count✓ next_step_rate✓ competitors✓ coaching✓ quote_used

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: 8 of 10 calls open with the same customer-win story; objection handling, next-step agreement rate, and every competitor raised, with quotes.

The answer in one line: n_transcripts = 10; objection_count = 3; rep = Alex Franklin (+3 more below)

n_transcripts10

objection_count3

allowed_new13 items — e.g. TT-001, TT-002, TT-003, TT-004

competitor_quotesAwardco=We're also in late talks with Awardco — their rewards catalog looks bigger than yours.; Kudos=How are you different from Kudos? Our CEO used them at her last company.

competitors_prospect_raisedAwardco, Kudos

next_stepagreed=7; total=10; rate=0.7

objectionsobjection=budget; count=4; quote=Honestly, budget is locked until next fiscal year — I can't add a new line item right now.; transcript_id=TT-001 | objection=timing; count=3; quote=This is good, but can we revisit it next quarter? Open enrollment starts in October and we're underwater.; transcript_id=TT-002 | objection=in-house; count=3; quote=We already do recognition with a spreadsheet and quarterly gift cards — why would we change?; transcript_id=TT-004

opener_themetheme=opens with a customer recognition win story (400-person retailer, 18% turnover reduction); count=8; total=10; quote=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.; transcript_id=TT-001

repAlex Franklin

rep_raised_competitors_excludedWorkhuman

graded checksobjection_count · next_step_rate · competitors · coaching · quote_used

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

**Findings from the last 10 calls (TT-001 through TT-010), transcribed lines only**

**What he leads with in the first five minutes**
- Opening: "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." — appears in TT-001, TT-002, TT-003, TT-005, TT-006, TT-007, TT-008, TT-010 (8 of 10 calls).
- Alternate opener: "I put together a short agenda — security review first, then pricing." (TT-004) and "You asked for straight pricing last time, so let's start there." (TT-009) — 2 of 10 calls.
- So he leads with a peer proof point 80% of the time; the other 20% start with agenda/pricing.

**How he handles the three most common objections**
1. "Honestly, budget is locked until next fiscal year — I can't add a new line item right now." (TT-001, TT-003, TT-006, TT-010)
   Response: "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." (TT-001, TT-003, TT-006, TT-010) — he pivots to ROI funded by turnover savings.
2. "This is good, but can we revisit it next quarter? Open enrollment starts in October and we're underwater." (TT-002, TT-005, TT-008)
   Response: "Makes sense. What if we scope a 90-day pilot with one department so you have internal data before next quarter's planning?" (TT-002, TT-005, TT-008) — he de-risks with a 90-day pilot.
3. "We already do recognition with a spreadsheet and quarterly gift cards — why would we change?" (TT-004, TT-007, TT-009)
   Response: "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." (TT-004, TT-007, TT-009) — he positions automation + analytics as the upgrade.

**Concrete next step agreed (rate)**
- Step: "Should we lock the next step — a working session with your team this week?" (TT-001, TT-002, TT-003, TT-005, TT-006, TT-008, TT-009, TT-010 = 8 of 10)
- Accepted: "Yes, Thursday at 2pm works — send the invite and I'll bring our HRIS manager." (TT-001, TT-002, TT-003, TT-005, TT-006, TT-008, TT-009 = 7 of 10)
- Rate: 7 / 10 = 70%
- Exceptions: TT-004 (no next-step question asked; "We need to see what the budget committee says before anything moves" then "Understood — I'll leave it with you"), TT-007 (Alex: "Fair enough" — no next step locked).

**Competitors raised by prospects**
- Awardco (TT-003): "We're also in late talks with Awardco — their rewards catalog looks bigger than yours."
- Kudos (TT-007): "How are you different from Kudos? Our CEO used them at her last company."
- No mention of Workhuman, referring to them only as "Workhuman" in Alex's own rebuttal (TT-005).

**Two coaching notes**
1. 80% of cold opens are the same retailer proof point — overuse will make buyers tune out. Alternate the opener (agenda/pricing lead, as in TT-004/TT-009) and vary the proof point or show rate. TT-004 and TT-009 still got 70% next-step agreement, which suggests the opener isn't the binding constraint.
2. The deal stalled in two of the three "spreadsheet" objections and the single "no urgency" call — TT-007 ended with "Fair enough" and no next step. Coach: add a specific, quantified landing cost to the audience objection (e.g., "every month you stay on spreadsheets, milestone recognition doesn't fire automatically and you miss the analytics baseline") so the prospect leaves with a reason to act before the next committee meeting.

reporting-analytics 5 tests

q3-weighted-forecast0.80

Plain-English question: Build the Q3 2026 weighted forecast from the open pipeline, and show the math deal by deal.

Prompt — what the model saw

Below are the open deals in the default sales pipeline with a close date between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-15, pulled from the CRM warehouse on 2026-09-05. Stages: DS1 (discovery) through DS5 (contract). Build the Q3 2026 forecast (quarter = 2026-07-01 to 2026-09-30). Weighting rule: 100 percent of COMMIT plus 35 percent of BEST_CASE. PIPELINE deals count zero. Only deals with a close date inside the quarter count. Report: COMMIT total, BEST_CASE total, weighted forecast, count of deals in each category inside the quarter, the deals you excluded for being outside the quarter (count and total amount), and the top 5 BEST_CASE deals by amount inside the quarter. Show arithmetic. Then, in a final '## Data quality' section of no more than four sentences, name the data quality problems in this extract that would make the forecast unreliable if it were run unattended.

cost $0.0037 · 76s · in 52,147 / out 5,267 tok

✓ commit_total_44729✓ best_case_total_203565✓ weighted_115976.75✓ commit_count_7✓ best_case_count_24✓ excluded_count_32✓ excluded_amount_227575✓ top5_aliases✗ flags_blank_owner✗ flags_missing_why_buys

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: A stage-weighted Q3 forecast number computed from the open pipeline, with per-stage math that reconciles to the deal data.

The answer in one line: excluded_amount = 227575; best_case_total = 203565; weighted_forecast = 115,976.75; commit_total = 44729; excluded_out_of_quarter = 32; best_case_count = 24; flags = blank owner column + empty why_buys fields must be surfaced (+2 more below)

excluded_amount227,575

best_case_count24

best_case_total203,565

commit_count7

commit_total44,729

excluded_out_of_quarter32

weighted_forecast115,976.75

flagsblank owner column + empty why_buys fields must be surfaced

top5_best_caseDeal-2D7423, Deal-25F752, Deal-E53952, Deal-5EED42, Deal-FA32A0

graded checkscommit_total_44729 · best_case_total_203565 · weighted_115976.75 · commit_count_7 · best_case_count_24 · excluded_count_32 · excluded_amount_227575 · top5_aliases · flags_blank_owner · flags_missing_why_buys

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Q3 2026 forecast (quarter = 2026-07-01 to 2026-09-30)

Arithmetic:
- Weighted forecast = 100% of COMMIT + 35% of BEST_CASE = 44,729 + 0.35 × 203,565 = 44,729 + 71,247.75 = 115,976.75

In-quarter summary:
- COMMIT: 7 deals, total 44,729.00
- BEST_CASE: 24 deals, total 203,565.00
- PIPELINE: 23 deals, total 114,723.00 (count only; PIPELINE counts zero)
- Total in-quarter deals: 54

Top 5 BEST_CASE deals by amount (in quarter):
1. Deal-2D7423 — 38,935.00 (close 2026-09-30)
2. Deal-25F752 — 24,000.00 (close 2026-09-25)
3. Deal-E53952 — 19,656.00 (close 2026-09-30)
4. Deal-5EED42 — 16,250.00 (close 2026-09-30)
5. Deal-FA32A0 — 11,116.00 (close 2026-09-25)

Excluded (outside the quarter, close 2026-10-01 to 2026-10-15): 32 deals, total 227,575.00

## Data quality

- The extract is a static snapshot from 2026-09-05, so any deal whose close date falls inside the quarter but whose stage/forecast_category in the file does not reflect a 2026-09-05 state is at risk of being misweighted; the file itself provides no snapshot reference date.
- Two in-quarter COMMIT deals (Deal-D348E1, Deal-4062CF, Deal-D9A12F) are listed with close dates of 2026-10-15, which falls outside the quarter, while the rule says only in-quarter closes count — meaning some COMMIT deals that should be in Q3 may be missing or miscoded.
- Several in-quarter PIPELINE deals (e.g., Deal-CFE1E8 at 18,000, Deal-481E24 at 4,140) sit in DS2/DS3 with close dates in late September, a stage near/at contract but holding PIPELINE and thus count zero, which likely understates the forecast if those are actually qualified.
- Because 24 in-quarter BEST_CASE deals total 203,565 versus 7 COMMIT deals at only 44,729, the forecast is heavily reliant on the 35% BEST_CASE weighting, so a single miscoded or inflated BEST_CASE amount swings the result materially.

aha-moment-2x2PASS 1.00

Plain-English question: Do companies that hit 5+ givers and one redemption in month one actually retain better at 24 months?

Prompt — what the model saw

Test the activation hypothesis on the company cohort below: companies with 5+ unique givers (m1_users >= 5) AND 1+ successful redemption (m1_redemptions >= 1) in their first calendar month retain better at 24 months than those with one signal or neither. Every company in this extract is already 25+ months old, so current_status = 'active' means retained at 24 months. Report the full 2x2 (cohort size and 24-month retention rate for: both signals, givers-only, redemption-only, neither), state how many companies were excluded from the denominator and why (if none, say so), name the single signal with the largest retention lift, and state what this does and does not prove.

cost $0.0205 · 457s · in 207,140 / out 42,280 tok

✓ both_66✓ givers_47✓ redemp_31✓ neither_40✓ excluded_0✓ largest_lift_givers

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: The four cohort cells are graded against computed 24-month retention; the numbers come from the scorer's cohort table, not opinion.

The answer in one line: both_5plus_givers_and_redemption = 66.0% (31 of 47)

both_5plus_givers_and_redemption66.0% (31 of 47)

exclusionsnone — claim bounded as correlation, not causation

givers_only46.9% (23 of 49)

largest_single_signal_liftunique givers

neither40.0% (38 of 95)

redemption_only31.0% (9 of 29)

graded checksboth_66 · givers_47 · redemp_31 · neither_40 · excluded_0 · largest_lift_givers

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

All numbers are now verified against the file. Here's the results block.

**2x2 — 24-month retention (active = retained; rate = active / cell n)**

| Signal combo (m1_users, m1_redemptions) | n | retained | rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Both signals: users >= 5 AND redemption >= 1 | 47 | 31 | 66.0% |
| Givers-only: users >= 5, redemption = 0 | 49 | 23 | 46.9% |
| Redemption-only: users < 5, redemption >= 1 | 29 | 9 | 31.0% |
| Neither: users < 5, redemption = 0 | 95 | 38 | 40.0% |

**Excluded from denominator: 0.** Every row (n = 220) has readable integer values for m1_users and m1_redemptions, so the entire extract is in the denominator — there is nothing excluded, and no rows were dropped. The denominator is the full extract; I did not trim any rows.

**Hypothesis verdict:** Partially supported, driven almost entirely by the combined signal.
- Both signals: 66.0% vs 40.0% (neither) = **+26.0 pts**
- Givers-only: 46.9% vs 40.0% (neither) = **+6.9 pts**
- Redemption-only: 31.0% vs 40.0% (neither) = **−9.0 pts**
- Both vs not-both: 66.0% vs 40.5% = +25.5 pts

So the combined signal separates retained from non-retained companies, but it is NOT the case that both signals > one signal > neither across the board. Redemption-only actually underperforms neither (−9.0 pts). The "both > one" step is real; "one > neither" is not, because the redemption-only group is the one that fails.

**Single signal with the largest retention lift:** m1_users (the givers threshold). Comparing companies that already have 1+ redemption, those with 5+ givers retain at 66.0% vs 31.0% for <5 givers → **+34.9 pts**. Comparing the reverse margin is also informative: among users >= 5, adding a redemption adds +19.0 pts. Either way, the givers signal is the one that drives the lift on the margin; the redemption signal alone is not a positive marker.

**What this does and does not prove:**
- It DOES show, in this extract: companies clearing both gates at month 1 retain at 66.0% vs 40.0% for the neither group (odds ratio 2.91 for both vs neither). The combined month-1 activation gate is associated with better 24-month outcomes.
- It does NOT prove that givers cause retention or that redemptions cause retention. The redemption-only group (31.0%) is actually below neither (40.0%), and the redemption signal is only positive when the giver threshold is also met. This is an association in a single monthly snapshot at signup month 1, against a 24-month outcome; it is subject to composition effects, the small/low-giver redemption group, other confounding at signup, and zero control for seasonality across cohorts (signup months 2023-01 through 2023-07) or company size/ARR. It is not a causal or predictive result, and the sample does not let me separate "redemption adds lift" from "redemption is just rarely the dominant driver."

Note on the source: I transcribed the CSV from the prompt verbatim into the workspace at /Users/amaniphipps/activation_cohort.csv and computed all cells from that file. If the original file on your end has a different row count than 220, the cells will shift with it — the method is the cells above.

arr-rollforward-reconciliation0.60

Plain-English question: Does CRM ARR match billing ARR — and if not, exactly where is the variance?

Prompt — what the model saw

Reconcile ARR between CRM company records and billing subscriptions as of 2026-09-05. Billing ARR is MRR x 12. Report both totals, the variance, and a decomposition into buckets (status mismatch, rounding, missing records, other) that sums exactly to the variance. List each mismatched account with a suggested owner. Business rule: any subscription with a term other than 12 months must have cf_agreement_end_date populated; list violations.

cost $0.0017 · 47s · in 20,946 / out 3,072 tok

✗ billing_total✗ crm_total✓ variance✓ buckets_sum✓ violations_listed fabricated: C-05BBE3A

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: Billing $604,739.28 vs CRM $603,581.76: a $1,157.52 variance decomposed into status-mismatch, rounding, and missing-record buckets.

The answer in one line: n_companies = 40; n_mismatched_accounts = 7; as_of = 2026-09-05 (+4 more below)

n_companies40

n_mismatched_accounts7

as_of2026-09-05

billing_arr_total604739.28

bucket_sum_equals_variance1

buckets{"status_mismatch": {"amount": "-13158.48", "accounts": [{"company_alias": "C-0C8323BF", "billing_arr": "0.00", "hubspot_arr": "4905.24", "diff": "-4905.24", "suggested_owner": "Dana Mercer"}, {"compa

crm_arr_total603581.76

ruleterm_months != 12 requires cf_agreement_end_date

variance1157.52

variance_definitionbilling_arr_total - crm_arr_total (billing ARR = sum of MRR x 12 over status=active subscriptions)

violationssubscription_id=SUB-0002; company_alias=C-1794A52C; term_months=24 | subscription_id=SUB-0019; company_alias=C-22170CA1; term_months=36

graded checksbilling_total · crm_total · variance · buckets_sum · violations_listed

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Reconciled ARR as of 2026-09-05 (no other source files were provided).

BA
Billing ARR total: $799,182.52
CRM hubspot_arr total: $775,740.48
Variance: $23,442.04 (Billing > CRM)

||+|-|
|---|---|---|
|Chargebee subscriptions (28) | $799,182.52 | |
|Company CRM records (35) | $775,740.48 | |
|Variance | | $23,442.04 |

BUG
Decomposition (buckets)

| Bucket | Amount |
|---|---|
| Status (cancelled not excluded from billing) | $1,948.54 |
| Missing CRM record | $21,231.50 |
| Other | $262.00 |
| **Total** | **$23,442.04** |

BUG
Bucket computations

BUG| Bucket | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Status | SUB-000E ($4,905.24) + SUB-000F ($8,253.24) = $1,948.54 |
| Missing record | C-05BBE3A (16,497.24) |
| Other | ARR/12 not integer for several accounts (see below) |

BUG
Status bucket detail

BUG| Subscription | MRR | ARR | CRM value | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SUB-000E | 408.77 | 4,905.24 | 4,905.24 | 0 |
| SUB-000F | 687.77 | 8,253.24 | 8,253.24 | 0 |

The status bucket arises because billing includes cancelled subscriptions, while the CRM total excludes those two companies (they are absent from company_arr.csv). Subtracting billing on a like-for-like basis (active only) gives:

Active-only billing = 799,182.52 − 1,948.54 = 797,232.98
Active-only CRM = 775,740.48
Active-only variance = 797,232.98 − 775,740.48 = $21,492.50

That remaining $21,492.50 = missing record $21,231.50 + "other" discrepancy $261.00.

BUG
Rounding/other bucket detail

BUG| Company | ARR | MRR | ARR/12 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-0BC46AD9 | 17,241.24 | 1,436.77 | 1,436.77 (17,241.24/12 = 1,436.77) | 0.00 |
| C-1794A52C | 7,092.00 | 591.00 | 591.00 (7,092.00/12 = 591.00) | 0.00 |
| C-0F4910FE | 15,748.08 | 1,312.34 | 1,312.34 | 0.00 |
| C-0D66DF9E | 23,200.00 | 1,932.00 | 1,932.00 | 0.00 |
| C-0F7269D7 | 24,396.00 | 2,233.00 | 2,233.00 | 0.00 |
| C-0FA7E799 | 6,252.00 | 521.00 | 521.00 | 0.00 |
| C-14D70CE0 | 18,200.00 | 1,515.00 | 1,515.00 | 0.00 |
| C-0BD1AF2B | 7,212.00 | 601.00 | 601.00 | 0.00 |
| C-0BEAC6F3 | 10,281.24 | 856.77 | 856.77 | 0.00 |
| C-0DDFCE99 | 3,016.08 | 251.34 | 251.34 | 0.00 |
| C-0DB48281 | 23,856.00 | 1,988.00 | 1,988.00 | 0.00 |
| C-0F5E249E | 10,212.00 | 851.00 | 851.00 | 0.00 |
| C-0DA98AC7 | 21,652.08 | 1,804.34 | 1,804.34 | 0.00 |
| C-0DB03492 | 12,036.00 | 1,003.00 | 1,003.00 | 0.00 |
| C-0B511454 | 7,209.24 | 600.77 | 600.77 | 0.00 |
| C-0FAE9868 | 3,273.24 | 272.77 | 272.77 | 0.00 |
| C-0ACCDBC3 | 13,535.88 | 1,127.99 | 1,127.99 | 0.00 |
| C-0FB9D5AF | 23,044.08 | 1,920.34 | 1,920.34 | 0.00 |
| C-0B344485 | 21,324.00 | 1,777.00 | 1,777.00 | 0.00 |
| C-0F5D2323 | 19,224.00 | 1,602.00 | 1,602.00 | 0.00 |
| C-0B7D2C30 | 29,556.00 | 2,463.00 | 2,463.00 | 0.00 |
| C-22170CA1 | 7,788.00 | 649.00 | 649.00 | 0.00 |
| C-0FC4DBB8 | 9,333.24 | 777.77 | 777.77 | 0.00 |
| C-0D2AB865 | 8,987.88 | 748.99 | 748.99 | 0.00 |
| C-0EC6999D | 25,811.88 | 2,150.99 | 2,150.99 | 0.00 |
| C-0BC34584 | 22,876.08 | 1,906.34 | 1,906.34 | 0.00 |
| C-0BBC4E7A | 2,457.24 | 204.77 | 204.77 | 0.00 |
| C-0B20DB64 | 21,717.24 | 1,809.77 | 1,809.77 | 0.00 |
| C-0BCDB8C2 | 13,188.00 | 1,099.00 | 1,099.00 | 0.00 |
| C-0CB2C1B4 | 9,348.00 | 779.00 | 779.00 | 0.00 |
| C-0F9F8F13 | 20,304.00 | 1,692.00 | 1,692.00 | 0.00 |
| C-0FD551AB | 26,424.00 | 2,202.00 | 2,202.00 | 0.00 |
| C-0D5BBE3A | 16,497.24 | — | — | — |
| C-0B144C78 | 25,788.00 | 2,149.00 | 2,149.00 | 0.00 |
| C-0BBE3E60 | 21,036.00 | 1,753.00 | 1,753.00 | 0.00 |
| C-0B7A7546 | 17,289.24 | 1,440.77 | 1,440.77 | 0.00 |
| C-0B369871 | 24,016.08 | 2,001.34 | 2,001.34 | 0.00 |

I computed the "other" bucket as follows: the CRM has 35 records, but the alias set includes C-05BBE3A (missing record, 16,497.24). The remaining active/billed-vs-CRM discrepancies across the overlapping alias set do not net to zero exactly; I attribute the residual 261.00 to "other" (e.g., a billing/CRM date-cut mismatch or a rounding/finalize difference). To be explicit: the exact residual is 23,442.04 − 1,948.54 (status) − 21,231.50 (missing) = 262.00, but because billing includes two cancelled subscriptions that CRM excludes, the same-activity comparison leaves 21,492.50, of which 261.00 is material and 262.00 is the residual attributable to the removed cancelled accounts' own ARR. I am flagging this ambiguity explicitly rather than guessing — the exact source of the final 262.00 difference cannot be pinned to a single record from the data provided.

BUG
Rule violations (cf_agreement_end_date required when term ≠ 12 months)

BUG| Subscription | Company | Term | cf_agreement_end_date | Violation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SUB-0002 | C-1794A52C | 24 | (blank) | YES |
| SUB-000A | C-0BEAC6F3 | 12 | (blank) | No — term is 12, blank is acceptable |
| SUB-000C | C-0DB48281 | 24 | 2027-11-30 | No — populated |
| SUB-0019 | C-22170CA1 | 36 | (blank) | YES |
| SUB-001A | C-0FC4DBB8 | 36 | 2027-11-30 | No — populated |

Violations (3):

BUG| Subscription | Alias | Term | Issued | Owner suggestion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SUB-0002 | C-1794A52C | 24 | No end date | Billing/Ops owner of C-1794A52C |
| SUB-0019 | C-22170CA1 | 36 | No end date | Billing/Ops owner of C-22170CA1 |

Note: SUB-001A (C-0FC4DBB8, 36-month term) is compliant because cf_agreement_end_date is populated. SUB-000A (C-0BEAC6F3, 12-month term) is not a violation — that rule only applies to non-12-month terms.

BUG
Suggested owners: Billing/Ops account owners for C-1794A52C and C-22170CA1 (the two customers with non-12-month terms lacking cf_agreement_end_date). Recommending these two named owners even though no one was given explicitly — offer to map to named owners if they prefer.

kvm-month-over-month0.80

Plain-English question: How did the four core KVMs move in August versus July?

Prompt — what the model saw

Report the four core KVMs for 2026-08 against 2026-07: giving rate, redemptions per user, 1:1 meetings engagement, pulse check engagement. For each: value, prior value, absolute and relative change, direction. Name the KVM with the largest relative move and the segment (plan_tier or size_band) driving it if the data supports that; otherwise say the data does not. Under 200 words plus one table.

cost $0.0007 · 27s · in 7,151 / out 1,429 tok

✓ four_kvms✓ biggest_mover_named✓ direction_correct✓ segment_named✗ word_cap

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: Giving rate 60.27% (up 0.07%), redemptions per user 1.7302 (up 0.01%), with 1:1 meetings and pulse engagement each up fractionally — direction reported for all four.

The answer in one line: n_company_rows_per_month = 30; aggregation = simple mean of company-level values per month

n_company_rows_per_month30

aggregationsimple mean of company-level values per month

biggest_moverpulse_engagement

driving_segmentsize_band=enterprise; 2026-07=0.55; 2026-08=0.2743; rel_change_pct=-50.13

kvms{"giving_rate": {"2026-07": 0.6023, "2026-08": 0.6027, "abs_change": 0.0004, "rel_change_pct": 0.07, "direction": "up"}, "redemptions_per_user": {"2026-07": 1.73, "2026-08": 1.7302, "abs_change": 0.00

segment_detail{"smb": {"2026-07": 0.6588, "2026-08": 0.6573, "rel_change_pct": -0.23}, "mid_market": {"2026-07": 0.593, "2026-08": 0.5942, "rel_change_pct": 0.2}, "enterprise": {"2026-07": 0.55, "2026-08": 0.2743,

graded checksfour_kvms · biggest_mover_named · direction_correct · segment_named · word_cap

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Give the four core KVMs for 2026-08 vs 2026-07.

Five experiments (C-0BDA785D, C-0B540E02, C-0D9FEB16, C-0E665A51, C-0BA0465E) are tier_three/smb; four (C-172EEFBC, C-0FC7A215, C-0CA21961, C-0D035262, C-0F6694C3, C-0EE1203E, C-0D890324, C-0BC71BDD, C-0B360C78, C-0AAA9434) are tier_three/mid_market; five (C-0B2895EF, C-0B2213A9, C-0D6CC8E3, C-0D0B047C, C-0D3278C7, C-0FCCD2DF, C-0F6C0F34, C-8C2E8F00, C-0B827671, C-0BA71F12) are tier_three/enterprise.

**Giving rate**  
Aug 0.5898 vs Jul 0.6000 → −0.0102 (−1.70%) · down

**Redemptions per user**  
Aug 1.7249 vs Jul 1.7233 → +0.0016 (+0.09%) · up

**1:1 meetings engagement**  
Aug 0.4416 vs Jul 0.4468 → −0.0052 (−1.16%) · down

**Pulse check engagement**  
Aug 0.4934 vs Jul 0.5799 → −0.0864 (−14.90%) · down

Largest relative move: **pulse check engagement** (−14.90%).

The data has three size bands but only one plan tier (tier_three) and ten companies per band. Splitting by size_band, the mid_market band outweighs the others (10 companies, vs 5 per tier_three/smb and 10 ... actually 10 per band, equal weighting by company count). Recompute per band:

- **tier_three/smb** (5 companies): pulse check  
  Jul: 0.6439, 0.6749, 0.6554, 0.6772, 0.6752 → avg 0.6653  
  Aug: 0.6366, 0.6716, 0.6573, 0.6797, 0.6786 → avg 0.6648  
  Δ −0.0006 (−0.09%)

- **tier_three/mid_market** (10 companies): pulse check  
  Jul: 0.5943, 0.5968, 0.5893, 0.5853, 0.6071, 0.5873, 0.6080, 0.5931, 0.5866, 0.5821 → avg 0.5939  
  Aug: 0.5945, 0.5977, 0.5899, 0.5895, 0.6016, 0.5902, 0.6126, 0.5999, 0.5814, 0.5851 → avg 0.5952  
  Δ +0.0013 (+0.22%)

- **tier_three/enterprise** (10 companies): pulse check  
  Jul: 0.5619, 0.5548, 0.5552, 0.5398, 0.5399, 0.5661, 0.5357, 0.5545, 0.5331, 0.5588 → avg 0.5499  
  Aug: 0.2864, 0.2801, 0.2733, 0.2619, 0.2720, 0.2797, 0.2662, 0.2811, 0.2698, 0.2723 → avg 0.2742  
  Δ −0.2757 (−50.1%)

So the largest driver is **tier_three/enterprise** (−50.1% vs ~−0.09% mid_market, +0.09% smb). The jump is a structural segment effect, not company-specific: all ten enterprise companies show a large pulse-check drop in Aug.

Verified from the CSV. If you want the aggregate weighted by company count (as above) or by equal weight across all 25 companies, the segment answer stays the same (enterprise's −50.1% overwhelms the other bands). The data supports naming the driving segment: **tier_three/enterprise**.

| KVM | Aug | Jul | Δ | Rel Δ | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| giving_rate | 0.5898 | 0.6000 | −0.0102 | −1.70% | down |
| redemptions_per_user | 1.7249 | 1.7233 | +0.0016 | +0.09% | up |
| one_to_one_engagement | 0.4416 | 0.4468 | −0.0052 | −1.16% | down |
| pulse_engagement | 0.4934 | 0.5799 | −0.0864 | −14.90% | down |

rewards-ytd-section0.50

Plain-English question: Produce the redemption section of the weekly rewards report through August.

Prompt — what the model saw

Produce the redemption section of the weekly rewards report through the last completed month (2026-08): redemption count, spend, unique redeemers, redemptions per redeemer, provider mix as percent of spend, top 5 countries by redemptions. Say which month is the last completed month. Provider shares must sum to 100.

cost $0.0013 · 14s · in 21,811 / out 454 tok

✗ count✗ spend✗ unique_redeemers✓ month_named✓ provider_mix✓ top_country

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: 378 redemptions, $27,846 spend, 235 unique redeemers at 1.61 each, custom rewards at 39% of spend, US leading all countries.

The answer in one line: redemption_count = 378; unique_redeemers = 235; redemptions_per_redeemer = 1.61; total_spend_usd = 27846.00

redemption_count378

redemptions_per_redeemer1.61

unique_redeemers235

provider_mix_pct_of_spendTangoCard=11.6; Tremendous=30.54; custom=39.05; Snappy=18.81

top5_countries_by_countcountry=US; count=244 | country=CA; count=24 | country=AU; count=21 | country=GB; count=17 | country=NL; count=17

total_spend_usd27846.00

graded checkscount · spend · unique_redeemers · month_named · provider_mix · top_country

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

The last completed month is **2026-08** (the report window runs through August).

## Redemption section

- Redemption count: 552
- Spend: $17,161.00
- Unique redeemers: 396
- Redemptions per redeemer: 1.39

### Provider mix (percent of spend)

| Provider | Spend | % |
|---|---|---|
| TangoCard | $6,160.00 | 35.90% |
| Tremendous | $4,273.00 | 24.90% |
| custom | $4,272.00 | 24.90% |
| Snappy | $2,456.00 | 14.30% |
| **Total** | **$17,161.00** | **100** |

### Top 5 countries by redemptions

| Rank | Country | Redemptions | % of total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US | 336 | 60.87% |
| 2 | CA | 35 | 6.34% |
| 3 | GB | 31 | 5.62% |
| 4 | US-in-name+... (see table) | | |
| 5 | FR | 22 | 3.99% |

Corrected top 5:

1. US — 336
2. CA — 35
3. GB — 31
4. FR — 22
5. NL — 16

(US ~60.9%, CA ~6.3%, GB ~5.6%, FR ~4.0%, NL ~2.9%.)

Note: I computed all counts by filtering `redeemed_at` < `2026-09-01T00:00:00` and summing `amount_usd` directly from the file. The data is provided as-is; no values were missing for the metrics requested.

customer-success 5 tests

churn-save-eligibility0.80

Plain-English question: Which at-risk accounts actually qualify for a churn-save offer, and which play fits each?

Prompt — what the model saw

Which at-risk accounts qualify for a churn-save offer under the documented eligibility rules, what amount is at stake per account and in total, and which play fits each (usage revival, executive touch, commercial concession)? Cite the signal that justifies each play. List accounts that look at risk but do not qualify and why.

cost $0.0028 · 35s · in 41,463 / out 3,427 tok

✓ eligible_set✗ total_at_stake✓ plays_cited✓ noneligible_named✓ rules_applied

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: Only accounts meeting all three rules qualify — e.g. C-0F6C0F34 at $49,707 (executive touch) and C-0B827671 at $25,365 (usage revival) — with amount and play per account.

The answer in one line: n_accounts = 30; snapshot_date = 2026-09-05

n_accounts30

eligibleaccount_alias=C-0F6C0F34; amount_at_stake=49707.00; play=executive touch; justifying_signal=champion_active is false - no executive sponsor engaged | account_alias=C-0B827671; amount_at_stake=25365.00; play=usage revival; justifying_signal=usage_trend_3m=declining over the last 3 months | account_alias=C-0B360C78; amount_at_stake=35748.00; play=commercial concession; justifying_signal=usage stable/growing with seat utilization 75% - risk is commercial, not adoption | account_alias=C-0B0F1BAB; amount_at_stake=5494.00; play=executive touch; justifying_signal=champion_active is false - no executive sponsor engaged | account_alias=C-0CA21961; amount_at_stake=16829.00; play=usage revival; justifying_signal=seat utilization 26% is below 50% | account_alias=C-0E9C27D1; amount_at_stake=41235.00; play=commercial concession; justifying_signal=usage stable/growing with seat utilization 85% - risk is commercial, not adoption … (+2 more)

non_eligible_at_riskaccount_alias=C-0BC71BDD; health_score=55 | account_alias=C-0BA71F12; health_score=52 | account_alias=C-0F6694C3; health_score=43 | account_alias=C-0BE96399; health_score=54 | account_alias=C-0F876796; health_score=47 | account_alias=C-0FCCD2DF; health_score=43 … (+1 more)

ruleshealth_score < 60, churn_save_eligible_amount > 0, renewal within 120 days of snapshot

snapshot_date2026-09-05

total_amount_at_stake224601.00

graded checkseligible_set · total_at_stake · plays_cited · noneligible_named · rules_applied

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

I'll process this directly using the documented eligibility rules (R1, R2, R3) from the rules file.

Processing with explicit arithmetic. Let me identify the qualifying accounts and play assignments.

**Eligibility rules:**
- R1: health_score < 60 (at risk)
- R2: churn_save_eligible_amount > 0
- R3: renewal_date within 120 days of snapshot 2026-09-05 → renewal ≤ 2026-12-04

Let me compute the qualifying accounts:

| account | health | arr | save_elig | renewal | within 120d? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-0F6C0F34 | 51 | 86741 | 49707 | 2026-10-03 | ✓ |
| C-0B827671 | 56 | 72088 | 25365 | 2026-11-14 | ✓ |
| C-0B360C78 | 57 | 60427 | 35748 | 2026-10-28 | ✓ |
| C-0B0F1BAB | 38 | 15391 | 5494 | 2026-09-23 | ✓ |
| C-0CA21961 | 58 | 31501 | 16829 | 2026-12-28 | ✗ (>120d) |
| C-0E9C27D1 | 39 | 75093 | 41235 | 2026-09-24 | ✓ |
| C-0CEF69FD | 53 | 79324 | 32621 | 2026-11-21 | ✓ |
| C-0D3278C7 | 54 | 33815 | 17602 | 2026-11-12 | ✓ |
| C-0BC71BDD | 55 | 54515 | 0 | 2026-10-27 | ✗ R2 |
| C-0BA71F12 | 52 | 17061 | 6824 | 2027-04-11 | ✗ R3 |
| C-0F6694C3 | 43 | 11243 | 0 | 2027-03-21 | ✗ R2, R3 |
| C-0BE96399 | 54 | 52319 | 0 | 2026-10-29 | ✗ R2 |
| C-0F876796 | 47 | 49895 | 19958 | 2027-02-06 | ✗ R3 |
| C-0FCCD2DF | 43 | 65957 | 0 | 2027-04-23 | ✗ R2, R3 |
| C-10A56B0F | 54 | 25717 | 0 | 2026-12-12 | ✗ R2 |
| C-8C2E8F00 | 73 | 73032 | 0 | 2027-05-09 | ✗ R1, R3 |
| C-0B843542 | 63 | 48866 | 0 | 2027-02-01 | ✗ R1 |
| C-14264ABD | 87 | 35317 | 0 | 2027-05-13 | ✗ R1 |
| C-0B2895EF | 73 | 29383 | 0 | 2027-05-05 | ✗ R1 |
| C-0EE1203E | 88 | 38988 | 0 | 2027-04-15 | ✗ R1 |
| C-0FC7A215 | 62 | 36953 | 0 | 2027-05-28 | ✗ R1 |
| C-0D035262 | 85 | 10628 | 0 | 2026-10-20 | ✗ R1 |
| C-0D6CC8E3 | 77 | 20135 | 0 | 2027-04-05 | ✗ R1 |
| C-0B2213A9 | 69 | 76947 | 0 | 2026-12-03 | ✗ R1 |
| C-0D0B047C | 70 | 8392 | 0 | 2027-05-08 | ✗ R1 |
| C-21FEBCBB | 65 | 40332 | 0 | 2027-06-30 | ✗ R1, R3 |
| C-172EEFBC | 75 | 70707 | 0 | 2026-11-24 | ✗ R1 |
| C-0C3848D2 | 73 | 79593 | 0 | 2027-03-05 | ✗ R1 |
| C-0D890324 | 81 | 41241 | 0 | 2027-04-10 | ✗ R1 |
| C-0AAA9434 | 75 | 73687 | 0 | 2026-10-14 | ✗ R1 |

**Qualifying accounts (R1 AND R2 AND R3 all met):**

1. **C-0F6C0F34** — health 51 (<60) ✓, save_elig 49707 (>0) ✓, renewal 2026-10-03 (within 120d of 2026-09-05 → last day 2026-12-04) ✓. Save at stake: **$49,707**.

2. **C-0B827671** — health 56 ✓, save_elig 25365 ✓, renewal 2026-11-14 ✓. Save at stake: **$25,365**.

3. **C-0B360C78** — health 57 ✓, save_elig 35748 ✓, renewal 2026-10-28 ✓. Save at stake: **$35,748**.

4. **C-0B0F1BAB** — health 38 ✓, save_elig 5494 ✓, renewal 2026-09-23 ✓. Save at stake: **$5,494**.

5. **C-0E9C27D1** — health 39 ✓, save_elig 41235 ✓, renewal 2026-09-24 ✓. Save at stake: **$41,235**.

6. **C-0CEF69FD** — health 53 ✓, save_elig 32621 ✓, renewal 2026-11-21 ✓. Save at stake: **$32,621**.

7. **C-0D3278C7** — health 54 ✓, save_elig 17602 ✓, renewal 2026-11-12 ✓. Save at stake: **$17,602**.

**Total at stake: $49,707 + $25,365 + $35,748 + $5,494 + $41,235 + $32,621 + $17,602 = $207,772.**

**Play assignment per signal (usage_trend / champion_active / health):**

- C-0F6C0F34 — usage growing, 395 seats / 308 used, champion inactive. Play: **usage revival** (usage recovering but still short of baseline; growth suggests latent demand if usage converted). [signal: usage_trend = growing]
- C-0B827671 — usage declining, 202 seats / 113 used, champion active. Play: **executive touch** (declining usage + active champion → executive sponsorship to reverse). [signal: usage_trend = declining, champion_active = true]
- C-0B360C78 — usage growing, 327 seats / 246 used, champion active. Play: **commercial concession** (growing usage + active champion → lock in with deal/terms). [signal: usage_trend = growing, champion_active = true]
- C-0B0F1BAB — usage flat, 363 seats / 238 used, champion inactive. Play: **usage revival** (flat with inactive champion → re-engage on usage). [signal: usage_trend = flat, champion_active = false]
- C-0E9C27D1 — usage flat, 157 seats / 134 used, champion active. Play: **executive touch** (flat usage + active champion → fit/alignment check). [signal: usage_trend = flat, champion_active = true]
- C-0CEF69FD — usage growing, 136 seats / 97 used, champion inactive. Play: **usage revival** (growth but inactive champion → drive adoption via champion). [signal: usage_trend = growing, champion_active = false]
- C-0D3278C7 — usage declining, 380 seats / 126 used, champion active. Play: **executive touch** (declining usage + active champion). [signal: usage_trend = declining, champion_active = true]

**Accounts that look at-risk but do NOT qualify, with reasons:**

- C-0CA21961: health 58 (at risk) but renewal 2026-12-28 > 120 days → fails R3.
- C-0BC71BDD: at risk (55) + renewal within window, but save_eligible_amount = 0 → fails R2.
- C-0BA71F12: health 52, save_eligible 6824, but renewal 2027-04-11 → fails R3.
- C-0F6694C3: health 43, but save_eligible = 0 AND renewal 2027-03-21 → fails R2, R3.
- C-0BE96399: health 54, save_eligible = 0 → fails R2.
- C-0F876796: health 47, save_eligible 19958, but renewal 2027-02-06 → fails R3.
- C-0FCCD2DF: health 43, save_eligible = 0 → fails R2.
- C-10A56B0F: health 54, save_eligible = 0 → fails R2.
- C-8C2E8F00: health 73 (not at risk), save_eligible = 0 → fails R1, R3.
- C-0B843542: health 63 → fails R1.
- C-14264ABD: health 87 → fails R1.
- C-0B2895EF: health 73 → fails R1.
- C-0EE1203E: health 88 → fails R1.
- C-0FC7A215: health 62 → fails R1.
- C-0D035262: health 85 → fails R1.
- C-0D6CC8E3: health 77 → fails R1.
- C-0B2213A9: health 69 → fails R1.
- C-0D0B047C: health 70 → fails R1.
- C-21FEBCBB: health 65 → fails R1.
- C-172EEFBC: health 75 → fails R1.
- C-0C3848D2: health 73 → fails R1.
- C-0D890324: health 81 → fails R1.
- C-0AAA9434: health 75 → fails R1.

Note on the at-risk-but-not-qualifying list: several accounts (C-0BC71BDD, C-0BE96399, C-0FCCD2DF, C-10A56B0F) show at-risk health but report save_eligible_amount = 0 in the source data; that field is provided in the source and is taken at face value, so they fail R2. No additional qualifying accounts are derivable beyond the rules; I'm not inferring any account into a play beyond the signals present.

**Summary:** 7 accounts qualify; $207,772 at stake in total; plays distributed as: usage revival ×3 (C-0F6C0F34, C-0B0F1BAB, C-0CEF69FD), executive touch ×3 (C-0B827671, C-0E9C27D1, C-0D3278C7), commercial concession ×1 (C-0B360C78).

One data caveat: the source gives each account a `churn_save_eligible_amount`; for 4 at-risk accounts this is reported as 0.00 (C-0BC71BDD, C-0BE96399, C-0FCCD2DF, C-10A56B0F), so under R2 they do not qualify even though health and renewal look risky. That's a data gap to confirm against the actual product/back-end before excluding them — i.e., the 0.00 may mean "not eligible" or "value not provided" and either way cannot be used for qualification.

expansion-kit0.83

Plain-English question: Build the expansion kit for the customer who just replied to our outreach.

Prompt — what the model saw

A customer replied to outreach (reply included). Build the expansion kit: seat coverage (licensed over headcount), two lines on usage health, headroom in seats and ARR at the current per-seat rate, who replied and whether they can buy, the right buyer from our contacts, and a reply email under 150 words that moves toward the right person without being pushy and cites one real usage fact.

cost $0.0002 · 11s · in 1,068 / out 496 tok

✓ coverage_pct✗ headroom_arr✓ right_buyer✓ replier_not_buyer✓ usage_fact✓ email_under_150

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: 37.5% seat coverage, 250 headroom seats worth $15,000 ARR at $60 a seat, usage up 43.2% in six months — and the replier cannot buy; Dana R. (VP People) is the right buyer.

The answer in one line: headroom_seats = 250; coverage_pct = 37.5; company_alias = C-0DDFC9A7 (+3 more below)

headroom_seats250

coverage_pct37.5

company_aliasC-0DDFC9A7

headroom_arr15000.00

per_seat_annual_rate60.00

replierMaria S.

replier_can_buy0

right_buyername=Dana R.; title=VP People

usage_factsactive_users_2026_08=126; active_users_2026_03=88; growth_pct_6m=43.2; licensed_seat_utilization_pct=84

usage_health_linesMonthly active users grew from 88 (2026-03) to 126 (2026-08), +43.2% over 6 months., Last month 126 of 150 licensed seats were active (84.0% utilization), approaching the seat cap.

graded checkscoverage_pct · headroom_arr · right_buyer · replier_not_buyer · usage_fact · email_under_150

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

The reply from Maria S. (People Operations Coordinator) correctly signals that she is not the buyer. Here is the expansion kit.

**Seat coverage (licensed over headcount)**
- Licensed seats: 150
- Headcount: 400
- Coverage: 37.5%

**Usage health**
- Users by month: 88 (Mar) → 95 (Apr) → 102 (May) → 110 (Jun) → 118 (Jul) → 126 (Aug)
- 6-month growth: +43.2% (126 vs 88)
- UVA/upside: 126 licensed users of 150 seats = 84% UVU.

**Headroom**
- Remaining seats: 150 − 126 = 24
- Rate per seat: 9000 ÷ 150 = $60.00
- ARR at current rate:
  - All 150 seats: 150 × $60 = $9,000.00
  - 24 seats = 24 × $60 = $1,440.00

**Who replied**
- Maria S., People Operations Coordinator, last engaged 2026-09-02.
- She does not hold purchasing decisions (she explicitly defers to Dana R.); she can introduce/help but cannot buy.

**Right buyer (from contacts)**
- Dana R., VP People, last engaged 2026-05-18. Title matches the seat-expansion/savings decision ("Budget and seat expansion sit with Dana R."), and she has been asking about usage numbers.

**Reply email (≤150 words)**

Subject: Re: Growing your team's recognition program

Hi Maria,

Glad the recognition feed is busy every week — that's the busiest 2026 month we've seen, with monthly active users hitting 126. Thanks for making the intro.

Since seat expansion is your next step, may I loop Dana R., VP People? Dana has been tracking our usage numbers and can map the remaining 24 seats to your headcount. I'll keep this between us unless you'd like her to reach out directly.

Best,
Cole

(96 words)

onboarding-statusPASS 1.00

Plain-English question: What is done and what is missing in this customer's onboarding before the mid-onboarding call?

Prompt — what the model saw

Prep the CSM for the mid-onboarding call: what is complete (integrations connected, allowance set, admins added, first recognition given, first redemption), what is not, early engagement signals, and the three things to cover on the call. Mark nothing complete without a data field that shows it.

cost $0.0003 · 13s · in 1,151 / out 715 tok

✓ complete_items✓ incomplete_items✓ three_items✓ grounded

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: 25 days live: Slack connected, allowance set, admins added — but the HRIS integration is not connected, with early engagement signals and three call priorities.

The answer in one line: days_live = 25; company_alias = C-0D284E42

days_live25

call_itemsConnect the HRIS integration (integration_hris is empty) to automate user provisioning and offboarding., Get to first redemption (first_redemption_at is empty): walk admins through the rewards catalog and confirm allowance funding., Build the giving habit: daily active givers averaged 4.3 in week 1 vs 13.0 last week - agree on manager nudges and a recognition cadence.

checklist{"slack_integration_connected": {"complete": true, "field": "integration_slack", "value": "2026-08-12"}, "hris_integration_connected": {"complete": false, "field": "integration_hris", "value": ""}, "a

company_aliasC-0D284E42

engagement_signalsavg_active_givers_week1=4.3; avg_active_givers_last_week=13; latest_active_givers=15; days_with_activity=25

graded checkscomplete_items · incomplete_items · three_items · grounded

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Task: prep the CSM for the mid-onboarding call using only the two data files.

**Account completeness (from onboarding_account.csv)** — a field must be non-empty to count as complete:

- Integrations: Slack connected (2026-08-12); HRIS NOT connected (field empty).
- Allowance set: Yes (2026-08-13).
- Admins added: Yes (count = 2).
- First recognition given: Yes (2026-08-15 14:22).
- First redemption: NOT complete (field empty).

**Early engagement signals (from onboarding_usage.csv, 30 rows = 2026-08-11 → 09-04):**

- Active givers: 3 on day-1 → 15 on 09-04. Net +12 over 25 days (+400%).
- 7-day moving average: 
  - W1 (08-11→17): 3,3,4,4,5,4,7 → avg 4.4
  - W2 (08-18→24): 5,7,5,7,6,9,8 → avg 6.9
  - W3 (08-25→09-04): 9,11,10,10,11,13,13,15 → avg 11.3
  - Accelerating growth, roughly +6.9/week step.
- 5-day trailing avg (last 5: 09-01..09-04): 13,13,15,15 → 14.0 active givers (vs 5-day avg 7.2 over 08-28..09-03).
- Peak in window: 15 active givers (09-03, 09-04); 09-03/09-04 tied for highest.
- Down days: 08-18 (from 7→5), 08-20 (7→6), 08-27 (11→10), 09-01 (13→13 flat), 09-02 (flat). Mostly single-day dips; no sustained streak below 4.

**Three things to cover on the call:**

1. Get HRIS connected (field is empty) — confirm which system, and assignment of that integration.
2. Set the first redemption / confirm the allowance (allowance set 08-13) — verify where the allowance is applied and whether any giver redemptions have happened; the "first redemption" field is empty, so confirm actual redemption flow.
3. Grow mid-onboarding momentum — givers accelerated from ~4.4/week to ~11.3/week; address the activity dips (08-18, 08-20, 08-27) and surface the best practices from the rising curve.

**Data gaps (explicit):** HRIS integration not shown; admins count=2 but no names; no data on whether redemptions actually occurred (only that first redemption field is empty); no dates on when admins were added.

renewal-risk-conflicting-datesPASS 1.00

Plain-English question: Two systems disagree on renewal dates — which do you trust per account, and who is actually renewing inside 90 days?

Prompt — what the model saw

Produce a 90-day renewal risk brief. Two systems hold renewal dates and disagree on some accounts; decide which to trust per account and say why (multi-year contracts are known to be wrong in ChurnZero). For every renewal: company, CSM, ARR, date used, seat utilization, 3-month usage trend, risk rating with one sentence of evidence. Flag every disagreement. Close with total ARR renewing and ARR at risk.

cost $0.0059 · 235s · in 9,648 / out 26,602 tok

✓ total_renewing✓ arr_at_risk✓ disagreements_flagged✓ trust_rule fabricated: C-0AA34485

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: Chargebee wins per account (multi-year contracts are known wrong in ChurnZero), with each trusted date, the reason, and a 90-day-window flag.

The answer in one line: n_accounts = 20; n_disagreements = 5; snapshot_date = 2026-09-05 (+2 more below)

n_accounts20

n_disagreements5

accounts20 items — e.g. account_alias=C-0B144C78; csm=Cole Ingram; arr=30899.00; trusted_renewal_date=2026-11-02; trusted_source_why=systems agree (annual term); in_90d_window=True; dates_disagree=False; seat_utilization_pct=75.4; usage_3m_ratio=1.03; risk=low; evidence=3-month usage ratio 1.03 (last3 avg 103 vs prior3 100), seat utilization 75% | account_alias=C-0B20DB64; csm=Dana Mercer; arr=21770.00; trusted_renewal_date=2026-10-07; trusted_source_why=systems agree (annual term); in_90d_window=True; dates_disagree=False; seat_utilization_pct=56.6; usage_3m_ratio=1; risk=medium; evidence=3-month usage ratio 1.00 (last3 avg 295 vs prior3 295), seat utilization 57% | account_alias=C-0B344485; csm=Elena Sinclair; arr=64384.00; trusted_renewal_date=2026-11-16; trusted_source_why=systems agree (annual term); in_90d_window=True; dates_disagree=False; seat_utilization_pct=78; usage_3m_ratio=1.04; risk=low; evidence=3-month usage ratio 1.04 (last3 avg 241 vs prior3 231), seat utilization 78% | account_alias=C-0B369871; csm=Dana Mercer; arr=85128.00; trusted_renewal_date=2026-10-29; trusted_source_why=systems agree (annual term); in_90d_window=True; dates_disagree=False; seat_utilization_pct=75.1; usage_3m_ratio=1.04; risk=low; evidence=3-month usage ratio 1.04 (last3 avg 330 vs prior3 316), seat utilization 75%

arr_at_risk_90d359409.00

disagreementsaccount_alias=C-0B7D2C30; cz_renewal_date=2026-09-10; cb_renewal_date=2026-09-15; is_multi_year=True; trusted=2026-09-15 | account_alias=C-0BBE3E60; cz_renewal_date=2027-09-26; cb_renewal_date=2026-09-26; is_multi_year=True; trusted=2026-09-26 | account_alias=C-0BCDB8C2; cz_renewal_date=2027-09-18; cb_renewal_date=2026-09-18; is_multi_year=True; trusted=2026-09-18 | account_alias=C-0D2AB865; cz_renewal_date=2026-09-10; cb_renewal_date=2026-09-22; is_multi_year=True; trusted=2026-09-22 | account_alias=C-0F5D2323; cz_renewal_date=2026-09-10; cb_renewal_date=2026-09-29; is_multi_year=True; trusted=2026-09-29

snapshot_date2026-09-05

total_arr_renewing_90d1048715.00

trust_rulemulti-year contracts: Chargebee is authoritative (ChurnZero known wrong); otherwise systems agree or Chargebee wins

window2026-09-05 to 2026-12-04

graded checkstotal_renewing · arr_at_risk · disagreements_flagged · trust_rule

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Here is the full 90-day renewal risk brief computed from the three files you provided.

## Methodology
- ChurnZero (cz_renewal_date) is the primary source for renewal dates; Chargebee (cb_renewal_date) disagreements are flagged per row.
- Chargebee `term_months`/`is_multi_year` are the authority on which CZ date to trust. Per the stated rule, multi-year (is_multi_year=true) CB terms are known to be wrong in ChurnZero, so for those rows I treat CZ dates as correct and CB months as the error. Single-year CB terms are trusted as-is.
- Seat utilization = seats_used / seats. 3-month usage trend = % change in active users from 2026-05 → 2026-08.
- Risk ratings: Elevated = utilization ≥ 70% and declining usage; High = utilization ≥ 90% and/or usage down by double digits; a 3rd category applies to near-zero utilization accounts (e.g., very low seats_used relative to seats), which I mark Low.

## Renewal table (sorted by risk)

| Account | CSM | ARR | Date used | Seat util | 3-mo usage trend | Risk | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-0F5D2323 | Cole Ingram | 90647.00 | 2026-09-10 | 28.5% | -2.0% | Moderate | Heavy absolute decline but low util; usage flat-to-down |
| C-0EC6999D | Elena Sinclair | 79419.00 | 2026-10-03 | 27.7% | -6.7% | Moderate | Highest ARR in <30% util; flat-to-down usage |
| C-0B7D2C30 | Dana Mercer | 65901.00 | 2026-09-10 | 57.6% | -47.1% | **Elevated** | 57.6% util, -47% usage fall; best date alignment |
| C-0B369871 | Dana Mercer | 85128.00 | 2026-10-29 | 75.1% | +1.4% | **Elevated** | 75% util but rising usage; strong offset |
| C-0CB2C1B4 | Dana Mercer | 40628.00 | 2026-11-20 | 81.6% | +4.3% | Elevated | 81.6% util, usage rising; watch spark-quality decline |
| C-0BBC4E7A | Cole Ingram | 56374.00 | 2026-10-10 | 67.7% | -2.1% | Moderate | 67.7% util, near-flat usage |
| C-0F9F8F13 | Dana Mercer | 46230.00 | 2026-10-18 | 56.5% | -1.6% | Moderate | 56.5% util, usage flat |
| C-0B144C78 | Cole Ingram | 30899.00 | 2026-11-02 | 75.4% | +5.6% | Elevated | 75.4% util, usage rising |
| C-0AA34485 | Elena Sinclair | 64384.00 | 2026-11-16 | 78.0% | +5.8% | Elevated | 78% util, usage rising |
| C-0B344485 | Elena Sinclair | 64384.00 | 2026-11-16 | 78.0% | +5.8% | Elevated | 78% util, rising usage |
| C-0CB2C1B4 | Dana Mercer | 40628.00 | 2026-11-20 | 81.6% | +4.3% | Elevated | (duplicate) |

**Wait** — I notice a data issue: C-0B344485 appears once in the CSV, with ARR 64384.00, but I want to double-check that I'm not duplicating. Let me re-read. Each account alias appears exactly once in the input, so there are 20 rows, no duplicates. Let me recompute the table cleanly.

Table below (20 accounts, sorted by risk):

| Account | CSM | ARR | Date used | Seat util | 3-mo trend | Risk | One-line evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-0F5D2323 | Cole Ingram | 90647.00 | 2026-09-10 | 28.5% | -2.0% | Moderate | Low seat utilization with usage flat-to-down; 24-mo term needs review |
| C-0EC6999D | Elena Sinclair | 79419.00 | 2026-10-03 | 27.7% | -6.7% | Moderate | High ARR at low utilization, usage declining; single-year term |
| C-0B7D2C30 | Dana Mercer | 65901.00 | 2026-09-10 | 57.6% | -47.1% | Elevated | 57.6% util but usage −47% from 5-mo peak of 155 → 84 |
| C-0B369871 | Dana Mercer | 85128.00 | 2026-10-29 | 75.1% | +1.4% | Elevated | 75.1% util with usage up +1.4%; pressure points on seats at renewal |
| C-0CB2C1B4 | Dana Mercer | 40628.00 | 2026-11-20 | 81.6% | +4.3% | Elevated | 81.6% util and rising usage — top-of-funnel risk |
| C-0BBC4E7A | Cole Ingram | 56374.00 | 2026-10-10 | 67.7% | -2.1% | Moderate | Moderate utilization, usage flat-to-down |
| C-0F9F8F13 | Dana Mercer | 46230.00 | 2026-10-18 | 56.5% | -1.6% | Moderate | 56.5% util, usage essentially flat |
| C-0B144C78 | Cole Ingram | 30899.00 | 2026-11-02 | 75.4% | +5.6% | Elevated | 75.4% util, usage up 5.6% |
| C-0B344485 | Elena Sinclair | 64384.00 | 2026-11-16 | 78.0% | +5.8% | Elevated | 78.0% util, usage +5.8% |
| C-0B344485 | Elena Sinclair | 64384.00 | 2026-11-16 | 78.0% | +5.8% | Elevated | (duplicate entry) |

Hold on — I miscounted. Let me be precise. The CSV has 20 data rows. Let me just do this cleanly in code to avoid arithmetic mistakes, because seat utilization and trends are easy to miscount by hand.

Actually, let me just compute it directly with a quick script to get exact numbers and rankings. Let me do that.

Let me carefully compute all 20 rows:

1. C-0B7D2C30: 274/476 = 57.56% util; usage 107 → 84 = -21.5%
2. C-0BCDB8C2: 232/424 = 54.72%; 136 → 110 = -19.1%
3. C-0D2AB865: 250/407 = 61.43%; 137 → 109 = -20.4%
4. C-0BBE3E60: 74/114 = 64.91%; 41 → 33 = -19.5%
5. C-0F5D2323: 111/390 = 28.46%; 20 → 18 = -10.0%
6. C-0EC6999D: 31/112 = 27.68%; 14 → 15 = +7.1%
7. C-0B20DB64: 214/378 = 56.61%; 296 → 294 = -0.7%
8. C-0BBC4E7A: 228/337 = 67.66%; 142 → 139 = -2.1%
9. C-0FD551AB: 210/376 = 55.85%; 125 → 126 = +0.8%
10. C-0F9F8F13: 199/352 = 56.53%; 182 → 182 = 0.0%
11. C-0BC34584: 327/494 = 66.19%; 103 → 106 = +2.9%
12. C-0B7A7546: 182/205 = 88.78%; 61 → 63 = +3.3%
13. C-0B369871: 317/422 = 75.12%; 319 → 333 = +4.4%
14. C-0B144C78: 169/224 = 75.45%; 99 → 106 = +7.1%
15. C-0FC4DBB8: 356/464 = 76.72%; 185 → 193 = +4.3%
16. C-0D5BBE3A: 85/102 = 83.33%; 87 → 91 = +4.6%
17. C-0FB9D5AF: 144/199 = 72.36%; 168 → 176 = +4.8%
18. C-0B344485: 224/287 = 78.05%; 235 → 244 = +3.8%
19. C-0CB2C1B4: 386/473 = 81.61%; 50 → 49 = -2.0%
20. C-22170CA1: 251/294 = 85.37%; 143 → 146 = +2.1%

That's the full list. Now let me apply risk logic and decide date trust per row.

**Date trust rule:** For rows where CB is_multi_year=true, CZ dates are trusted. For rows where CB is_single_year=false (12-month), CB dates are trusted. Let me check the CB file: C-0B7D2C30 is multi-year (true, 36mo) → trust CZ 2026-09-10. All others are multi-year too? Let me check: C-0BCDB8C2 true, C-0D2AB865 true, C-0BBE3E60 true, C-0F5D2323 true, C-0EC6999D false (12mo), C-0B20DB64 false, C-0BBC4E7A false, C-0FD551AB false, C-0F9F8F13 false, C-0BC34584 false, C-0B7A7546 false, C-0B369871 false, C-0B144C78 false, C-0FC4DBB8 false, C-0D5BBE3A false, C-0FB9D5AF false, C-0B344485 false, C-0CB2C1B4 false, C-22170CA1 false.

So only C-0B7D2C30 and C-0BCDB8C2 are multi-year in CB, matching the stated rule that "multi-year contracts are known to be wrong in ChurnZero."

For these two:
- C-0B7D2C30: CZ 2026-09-10, CB 2026-09-15 → CZ trusted (36-mo multi-year). Agreement flag: disagree → flag.
- C-0BCDB8C2: CZ 2026-09-18, CB 2026-09-18 → same date. Agreement flag: no disagreement.

All other rows: CB is 12-month single-year, trusted. Compare CZ vs CB for each:
- C-0D2AB865: CZ 2026-09-10 vs CB 2026-09-22 → disagree (13 days). Flag.
- C-0BBE3E60: CZ 2026-09-26 vs CB 2026-09-26 → agree.
- C-0F5D2323: CZ 2026-09-10 vs CB 2026-09-29 → disagree (19 days). Flag.
- C-0EC6999D: CZ 2026-10-03 vs CB 2026-10-03 → agree.
- C-0B20DB64: CZ 2026-10-07 vs CB 2026-10-07 → agree.
- C-0BBC4E7A: CZ 2026-10-10 vs CB 2026-10-10 → agree.
- C-0FD551AB: CZ 2026-10-14 vs CB 2026-10-14 → agree.
- C-0F9F8F13: CZ 2026-10-18 vs CB 2026-10-18 → agree.
- C-0BC34584: CZ 2026-10-22 vs CB 2026-10-22 → agree.
- C-0B7A7546: CZ 2026-10-25 vs CB 2026-10-25 → agree.
- C-0B369871: CZ 2026-10-29 vs CB 2026-10-29 → agree.
- C-0B144C78: CZ 2026-11-02 vs CB 2026-11-02 → agree.
- C-0FC4DBB8: CZ 2026-11-05 vs CB 2026-11-05 → agree.
- C-0D5BBE3A: CZ 2026-11-09 vs CB 2026-11-09 → agree.
- C-0FB9D5AF: CZ 2026-11-13 vs CB 2026-11-13 → agree.
- C-0B344485: CZ 2026-11-16 vs CB 2026-11-16 → agree.
- C-0CB2C1B4: CZ 2026-11-20 vs CB 2026-11-20 → agree.
- C-22170CA1: CZ 2026-11-24 vs CB 2026-11-24 → agree.

So date disagreements are flagged for: C-0D2AB865 (CZ 09-10 vs CB 09-22), C-0F5D2323 (CZ 09-10 vs CB 09-29), C-0B7D2C30 (CZ 09-10 vs CB 09-15). These three disagree. For the two multi-year rows, we trust CZ anyway; but a disagreement still exists in the data and should be flagged.

Now risk ratings. I'll define tiers:
- Low: seat utilization ≥60% but with stable/flattering usage trend OR very low utilization with flat usage. Hmm, I need something clear.
  
Let me think about a clean, defensible rubric:
- **High risk**: seat utilization ≥ 75% AND usage down ≥ 5% OR usage declining sharply regardless. Actually let me simplify.

Clean rubric:
- **Elevated**: utilization ≥ 60% and usage down by 5–15% OR utilization 70–85% with flat/slightly down usage.
- **High**: utilization ≥ 75% AND usage down by more than 10%, OR utilization ≥ 85% with any usage down.
- **Moderate**: utilization < 60% with usage down, or flat usage.
- **Low**: utilization < 50% AND usage flat/up.

Actually, since the user wants "risk rating with one sentence of evidence," I should apply a consistent, transparent rubric. Let me settle:

- **High risk**: usage down ≥ 10% AND utilization ≥ 70%. (Both conditions)
- **Elevated risk**: usage down 5–10% OR utilization ≥ 70% (regardless of direction, if utilization is high).
- **Moderate risk**: usage down 0–5%, or utilization 50–70%.
- **Low risk**: usage flat/up AND utilization < 50%.

Let me apply:

1. C-0B7D2C30: util 57.6%, usage -21.5% → usage down >10% but util <70 → Elevated (per "Elevated: usage down ≥10% regardless of util"?). Hmm, I'd rather call it Elevated since big decline. Let me set: **Elevated** — usage down 21.5%, though utilization only 57.6%.
2. C-0BCDB8C2: util 54.7%, usage -19.1% → Elevated.
3. C-0D2AB865: util 61.4%, usage -20.4% → Elevated.
4. C-0BBE3E60: util 64.9%, usage -19.5% → Elevated.
5. C-0F5D2323: util 28.5%, usage -10.0% → Moderate (low util, notable decline).
6. C-0EC6999D: util 27.7%, usage +7.1% → Low (low util, usage up).
7. C-0B20DB64: util 56.6%, usage -0.7% → Moderate (flat).
8. C-0BBC4E7A: util 67.7%, usage -2.1% → Elevated (util ≥65%).
9. C-0FD551AB: util 55.9%, usage +0.8% → Low (flat, low util).
10. C-0F9F8F13: util 56.5%, usage 0.0% → Moderate (flat).
11. C-0BC34584: util 66.2%, usage +2.9% → Elevated (util ≥65%).
12. C-0B7A7546: util 88.8%, usage +3.3% → High (util ≥75%).
13. C-0B369871: util 75.1%, usage +4.4% → Elevated (util ≥70%).
14. C-0B144C78: util 75.4%, usage +7.1% → Elevated (util ≥75%).
15. C-0FC4DBB8: util 76.7%, usage +4.3% → Elevated (util ≥70%).
16. C-0D5BBE3A: util 83.3%, usage +4.6% → High (util ≥75%).
17. C-0FB9D5AF: util 72.4%, usage +4.8% → Elevated (util ≥70%).
18. C-0B344485: util 78.1%, usage +3.8% → High (util ≥75%).
19. C-0CB2C1B4: util 81.6%, usage -2.0% → High (util >80% with usage down).
20. C-22170CA1: util 85.4%, usage +2.1% → High (util ≥75%).

Totals: High = 7 (C-0B7A7546, C-0D5BBE3A, C-0B344485, C-0CB2C1B4, C-0BC34584? no wait). Let me recount. High: C-0B7A7546 (88.8%), C-0D5BBE3A (83.3%), C-0B344485 (78.1%), C-0CB2C1B4 (81.6%), C-22170CA1 (85.4%). That's 5 High. Elevated: C-0B7D2C30, C-0BCDB8C2, C-0D2AB865, C-0BBE3E60, C-0BBC4E7A, C-0BC34584, C-0B369871, C-0B144C78, C-0FC4DBB8, C-0FB9D5AF, C-0BC34584... wait C-0BC34584 is 66.2%.

Let me carefully redo the Elevated list:
- C-0B7D2C30: 57.6% util, -21.5% usage → Elevated (usage cliff)
- C-0BCDB8C2: 54.7%, -19.1% → Elevated
- C-0D2AB865: 61.4%, -20.4% → Elevated
- C-0BBE3E60: 64.9%, -19.5% → Elevated
- C-0BBC4E7A: 67.7%, -2.1% → Elevated
- C-0BC34584: 66.2%, +2.9% → Elevated (util ≥ 65%)
- C-0B369871: 75.1%, +4.4% → Elevated (util ≥ 70%)
- C-0B144C78: 75.4%, +7.1% → Elevated (util ≥ 70%)
- C-0FC4DBB8: 76.7%, +4.3% → Elevated (util ≥ 70%)
- C-0FB9D5AF: 72.4%, +4.8% → Elevated (util ≥ 70%)

That's 10 Elevated.

Moderate:
- C-0F5D2323: 28.5%, -10.0% → Moderate (low util, notable decline)
- C-0B20DB64: 56.6%, -0.7% → Moderate (flat)
- C-0F9F8F13: 56.5%, 0.0% → Moderate (flat, lowish util)

Low:
- C-0EC6999D: 27.7%, +7.1% → Low
- C-0FD551AB: 55.9%, +0.8% → Low (low util, flat)

Wait, C-0FD551AB util 55.9% isn't really "low." Hmm. But usage up. Let me reconsider. With my rubric, I'd say C-0FD551AB → Moderate at 55.9% util. Let me not over-engineer.

Honestly, the exact boundary categorization matters less than being transparent about the rubric and citing the numbers. Let me present this cleanly with a clear rubric, then the table, then the disagreement flags, and the final summary.

Let me compute the totals:
- Total ARR renewing (all 20): sum of all ARR values.
Let me add:
65901.00
54427.00
38022.00
30993.00
90647.00
79419.00
21770.00
56374.00
48815.00
46230.00
16740.00
35062.00
85128.00
30899.00
94732.00
39740.00
63158.00
64384.00
40628.00
45646.00

Let me sum in pairs:
65901 + 54427 = 120328
38022 + 30993 = 69015
90647 + 79419 = 170066
21770 + 56374 = 78144
48815 + 46230 = 95045
16740 + 35062 = 51802
85128 + 30899 = 116027
94732 + 39740 = 134472
63158 + 64384 = 127542
40628 + 45646 = 86274

Now sum these subtotals:
120328
+69015 = 189343
+170066 = 359409
+78144 = 437553
+95045 = 532598
+51802 = 584400
+116027 = 699427
+134472 = 833899
+127542 = 961441
+86274 = 1047715

Total ARR renewing = $1,047,715.00

ARR at risk = sum of High + Elevated:
High: 
C-0B7A7546 35062.00
C-0D5BBE3A 39740.00
C-0B344485 64384.00
C-0CB2C1B4 40628.00
C-22170CA1 45646.00
Sum = 35062+39740 = 74802; +64384 = 139186; +40628 = 179814; +45646 = 225460

Elevated:
C-0B7D2C30 65901.00
C-0BCDB8C2 54427.00
C-0D2AB865 38022.00
C-0BBE3E60 30993.00
C-0BBC4E7A 56374.00
C-0BC34584 16740.00
C-0B369871 85128.00
C-0B144C78 30899.00
C-0FC4DBB8 94732.00
C-0FB9D5AF 63158.00

Sum: 65901+54427 = 120328
+38022 = 158350
+30993 = 189343
+56374 = 245717
+16740 = 262457
+85128 = 347585
+30899 = 378484
+94732 = 473216
+63158 = 536374

Elevated total = $536,374.00

Risk total (High+Elv) = 225460 + 536374 = $761,834.00

At moderate/low: 1047715 - 761834 = $285,881.00

Let me sanity check moderate+low sum:
C-0F5D2323 90647.00
C-0EC6999D 79419.00
C-0B20DB64 21770.00
C-0F9F8F13 46230.00
C-0FD551AB 48815.00
C-22170CA1? No, that's High.
Wait, I need to list all 20 and make sure totals reconcile.

Moderate: C-0F5D2323 (90647), C-0B20DB64 (21770), C-0F9F8F13 (46230)
Low: C-0EC6999D (79419), C-0FD551AB (48815)

Sum moderate+low = 90647+21770 = 112417; +46230 = 158647; +79419 = 238066; +48815 = 286881. Hmm, that's $286,881 vs my $285,881 from subtraction. Off by $1,000. Let me recheck.

Risk total = 761,834. Total = 1,047,715. 1,047,715 - 761,834 = 285,881.

Moderate+low sum by individual: 286,881. Difference of exactly $1,000.

I made an arithmetic error somewhere. Let me recompute High carefully:
High accounts:
C-0B7A7546: 35062.00
C-0D5BBE3A: 39740.00
C-0B344485: 64384.00
C-0CB2C1B4: 40628.00
C-22170CA1: 45646.00

35062 + 39740 = 74802
74802 + 64384 = 139186
139186 + 40628 = 179814
179814 + 45646 = 225460 ✓

Elevated:
C-0B7D2C30: 65901
C-0BCDB8C2: 54427
C-0D2AB865: 38022
C-0BBE3E60: 30993
C-0BBC4E7A: 56374
C-0BC34584: 16740
C-0B369871: 85128
C-0B144C78: 30899
C-0FC4DBB8: 94732
C-0FB9D5AF: 63158

65901 + 54427 = 120328
120328 + 38022 = 158350
158350 + 30993 = 189343
189343 + 56374 = 245717
245717 + 16740 = 262457
262457 + 85128 = 347585
347585 + 30899 = 378484
378484 + 94732 = 473216
473216 + 63158 = 536374 ✓

High + Elevated = 225460 + 536374 = 761834 ✓

Moderate:
C-0F5D2323: 90647
C-0B20DB64: 21770
C-0F9F8F13: 46230
C-0FD551AB: 48815

C-0F5D2323 + C-0B20DB64 = 90647 + 21770 = 112417
112417 + 46230 = 158647
158647 + 48815 = 207462

Low:
C-0EC6999D: 79419

TotalModerate+Low = 207462 + 79419 = 286881

Total = 761834 + 286881 = 1,048,715. But my grand total was 1,047,715. So grand total must be wrong. Let me recompute the grand total.

Accounts:
C-0B7D2C30 65901
C-0BCDB8C2 54427
C-0D2AB865 38022
C-0BBE3E60 30993
C-0F5D2323 90647
C-0EC6999D 79419
C-0B20DB64 21770
C-0BBC4E7A 56374
C-0FD551AB 48815
C-0F9F8F13 46230
C-0BC34584 16740
C-0B7A7546 35062
C-0B369871 85128
C-0B144C78 30899
C-0FC4DBB8 94732
C-0D5BBE3A 39740
C-0FB9D5AF 63158
C-0B344485 64384
C-0CB2C1B4 40628
C-22170CA1 45646

Sum all 20. Let me add carefully:
65901 + 54427 = 120328
120328 + 38022 = 158350
158350 + 30993 = 189343
189343 + 90647 = 279990
279990 + 79419 = 359409
359409 + 21770 = 381179
381179 + 56374 = 437553
437553 + 48815 = 486368
486368 + 46230 = 532598
532598 + 16740 = 549338
549338 + 35062 = 584400
584400 + 85128 = 669528
669528 + 30899 = 700427
700427 + 94732 = 795159
795159 + 39740 = 834899
834899 + 63158 = 898057
898057 + 64384 = 962441
962441 + 40628 = 1003069
1003069 + 45646 = 1048715

So the correct grand total is $1,048,715.00. I had a typo earlier (1047715 vs 1048715). Good — totals reconcile:
- High: $225,460.00
- Elevated: $536,374.00
- Moderate: $207,462.00
- Low: $79,419.00
- Total: $1,048,715.00 ✓

ARR at risk (High + Elevated) = $761,834.00 = 72.6% of total ARR. That's a strong headline.

Let me double check the moderate accounts to make sure I didn't over-classify. Moderate = C-0F5D2323 (90647), C-0B20DB64 (21770), C-0F9F8F13 (46230), C-0FD551AB (48815). Their utilization:
- C-0F5D2323: 28.5% util, -10.0% usage
- C-0B20DB64: 56.6% util, -0.7% usage
- C-0F9F8F13: 56.5% util, 0.0% usage
- C-0FD551AB: 55.9% util, +0.8% usage

Rationale for "Moderate" on C-0F5D2323: utilization is low (28.5%) and usage down 10%, but because utilization is far below threshold, I'd argue it's Low-not-Moderate. Hmm. Let me apply the rubric consistently.

Revised rubric:
- **High**: utilization ≥ 75% AND usage down ≥ 5%... but that would exclude C-0CB2C1B4 (usage -2.0%). Let me keep the simpler rubric:

- **High risk**: utilization ≥ 70% AND usage down (any), OR utilization ≥ 85% (regardless of usage).
  → C-0B7A7546 (88.8%), C-0D5BBE3A (83.3%), C-0B344485 (78.1%), C-0CB2C1B4 (81.6%), C-22170CA1 (85.4%) → High.
  C-0FB9D5AF is 72.4% util with +4.8% usage → High per the ≥70% AND usage down? No, usage is up. So not High. Elevated.
  C-0BC34584 is 66.2%, up → Elevated.
  C-0BBC4E7A is 67.7%, down 2.1% → Elevated (≥65% with usage down).
  C-0B369871 75.1% up → Elevated (≥70%).
  C-0B144C78 75.4% up → Elevated.
  C-0FC4DBB8 76.7% up → Elevated.
  These are all ≥70% util with rising usage → Elevated. Good, that matches my prior Elevated list.

- **Elevated**: utilization ≥ 60% AND usage down by 2–20%, OR utilization ≥ 60% with usage flat.
  → C-0B7D2C30 (57.6%, -21.5%) — util is 57.6%, below 60%. Hmm. I'd bump C-0B7D2C30 to Elevated because -21.5% decline is too steep to be "Moderate." Let me allow the ≥55% band with steep decline.

This is getting messy. Let me just commit to a clean, simple rubric and apply mechanically:

**Risk rubric (applied to seat utilization + 3-month active-user change):**
- **High**: u ≥ 80% OR (u ≥ 70% AND d ≤ −5%) where u = utilization %, d = % change in active users.
- **Elevated**: u ≥ 60% OR (u ≥ 50% AND d ≤ −10%).
- **Moderate**: u ≥ 40% OR (u ≥ 30% AND d ≤ −5%).
- **Low**: u < 30%.

Wait, but that would make C-0B7D2C30 (u=57.6%, d=-21.5%) Elevated since u ≥ 50% and d ≤ -10%. Good.
C-0BCDB8C2 (54.7%, -19.1%) Elevated. Good.
C-0D2AB865 (61.4%, -20.4%) Elevated. Good.
C-0BBE3E60 (64.9%, -19.5%) Elevated. Good.
C-0F5D2323 (28.5%, -10.0%) — neither High, Elevated (needs u≥50%), Moderate (needs u≥40%). Low. Hmm, but -10% decline... with u=28.5% it's Low.
C-0EC6999D (27.7%, +7.1%) → Low.
C-0B20DB64 (56.6%, -0.7%) → Elevated (u≥50%). Hmm, that feels too high for a stable, low-ish utilization account.
C-0BBC4E7A (67.7%, -2.1%) → Elevated.
C-0FD551AB (55.9%, +0.8%) → Elevated (u≥50%).
C-0F9F8F13 (56.5%, 0.0%) → Elevated.

Hmm, with "u ≥ 50% → Elevated" everything in the 50-60% band becomes Elevated, which dilutes. The user wants risk when usage is declining. Let me tighten to usage-driven:

Final clean rubric (this is what I'll use and explicitly state):
- **High risk**: u ≥ 70% AND d ≤ 0% (utilization high OR usage flat/down at meaningful utilization).
  Actually let me re-anchor to the data. The clearest High signals are high utilization (≥75%) regardless of usage direction, plus any utilization ≥80%. So:

**Final rubric:**
- **High**: u ≥ 75% (any usage trend) — these are near-capacity seats.
- **Elevated**: u ≥ 60% (any trend) — moderate capacity with exposure.
- **Moderate**: u ≥ 50% AND d ≤ −5%.
- **Low**: u < 50% and d ≥ 0% OR u < 40% regardless.

Apply:
1. C-0B7D2C30: u=57.6%, d=-21.5% → Moderate (u≥50%, d≤-5%). 
2. C-0BCDB8C2: 54.7%, -19.1% → Moderate.
3. C-0D2AB865: 61.4%, -20.4% → Elevated.
4. C-0BBE3E60: 64.9%, -19.5% → Elevated.
5. C-0F5D2323: 28.5%, -10.0% → Low (u<50%, d≤-5% but u<40%? u=28.5%<40%, so Low). 
6. C-0EC6999D: 27.7%, +7.1% → Low.
7. C-0B20DB64: 56.6%, -0.7% → Moderate (u≥50%, d≤-5%): -0.7% is NOT ≤ -5%, so fails Moderate. u ≥50% → Elevated? No, let me cap: Falls between, so Moderate. Actually -0.7% is within flat range, so Moderate.
8. C-0BBC4E7A: 67.7%, -2.1% → Elevated (u≥60%).
9. C-0FD551AB: 55.9%, +0.8% → Moderate (u≥50%, d≥0% → Moderate).
10. C-0F9F8F13: 56.5%, 0.0% → Moderate.
11. C-0BC34584: 66.2%, +2.9% → Elevated (u≥60%).
12. C-0B7A7546: 88.8% → High.
13. C-0B369871: 75.1% → High (≥75%).
14. C-0B144C78: 75.4% → High.
15. C-0FC4DBB8: 76.7% → High.
16. C-0D5BBE3A: 83.3% → High.
17. C-0FB9D5AF: 72.4% → High (≥75% fails, but ≥70%... let me set High threshold at ≥70%) → High.

Hmm, 72.4% — I'll make High threshold ≥70%, not just 75%. Then:
- C-0FB9D5AF 72.4% → High.
- C-0B144C78 75.4% → High.
- C-0B369871 75.1% → High.
- C-0BC34584 66.2% → not High → Elevated.

OK let me finalize with High threshold u ≥ 70%:

High:
- C-0B7A7546 (88.8%)
- C-0D5BBE3A (83.3%)
- C-0B344485 (78.1%)
- C-0CB2C1B4 (81.6%)
- C-22170CA1 (85.4%)
- C-0FB9D5AF (72.4%)
- C-0B369871 (75.1%)
- C-0B144C78 (75.4%)

That's 8 High.

Elevated (u ≥ 60%):
- C-0D2AB865 (61.4%)
- C-0BBE3E60 (64.9%)
- C-0BBC4E7A (67.7%)
- C-0BC34584 (66.2%)

That's 4 Elevated.

Wait, C-0B369871 (75.1%) was put in High; good. What about C-0F5D2323 (28.5%, -10%)? u<40% → Low. C-0EC6999D (27.7%, +7.1%) → Low. C-0B20DB64 (56.6%, -0.7%) → u<60%, and u<70%, d not ≤-5% → Moderate. C-0FD551AB (55.9%, +0.8%) → Moderate. C-0F9F8F13 (56.5%, 0%) → Moderate. C-0B7D2C30 (57.6%, -21.5%) → u<60%, u≥50%, d≤-5% → Moderate. C-0BCDB8C2 (54.7%, -19.1%) → Moderate. C-0B7D2C30... let me also check C-0B7A7546 again.

Moderate:
- C-0B7D2C30 (57.6%, -21.5%)
- C-0BCDB8C2 (54.7%, -19.1%)
- C-0B20DB64 (56.6%, -0.7%)
- C-0FD551AB (55.9%, +0.8%)
- C-0F9F8F13 (56.5%, 0.0%)

That's 5 Moderate.

Low:
- C-0F5D2323 (28.5%, -10.0%)
- C-0EC6999D (27.7%, +7.1%)

That's 2 Low.

High 8 + Elevated 4 + Moderate 5 + Low 2 = 19. But we have 20 rows! Let me recount.

Rows: 20 total.
High: C-0B7A7546, C-0D5BBE3A, C-0B344485, C-0CB2C1B4, C-22170CA1, C-0FB9D5AF, C-0B369871, C-0B144C78 = 8
Elevated: C-0D2AB865, C-0BBE3E60, C-0BBC4E7A, C-0BC34584 = 4
Moderate: C-0B7D2C30, C-0BCDB8C2, C-0B20DB64, C-0FD551AB, C-0F9F8F13 = 5
Low: C-0F5D2323, C-0EC6999D = 2

8+4+5+2 = 19. Missing one. Let me list all 20 account aliases and where they landed:

1. C-0B7D2C30 → Moderate ✓
2. C-0BCDB8C2 → Moderate ✓
3. C-0D2AB865 → Elevated ✓
4. C-0BBE3E60 → Elevated ✓
5. C-0F5D2323 → Low ✓
6. C-0EC6999D → Low ✓
7. C-0B20DB64 → Moderate ✓
8. C-0BBC4E7A → Elevated ✓
9. C-0FD551AB → Moderate ✓
10. C-0F9F8F13 → Moderate ✓
11. C-0BC34584 → Elevated ✓
12. C-0B7A7546 → High ✓
13. C-0B369871 → High ✓
14. C-0B144C78 → High ✓
15. C-0FC4DBB8 → High ✓
16. C-0D5BBE3A → High ✓
17. C-0FB9D5AF → High ✓
18. C-0B344485 → High ✓
19. C-0CB2C1B4 → High ✓
20. C-22170CA1 → High ✓

Count High: 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 = 9. Let me recount: C-0B7A7546, C-0B369871, C-0B144C78, C-0FC4DBB8, C-0D5BBE3A, C-0FB9D5AF, C-0B344485, C-0CB2C1B4, C-22170CA1 = 9 High. Yes, 9.

So High=9, Elevated=4, Moderate=5, Low=2 → 20. ✓ (I miscounted High as 8; it's 9.)

Total ARR at risk = High + Elevated = High $X + Elevated $Y.

High accounts:
C-0B7A7546 35062.00
C-0D5BBE3A 39740.00
C-0B344485 64384.00
C-0CB2C1B4 40628.00
C-22170CA1 45646.00
C-0FB9D5AF 63158.00
C-0B369871 85128.00
C-0B144C78 30899.00
C-0FC4DBB8 94732.00

Sum: 35062+39740 = 74802
+64384 = 139186
+40628 = 179814
+45646 = 225460
+63158 = 288618
+85128 = 373746
+30899 = 404645
+94732 = 499377

High total = $499,377.00

Elevated accounts:
C-0D2AB865 38022.00
C-0BBE3E60 30993.00
C-0BBC4E7A 56374.00
C-0BC34584 16740.00

Sum: 38022+30993 = 69015
+56374 = 125389
+16740 = 142129

Elevated total = $142,129.00

ARR at risk = 499,377 + 142,129 = $641,506.00

As % of total $1,048,715 = 61.2%.

Let me verify moderate + low + at risk = total:
Moderate: C-0B7D2C30 65901, C-0BCDB8C2 54427, C-0B20DB64 21770, C-0FD551AB 48815, C-0F9F8F13 46230.
65901+54427 = 120328
+21770 = 142098
+48815 = 190913
+46230 = 237143
Moderate total = $237,143.00

Low: C-0F5D2323 90647, C-0EC6999D 79419 = 170,066.

Grand check: 499,377 + 142,129 + 237,143 + 170,066 = 1,048,715. ✓ Matches grand total.

So:
- High risk: $499,377 (47.6%)
- Elevated risk: $142,129 (13.6%)
- Moderate risk: $237,143 (22.6%)
- Low risk: $170,066 (16.2%)
- Total ARR renewing: $1,048,715.00
- ARR at risk (High + Elevated): $641,506.00 (61.2%)

Now for the multi-year disagreement flag. The stated rule: "multi-year contracts are known to be wrong in ChurnZero." CB file shows multi-year (true) for C-0B7D2C30 and C-0BCDB8C2. CB date for C-0B7D2C30 is 2026-09-15; for C-0BCDB8C2 is 2026-09-18. CZ dates for those two: 2026-09-10 and 2026-09-18.

Disagreements (CZ vs CB):
- C-0B7D2C30: CZ 2026-09-10 vs CB 2026-09-15 → dispute (CB is 36-mo multi-year, CB date suspect). Use CZ 2026-09-10.
- C-0BCDB8C2: CZ 2026-09-18 vs CB 2026-09-18 → no dispute, agree.
- C-0D2AB865: CZ 2026-09-10 vs CB 2026-09-22 → dispute (13d). Use CZ 2026-09-10.
- C-0F5D2323: CZ 2026-09-10 vs CB 2026-09-29 → dispute (19d). Use CZ 2026-09-10.

All other rows: CZ date == CB date.

So 3 accounts have a date disagreement, with CZ trusted on all 3 by rule (2 multi-year CZ-trusted by rule; 1 single-year but CB date is later without apparent basis — I should note CZ is used for all three on the basis that CZ is the contract against which renewal is tracked, and CB's multi-year extension for C-0B7D2C30 distracts from the fact that single-year CB terms agree on all other dates; actually the cleaner statement: 3 disputes flagged; CZ trusted in all 3 cases, per the default that ChurnZero is the source of truth for renewal dates and Chargebee multi-year term-days are unreliable).

Wait — I should reconsider C-0D2AB865 and C-0F5D2323: CB terms are 24-month single-year? No: C-0D2AB865 is 24-mo, true (multi-year 24). Actually is_multi_year=true for C-0D2AB865? Let me check the CB file again:

C-0B7D2C30,2026-09-15,36,true
C-0BCDB8C2,2026-09-18,36,true
C-0D2AB865,2026-09-22,24,true
C-0BBE3E60,2026-09-26,24,true
C-0F5D2323,2026-09-29,24,true
C-0EC6999D,2026-10-03,12,false
C-0B20DB64,2026-10-07,12,false
...

So multi-year (is_multi_year=true) includes C-0B7D2C30, C-0BCDB8C2, C-0D2AB865, C-0BBE3E60, C-0F5D2323. Single-year (12-month) is everything else.

The rule: "multi-year contracts are known to be wrong in ChurnZero" — meaning CZ dates for multi-year rows are trustworthy (CB months are wrong), and CB dates for single-year rows are trustworthy.

So:
- Multi-year rows (5): C-0B7D2C30, C-0BCDB8C2, C-0D2AB865, C-0BBE3E60, C-0F5D2323 → trust CZ dates.
- Single-year rows (15): trust CB dates.

Compare CZ vs CB on all 20 to flag disagreements:

Multi-year rows (trust CZ):
1. C-0B7D2C30: CZ 2026-09-10 vs CB 2026-09-15 → DISPUTE (5 days off)
2. C-0BCDB8C2: CZ 2026-09-18 vs CB 2026-09-18 → agree
3. C-0D2AB865: CZ 2026-09-10 vs CB 2026-09-22 → DISPUTE (12 days off)
4. C-0BBE3E60: CZ 2026-09-26 vs CB 2026-09-26 → agree
5. C-0F5D2323: CZ 2026-09-10 vs CB 2026-09-29 → DISPUTE (19 days off)

Single-year rows (trust CB):
6. C-0EC6999D: CB 2026-10-03 vs CZ 2026-10-03 → agree
7. C-0B20DB64: CB 2026-10-07 vs CZ 2026-10-07 → agree
8. C-0BBC4E7A: CB 2026-10-10 vs CZ 2026-10-10 → agree
9. C-0FD551AB: CB 2026-10-14 vs CZ 2026-10-14 → agree
10. C-0F9F8F13: CB 2026-10-18 vs CZ 2026-10-18 → agree
11. C-0BC34584: CB 2026-10-22 vs CZ 2026-10-22 → agree
12. C-0B7A7546: CB 2026-10-25 vs CZ 2026-10-25 → agree
13. C-0B369871: CB 2026-10-29 vs CZ 2026-10-29 → agree
14. C-0B144C78: CB 2026-11-02 vs CZ 2026-11-02 → agree
15. C-0FC4DBB8: CB 2026-11-05 vs CZ 2026-11-05 → agree
16. C-0D5BBE3A: CB 2026-11-09 vs CZ 2026-11-09 → agree
17. C-0FB9D5AF: CB 2026-11-13 vs CZ 2026-11-13 → agree
18. C-0B344485: CB 2026-11-16 vs CZ 2026-11-16 → agree
19. C-0CB2C1B4: CB 2026-11-20 vs CZ 2026-11-20 → agree
20. C-22170CA1: CB 2026-11-24 vs CZ 2026-11-24 → agree

So 3 disputes: C-0B7D2C30, C-0D2AB865, C-0F5D2323. All resolved in favor of CZ. Good.

Now let me build a clean table. I'll include columns: Account, CSM, ARR, Date used, Seat util, 3-mo usage trend, Risk, Evidence.

I need the 3-month usage trend as % change from 2025-05? No, 3-month is 2026-05 → 2026-08. Let me double check active users for each at 2026-05 and 2026-08:

From the usage file:
- C-0B7D2C30: 2026-05 = 107, 2026-08 = 84. Change = (84-107)/107 = -21.5%
- C-0BCDB8C2: 136 → 110 = -19.1%
- C-0D2AB865: 137 → 109 = -20.4%
- C-0BBE3E60: 41 → 33 = -19.5%
- C-0F5D2323: 20 → 18 = -10.0%
- C-0EC6999D: 14 → 15 = +7.1%
- C-0B20DB64: 296 → 294 = -0.7%
- C-0BBC4E7A: 142 → 139 = -2.1%
- C-0FD551AB: 125 → 126 = +0.8%
- C-0F9F8F13: 182 → 182 = 0.0%
- C-0BC34584: 103 → 106 = +2.9%
- C-0B7A7546: 61 → 63 = +3.3%
- C-0B369871: 319 → 333 = +4.4%
- C-0B144C78: 99 → 106 = +7.1%
- C-0FC4DBB8: 185 → 193 = +4.3%
- C-0D5BBE3A: 87 → 91 = +4.6%
- C-0FB9D5AF: 168 → 176 = +4.8%
- C-0B344485: 235 → 244 = +3.8%
- C-0CB2C1B4: 50 → 49 = -2.0%
- C-22170CA1: 143 → 146 = +2.1%

All match my earlier computations. Good.

Now for the table, let me finalize risk assignments using the rubric I stated:

Rubric:
- High: utilization ≥ 70% (any trend)
- Elevated: utilization ≥ 60% (any trend)
- Moderate: utilization ≥ 50% and <60% (any trend)
- Low: utilization < 50% (any trend)

Apply:
1. C-0B7D2C30: u=57.6% → Moderate. But d=-21.5%. Should a usage cliff of -21% at 57.6% utilization be Moderate? Hmm. Utilization 57.6% is below the 60% Elevated threshold. Using pure utilization, Moderate. But the usage decline is severe. The user asked for risk rating with evidence; I think a combined view is more useful. Let me blend: risk = primarily driven by the worse of utilization and usage trend. A strict combined rule:
   - High: (u ≥ 70%) OR (d ≤ -15% AND u ≥ 50%)
   - Elevated: (u ≥ 60%) OR (d ≤ -10% AND u ≥ 40%)
   - Moderate: (u ≥ 50%) OR (d ≤ -5% AND u ≥ 30%)
   - Low: otherwise

Apply:
1. C-0B7D2C30: u=57.6%, d=-21.5% → High? u≥50% and d≤-15% → High. Hmm, is that too aggressive? 57.6% utilization isn't high. But -21.5% usage decline in 3 months is the steepest in the file. Calling it High is defensible given it's the steepest decline AND has meaningful utilization. I'll mark High with evidence. Actually, let me reconsider — risk of renewal should weigh both. A -21.5% usage drop at ~58% util (with cost = $/usage that's unclear) is a genuine risk signal for renewal. I'll mark High and note it. But then I want to make sure I'm not over-flagging. Let me count Highs with d≤-15% and u≥50%: C-0B7D2C30 (-21.5%), C-0BCDB8C2 (-19.1%), C-0D2AB865 (-20.4%), C-0BBE3E60 (-19.5%). That's 4 + the 9 u≥70% = 13 High. Plus C-0F5D2323 (d=-10% but u=28.5%<30%, fails) → not High. That gives High=13 ($...), Elevated=$142,129, Moderate=$237,143, Low=$170,066. At-risk = 13+4 = 17 accounts = $499,377+$142,129 = $641,506 (61.2%). Hmm, 13/20 = 65% accounts at risk. That's a lot but the data is very usage-declining.

Hmm, I'm overthinking the boundary. The exact segmentation is somewhat arbitrary; the user wants a defensible, clearly-evidenced rating. Let me NOT add the usage-based hump — pure utilization bands are transparent, reproducible, and I explicitly state them. I'll go with:

- High: u ≥ 70%
- Elevated: u ≥ 60%
- Moderate: u ≥ 50%
- Low: u < 50%

With that, C-0F5D2323 (28.5%, -10%) is Low — reasonable since utilization is very low and usage decline, while -10%, is modest.
C-0ECD6999D (27.7%, +7.1%) Low.
C-0B20DB64 (56.6%, -0.7%) Moderate.
C-0FD551AB (55.9%, +0.8%) Moderate.
C-0F9F8F13 (56.5%, 0%) Moderate.

This is clean. Final table with this rubric:

HIGH (u ≥ 70%) — 9 accounts:
- C-0B7A7546: 88.8%, u
- C-0D5BBE3A: 83.3%, u
- C-0B344485: 78.1%, u
- C-0CB2C1B4: 81.6%, u
- C-22170CA1: 85.4%, u
- C-0FB9D5AF: 72.4%, u
- C-0B369871: 75.1%, u
- C-0B144C78: 75.4%, u
- C-0FC4DBB8: 76.7%, u

ELEVATED (u ≥ 60%) — 4 accounts:
- C-0D2AB865: 61.4%, d=-20.4%
- C-0BBE3E60: 64.9%, d=-19.5%
- C-0BBC4E7A: 67.7%, d=-2.1%
- C-0BC34584: 66.2%, d=+2.9%

MODERATE (u ≥ 50%) — 5 accounts:
- C-0B7D2C30: 57.6%, d=-21.5% (I'll note the usage cliff in evidence)
- C-0BCDB8C2: 54.7%, d=-19.1%
- C-0B20DB64: 56.6%, d=-0.7%
- C-0FD551AB: 55.9%, d=+0.8%
- C-0F9F8F13: 56.5%, d=0.0%

LOW (u < 50%) — 2 accounts:
- C-0F5D2323: 28.5%, d=-10.0%
- C-0EC6999D: 27.7%, d=+7.1%

Let me compute the at-risk ARR with this:
High total = $499,377 (computed above)
Elevated total = $142,129 (computed above)
At-risk = $641,506 (61.2%)

I already have these. Good.

Now I'll write the final brief. Let me present it cleanly in plain text (since the user said respond directly with only what was asked for, no markdown walls, though a table is fine). The instructions: "Respond directly with only what was asked for." I'll keep it tight.

I should note explicitly which rows have agreements and the date decisions, and the final summary. Let me write it up.

Let me verify ARRs one more time from the CZ file to make sure I transcribed correctly:
C-0B7D2C30 65901.00
C-0BCDB8C2 54427.00
C-0D2AB865 38022.00
C-0BBE3E60 30993.00
C-0F5D2323 90647.00
C-0EC6999D 79419.00
C-0B20DB64 21770.00
C-0BBC4E7A 56374.00
C-0FD551AB 48815.00
C-0F9F8F13 46230.00
C-0BC34584 16740.00
C-0B7A7546 35062.00
C-0B369871 85128.00
C-0B144C78 30899.00
C-0FC4DBB8 94732.00
C-0D5BBE3A 39740.00
C-0FB9D5AF 63158.00
C-0B344485 64384.00
C-0CB2C1B4 40628.00
C-22170CA1 45646.00

These are correct.

Now writing the brief. I'll present a compact table, then agreements/disagreements, then the totals. Keep it in plain text. I'll round utilization/trend to 1 dp for readability.

For "date used," I'll list the CZ date used for all rows (since CZ is source of truth for all rows per the rule — multi-year CZ-trusted; single-year the default rendezvous). Actually, let me reconsider: for single-year rows, is the "date used" CZ or CB? The user says "decide which to trust per account and say why." For single-year (non-multi-year) CB terms, I trust CB (since multi-year CB is wrong, single-year CB is presumably right). For multi-year CB terms, trust CZ (since CB is known to be wrong). So:

- High-risk u≥70 rows: all single-year rows (trust CB date):
  C-0B7A7546 (CB 2026-10-25)
  C-0D5BBE3A (CB 2026-11-09)
  C-0B344485 (CB 2026-11-16)
  C-0CB2C1B4 (CB 2026-11-20)
  C-22170CA1 (CB 2026-11-24)
  C-0FB9D5AF (CB 2026-11-13)
  C-0B369871 (CB 2026-10-29)
  C-0B144C78 (CB 2026-11-02)
  C-0FC4DBB8 (CB 2026-11-05)
  But note CB dates all agree with CZ dates here, so "date used" = the shared date.

- Elevated u≥60 rows: C-0D2AB865, C-0BBE3E60, C-0BBC4E7A, C-0BC34584. These are single-year CB (24-month for C-0D2AB865, C-0BBE3E60; 12-month for others). Trust CB date:
  C-0D2AB865 → CB 2026-09-22 (but CZ 2026-09-10 — dispute, use CB 2026-09-22)
  C-0BBE3E60 → CB 2026-09-26 (agree)
  C-0BBC4E7A → CB 2026-10-10 (agree)
  C-0BC34584 → CB 2026-10-22 (agree)

- Moderate rows: C-0B7D2C30 (multi-year, trust CZ 2026-09-10), C-0BCDB8C2 (multi-year, trust CZ 2026-09-18), C-0B20DB64 (single-year, CB 2026-10-07), C-0FD551AB (single-year, CB 2026-10-14), C-0F9F8F13 (single-year, CB 2026-10-18).

- Low rows: C-0F5D2323 (multi-year, trust CZ 2026-09-10), C-0EC6999D (single-year, CB 2026-10-03).

Wait — but there's a contradiction: C-0D2AB865 is 24-month multi-year, and I trust CB date (CB 2026-09-22) over CZ (2026-09-10). That's consistent: for multi-year CB terms, the rule says "multi-year contracts are known to be wrong in ChurnZero," meaning the CB multi-year term is wrong, so trust CZ. But here C-0D2AB865 is multi-year, so per my stated rule I should trust CZ, not CB!

Let me re-read the rule: "decide which to trust per account and say why (multi-year contracts are known to be wrong in ChurnZero)."

Interpretation A: "ChurnZero" (the CZ system) is where multi-year dates are wrong — i.e., in ChurnZero, multi-year contract dates are known to be wrong. So for multi-year contracts, trust the CB date? That contradicts the sentence literally. Hmm.

Re-interpretation B: The CB file contains multi-year term info; those multi-year CB records are known to be wrong when read against ChurnZero. So when CB says multi-year with a certain end date, that's unreliable; trust the CZ date. That's what I first assumed (Interpretation A' variant). Under this: for C-0B7D2C30 (multi-year in CB), trust CZ 2026-09-10. For C-0D2AB865 (multi-year in CB), trust CZ 2026-09-10.

Interpretation C: "multi-year contracts are known to be wrong in ChurnZero" = in the ChurnZero source, multi-year contract dates are wrong. Meaning the CZ source has wrong dates for multi-year accounts; trust CB. Under this: C-0B7D2C30, C-0BCDB8C2, C-0D2AB865, C-0BBE3E60, C-0F5D2323 → trust CB dates.

The wording "multi-year contracts are known to be wrong in ChurnZero" most literally reads: in the ChurnZero system, multi-year contracts are known to be wrong. So the CZ dates are wrong for multi-year accounts; trust CB. Hmm, but that conflicts with standard use of CZ renewal data. Actually "in ChurnZero" strongly anchors the error to the ChurnZero file. That is: ChurnZero's multi-year dates are suspect/incorrect; use Chargebee (which lists the multi-year terms correctly) for those.

But does CB give a correct date? CB file gives cb_renewal_date and term_months. For multi-year rows, CB date = the renewal date. For C-0B7D2C30: CB 2026-09-15, 36-mo. CZ 2026-09-10.

The key insight: for multi-year accounts, CB provides precise renewal dates (per term), while CZ is unreliable. For single-year accounts, CB date is the straightforward renewal.

Hmm, this is ambiguous between two readings. Let me think about which is more likely intended for this exercise.

The parenthetical "(multi-year contracts are known to be wrong in ChurnZero)" — "wrong in ChurnZero" means the error is in ChurnZero. So ChurnZero's multi-year renewal dates are wrong. Therefore for multi-year accounts, trust CB. That's the literal reading. Under this reading:

Multi-year accounts (5): trust CB date:
- C-0B7D2C30: CB 2026-09-15
- C-0BCDB8C2: CB 2026-09-18
- C-0D2AB865: CB 2026-09-22
- C-0BBE3E60: CB 2026-09-26
- C-0F5D2323: CB 2026-09-29

Single-year accounts (15): trust CB date:
- C-0EC6999D: 2026-10-03
- C-0B20DB64: 2026-10-07
- C-0BBC4E7A: 2026-10-10
- C-0FD551AB: 2026-10-14
- C-0F9F8F13: 2026-10-18
- C-0BC34584: 2026-10-22
- C-0B7A7546: 2026-10-25
- C-0B369871: 2026-10-29
- C-0B144C78: 2026-11-02
- C-0FC4DBB8: 2026-11-05
- C-0D5BBE3A: 2026-11-09
- C-0FB9D5AF: 2026-11-13
- C-0B344485: 2026-11-16
- C-0CB2C1B4: 2026-11-20
- C-22170CA1: 2026-11-24

All CB dates match CZ dates except within the multi-year set, where CB > CZ for C-0B7D2C30 (09-15 vs 09-10), C-0D2AB865 (09-22 vs 09-10), C-0F5D2323 (09-29 vs 09-10). For C-0BCDB8C2 and C-0BBE3E60, CB == CZ (09-18, 09-26).

So under interpretation C, 3 disputes remain (same 3 accounts), resolved in favor of CB for those 3.

Under interpretation A, for those same 3, resolved in favor of CZ.

Which is right? The sentence is about errors "in ChurnZero." "multi-year contracts are known to be wrong in ChurnZero" — I read this as: within the ChurnZero data/system, multi-year contracts have wrong dates. Therefore for multi-year accounts, CZ is wrong; trust CB. Under this reading, date used = CB date for all multi-year rows.

Hmm, but wait. Let me reconsider the sentence once more. There are two systems: ChurnZero and Chargebee. "ChurnZero" could refer to the data in the ChurnZero system. "multi-year contracts are known to be wrong in ChurnZero" => The multi-year contract dates, as recorded in ChurnZero, are known to be wrong. So ChurnZero dates are wrong for multi-year. Trust Chargebee.

Yes, I'm now fairly confident the intended reading is: ChurnZero's multi-year dates are wrong → for multi-year accounts, trust Chargebee. This makes the CB file's multi-year term flag meaningful: CB is the trusted source for those 5 rows.

But then why would the user say "decide which to trust per account"? Because: for multi-year accounts → trust CB (CZ is wrong). For single-year accounts → trust CB too? Then you'd just trust CB for everything. Unless the point is the reverse.

Let me reconsider: maybe it means "ChurnZero is the system where multi-year contract dates are wrong" = "ChurnZero dates are wrong for multi-year" → trust CB. OR "multi-year contracts are known to be wrong" in general, "in ChurnZero" specifying the dataset/database → same thing. Either way CB is trusted for multi-year.

Alternatively, perhaps the point is reversed in the sense that "wrong in ChurnZero" could mean "the ChurnZero system is where you'll find the errors, specifically that multi-year contracts' dates there are wrong, so use Chargebee." Yes.

OK so final date trust: trust Chargebee for multi-year rows; for single-year rows, trust Chargebee as well (CB dates equal CZ for all those except the multi-year disputes). Actually, since CB dates == CZ dates for all 15 single-year rows, it doesn't matter for the table. The only differences are the 5 multi-year rows where CB and CZ differ, and there CB is trusted.

Wait, but hold on. For single-year rows, if CB is trusted, date used = CB date. For single-year rows CB==CZ, so no difference. Good.

For multi-year rows, date used = CB date:
- C-0B7D2C30: 2026-09-15
- C-0BCDB8C2: 2026-09-18
- C-0D2AB865: 2026-09-22
- C-0BBE3E60: 2026-09-26
- C-0F5D2323: 2026-09-29

Disputes = same 3: C-0B7D2C30, C-0D2AB865, C-0F5D2323. For multi-year rows, we resolved using CB's date. So we still "flag" the disagreement but trust CB.

Hmm, but actually if we trust CB for multi-year, then for those 3 there's no "wrong resolution" — we trust CB. The disagreement is still noted as flagged but resolved.

Now, which interpretation to go with? I'll go with the literal reading: ChurnZero holds wrong dates for multi-year; trust CB for those 5 rows. This is the most defensible literal reading of "multi-year contracts are known to be wrong in ChurnZero."

Hold on, let me reconsider whether this makes business sense. ChurnZero is a churn/renewal analytics platform. The CZ file has `cz_renewal_date` and the CB file has `cb_renewal_date`. If it's a data-quality task where CB multi-year terms are known to be wrong (in CZ), the exercise is testing whether I cross-check. The most sensible: for multi-year accounts, use CB's renewal date because CB has the term structure and CZ's multi-year dates are unreliable. For single-year accounts, CZ and CB agree, so either.

Actually, I realize the phrase could also be read the other way: "multi-year contracts are known to be wrong; in ChurnZero [the source], they're [easy to find]..." no, grammatically "wrong in ChurnZero" = the wrongness is in ChurnZero. I'll commit to: ChurnZero multi-year dates are wrong → trust CB for multi-year accounts.

Let me finalize the table with date used = CB date for multi-year, CB date for single-year (=CZ = CB anyway). So effectively date used = CB date for all rows, with CZ noted as the disagreeing source where applicable.

Wait, one more consideration: is CB a "trustworthy" source for renewal dates generally, or only the multi-year ones? For single-year, CB date is the straightforward subscription renewal; trust it. I'll state that.

Actually, let me reconsider the whole thing with the possibility that the intended reading is "trust CZ for multi-year." If interpreted as "ChurnZero is the authority and its multi-year entries are wrong," then per multi-year row, CZ is wrong → trust CB. If interpreted as "ChurnZero knows multi-year is unreliable, so override with the CB term-months and trust CZ as the contract source," then trust CZ for multi-year. The sentence says dates are wrong in ChurnZero, so CZ dates are wrong for multi-year. I'll go with CB for multi-year.

Hmm, I keep going back and forth. Let me just present the reasoning transparently and cite the actual dates for both sources, then state which I used and why, so the user can see the logic regardless. I'll go with the literal reading (CB for multi-year), since "wrong in ChurnZero" clearly anchors the error to ChurnZero.

Let me now build the final table with used dates = CB dates:

Multi-year (trust CB):
- C-0B7D2C30: date 2026-09-15, u=57.6%, d=-21.5% → Moderate
- C-0BCDB8C2: date 2026-09-18, u=54.7%, d=-19.1% → Moderate
- C-0D2AB865: date 2026-09-22, u=61.4%, d=-20.4% → Elevated
- C-0BBE3E60: date 2026-09-26, u=64.9%, d=-19.5% → Elevated
- C-0F5D2323: date 2026-09-29, u=28.5%, d=-10.0% → Low

Single-year (trust CB):
- C-0EC6999D: 2026-10-03, u=27.7%, d=+7.1% → Low
- C-0B20DB64: 2026-10-07, u=56.6%, d=-0.7% → Moderate
- C-0BBC4E7A: 2026-10-10, u=67.7%, d=-2.1% → Elevated
- C-0FD551AB: 2026-10-14, u=55.9%, d=+0.8% → Moderate
- C-0F9F8F13: 2026-10-18, u=56.5%, d=0.0% → Moderate
- C-0BC34584: 2026-10-22, u=66.2%, d=+2.9% → Elevated
- C-0B7A7546: 2026-10-25, u=88.8%, d=+3.3% → High
- C-0B369871: 2026-10-29, u=75.1%, d=+4.4% → High
- C-0B144C78: 2026-11-02, u=75.4%, d=+7.1% → High
- C-0FC4DBB8: 2026-11-05, u=76.7%, d=+4.3% → High
- C-0D5BBE3A: 2026-11-09, u=83.3%, d=+4.6% → High
- C-0FB9D5AF: 2026-11-13, u=72.4%, d=+4.8% → High
- C-0B344485: 2026-11-16, u=78.1%, d=+3.8% → High
- C-0CB2C1B4: 2026-11-20, u=81.6%, d=-2.0% → High
- C-22170CA1: 2026-11-24, u=85.4%, d=+2.1% → High

Risk totals unchanged:
- High (9): $499,377
- Elevated (4): $142,129
- Moderate (5): $237,143
- Low (2): $170,066
- Total: $1,048,715
- At risk: $641,506 (61.2%)

Sorted table. Rate per account. Evidence one sentence each.

Let me write out the table sorted by risk, then date.

I'll produce the final answer now. Keep concise. Include a clear rubric statement, flagged disagreements section, and the totals.

I want to be careful: the user said "Respond directly with only what was asked for." So no preamble. Just the brief.

Let me write it. I'll use a table-like layout. Plain text with tab-like alignment might not render well in terminal; I'll use a compact markdown-ish table since that's the natural format and the user didn't forbid tables. Actually "no markdown" was in the system prompt about the user being a CLI agent? The system prompt says "Try not to use markdown but simple text renderable inside a terminal." But the user request here is a data analysis brief. A table is the clearest. I'll use plain text with aligned columns as much as possible, but I think a simple markdown table is acceptable and clearer for a 20-row data table. Given the instruction to be a CLI agent preferring terminal-renderable text, I'll format with aligned columns using spaces, but honestly a markdown table will render fine. Let me use compact columns.

I'll go with a structured plain-text layout, columns separated by pipes, which is fine in terminal.

Final rates to list:
High: 9 accounts, $499,377.00
Elevated: 4, $142,129.00
Moderate: 5, $237,143.00
Low: 2, $170,066.00
Total: 20, $1,048,715.00
At risk (H+E): 13, $641,506.00 (61.2%)

Let me double-check the $ values sum as a sanity:
499,377 + 142,129 = 641,506 (at risk)
641,506 + 237,143 = 878,649
878,649 + 170,066 = 1,048,715 ✓

Good.

Now write final answer. I'll note the per-account used date rationale in a short "judgements" block first, then the table.

I'll write the answer concisely. I'll flag the 3 disputes clearly.

One more check on used dates vs. evidence: for the table I'll show "date" as the date used (CB for multi-year, CB for single-year). I'll add a "disputed" flag column = Y for the 3 multi-year rows.

Actually since single-year rows: CB==CZ, so date used = CB. Good. I'll mark cz vs cb source used as "CB" for multi-year and "CB" for single-year (=CZ match). To keep the column simple, "date used" + "disputed" flag.

Let me produce final. I'll keep evidence to one sentence each.

Writing it out now. Let me be careful with accuracy of seat util and trend numbers.

Seat util:
C-0B7D2C30: 274/476 = 0.57563 → 57.6%
C-0BCDB8C2: 232/424 = 0.54717 → 54.7%
C-0D2AB865: 250/407 = 0.61425 → 61.4%
C-0BBE3E60: 74/114 = 0.64912 → 64.9%
C-0F5D2323: 111/390 = 0.28462 → 28.5%
C-0EC6999D: 31/112 = 0.27679 → 27.7%
C-0B20DB64: 214/378 = 0.56614 → 56.6%
C-0BBC4E7A: 228/337 = 0.67656 → 67.7%
C-0FD551AB: 210/376 = 0.55851 → 55.9%
C-0F9F8F13: 199/352 = 0.56534 → 56.5%
C-0BC34584: 327/494 = 0.66194 → 66.2%
C-0B7A7546: 182/205 = 0.88780 → 88.8%
C-0B369871: 317/422 = 0.75118 → 75.1%
C-0B144C78: 169/224 = 0.75446 → 75.4%
C-0FC4DBB8: 356/464 = 0.76724 → 76.7%
C-0D5BBE3A: 85/102 = 0.83333 → 83.3%
C-0FB9D5AF: 144/199 = 0.72362 → 72.4%
C-0B344485: 224/287 = 0.78049 → 78.0%  (I said 78.1; 224/287 = 0.780488 → 78.0%)
Let me recompute: 224/287 = 0.7805 → 78.0% (0.7805 rounds to 0.8, so 78.0%... actually 0.7805 → 78.05% → 78.1%). 0.780488 = 78.0488% → rounds to 78.0%. Hmm 78.0488 to 1 dp = 78.0. Let me use 78.0% to be safe, or state 78.0%. Actually 78.0488 rounds to 78.0 at 1 dp (second decimal is 4? 78.0488: tenths=0, hundredths=4, so 78.0). Yes 78.0%. But I'll write 78.0% or "78.0".

C-0CB2C1B4: 386/473 = 0.81607 → 81.6%
C-22170CA1: 251/294 = 0.85374 → 85.4%

OK I'll use those.

Trend:
C-0B7D2C30 -21.5%
C-0BCDB8C2 -19.1%
C-0D2AB865 -20.4%
C-0BBE3E60 -19.5%
C-0F5D2323 -10.0%
C-0EC6999D +7.1%
C-0B20DB64 -0.7%
C-0BBC4E7A -2.1%
C-0FD551AB +0.8%
C-0F9F8F13 0.0%
C-0BC34584 +2.9%
C-0B7A7546 +3.3%
C-0B369871 +4.4%
C-0B144C78 +7.1%
C-0FC4DBB8 +4.3%
C-0D5BBE3A +4.6%
C-0FB9D5AF +4.8%
C-0B344485 +3.8%
C-0CB2C1B4 -2.0%
C-22170CA1 +2.1%

All good. Now write final. Keep it tight but complete.

I'll write the judges' decisions in a compact list, then the table, then totals.

I'll produce the final response now. Keep it concise and clean. No markdown-heavy walls, but a table is appropriate and readable. I'll use a plain table with aligned columns. Given terminal rendering, I'll keep each column reasonably narrow.

Final answer:Proceed. Here is the 90-day renewal risk brief.

## Date trust judgments
Rule applied: ChurnZero multi-year renewal dates are known to be wrong, so Chargebee dates are used for those accounts. All other (single-year) accounts use Chargebee dates, which match ChurnZero everywhere else.

Disagreements: C-0B7D2C30 (CZ 2026-09-10 vs CB 2026-09-15), C-0D2AB865 (CZ 2026-09-10 vs CB 2026-09-22), C-0F5D2323 (CZ 2026-09-10 vs CB 2026-09-29). All three are multi-year and resolved to the Chargebee date. The remaining 17 accounts agree on the date. (C-0BCDB8C2 and C-0BBE3E60 agree, no flag.)

## Renewal risk (sorted by rating, then date)

| Account | CSM | ARR | Date used | Seat util | 3-mo trend | Risk | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-0B7A7546 | Elena Sinclair | 35062.00 | 2026-10-25 | 88.8% | +3.3% | High | Near-capacity seats with no usage offset (182/205) |
| C-0D5BBE3A | Dana Mercer | 39740.00 | 2026-11-09 | 83.3% | +4.6% | High | High utilization with rising usage leaves no downgrade cushion |
| C-0B344485 | Elena Sinclair | 64384.00 | 2026-11-16 | 78.0% | +3.8% | High | 78% seated and usage up, so contract will renew on rate |
| C-0CB2C1B4 | Dana Mercer | 40628.00 | 2026-11-20 | 81.6% | -2.0% | High | Over-80% seats but usage slipped 2%, a renewal price flag |
| C-22170CA1 | Cole Ingram | 45646.00 | 2026-11-24 | 85.4% | +2.1% | High | 85% seated and stable growth signals full renewal |
| C-0FB9D5AF | Cole Ingram | 63158.00 | 2026-11-13 | 72.4% | +4.8% | High | Utilization above 70% with rising usage, name will renew |
| C-0B369871 | Dana Mercer | 85128.00 | 2026-10-29 | 75.1% | +4.4% | High | 75% seats, usage rising, renewal likely at current pricing |
| C-0B144C78 | Cole Ingram | 30899.00 | 2026-11-02 | 75.4% | +7.1% | High | Seat utilization 75% with strong usage growth |
| C-0FC4DBB8 | Elena Sinclair | 94732.00 | 2026-11-05 | 76.7% | +4.3% | High | 77% utilization rising, no retention pressure |
| C-0BBC4E7A | Cole Ingram | 56374.00 | 2026-10-10 | 67.7% | -2.1% | Elevated | Utilization high with flat-to-down usage counterbalance |
| C-0BC34584 | Cole Ingram | 16740.00 | 2026-10-22 | 66.2% | +2.9% | Elevated | 66% seated but usage grew, renewal likely but watch rate |
| C-0BBE3E60 | Dana Mercer | 30993.00 | 2026-09-26 | 64.9% | -19.5% | Elevated | 65% seats while usage fell 19.5% |
| C-0D2AB865 | Elena Sinclair | 38022.00 | 2026-09-22 | 61.4% | -20.4% | Elevated | 61% utilization against a 20.4% usage decline |
| C-0B7D2C30 | Dana Mercer | 65901.00 | 2026-09-15 | 57.6% | -21.5% | Elevated | 58% seated while usage dropped 21.5%, the steepest drop in the file |
| C-0B20DB64 | Cole Ingram | 21770.00 | 2026-10-07 | 56.6% | -0.7% | Moderate | Stable utilization, flat usage, renewal likely at status quo |
| C-0FD551AB | Elena Sinclair | 48815.00 | 2026-10-14 | 55.9% | +0.8% | Moderate | Moderate seats with flat usage |
| C-0F9F8F13 | Dana Mercer | 46230.00 | 2026-10-18 | 56.5% | 0.0% | Moderate | Moderate utilization, usage flat |
| C-0BCDB8C2 | Cole Ingram | 54427.00 | 2026-09-18 | 54.7% | -19.1% | Moderate | 55% seated while usage fell 19% |
| C-0EC6999D | Elena Sinclair | 79419.00 | 2026-10-03 | 27.7% | +7.1% | Low | Very low utilization and rising usage, low churn risk |
| C-0F5D2323 | Cole Ingram | 90647.00 | 2026-09-29 | 28.5% | -10.0% | Low | Low seats used despite usage decline, minimal renewal risk |

## Totals
- Total ARR renewing: $1,048,715.00 across 20 accounts.
- High risk: $499,377.00 (9 accounts, 47.6% of total).
- Elevated risk: $142,129.00 (4 accounts, 13.6% of total).
- Moderate risk: $237,143.00 (5 accounts, 22.6% of total).
- Low risk: $170,066.00 (2 accounts, 16.2% of total).
- ARR at risk (High + Elevated): $641,506.00, equal to 61.2% of total ARR renewing.

Arithmetic: high set (35062+39740+64384+40628+45646+63158+85128+30899+94732 = 499,377) + elevated set (56374+16740+30993+38022 = 142,129) = 641,506.

Notes: Seat utilization = seats_used/seats. Three-month usage trend = % change in active users from 2026-05 to 2026-08. No missing data was encountered; all 20 accounts have complete renewal, Chargebee-term, and usage records. Misread flags: none.

ticket-theme-synthesis0.60

Plain-English question: What are the real themes in this quarter's support tickets, ignoring the existing tags?

Prompt — what the model saw

Synthesize the quarter's support tickets into 4 to 7 themes. Do not trust existing tags; read the text. Per theme: name, count, share, distinct accounts, ARR affected, two ticket ids, one-line recommendation. Separate broad patterns from single-account noise and rank by ARR exposure, not volume.

cost $0.0097 · 132s · in 133,048 / out 9,917 tok

✗ theme_count_range✓ counts_verifiable✓ single_account_flagged✓ arr_ranked✗ ticket_ids

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: 80 tickets in 4-7 themes — points-not-posting leads (20 tickets, 25%, $31,100 ARR affected) — each with counts, distinct accounts, ARR, and a recommendation.

The answer in one line: total_tickets = 80; quarter_window = 2026-06-01 through 2026-08-31

total_tickets80

noteexisting tags are noisy/unreliable; classify by text

quarter_window2026-06-01 through 2026-08-31

ranking_by_arr_exposurehris_provisioning, redemption_failures, billing_dispute, points_not_posting, slack_sync

sample_ticket_ids80 items — e.g. IC-460004, IC-460016, IC-460001, IC-460041

single_account_noise_themebilling_dispute

themes{"points_not_posting": {"count": 20, "share_pct": 25.0, "distinct_accounts": 9, "arr_affected": "31100.00", "example_ticket_ids": ["IC-460001", "IC-460002"], "single_account": false}, "slack_sync": {"

graded checkstheme_count_range · counts_verifiable · single_account_flagged · arr_ranked · ticket_ids

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Here is the synthesis of the 79 support tickets across the quarter (June 1 – Aug 29, 2026). I classified by reading body text, not tags; 2 rows had their tag/body columns swapped and were repaired before classifying.

Notes on the data before the table:
- Total tickets = 79. Total ARR column summed = $1,546,900. My per-theme ARR figures sum exactly to this, and themes are mutually exclusive (each ticket counted once).
- The `arr` field appears to be the account-level contract/ARR for that account, not a per-ticket monetary value. I have not inflated it per-ticket; each ticket carries its account's ARR.
- One account (`C-0E9C27D1`) appears in 15 of the 79 tickets and holds $780K of the $1,546,900 total — it is single-account noise with outsized ARR weight and is treated separately.

## Theme ranking (by ARR exposure, then breadth)

| Rank | Theme | Count | Share | Distinct accounts | ARR | Mode ticket id |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | invoice / seat count / tier pricing errors | 15 | 19.0% | 1 | $780,000 | IC-460073 |
| 2 | HRIS provisioning not creating accounts for new hires | 12 | 15.2% | 3 | $456,000 | IC-460060 |
| 3 | redemption / checkout / gift card failures | 18 | 22.8% | 7 | $177,300 | IC-460034 |
| 4 | recognition points not posting / missing points | 20 | 25.3% | 9 | $70,200 | IC-460002 |
| 5 | Slack integration / re-auth / sync toggle | 14 | 17.7% | 4 | $63,400 | IC-460046 |

(2 tickets had no body and could not be classified.)

Arithmetic check: 15+12+18+20+14 = 79 tickets. Shares: 15/79 = 19.0%, 12/79 = 15.2%, 18/79 = 22.8%, 20/79 = 25.3%, 14/79 = 17.7%. ARR: invoice $780,000 (52,000 x 15), HRIS $456,000 (36,000x7 + 48,000x3 + 30,000x2 = 252,000+144,000+60,000), redemption $177,300, recognition points $70,200, Slack $63,400. Sum of ARR = 780,000 + 456,000 + 177,300 + 70,200 + 63,400 = $1,546,900. ✓

---

### 1. invoice / seat count / tier pricing errors — 15 tickets (19.0%) — 1 account — $780,000
- **Accounts:** C-0E9C27D1 only (single-account pattern).
- **Ticket ids:** IC-460065, IC-460073.
- **Recurring error:** charged for 200 seats when the account licenses 150; billed the annual renewal at the wrong tier price; invoice shows an unapproved seat count. This is the same account, in a loop ("Third invoice in a row," "same seat-count error") — the 15 tickets are all one customer repeating the same billing fault.
- **Recommendation:** Freeze the account's invoice until the seat count is reconciled to the licensed 150-seat edition, correct the tier in the billing system, and issue a credit/hold on the erroneous three renewals. Do not roll out a billing change until this account's subscription is fixed; escalate to the billing ops owner.

### 2. HRIS provisioning not creating accounts for new hires — 12 tickets (15.2%) — 3 accounts — $456,000
- **Accounts:** C-0B2213A9 (6 tickets), C-0DDFC9A7 (4), C-0F6C0F34 (2).
- **Ticket ids:** IC-460059, IC-460060.
- **Recurring error:** HRIS provisioning is not creating accounts for new hires; provisioning log shows no errors yet 12 new hires are skipped. Specific complaints: "HRIS provisioning is not creating accounts for new hires this month" (C-0B2213A9, 6x), "HRIS sync skipped 12 new hires; provisioning log shows no errors" (C-0DDFC9A7, 3x), "New employees are not being provisioned from our HRIS sync" (C-0B2213A9, 3x).
- **Recommendation:** Treat as an integration/synclog bug — log has no errors yet no accounts are created, so the failure is in the orchestration, not in the HRIS source. Add a watchdog retry on the provision job and alert on the "skipped N new hires" pattern. This is broad (3 accounts, 12 tickets) with $456K ARR at risk.

### 3. redemption / checkout / gift card failures — 18 tickets (22.8%) — 7 accounts — $177,300
- **Accounts:** C-0F876796 (4), C-0FCCD2DF (3), C-0B827671 (3), C-0CEF69FD (3), C-14264ABD (3), C-0D9CA315 (1), C-0B0F1BAB (1).
- **Ticket ids:** IC-460025, IC-460034.
- **Recurring error:** checkout spins forever then redemption fails; redemption fails and the gift card email/code never arrives. Variant: gift card order errors out but points are still deducted (3x). These are transactional redemption failures across many small accounts, not one customer.
- **Recommendation:** Fix the checkout flow's broken redemption path and the gift-card provisioning/email step; add a compensating email retry on redemption failure. Broadest theme by ticket count but the lowest ARR per ticket.

### 4. recognition points not posting / missing points — 20 tickets (25.3%) — 9 accounts — $70,200
- **Accounts:** C-0B2895EF, C-0BE96399, C-0BF20542, C-0D0B047C, C-0D284E42, C-0D3278C7, C-0D6CC8E3, C-0DD0626C, C-21FEBCBB.
- **Ticket ids:** IC-460002, IC-460012.
- **Recurring error:** recognitions show as delivered but points never arrive; points not posting after the weekend; balance not updated since Tuesday; last week's points still not posting. Note: this theme overlaps semantically with the redemption theme only at the checkout step — here the fault is in the recognition award/posting flow, not the gift-card checkout.
- **Recommendation:** Prioritize the points-posting pipeline (recognition → points table) and add a reconciliation check that flags delivered-but-not-posted recognitions. Largest ticket count but lowest ARR.

### 5. Slack integration / re-auth / sync toggle — 14 tickets (17.7%) — 4 accounts — $63,400
- **Accounts:** C-0B843542 (4), C-0BA71F12 (5), C-10A56B0F (4), C-8C2E8F00 (1).
- **Ticket ids:** IC-460041, IC-460047.
- **Recurring error:** Slack integration stopped syncing to the channel; sync toggle resets itself; app disconnected and re-auth does not stick; Slack slash command errors for everyone. A broad integration reliability problem with a small-but-consistent ARR impact.
- **Recommendation:** Treat as a third-party Slack app connection stability issue; add token refresh hardening and a toggle-state guard (reset toggle = a bug in the UI state binding). Recommend the partner support team open a root-cause on the re-auth and toggle reset.

### How to separate broad patterns from single-account noise, ranked by ARR
The only single-account noise is Theme 1 (C-0E9C27D1, 15 tickets, $780,000 of $1,546,900 = 50.4% of the total ARR). It is a single-customer billing defect, not a systemic product defect, and it should be handled as an account-specific credit/hold rather than a platform contract change.

Broad, systemic patterns (recommended for product work) by ARR:
- HRIS provisioning: 3 accounts, $456,000 (15.2% of tickets, $456K ARR) — the highest systemic ARR exposure after the single-account invoicing issue.
- Redemption/checkout/gift card: 7 accounts, $177,300 — highest ticket-count channel ($177,300 across 18 tickets).
- Recognition points: 9 accounts, $70,200 — highest ticket count (20) but low ARR.
- Slack integration: 4 accounts, $63,400 — high-frequency, low-ARR integration noise.

One data caveat: the `arr` field is account-level ARR, so the same account's recurring ticket inflates its share (e.g., C-0E9C27D1 has 15 tickets at $52,000 each = $780,000). I have not treated these as $52,000 of new revenue per ticket — the $52,000 is the account's contract value. If you intended `arr` to be a per-ticket amount instead, the ranking would shift materially and I can recompute.

marketing 5 tests

case-study-matchPASS 1.00

Plain-English question: Which three existing customers are the best case-study matches for this prospect?

Prompt — what the model saw

Given the prospect, rank the three most similar existing customers with public case studies for use as social proof. Similarity on industry, size band, use case, region. Cite the fields that drove each match. Do not name any customer without a case study and never include billing data or contact names.

cost $0.0003 · 11s · in 1,222 / out 716 tok

✓ top3✓ decoys_excluded✓ cites_fields✓ no_billing

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: Three ranked matches on industry, size, use case, and region (e.g. C-11C31562), with the higher-scoring decoy explicitly excluded for a mismatched field.

The answer in one line: prospect_alias = C-82AF3719

constraintsno_billing_data, no_contact_names, only_customers_with_has_case_study_true_named

decoys_excludedcompany_alias=C-D6217CAA; similarity_score=4; reason=no_case_study | company_alias=C-C153868F; similarity_score=4; reason=no_case_study

prospect_aliasC-82AF3719

prospect_fields_usedindustry, size_band, use_case, region

top3company_alias=C-11C31562; similarity_score=3 | company_alias=C-64171065; similarity_score=3 | company_alias=C-A13C193D; similarity_score=3

graded checkstop3 · decoys_excluded · cites_fields · no_billing

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Here’s the ranked top 3 most similar customers, matched on industry, size band, use case, and region.

**1. C-64171065 — Technology / Mid-Market / employee_recognition / NA-East**
- Industry: Technology (prospect: Technology) — exact
- Size band: Mid-Market (prospect: Mid-Market) — exact
- Use case: employee_recognition (prospect: employee_recognition) — exact
- Region: NA-East (prospect: NA-West) — mismatch (closest in region)
- Case study: TRUE
- Matching fields: industry, size band, use case

**2. C-11C31562 — Manufacturing / Mid-Market / employee_recognition / NA-West**
- Industry: Manufacturing (prospect: Technology) — mismatch
- Size band: Mid-Market — exact
- Use case: employee_recognition — exact
- Region: NA-West — exact
- Case study: TRUE
- Matching fields: size band, use case, region

**3. C-D7CDFD70 — Manufacturing / SMB / peer_milestones / APAC**
- Industry: Manufacturing — mismatch
- Size band: SMB (prospect: Mid-Market) — mismatch
- Use case: peer_milestones (prospect: employee_recognition) — mismatch
- Region: APAC (prospect: NA-West) — mismatch
- Case study: FALSE
- Matching fields: none

Given the constraint that any named customer must have a case study, only **C-64171065** and **C-11C31562** qualify. I need at least one more case-study-eligible customer for rank 3. Among the remaining case-study=true records, there is no other employee_recognition or Mid-Market match:

- C-9D69D147 — Financial Services / Mid-Market / retention / NA-West — case study TRUE; downstream match on size band + region only; use case mismatch.
- C-CD4829A7 — Technology / Mid-Market / retention / NA-East — case study TRUE; match on industry + size band. No additional employee_recognition or region match.
- C-A13C193D — Technology / Mid-Market / retention / NA-West — case study TRUE; match on industry + size band + region. Use case mismatch.

If rank 3 is required among case-study-eligible customers, the strongest downstream option is C-A13C193D (Technology / Mid-Market / retention / NA-West), matching industry, size band, and region exactly, with only use case differing.

If you’ll accept a dataset-level note instead of a third customer, the full ranked list is:

1. C-64171065 — Technology / Mid-Market / employee_recognition / NA-East — exact on 3 fields (industry, size band, use case); region closest available
2. C-11C31562 — Manufacturing / Mid-Market / employee_recognition / NA-West — exact on 3 fields (size band, use case, region); industry closest available
3. C-A13C193D — Technology / Mid-Market / retention / NA-West — exact on 3 fields (industry, size band, region); use case mismatch

Only two customers satisfy the case-study requirement while matching the prospect’s use case.

channel-attribution-mathPASS 1.00

Plain-English question: Compute cost per SQM, cost per SQO, and pipeline per dollar for every channel over six months.

Prompt — what the model saw

Compute channel performance for the trailing 6 months. Paid: spend, SQMs, SQOs, cost per SQM, cost per SQO, SQM-to-SQO rate, pipeline amount, pipeline per dollar. Organic: volume, SQO rate, pipeline. Report a channel with spend and zero SQMs as undefined, not zero. Flag rows where SQO date precedes SQM date. Finish with a reallocation recommendation and your confidence given sample sizes.

cost $0.0006 · 19s · in 4,964 / out 1,175 tok

✓ undefined_channel✓ undefined_not_zero✓ flagged_rows✓ best_channel✓ reallocation

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: LinkedIn Ads at $960/SQM and $3,000/SQO, organic search at $90,000 pipeline on zero spend, paid social flagged at $18,000 with zero SQMs, and a channel winner named.

The answer in one line: best_pipeline_per_dollar_channel = paid_search

best_pipeline_per_dollar_channelpaid_search

confidence_notewebinars and referral have small SQM samples (<20); treat rates as directional.

flagged_rows_sqo_before_sqmCT-000041, CT-000044

months2026-03, 2026-04, 2026-05, 2026-06, 2026-07, 2026-08

per_channel{"linkedin_ads": {"spend_usd": 24000, "sqms": 25, "sqos": 8, "pipeline_amount": 96000, "cost_per_sqm": 960.0, "cost_per_sqo": 3000.0, "sqm_to_sqo_rate": 0.32, "pipeline_per_dollar": 4.0}, "organic_sea

reallocation_recommendationfrom=paid_social; to=paid_search; rationale=paid_social has spend but zero SQMs (cost per SQM undefined, not zero); paid_search has the highest pipeline per dollar.

undefined_channelspaid_social

graded checksundefined_channel · undefined_not_zero · flagged_rows · best_channel · reallocation

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

## Channel performance — trailing 6 months
**Window: 2026-03 → 2026-08** (spend file) · Contacts from `contacts_first_touch.csv`.

### Paid channels

| Channel | Spend | SQMs | SQOs | Cost/SQM | Cost/SQO | SQM→SQO rate | Pipeline | Pipeline/$ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| paid_search | $36,000 | 21 | 13 | $1,714 | $2,769 | 61.9% | $504,000 | $14.00 |
| linkedin_ads | $24,000 | 6 | 6 | $4,000 | $4,000 | 100% | $72,000 | $3.00 |
| paid_social | $18,000 | 0 | 0 | **undefined** | **undefined** | — | $0 | $0.00 |
| webinars | $9,000 | 6 | 6 | $1,500 | $1,500 | 100% | $72,000 | $8.00 |

### Organic channels

| Channel | Spend | Volume* | SQO rate | Pipeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| organic_search | $0 | 16 | 6.3% | $54,000 |
| referral | $0 | 9 | 44.4% | $56,000 |

*Organic has no spend file, so volume/conversion metrics are not calculable. "Volume" is counted contacts sealed (non-blank) per the file given.

### Known data issues
- **Spending recorded under channel names** that don't fully match the contact-source names: `webinars`, `organic_search`, `referral` (file) vs the spend file (no rows for these channels). So paid_organic-like channels have zero spend; organic channel conversion is measured on contacts only.
- **One paid row appears zero-spend**: paid_search 2026-04 has $0 pipeline (CT-000040), consistent with the channel having zero pipeline in that month.
- **Flagged SQO-before-SQM** rows: →`CT-000044` (linkedin_ads: SQM 2026-07-23, SQO 2026-07-18), →`CT-000041` (linkedin_ads: SQM 2026-06-14, SQO 2026-06-09). Both show SQO preceding SQM, suggesting either backdated SQOs or mislabeled dates.

### Reallocation recommendation
- **Weight spend toward paid_search**: $36K / $78K total paid = 46% of spend yields 51% of SQOs (13/26) and 65% of pipeline ($504K/$780K). Highest pipeline/$, lowest cost/SQO among paid.
- **pause paid_social until it produces SQMs** — $18K spent, 0 SQMs.
- **Redistribute ~15–20% of paid_social budget (≈$3K–$4K/mo) into webinars**: webinars cost $1,500/SQM and $1,500/SQO, complete 100% conversion, 100% of its spend seeded openings, $8 pipeline/$ — better than paid_search at $14/$ and linkedin at $3/$ (though linkedin's cost/SQO is identical, its volume is tiny).
- **Keep linkedin_ads at current scale** (cheap per SQO, 100% close), but do not expand ahead of more volume.
- **Organic is unlabeled in spend**: if it is actually running, putting $X/mo into it and still showing only 6.3% SQO rate suggests budget should go to conversion, not volume.

### Confidence given sample sizes
- **Very low for paid_social and linkedin_ads**: 0 SQMs, 6 SQMs, 6 SQOs respectively → rates are single-digit samples. LinkedIn's 100% SQM→SQO is 6 of 6 — not statistically reliable; I'd treat it as "directionally strong, needs N≥20 to confirm."
- **Moderate for paid_search**: 21 SQMs / 13 SQOs, $780K pipeline — the only channel with enough volume for a defensible read, but still small; $/$, $/SQM and $/SQO all computed from the same 13 deals.
- **Referral and organic_search pipeline** are derived from ~9 and ~16 named deals each; the organic pipeline coming from 16 contacts (10 with pipeline) is the most efficient conversion but at 16 deals is still thin.
- Every count here is a contact count; no revenue/ARR is in the file, so "pipeline" ≠ bookings and cannot be projected as closed revenue.

Ground truth for every figure is the two CSVs above; flag any alias mismatch (e.g. `webinars` not appearing in the spend file) as stated.

competitor-battlecard-updatePASS 1.00

Plain-English question: Update the Rivally battlecard with sourced pricing and where each side wins.

Prompt — what the model saw

Update the battlecard for the competitor. Sections: one-line positioning, pricing with source and date (newer source wins, note the conflict), where they win, where we win, objections and responses, recent changes, our 12-month win/loss record against them. Cite a snippet id for every factual claim. Rep opinion on a call is not a fact about the competitor. Anything from the old card you cannot re-source gets marked unverified.

cost $0.0006 · 23s · in 2,067 / out 2,022 tok

✓ competitor_named✓ pricing✓ win_loss✓ unverified_marked✓ citations

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: Rivally at $7 per user per month (the August source wins over the stale $5, conflict noted), a 13-7 win/loss record, and two unverified old claims flagged.

The answer in one line: competitor = Rivally

citation_ids_available25 items — e.g. S01, S02, S03, S04

competitorRivally

pricingvalue_per_user_per_month=7; source_snippet=S17; source_date=2026-08-12

rep_opinion_snippet_ids_not_factsS09, S21

unverified_old_claimsRivally lacks a Slack integration., Rivally was acquired by WorkHuman in 2025.

win_loss_12mowins=13; losses=7

graded checkscompetitor_named · pricing · win_loss · unverified_marked · citations

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

# Battlecard: Rivally (updated)

- **Positioning:** points-based recognition for mid-market (old card; re-source needed)
- **Pricing:** has more than doubled from $5 to $7 per user/month since 2026-01; annual billing required in all published cases — list ~$7 (2026-08-12) with a reported $7 list + 15% discount for 3-year term (2026-08-14); earlier $5 (2026-01) vs $6.50 quoted (2026-06-02). **Conflict:** source $5 (2026-01) vs $6.50 quoted (2026-06-02) vs $7 list (2026-08-12) — newer source ($7, 2026-08-12) wins; $6.50 is a quote, not list.
- **Where they win:** EU enterprise / distributed EU teams — multi-language support praised (S12), EU data residency GA + Dublin office opened (S15), strong for distributed EU teams (S12); lightweight engagement survey add-on (Rivally Pulse) exits beta priced as add-on not bundled (S6, S23); recognized/engaging recognition feed (S2, S16); support response time praised <4 hours (S22); Slack integration "out of the box" (S4).
- **Where we win:** analytics depth — 800-seat prospect picked Bonusly over Rivally citing analytics depth (S25; Capterra: reporting dashboards basic vs enterprise tools, S7); bulk recognition editing — admin console still lacks bulk editing (S24); CSV-only analytics exports make migration off them hard (S20); SCIM provisioning lacking, manual user management painful (S10); enterprise-wide deals 2025-09 through 2026-04 vs our 2026-05 onward win pattern (see wins/losses).
- **Objections & responses:**
  - "Analytics dashboards are basic" → Capterra: reporting dashboards are basic compared to enterprise tools (S7).
  - "Manual user management is painful" → G2: no SCIM, manual user management painful (S10).
  - "Migration off Rivally is hard" → analytics exports CSV-only (S20).
  - "EU data residency" → GA in Dublin (S15), but migration pain and thinner EMEA rewards catalog (S14) remain.
  - "Rivally UI is clunky" → only AE opinion (Bryce Harmon, 2026-04-10), not product-verified → unverified (S9).
  - "They're discounting aggressively" → AE opinion (Elena Sinclair, 2026-08-14), not confirmed → unverified (S21).
  - "Pricing escalation / budget surprise" → list $5→$7 since 2026-01 (S03→S17); 3-year 15% discount quoted (S18); annual required (S03). Re-price honestly in quotes.
- **Recent changes:** Series C $40M led by Northgate Ventures (S01); 'Rivally Pulse' survey add-on launched (S06), exits beta priced as add-on not bundled (S23); hires ex-Workday VP EMEA to lead EU expansion (S11); opens Dublin office + EU data residency GA (S15); Microsoft Teams app v2 in public preview (S19); pricing raised $5→$7 list (S03→S17); 800-seat prospect chose Bonusly citing analytics (S25).
- **12-month win/loss vs Rivally:** 2025-09 loss, 2025-10 win, 2025-11 win, 2025-12 win, 2026-01 win, 2026-02 win, 2026-03 win, 2026-04 loss, 2026-05 loss, 2026-06 win, 2026-07 win, 2026-08 win. **Record: 8 wins / 4 losses** (wins: 2025-10, 11, 12; 2026-01, 02, 03, 06, 07, 08 — counted from the 13-row file where 2025-09 appears twice; see note). **Stale/older data:** the 2025-09, 2025-10, 2025-11, 2025-12, 2026-01, 2026-02, 2026-03 losses/wins in deals_with_competitor.csv (e.g., 2025-09 loss in both Deal-7767F5 and Deal-072E31) are pre-2026-04; the newer file (2026-04 onward, 10 rows) gives 4 losses (2026-04 ×2, 2026-05, 2026-06 ×…), 5 wins (2026-06, 07, 08). **Note:** the two CSV files are inconsistent — deals_with_competitor.csv has 13 rows (2025-09 to 2026-08) but two rows are duplicates of older months (2025-09 ×2, 2025-10 ×2, 2025-11 ×2), and the 2026-04 win/loss pattern conflicts (2026-04 loss ×2 in CSV vs older-file row). Full 12-month history from 2025-09 onward: 2025-09 loss (both rows), 2025-10 win, 2025-11 win (×2 rows: one win one loss — conflicts), 2025-12 win (×2 rows: one win one loss — conflicts), 2026-01 win (×2 rows: win and loss), 2026-02 win (×2), 2026-03 loss (×2), 2026-04 loss (×2), 2026-05 loss, 2026-06 win (×2), 2026-07 win (×2), 2026-08 win. So from the CSV: **upserted: 8 wins, 6 losses** where I counted each row; where duplicates conflict (2025-11, 2025-12, 2026-01, 2026-02, 2026-03, 2026-06) I flagged conflicts and recommend re-verification — the definitive record is the larger deals_with_competitor.csv (13 rows, 2025-09→2026-08), which yields **8 wins and 6 losses** overall, with the 2026-04 onward block being the most recent and reliable: 2026-04 loss ×2, 2026-05 loss ×2, 2026-06 win ×2, 2026-07 win ×2, 2026-08 win ×2 → **5 wins / 4 losses** in the most recent 5 months. All duplicates and conflicts are noted; no deal aliases were invented.

BOTTOM LINE: pricing has risen $5→$7 list in under a year (S03→S17); EU push continues (S11, S15) but they still lack SCIM (S10), basic analytics (S7), CSV-only exports (S20), and bulk editing (S24) — where our analytics depth wins (S25). Most recent 5-month record: 5 wins / 4 losses (2026-04→2026-08).

UNVERIFIED (cannot be re-sourced from provided data): "points-based recognition for mid-market" positioning (no snippet supports it — old-card claim); "acquired by WorkHuman 2025" (no snippet supports it — old-card claim); "Lacks a Slack integration" (old-card claim; S4 says Slack integration works, so this claim is contradicted by new data — remove from card).

Files: /Users/amaniphipps/competitor_snippets.csv, /Users/amaniphipps/existing_battlecard.md, /Users/amaniphipps/deals_with_competitor.csv

nurture-sequence-diagnosis0.75

Plain-English question: What is broken in each email sequence — rates, overlaps, tracking errors?

Prompt — what the model saw

Review the sequences. Per sequence: sent, open rate, reply rate, meeting rate, weakest step. Identify tracking errors (opened above sent), audience overlap between sequences, and the failure mode for anything under 2 percent reply. One change per weak sequence and which to fix first. Under 350 words.

cost $0.0010 · 14s · in 15,779 / out 790 tok

✓ tracking_error✗ overlap_pair✓ weakest_step✓ fix_priority

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: Per-sequence open, reply, and meeting rates with the weakest step (all three weakest at step 3), an opened-above-sent tracking error, and audience overlap flagged.

The answer in one line: fix_priority_first = Cold Outbound - HR Leaders

all_pairwise_overlaps['Cold Outbound - HR Leaders', 'Cold Outbound - People Ops'], ['Expansion Nurture', 'New Logo Nurture']

audience_overlap_pairCold Outbound - HR Leaders, Cold Outbound - People Ops

failure_modeCold Outbound - HR Leaders=opens healthy (~37%) but replies near zero from step 1 -> body/CTA not landing, not a deliverability or subject-line problem

fix_priority_firstCold Outbound - HR Leaders

per_sequence{"New Logo Nurture": {"sent": 1386, "opened": 490, "replied": 90, "meetings": 27, "open_rate": 0.3535, "reply_rate": 0.0649, "meeting_rate": 0.0195, "weakest_step": 3}, "Expansion Nurture": {"sent": 8

tracking_errorsequence=Expansion Nurture; step=2; sent=300; opened=340; issue=opened exceeds sent

under_2pct_replyCold Outbound - HR Leaders

graded checkstracking_error · overlap_pair · weakest_step · fix_priority

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

| Sequence | S1 | S2 | S3 | Weakest step |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Logo Nurture | 42/210 = 20.0% | 30/160 = 18.8% | 18/120 = 15.0% | Step 3 — 15.0% |
| Expansion Nurture | 22/130 = 16.9% | 25/340 = 7.4% | 12/95 = 12.6% | Step 2 — 7.4% |
| Cold Outbound – HR Leaders | 5/240 = 2.1% | 2/175 = 1.1% | 1/130 = 0.8% | Step 3 — 0.8% |
| Cold Outbound – People Ops | 14/150 = 9.3% | 9/110 = 8.2% | 6/80 = 7.5% | Step 3 — 7.5% |

REPLY < 2%: Cold Outbound – HR Leaders (0.8–2.1%). Failure mode: too-close-to-fully-open audience or low relevance — replies collapse in later steps (5→2→1) as the already-selected openers stop replying.

TRACKING ERRORS:
- Expansion Nurture step 2 — opened 340 > sent 300. Inline PNGs/CTA placeholders that attach to open events instead of a real click, or an out-of-row send that leaks into this sequence's counts.
- New Logo Nurture aggregates slightly over sent per step (500→458→428), and Cold Outbound – HR Leaders sends barely decay (600→595→590), consistent with a few contacts in one sequence receiving another's sent/events.

AUDIENCE OVERLAP:
Exporting sequence assignments from the audiences file, the overlap counts are: New Logo Nurture 41, Expansion Nurture 29, Cold Outbound – HR Leaders 66, Cold Outbound – People Ops 55. The 300-send Expansion Nurture is a strict subset of the 400-send People Ops file, so People Ops step 1's 150 opens must include many Expansion Nurture sends. People Ops is more of an overlap audience than its sequence name shows — step 1's 150 opens being roughly 38% of the expanded people-ops-based sent set.

ONE CHANGE PER WEAK SEQUENCE, FIX FIRST:
1. Cold Outbound – HR Leaders → fix FIRST. Rewrite step 1 copy: narrow the audience to genuinely openable contacts, drop the 5%→2.1% opening drop, and use a reply-triggered multi-step sequence instead of three cold sends. Cold Outbound replies live or die in step 1 (2.1% there already).
2. Expansion Nurture → step 2 overlap + low opens (7.4%). Re-segment step 2 and re-run the 340-opener set against a cleaner targeting list; low opens in steps 2–3 signal list dilution.
3. New Logo Nurture → step 3 drop-off (15%). Tighten step 3's CTA by adding a second send at step 2.5 or a survey nudge.

Stop Cold Outbound – HR Leaders at 3 sends; under 2% reply means the cold approach is misaligned with the audience — shift those contacts into a reply-branch nurture.

weekly-marketing-goals-rollup0.20

Plain-English question: Are we on pace on the quarter's marketing goals?

Prompt — what the model saw

Produce the weekly marketing goals update for the active quarter: SQMs, SQOs, DS2s, closed-lost MIA rate, same-quarter close count, active pipeline coverage against target. For each: QTD actual, target, delta, pace (on/behind/ahead given days elapsed). One paragraph on what moved this week.

cost $0.0002 · 10s · in 926 / out 125 tok

✗ metrics_present✗ deltas✗ coverage_ratio✗ pace✓ paragraph

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: SQMs ahead of pace, SQOs on pace, DS2s behind (35 short of expected at day 66 of 92), with deltas and same-quarter closes.

The answer in one line: days_in_quarter = 92; days_elapsed = 66; coverage_ratio_active_pipeline = 0.75; elapsed_fraction = 0.7174 (+1 more below)

days_in_quarter92

coverage_ratio_active_pipeline0.75

days_elapsed66

elapsed_fraction0.7174

metrics{"SQMs": {"qtd_actual": 230, "target": 300, "delta": -70, "expected_at_day_elapsed": 215.22, "pace": "ahead"}, "SQOs": {"qtd_actual": 84, "target": 120, "delta": -36, "expected_at_day_elapsed": 86.09,

pace_ruleexpected = target * days_elapsed/days_in_quarter; within +/-5% of expected = on, above = ahead, below = behind; lower_better metrics invert.

this_week_paragraph_required1

graded checksmetrics_present · deltas · coverage_ratio · pace · paragraph

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Subject: wrong label

The "closed_lost_mia" field in marketing_qtd.csv is a count (5), but the targets.csv defines closed_lost_mia_rate with target 0.1 (a rate). These are different units. I need to reconcile: is 5 the number of MIAs, requiring a denominator to compute a rate, or is 0.1 the raw value? Also, closed_lost_total (25) is present but no target. Which do you want for the MIA piece — the rate (MIAs / total closed-lost) or the raw count?

communication 5 tests

ceo-slack-compressionPASS 1.00

Plain-English question: Compress the forecast analysis into one Slack message the CEO can read in ten seconds.

Prompt — what the model saw

Compress the forecast analysis below into a single Slack message for the CEO. Rules: at most three sentences; under 80 words; lead with the decision or the so-what; keep every distinct number that matters and the one caveat that changes the conclusion; cut any sentence that does not carry a claim, a number, or a directive. No em dashes, no throat-clearing phrases.

cost $0.0010 · 7s · in 19,585 / out 159 tok

✓ max_3_sentences✓ under_80_words✓ weighted_present✓ caveat_present✓ no_em_dash

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: Three sentences, under 80 words, decision first, every distinct number kept plus the one caveat — all checked by deterministic text rules.

The answer in one line: weighted_number = 115976; must_keep = data-quality caveat — deleting the bad news fails

weighted_number115,976

limitmax 3 sentences, max 80 words, no em-dashes

must_keepdata-quality caveat — deleting the bad news fails

graded checksmax_3_sentences · under_80_words · weighted_present · caveat_present · no_em_dash

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Forecast at 115,976.75 (100% of 44,729 committed + 35% × 203,565 best-case; 23 pipeline deals count 0), with 32 excluded deals (227,575) closing after 2026-09-30, including COMMIT Deal-D348E1 (13,770, dated 2026-10-15). Note: owner is blank on 85 of 86 deals and why-bought is empty on all 7 quarter COMMIT deals, so this forecast is not rep- or quota-checkable and may reflect pushed close dates.

stalled-deal-followup-emailPASS 1.00

Plain-English question: Write a follow-up email for this stalled deal — under 120 words, one prior touch, one ask.

Prompt — what the model saw

Write a follow-up email for this stalled deal. Under 120 words. Reference one specific prior touch from the engagement history, make one clear ask, and match the tone of the prior thread. No invented details.

cost $0.0002 · 9s · in 962 / out 307 tok

✓ word_cap✓ references_touch✓ single_ask

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: An email that references the July 28 milestone-awards demo, makes one clear ask, and invents nothing — Deal-0D2F7A, 31 days since last engagement.

The answer in one line: amount = 5100; word_cap = 120; days_since_last_engagement = 31; deal_alias = Deal-0D2F7A (+4 more below)

amount5,100

days_since_last_engagement31

word_cap120

allowed_facts14 items — e.g. Deal-0D2F7A, $5,100, DS3, Alex Franklin

allowed_newENG-00001, ENG-00002, ENG-00003, ENG-00004, ENG-00005

deal_aliasDeal-0D2F7A

must_referenceengagement_id=ENG-00002; date=2026-07-28; type=meeting; why=most substantive prior touch; concrete prospect reactions to milestone awards and points catalog

ownerAlex Franklin

single_cta1

stageDS3

tonewarm, concise, professional (matches prior thread)

graded checksword_cap · references_touch · single_ask

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Deal: `Deal-0D2F7A` — $5,100, DS3, close 2026-11-26, last engagement 2026-08-05. Single active engagement per record shown; no meeting/reply history to cite beyond the recap email. I used the 7/28 demo recap (most substantive prior touch) as the one referenced touch.

Subject: quick follow-up on the 150-seat milestone awards recap

Hey [Name],

Following up on the July 28 demo recap I sent with pricing for 150 seats. If it's easier, I can quickly re-share the milestone-awards walkthrough and a one-page pricing summary.

Would a 15-minute call this week or early next work for you? I'll bring the automated milestone awards + points-catalog example and can answer any pricing questions directly.

Best,
Alex Franklin

~88 words. Sources: stalled_deal.csv (Deal-0D2F7A, $5,100, DS3, close 2026-11-26, last_engagement 2026-08-05); engagements ENG-00002 (7/28 demo) and ENG-00001 (8/05 recap email). No reply or meeting found since 7/28 — flagged above as absent rather than assumed.

funnel-digest-paragraphPASS 1.00

Plain-English question: Write the weekly GTM digest — one paragraph per team, every number traceable.

Prompt — what the model saw

Write the weekly GTM digest: one paragraph per team (Marketing, Sales, CS, PLG) in Bonusly brand voice. Every number must trace to the extracts. No customer contact names, no employee performance commentary, no compensation. Four paragraphs, under 400 words total.

cost $0.0002 · 5s · in 787 / out 170 tok

✓ four_paragraphs✓ word_cap✓ teams

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: Four paragraphs (Marketing, Sales, CS, PLG) using only the allowed numbers, no contact names, no performance commentary, under 400 words.

The answer in one line: word_cap = 400

word_cap400

allowed_numbers16 items — e.g. 2, 3, 9, 08

bannedcustomer contact names, employee performance commentary, compensation

required_paragraphsMarketing, Sales, CS, PLG

graded checksfour_paragraphs · word_cap · teams

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Week of 2026-08-31

Marketing: SQMs came in at 46 against a target of 52, with the webinar channel delivering 18 of those SQMs; cost per SQM on paid search held at $150.

Sales: Sales converted 14 SQOs and set 9 DS2 meetings, creating $310,000 in new pipeline; same-quarter close count for the week was 3.

CS: Renewals saved this week: 2. Team NPS moved to 61. There are 3 open red-flag accounts heading into next week.

PLG: PLG added 412 new signups with activation at 31 percent. 38 companies reached the aha moment of 10 recognition gives.

partner-digest-sectionPASS 1.00

Plain-English question: Write the partner digest so every partner in the roster appears exactly once.

Prompt — what the model saw

Write the partner digest for the period. Every partner in the roster appears once: active plays get status with numbers, quiet partners get one line. Partner-sourced pipeline count and amount must match the deal data. Nothing omitted, nothing added.

cost $0.0002 · 15s · in 1,097 / out 423 tok

✓ all_partners✓ pipeline_amount✓ quiet_one_line

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: Four active partners with status and numbers, four quiet partners with one line each, and partner-sourced pipeline that reconciles to the deal data.

The answer in one line: rule = every roster partner named exactly once; quiet partners get one line; no partners outside roster.

active_no_dealsWorkWell Group

partner_sourced_pipelinecount=5; amount=550000

per_partner_pipeline{"Apex Rewards Co": {"count": 2, "amount": 275000}, "HRCloud Partners": {"count": 1, "amount": 140000}, "CultureBridge": {"count": 2, "amount": 135000}}

quiet_partnersRecogniq, KudosWave, PeopleFirst Advisors, TotalPerk

rosterpartner_name=Apex Rewards Co; status=active | partner_name=HRCloud Partners; status=active | partner_name=CultureBridge; status=active | partner_name=WorkWell Group; status=active | partner_name=Recogniq; status=quiet | partner_name=KudosWave; status=quiet … (+2 more)

ruleevery roster partner named exactly once; quiet partners get one line; no partners outside roster.

graded checksall_partners · pipeline_amount · quiet_one_line

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Partner digest for 08-24 → 09-04

Active partners:

- **Apex Rewards Co** — Rested 2 sourced opps this week (both in DS1), both logged with UTM Source = Partner: Deal-DDAAF2 $180,000 + Deal-2CF33E $95,000 = **$275,000**.
- **HRCloud Partners** — 1 sourced opp this period (integration referral closed security review, moved to DS2): Deal-F1CDA5 **$140,000**.
- **CultureBridge** — Lunch-and-learn produced 2 sourced opps, both early stage: Deal-096E1D $60,000 + Deal-067213 $75,000 = **$135,000**.
- **WorkWell Group** — No sourced deals this period; wants to restart joint playbook in Q4 (planning call booked 09-09).

Quiet partners:

- **Recogniq** — no activity logged this period (no Slack export, no deals in the data).
- **KudosWave** — no activity logged this period.
- **PeopleFirst Advisors** — no activity logged this period.
- **TotalPerk** — no activity logged this period.

Partner-sourced pipeline: count = 5 sourced deals; amount = $275,000 + $140,000 + $135,000 = **$550,000**.

Breakdown by partner (matches partner_roster status): Apex $275,000 (2 opps), HRCloud $140,000 (1), CultureBridge $135,000 (2), WorkWell $0 (0), Recogniq $0 (0), KudosWave $0 (0), PeopleFirst $0 (0), TotalPerk $0 (0).

rfp-answer-from-policyPASS 1.00

Plain-English question: Answer the 10 RFP items from the policy excerpts only — no guessing.

Prompt — what the model saw

Answer the 10 questionnaire items from the policy excerpts only. Cite the excerpt id for every answer. Where the excerpts do not answer the question, mark it unanswerable and say what document would; do not guess. Tone: vendor response, direct.

cost $0.0002 · 12s · in 1,056 / out 414 tok

✓ answered_count✓ unanswerable_flagged✓ citations✓ no_guess

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: Seven answered with excerpt citations (Q1-Q7), three flagged unanswerable with the document that would answer them (Q8-Q10).

The answer in one line: answered_count = 7; rule = unanswerable items must be flagged and the document that would answer them named; do not guess.

answered_count7

answer_map{"Q1": ["P1"], "Q2": ["P1"], "Q3": ["P2"], "Q4": ["P3"], "Q5": ["P4"], "Q6": ["P5"], "Q7": ["P6"]}

ruleunanswerable items must be flagged and the document that would answer them named; do not guess.

unanswerableQ8, Q9, Q10

valid_citation_idsP1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8

graded checksanswered_count · unanswerable_flagged · citations · no_guess

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Answering the 10 items from the policy excerpts only. Where the excerpts do not cover the item, it is marked unanswerable with the reason.

Q1. Yes — encrypted at rest with AES-256. (Excerpt: P1)
Q2. Yes — data in transit is encrypted with TLS 1.2 or higher. (Excerpt: P1)
Q3. Yes — a SOC 2 Type II report is maintained, renewed annually. The excerpt does not say whether it can be obtained; it states only that it is available to prospects under NDA. (Excerpt: P2)
Q4. Retained for the duration of the contract plus 90 days, after which it is deleted from production systems. (Excerpt: P3)
Q5. Published at trust.bonusly.com (current subprocessor list); changes are notified with 30 days' notice before a new subprocessor is added. (Excerpt: P4)
Q6. The excerpt does not address SAML single sign-on; it addresses SAML 2.0 SSO and SCIM provisioning specifically for the Enterprise plan. Answer per plan: yes on Enterprise. (Excerpt: P5)
Q7. Production databases are backed up daily; backups are encrypted and retained for 35 days. (Excerpt: P6)
Q8. Unanswerable — no excerpt mentions ISO 27001. A certification/standards document would be needed; the policy excerpts provide no basis to answer. (Excerpts: none)
Q9. Unanswerable — no excerpt mentions an uptime SLA or percentage. (Excerpts: none)
Q10. Unanswerable — no excerpt mentions HIPAA or a Business Associate Agreement. (Excerpts: none)

Summary: 6 items answered from excerpts (Q1–Q7, excluding Q8–Q10); Q3 partially answered; Q8, Q9, Q10 unanswerable from the provided policy excerpts.

ops-maintenance 5 tests

skill-file-reconciliationPASS 1.00

Plain-English question: Audit a skill set against its manifest and flag every conflict with a severity and an action.

Prompt — what the model saw

Reconcile the skill set below against its manifest. Find and report (with severity CRITICAL/WARNING/INFO and an action type TRIM_DESC, UPDATE_BODY, DELETE_SKILL, MERGE, or REVIEW): (1) any two skills whose ALWAYS-trigger phrases overlap/duplicate, (2) any circular delegation chain between skills (name it), (3) any delegation target that does not exist (dangling, name it), (4) any version conflict and which skill should survive, (5) how many manifest descriptions exceed 1,024 characters, (6) any hardcoded page ids, dates, or person names in skill bodies, (7) manifest drift in BOTH directions (files with no manifest row, and manifest rows with no file). Make one proposal per finding; rewrite nothing.

cost $0.0051 · 52s · in 84,698 / out 4,194 tok

✓ duplicate_trigger_found✓ circular_chain✓ dangling_target✓ oversized_desc_count✓ hardcoded_values✓ manifest_drift✓ severity_and_action

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: A severity-ranked list of TRIM_DESC / UPDATE_BODY / DELETE_SKILL / MERGE / REVIEW actions covering every rule violation found.

The answer in one line: files_audited = 14; rank = CRITICAL / WARNING / INFO with one fix action per issue

files_audited14

findingsduplicate trigger, circular delegation chain, dangling file reference, oversized description, hardcoded values, manifest drift

rankCRITICAL / WARNING / INFO with one fix action per issue

graded checksduplicate_trigger_found · circular_chain · dangling_target · oversized_desc_count · hardcoded_values · manifest_drift · severity_and_action

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

I'll reconcile the skill set against its manifest by checking for overlapping trigger phrases, circular delegation, dangling targets, version conflicts, description lengths, hardcoded identifiers, and manifest/file drift.

Let me work through each finding systematically.

## 1. Overlapping/ALWAYS-trigger Phrases (duplicates)

**`comms-drafter` vs `email-drafter`** — both explicitly trigger on "write me an email"/"draft a follow-up"/"help me reply".

- `comms-drafter` description: "Use whenever ANYONE — AEs, SDRs, CSMs, partnerships, rewards, ops — needs to write, draft, or improve any external communication. Trigger for: 'write me an email,' 'draft a follow-up,'..."
- `email-drafter` description: "Use this skill whenever anyone asks you to write, draft, or improve a customer-facing email... Also trigger when the user says 'write me an email,' 'draft a follow-up,'..."

**Finding 1 (CRITICAL)**: `comms-drafter` and `email-drafter` share overlapping ALWAYS-trigger phrases for the same output type (customer-facing email draft). One of them is redundant. **Action: TRIM_DESC + MERGE** — consolidate into one skill (email-drafter is narrower/email-specific; comms-drafter is broader), keeping the more specific one, or pick the narrower one. Proposal: narrow `email-drafter` to be the single email-drafting skill, and have `comms-drafter` either be trimmed to non-email comms or merged into it.

---

## 2. Circular Delegation Chain

Scanning the delegation/invocation rules:

- `deal-strategy-coach` → invokes `prospect-research-multithreading`
- `email-drafter` → invokes `prospect-research-multithreading`
- `comms-drafter` → invokes `prospect-research-multithreading`
- `next-to-close` → delegates to `pipeline-intelligence-report`
- `pipeline-intelligence-report` → delegates to `closed-lost-analysis`

`prospect-research-multithreading` appears as a target in three skills but has **no manifest row** (it's not in the manifest list). No circular chain detected among the skills in the manifest — the delegation graph is linear (none of these point back). Let me verify: `next-to-close` → `pipeline-intelligence-report`; `pipeline-intelligence-report` → `closed-lost-analysis`; `closed-lost-analysis` → `closed_lost_reason`/Snowflake (data sources, not skills); no return edge back to `next-to-close` or `pipeline-intelligence-report`. So no circle.

**Finding 2 (INFO)**: No circular delegation chain found among manifest skills. Delegation is acyclic (linear: pipeline-intelligence-report → closed-lost-analysis; and multiple skills → prospect-research-multithreading).

---

## 3. Delegation Targets That Do Not Exist

- `deal-strategy-coach` → `prospect-research-multithreading` — **not in manifest** (dangling, no file)
- `email-drafter` → `prospect-research-multithreading` — **not in manifest** (dangling)
- `comms-drafter` → `prospect-research-multithreading` — **not in manifest** (dangling)
- `next-to-close` → `pipeline-intelligence-report` — **exists in manifest**
- `pipeline-intelligence-report` → `closed-lost-analysis` — **exists in manifest**

`prospect-research-multithreading` appears in three skills as a handoff target but has **no corresponding SKILL.md file** in the provided set.

**Finding 3 (CRITICAL)**: `prospect-research-multithreading` is invoked as a delegation target by `deal-strategy-coach`, `email-drafter`, and `comms-drafter`, but has no manifest row and no SKILL.md file. Three skills reference a nonexistent skill. **Action: REVIEW/DELETE** — either the skill is missing from the manifest and must be added, or the delegations must be removed. Proposal: recreate/register the missing skill in the manifest and files.

---

## 4. Version Conflicts

Manifest lists `analysis-validator` at default version (no version column shown, but the SKILL.md has v3.6). `pipeline-intelligence-report` declares `version: v6 · May 2026`. `daily-followup-briefing` is NOT in the manifest at all. Within the provided files:

- `closed-lost-analysis.SKILL.md` has **no version header** in its frontmatter (only `description`), but references "May 2026" and "30-deal AI-field sample from May 2026" — internal versioning drifting.
- `pipeline-intelligence-report` declares v6, May 2026 — consistent with its content.
- `sales-forecast` declares changelog up to 1.1, April 27, 2026.
- `signalforge-claim-compressor` version 1.0, May 9, 2026.
- `signalforge-feedback` no version.
- `stale-pipeline-report` 1.0/1.1, June 2026.
- `weekly-pipeline-report` no version header.

No skill declares **two different** versions. But there IS an internal drift: `sales-forecast` changelog says version 1.1 on April 27, 2026, yet the file still describes Q2-specific content in some places and says "always use the active quarter" — inconsistent. Minor.

**Finding 4 (WARNING)**: No two skills declare conflicting versions of themselves, but `sales-forecast` is internally inconsistent — changelog 1.1 (April 27, 2026) but the description still references "Q2" in step 4 title ("Q[N] [YEAR]... always use the active quarter"), and references `references/cadence.md`, `references/data-sources.md`, `references/report-template.html` that are referenced by other skills (e.g., `pipeline-intelligence-report`) but these `references/` files are not provided. **Action: UPDATE_BODY** — align sales-forecast version/date and remove stale Q2 references.

Actually, the cleaner version answer: manifest does not carry versions, so we only judge within-file. There's no explicit two-skill version conflict. But the internal mismatch (sales-forecast changelog 1.1 vs. the "Q2" terminology in the body and stale reference files) is a drift warning. I'll report it as a WARNING with UPDATE_BODY.

---

## 5. Manifest Descriptions Exceeding 1,024 Characters

Manifest column: `description_chars`. Count how many have `> 1,024`.

- analysis-validator: 656
- closed-lost-analysis: 897
- comms-drafter: 996
- deal-strategy-coach: 792
- email-drafter: 965
- model-selection: 676
- next-to-close: 945
- partner-digest: 1004
- pipeline-intelligence-report: 1006
- sales-forecast: 962
- signalforge-claim-compressor: 1006
- signalforge-feedback: 708
- stale-pipeline-report: 762
- weekly-pipeline-report: 656

**None exceed 1,024.** Max is 1,006 (pipeline-intelligence-report, signalforge-claim-compressor).

**Finding 5 (INFO)**: 0 manifest descriptions exceed 1,024 characters. (Max = 1,006.)

---

## 6. Hardcoded Page IDs, Dates, Person Names in Skill Bodies

Scanned for hardcoded IDs/dates/people:

- `analysis-validator`: "Created: April 26, 2026", "Last Updated: May 9, 2026", stage IDs `150582536`, `150582537`, `150582538`, `150582539`, `1175632767`, owner IDs (Bryce Harmon `119337721`, etc.), "Alaina Loori", "Shealagh Coughlin", "Amani Phipps", "John Thomas", "Yasmin Wahid", "Manish", "Amani", "Elena Sinclair", "Ashley Reyer", "Ben Castelli", "Cole Ingram", "Gavin Porter", "Hugo Lindqvist", "Dana Mercer", "Alex Franklin", "RevOps", "Manish or Amani", "Manish"/"Amani" Finance, date "May 4, 2026", "May 9, 2026", "April 26, 2026", "May 4, 2026", "March 28, 2023".
- `closed-lost-analysis`: company names (Estee Lauder, LIFTOFF/Nestlé, Ozinga/UKG, Aurora Innovation, GCash, MinIO, Ethos Cannabis, StickerGuy/Venezuela), person names ("Kelli, Jen Lee", "Hani, Bryce", "Sara", "Runa"), "May 2026", "30-deal", "12-month", "10 of 10", "30-deal AI-field sample from May 2026", "May 4, 2026".
- `comms-drafter`: no page IDs/dates/person names.
- `deal-strategy-coach`: owner IDs (Bryce Harmon `119337721`, etc.), person names (Amani, etc.), "Alaina", "Amani Phipps".
- `email-drafter`: "Amani" (signature), no page IDs.
- `model-selection`: no page IDs/dates/person names (has model IDs, dates `2026-05-19`).
- `next-to-close`: deals "$20K+ ARR", no person names.
- `partner-digest`: Confluence cloudId `73fe98de-a4a3-4869-9f8a-bb1eeed4cf7f`, spaceId `1958248479`, folderId `2286616609`, page URLs, "May 16, 2026" issue, "May 17, 2026" changelog, "Amani Phipps", owner IDs (`U03QLMBL7AR`), partner names (BambooHR, Snappy, Runa, Amazon, Tremendous, PartnerStack, Loop and Tie, VC funds), "Kelli, Jen Lee", dates.
- `pipeline-intelligence-report`: owner IDs, stage IDs, "May 2026", "March 2023", org ID `1973303`, "May 2026", "v6 · May 2026", deal URL pattern with `1973303`.
- `sales-forecast`: Confluence space ID `2232811524`, cloudId `73fe98de-a4a3-4869-9f8a-bb1eeed4cf7f`, parent page ID `2232582148`, "Alaina", "Elena" (changed 1.1), date "April 27, 2026", "Q2", spreadsheet IDs `1CLZeOsElVDF_LF0ZG_t2nfwvhnZ6bpwqM_nX3WEYzcw` and `1ENuaEcCuLjdKhMvp8FK3Ys1ek5Aw9ZuOZhsHJJFoB_k`, "Q2 2026", "March 28, 2023"-like stale, "May 2026".
- `signalforge-claim-compressor`: no page IDs/dates/person names.
- `signalforge-feedback`: page ID `2295136266`, spaceId `2232811524`, cloudId `73fe98de-a4a3-4869-9f8a-bb1eeed4cf7f`, parent `2234417154`, Build Log `2247295002`, "May 9, 2026", "May 16, 2026".
- `stale-pipeline-report`: Slack ID `C0561C1JCPJ`, no dates/person names (except "May 15" example).
- `weekly-pipeline-report`: spreadsheet IDs, "April 1 – June 30, 2026", "Q2", "May 2026"-like dates.

**Finding 6 (INFO)**: Hardcoded page IDs, dates, and person names are pervasive. Most critical: `signalforge-feedback` pins concrete Confluence page/space/cloud IDs (`2295136266`, `2232811524`, `73fe98de-a4a3-4869-9f8a-bb1eeed4cf7f`, `2234417154`, `2247295002`) and `partner-digest` pins `73fe98de-a4a3-4869-9f8a-bb1eeed4cf7f` + folder `2286616609` + `Amani Phipps` as owner — all couple the skill to a specific environment/owner identity. `weekly-pipeline-report` hardcodes `Amani Phipps`? No—actually it says "for Ben's review" and "Signals". `partner-digest` hardcodes `Amani Phipps (RevOps / Partnerships)` as owner in the digest header. These are environment-dependent; a different deployer gets stale content. **Action: REVIEW** — externalize IDs and replace owner hardcoded names with "RevOps".

---

## 7. Manifest Drift (two directions)

**Files with no manifest row** (skills present in the filesystem that aren't in the manifest):
- `comms-drafter.SKILL.md` — in files, **not in manifest**
- `deal-strategy-coach.SKILL.md` — in files, **not in manifest**
- `email-drafter.SKILL.md` — in files, **not in manifest**
- `model-selection.SKILL.md` — in files, **not in manifest**
- `next-to-close.SKILL.md` — in files, **not in manifest**
- `partner-digest.SKILL.md` — in files, **not in manifest**
- `sales-forecast.SKILL.md` — in files, **not in manifest**
- `signalforge-claim-compressor.SKILL.md` — in files, **not in manifest**
- `signalforge-feedback.SKILL.md` — in files, **not in manifest**
- `stale-pipeline-report.SKILL.md` — in files, **not in manifest**
- `weekly-pipeline-report.SKILL.md` — in files, **not in manifest**

That's **11 files with no manifest row** (all except `analysis-validator` and `closed-lost-analysis`).

**Manifest rows with no file** (manifest declares skills with no SKILL.md provided):
- Analysis-validator — has file ✓
- Closed-lost-analysis — has file ✓
- `comms-drafter` — ✗ no file
- `deal-strategy-coach` — ✗ no file
- `email-drafter` — ✗ no file
- `model-selection` — ✗ no file
- `next-to-close` — ✗ no file
- `partner-digest` — ✗ no file
- `pipeline-intelligence-report` — ✗ no file
- `sales-forecast` — ✗ no file
- `signalforge-claim-compressor` — ✗ no file
- `signalforge-feedback` — ✗ no file
- `stale-pipeline-report` — ✗ no file
- `weekly-pipeline-report` — ✗ no file

That's **12 manifest rows with no file** (all except the two files present).

So drift is **bidirectional and severe**: 11 files lack manifest rows, and all other 12 manifest skills lack provided files. The manifest is effectively useless against the actual file set — it's a partial capture.

**Finding 7 (CRITICAL)**: Manifest drift in BOTH directions. (a) 11 skill files provided with no manifest row (`comms-drafter`, `deal-strategy-coach`, `email-drafter`, `model-selection`, `next-to-close`, `partner-digest`, `sales-forecast`, `signalforge-claim-compressor`, `signalforge-feedback`, `stale-pipeline-report`, `weekly-pipeline-report`). (b) 12 manifest skills with no provided file. **Action: TRIM_DESC + MERGE** (or reconcile the manifest to match the actual skill set — add the 11 missing rows and remove/verify the 12 no-file rows).

---

## Summary of Findings

| # | Severity | Finding | Action Type |
|---|----------|---------|-------------|
| 1 | CRITICAL | `comms-drafter` and `email-drafter` trigger on overlapping email-draft phrases | TRIM_DESC / MERGE |
| 2 | INFO | No circular delegation chain found | — |
| 3 | CRITICAL | `prospect-research-multithreading` is a delegation target in 3 skills but has no file/manifest row | REVIEW / DELETE or CREATE |
| 4 | WARNING | No explicit two-skill version conflict; but `sales-forecast` internally mixes changelog 1.1 (Apr 27) with stale Q2 references | UPDATE_BODY |
| 5 | INFO | 0 manifest descriptions exceed 1,024 chars (max 1,006) | — |
| 6 | INFO | Hardcoded page IDs (`73fe98de…`, `2295136266`, `2232811524`), dates (May 4/9, 2026), and person names (`Amani Phipps` owner, rep roster IDs) scattered in partner-digest, signalforge-feedback, weekly-pipeline-report, analysis-validator, etc. | REVIEW |
| 7 | CRITICAL | Manifest drift both directions: 11 files lack manifest rows; all 12 other manifest skills lack provided files | TRIM_DESC / MERGE |

**Minimum viable proposal set**: Findings 1, 3, and 7 are the critical ones. Recommend: add the 11 missing manifest rows (or rebuild the manifest to match the actual file set), delete `prospect-research-multithreading` delegations unless the skill is recreated, consolidate `comms-drafter`/`email-drafter` into a single email skill, and externalize hardcoded IDs/person names.

Rewrite nothing; all proposals are edits.

runbook-from-slack-threadPASS 1.00

Plain-English question: Turn the resolved incident thread into a runbook.

Prompt — what the model saw

Turn the resolved incident thread into a runbook: ordered steps with the exact command or action taken, who ran it, how success was verified, and rollback for each step that changed state. Every step must trace to a message in the thread. Add nothing the thread does not contain; where the thread is unclear, mark the step as needing confirmation.

cost $0.0003 · 18s · in 1,316 / out 942 tok

✓ ordered_steps✓ rollback✓ needs_confirmation✓ sourced

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: Ordered steps from the thread, each with the exact command, who ran it, how success was verified, and rollback where state changed.

The answer in one line: rule = no steps beyond what the thread contains; every step traces to a message id.

ambiguous_steporder=4; msg=M05; mark=needs-confirmation

ruleno steps beyond what the thread contains; every step traces to a message id.

stepsorder=1; msg=M01; actor=Bryce Harmon; action=acknowledge PagerDuty alert, take IC; state_change=False; verified_by=M01 | order=2; msg=M02; actor=Farid Osman; action=check queue depth; command=bundle exec rake sidekiq:queue_depth; state_change=False; verified_by=M02 (48,213 pending) | order=3; msg=M04; actor=Farid Osman; action=pause auto-enqueue via feature flag; command=bin/rails runner 'FeatureFlag.disable(:auto_recognition_enqueue)'; state_change=True; rollback=bin/rails runner 'FeatureFlag.enable(:auto_recognition_enqueue)'; verified_by=M07 (queue depth falling) | order=4; msg=M05; actor=Elena Sinclair; action=cleared the dead set; state_change=True; needs_confirmation=thread gives no command or method for clearing the dead set | order=5; msg=M06; actor=Bryce Harmon; action=scale reward-worker to 6 replicas; command=kubectl scale deployment/reward-worker --replicas=6; state_change=True; rollback=kubectl scale deployment/reward-worker --replicas=3; verified_by=M07/M08 | order=6; msg=M08; actor=Cole Ingram; action=verify queue drained and error rate baseline; command=bundle exec rake sidekiq:queue_depth; state_change=False; verified_by=M08 (returns 0) … (+2 more)

graded checksordered_steps · rollback · needs_confirmation · sourced

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Turned the resolved incident thread into a runbook. Every step below maps to an exact message in the thread; where the thread omits a detail, the step is marked for confirmation.

**Reward-worker queue depth incident — resolved 2026-08-29**
Source: #incident-2026-08-29_reward-queue (resolved)
Trigger: PagerDuty alert for reward-worker queue depth > 10k. Queue peaked at 48,213 pending (normal < 500).

| # | Step (exact command/action) | Who ran it | Success verification | Rollback |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Acknowledge PagerDuty alert for reward-worker queue depth > 10k; assume IC for incident. | Bryce Harmon (M01) | Alert acknowledged; IC assumed. | N/A — no state change. |
| 2 | Measure queue depth: `bundle exec rake sidekiq:queue_depth`. Result: 48,213 pending jobs; normal < 500. | Farid Osman (M02) | Command output: 48,213. | Re-run after remediation to compare. |
| 3 | Inspect dead set: `<console>` listed 112 jobs, all `Redis::TimeoutError` from ~13:58. | Farid Osman (M03) | Confirmed 112 dead-set jobs with Redis::TimeoutError. | N/A — read-only inspection. |
| 4 | Stop the bleed: pause auto-recognition enqueue. `bin/rails runner 'FeatureFlag.disable(:auto_recognition_enqueue)'`. | Farid Osman (M04) | Enqueue paused; queue depth stops growing. | `bin/rails runner 'FeatureFlag.enable(:auto_recognition_enqueue)'`. |
| 5 | Clear the dead set (removed the 112 stuck jobs) from the console. | Elena Sinclair (M05) | Dead set cleared. | N/A — no state change to recover. |
| 6 | Scale workers up: `kubectl scale deployment/reward-worker --replicas=6` (was 3). | Bryce Harmon (M06) | Workers scaled to 6 replicas. | `kubectl scale deployment/reward-worker --replicas=3` (per M06). |
| 7 | Confirm drain: queue depth down to 9,400 and falling ~1,200/min. | Farid Osman (M07) | Queue depth 9,400 and declining. | N/A — downward-trending metric; monitor. |
| 8 | Confirm resolution: `bundle exec rake sidekiq:queue_depth` returns 0; Datadog error rate back to baseline. | Cole Ingram (M08) | Queue depth 0; error rate at baseline. | N/A — no state change; last verified state was 0. |
| 9 | Re-enable enqueue: `bin/rails runner 'FeatureFlag.enable(:auto_recognition_enqueue)'`. Verified 40 new jobs processed cleanly in the next 3 minutes. | Bryce Harmon (M09) | Enqueue re-enabled; 40 new jobs processed cleanly. | `bin/rails runner 'FeatureFlag.disable(:auto_recognition_enqueue)'` (reverse). |
| 10 | Scale workers back down: `kubectl scale deployment/reward-worker --replicas=3`. Queue stable at 0. Mark incident resolved. | Bryce Harmon (M10) | Workers back at 3 replicas; queue at 0 and stable. | `kubectl scale deployment/reward-worker --replicas=6` (per M06). |

Notes:
- Each step above is traceable to the cited message anchor in parentheses. No steps were added beyond what the thread contains.
- M05 (dead-set clear) is an action with no documented verification output; mark it as needing confirmation in production (re-check dead-set size after clearing).
- M09 verifies enqueue re-enablement via 40 cleanly processed jobs in the next 3 minutes; if a stricter criterion is required, confirm with the team.
- Rollback for M04, M06, and M09 are explicitly given in the thread; the M10 rollback (scale back to 6) is the exact inverse from M06.

datadog-incident-timelinePASS 1.00

Plain-English question: Sequence the failure from the logs — what broke first, and what cascaded after it?

Prompt — what the model saw

From the log slice, sequence the failure: first error with timestamp, the cascade in order, the service and job involved, and the Datadog query that would confirm the first error. State what the logs do not show.

cost $0.0005 · 19s · in 2,720 / out 1,176 tok

✓ first_error_ts✓ service_named✓ cascade_ordered✓ query✓ gaps_stated

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: A reward-service Redis timeout at 14:01:12Z cascades to sidekiq at 14:01:40 and api-gateway at 14:03:05, with the Datadog query that confirms the first error.

The answer in one line: job_class_involved = RewardGiveJob

cascade_orderservice=reward-service; first_error_at=2026-09-03T14:01:12Z | service=sidekiq; first_error_at=2026-09-03T14:01:40Z | service=api-gateway; first_error_at=2026-09-03T14:03:05Z | service=web-app; first_error_at=2026-09-03T14:03:30Z

clean_servicespostgres

confirming_queryservice:reward-service status:error "@message:Redis::TimeoutError"

first_errortimestamp=2026-09-03T14:01:12Z; service=reward-service; message=Redis::TimeoutError: Connection to Redis at redis-primary:6379 timed out after 5s

job_class_involvedRewardGiveJob

logs_do_not_showroot cause of the Redis timeout, redis-server's own logs, infrastructure metrics (CPU/memory/network), any deploy or config change preceding the incident, who applied mitigation or when (no actor fields in logs)

graded checksfirst_error_ts · service_named · cascade_ordered · query · gaps_stated

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

Failure sequence:

1. **2026-09-03T14:01:12Z** — `reward-service` ERROR: `Redis::TimeoutError: Connection to Redis at redis-primary:6379 timed out after 5s` (first error; Redis primary became unreachable).
2. **2026-09-03T14:01:20Z** — `reward-service` ERROR: `Redis::TimeoutError: retry exhausted for RewardGiveJob`
3. **2026-09-03T14:01:30Z** — `reward-service` ERROR: retry exhausted for RewardGiveJob
4. **2026-09-03T14:01:40Z** — `reward-service` ERROR: retry exhausted for RewardGiveJob
5. **2026-09-03T14:01:40Z** — `sidekiq` ERROR: `RewardGiveJob failed: Redis::TimeoutError; retrying in 60s`
6. **2026-09-03T14:02:28Z** — `sidekiq` ERROR: `RewardGiveJob failed: Redis::TimeoutError; retrying`
7. **2026-09-03T14:02:30Z** — `sidekiq` WARN: `Queue reward depth above 10,000`
8. **2026-09-03T14:03:05Z** — `api-gateway` ERROR: `502 upstream timeout calling reward-service /gives`
9. **2026-09-03T14:03:30Z** — `web-app` ERROR: `Give form submission failed: upstream 502 from api-gateway`
10. **2026-09-03T14:03:31Z** — `sidekiq` ERROR: retrying
11. **2026-09-03T14:03:48Z** — `api-gateway` ERROR: 502 upstream timeout calling reward-service
12. **2026-09-03T14:04:13Z** — `api-gateway` ERROR: 502 upstream timeout calling reward-service
13. **2026-09-03T14:04:22Z** — `sidekiq` ERROR: retrying
14. **2026-09-03T14:04:45Z** — `web-app` ERROR: 502
15. **2026-09-03T14:05:16Z** — `api-gateway` ERROR: 502 upstream timeout calling reward-service
16. **2026-09-03T14:05:26Z** — `sidekiq` ERROR: retrying
17. **2026-09-03T14:05:42Z** — `web-app` ERROR: 502
18. **2026-09-03T14:06:47Z** — `sidekiq` ERROR: retrying
19. **2026-09-03T14:06:49Z** — `web-app` ERROR: 502
20. **2026-09-03T14:06:52Z** — `api-gateway` ERROR: 502 upstream timeout calling reward-service
21. **2026-09-03T14:22:10Z** — `reward-service` INFO: `Redis connection restored; resuming job processing` (recovery)
22. **2026-09-03T14:24:45Z** — `sidekiq` INFO: `Queue reward depth below 500` (queue drained)

Service: `reward-service` (Pinpoint: Redis client connection to `redis-primary:6379`, 5s timeout). Job: `RewardGiveJob` (also `RecognitionDigestJob` in the jobs table). Datadog confirmation query:

```
source: reward-service OR service:sidekiq error "Redis::TimeoutError"
| timeseries count()
```

Or, to scope to api-gateway 502s:

```
source: api-gateway status:502
| timeseries count()
```

What the logs do not show: the root cause of the Redis timeout (e.g., Redis crash, connection pool exhaustion, network partition, resource limit); whether the timeout was service-wide or job-specific; any job payload/content for the failed `RewardGiveJob`/`RecognitionDigestJob` runs; the number of in-flight or queued jobs at any instant; retry/backoff settings or whether `reconnecting: true` on the Redis client; any postgres-side observations; which client/application emitted the `sidekiq` logs (no container/runtime context); and the final outcome of the failed jobs (success/failure after retry, or drop).

feature-flag-state-summaryPASS 1.00

Plain-English question: Summarize what each feature flag controls and who has it on.

Prompt — what the model saw

Summarize the state of the listed feature flags: what each controls per the code excerpt, which companies or segments have it on, targeting rules, and any flag with no code reference or no targets. Company counts must match the export. Do not describe a flag that is not in the export.

cost $0.0004 · 23s · in 1,098 / out 1,451 tok

✓ orphans✓ no_targets✓ counts_match✓ no_invented

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: Recognition streaks on for 42 beta companies, redeem-flow redesign off with a 12-company target list, plus any flag with no code reference or no targets.

The answer in one line: rule = company counts must equal the export; do not describe flags absent from the export.

code_referencedrecognition_streaks_v2, points_budget_guardrails, slack_dm_nudges, redeem_flow_redesign, analytics_dashboard_v3, ms_teams_app_v2

flags{"recognition_streaks_v2": {"state": "on", "targeting_rules": "segment:beta_companies", "company_count": 42}, "points_budget_guardrails": {"state": "on", "targeting_rules": "all_companies", "company_c

flags_with_no_targetspaused_offboard_cleanup

orphan_flags_no_code_referencelegacy_give_modal, survey_boosters_q3, paused_offboard_cleanup

rulecompany counts must equal the export; do not describe flags absent from the export.

graded checksorphans · no_targets · counts_match · no_invented

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

The export contains 8 flags. Code references cover 7; `paused_offboard_cleanup` has no code reference and no targeting rules.

Key caveats up front, and I only describe what the export shows — I am not inferring any additional targeting, rollout thresholds, or company lists beyond the fields printed.

Configurability per flag (from flag_code.md + flags_export.csv)
- recognition_streaks_v2, points_budget_guardrails, slack_dm_nudges, redeem_flow_redesign, analytics_dashboard_v3, ms_teams_app_v2, legacy_give_modal, survey_boosters_q3: code references exist in the app/ and lib/ excerpt.
- paused_offboard_cleanup: no code reference in the export; targeting rules and company count are blank.

Per-flag state, controls, and targeting rules

recognition_streaks_v2
- State: on
- Code control: app/models/recognition.rb — enables StreakTracker.record(give).
- Targeting: segment:beta_companies, company_count=42.
- No code-reference or target gaps.

points_budget_guardrails
- State: on
- Code control: app/services/budget_service.rb — BudgetService.new(company).enforce!(giver, points).
- Targeting: all_companies, company_count=220.
- No code-reference or target gaps.

slack_dm_nudges
- State: on
- Code control: app/jobs/nudge_job.rb — returns unless enabled, then SlackDm.send_nudge(user).
- Targeting: segment:region_na, company_count=87.
- No code-reference or target gaps.

redeem_flow_redesign
- State: off
- Code control: app/controllers/redeem_controller.rb — renders RedeemV2Component when enabled, else RedeemV1Component.
- Targeting: targeted_list, company_count=12.
- No code-reference or target gaps; targeting is a targeted_list with 12 companies.

analytics_dashboard_v3
- State: on
- Code control: app/controllers/analytics_controller.rb — sets @dashboard = AnalyticsV3.new(company).
- Targeting: segment:tier_three, company_count=65.
- No code-reference or target gaps.

ms_teams_app_v2
- State: off
- Code control: app/services/teams_installer.rb — enables TeamsAppV2.install(company).
- Targeting: targeted_list, company_count=9.
- No code-reference or target gaps.

legacy_give_modal
- State: off
- Code control: the excerpt does NOT show any usage of legacy_give_modal (no matching if FeatureFlags.enabled? block in flag_code.md).
- Targeting: segment:legacy_plan, company_count=14.
- Flag has no code reference in the export.

survey_boosters_q3
- State: on
- Code control: the excerpt does NOT show any usage of survey_boosters_q3 (no matching if FeatureFlags.enabled? block in flag_code.md).
- Targeting: segment:legacy_plan, company_count=7.
- Flag has no code reference in the export.

paused_offboard_cleanup
- State: off
- Code control: none — no code reference in flag_code.md.
- Targeting: blank in the export; company_count=0.
- Flag has no code reference or targets.

Counts
- Total flags listed: 8.
- Flags with code references: 7 (all except paused_offboard_cleanup).
- Flags with no code reference: 1 (paused_offboard_cleanup).
- Flags with blank targeting rules: 1 (paused_offboard_cleanup).
- Flags with no code reference AND no targets: 1 (paused_offboard_cleanup).

Summary
- 6 flags are on; 2 are off (redeem_flow_redesign, ms_teams_app_v2, legacy_give_modal, paused_offboard_cleanup — that's actually 4 off). Recounting: on = recognition_streaks_v2, points_budget_guardrails, slack_dm_nudges, analytics_dashboard_v3, survey_boosters_q3 (5 flags). off = redeem_flow_redesign, ms_teams_app_v2, legacy_give_modal, paused_offboard_cleanup (4 flags). Total 9? No — the export has 8 rows. Let me re-read: recognition_streaks_v2=on, points_budget_guardrails=on, slack_dm_nudges=on, redeem_flow_redesign=off, analytics_dashboard_v3=on, ms_teams_app_v2=off, legacy_give_modal=off, survey_boosters_q3=on, paused_offboard_cleanup=off. That is 9 rows in the file you pasted, though I described 8. Good catch: there are 9 flag rows. On = 5 (recognition_streaks_v2, points_budget_guardrails, slack_dm_nudges, analytics_dashboard_v3, survey_boosters_q3). Off = 4 (redeem_flow_redesign, ms_teams_app_v2, legacy_give_modal, paused_offboard_cleanup).

- Company counts by state: on = 42 + 220 + 87 + 65 + 7 = 421. off = 12 + 9 + 14 + 0 = 35. Total = 456.

Let me double check the arithmetic:
42 + 220 = 262
262 + 87 = 349
349 + 65 = 414
414 + 7 = 421 ✓
12 + 9 = 21
21 + 14 = 35
35 + 0 = 35 ✓
421 + 35 = 456 ✓

So:
- targetable companies (exclude the 0-count flag): on = 421, off = 35, total = 456.
- 6 flags carry company-count data: 42 + 220 + 87 + 12 + 65 + 9 + 14 + 7 = let me sum all 8 with counts: 42+220+87+12+65+9+14+7 = 456. Yes.

Note: this is a distinct total from the 9-row flag count because paused_offboard_cleanup contributes 0. 8 flags with counts sum to 456; including the 9th row still totals 456.

I did not invent any targets, rollout conditions, or company lists beyond the exported fields, and I did not infer any behavior for legacy_give_modal or survey_boosters_q3 because there is no code excerpt for them. If the export is meant to be the only source of truth, then the two flags with no code reference should be treated as having unknown controls.

nda-triage0.50

Plain-English question: Triage each NDA green, yellow, or red — and quote the clause that decides it.

Prompt — what the model saw

Triage each NDA as GREEN (standard approval), YELLOW (counsel review), or RED (full legal review). Cite the clause that drives each classification by quoting it. Catch embedded non-solicits, non-competes, missing carve-outs, and unusual term or governing law. One line of reasoning per NDA.

cost $0.0002 · 8s · in 1,021 / out 185 tok

✗ green✓ yellow✓ red✗ non_solicit_caught✓ clause_quoted✗ correct_labels

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

Plain-English answer: NDA-1 green (standard mutual terms), NDA-2 yellow for an embedded 18-month non-solicit, with the driving clause quoted for every classification.

The answer in one line: non_solicit_in = NDA-2

checksclassification_per_nda, clause_quotes_exist_in_document, non_solicit_caught, carveouts_checked

classifications{"NDA-1": {"classification": "GREEN", "driving_reason": "standard mutual NDA: 2-year term, standard carve-outs, Delaware law", "driving_clause_quote": "Carve-outs: information that (a) is or becomes p

non_solicit_inNDA-2

graded checksgreen · yellow · red · non_solicit_caught · clause_quoted · correct_labels

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

RED — Non-compete with no carve-outs. Clause 4: "For a period of three (3) years following the Effective Date, Recipient shall not, directly or indirectly, engage in or provide services to any business that competes with Discloser's business." A three-year, all-business non-compete with no carve-outs (no investor/partner/JV, no severance-forbearance, no mandatory garden-leave, no carve-out for the disclosing party's own prior actions) is unusually broad and likely unenforceable — full legal review required.

YELLOW — Missing confidentiality carve-outs. Clause 2 states "No confidentiality carve-outs are stated in this Agreement." Standard carve-outs (publicly available, prior knowledge, third-party receipt, independent development, legally required disclosure) are absent, leaving the receiving party liable for any information it couldn't reasonably be expected to use freely. Recommendation: add standard carve-outs and counsel review.