n_companies: 34
n_contacts: 52
company_missing: industry=0; employee_count=9; hq_country=6
invalid_email_count: 4
invalid_emails: CT-0010, CT-0080, CT-0081, CT-0192
domain_mismatch_count: 1
domain_mismatches: CT-0011
duplicate_clusters: ['C-0A092931', 'C-0A092932'], ['C-0A092933', 'C-0A092934']
n_dup_clusters: 2
enrichment_matches: 25
graded checks: dup_clusters · invalid_emails · survivor_language · completeness_pct · no_invent

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

CRM completeness audit

Scope:
- Companies: 34 records
- Contacts: 50 records
- Deals: No deals file was provided, so deal-field completeness and pipeline exposure cannot be calculated.

Completeness by field

Companies

| Field | Complete | Arithmetic | Completeness |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| industry | 34/34 | 34 ÷ 34 | 100.00% |
| employee_count | 23/34 | 23 ÷ 34 | 67.65% |
| hq_country | 28/34 | 28 ÷ 34 | 82.35% |

Missing company fields:
- employee_count: 11 records
- hq_country: 6 records
- industry: 0 records

Contacts

| Field | Complete | Arithmetic | Completeness |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| email populated | 50/50 | 50 ÷ 50 | 100.00% |
| email valid format | 46/50 | 46 ÷ 50 | 92.00% |
| title | 41/50 | 41 ÷ 50 | 82.00% |
| persona | 36/50 | 36 ÷ 50 | 72.00% |

Deals

No `deals.csv` data was provided. Completeness for owner, stage, amount, close date, and why-buys is therefore not computable.

Duplicate company clusters

1. Shared domain: `acme-corp.com`
   - C-0A092931
   - C-0A092932
   - Recommended survivor: C-0A092931
   - Recommended action: merge C-0A092932 into C-0A092931 after resolving `employee_count` (500 vs 510), `industry` (`Technology` vs `tech`), and `hq_country` (`US` vs `USA`).

2. Shared domain: `globex.io`
   - C-0A092933
   - C-0A092934
   - Recommended survivor: C-0A092933
   - Recommended action: merge C-0A092934 into C-0A092933 after resolving `industry` (`SaaS` vs `Technology`). Employee count and HQ country agree.

Invalid emails

Malformed:
- CT-0010: `user0@`
- CT-0080: `user0@`
- CT-0081: `user1@`
- CT-0192: `user2@`

Domain mismatch:
- CT-0011: `user1@other-domain.com`
  - Contact/company domain field: `66d1fc.com`
  - Email domain: `other-domain.com`

No other email-domain mismatches were identified.

Company enrichment fixes

The enrichment export has matching rows for the following missing CRM `employee_count` values:

| Company alias | CRM value | Enrichment value | Recommendation |
|---|---|---:|---|
| C-EC3025 | missing | 400 | Fill from enrichment |
| C-96039F | missing | 400 | Fill from enrichment |
| C-44EA29 | missing | 400 | Fill from enrichment |
| C-D04904 | missing | 400 | Fill from enrichment |
| C-B23205 | missing | 400 | Fill from enrichment |
| C-60C75F | missing | 400 | Fill from enrichment |
| C-2C60E5 | missing | 340 | Fill from enrichment |
| C-7BBDFA | missing | 400 | Fill from enrichment |
| C-50D386 | missing | 400 | Fill from enrichment |

No missing CRM `hq_country` values can be filled from enrichment because the matching enrichment rows are also blank or unavailable:
- C-2D1F1B: CRM blank; enrichment blank
- C-D73B89: CRM blank; enrichment blank
- C-2C60E5: CRM blank; enrichment blank
- C-EE9FFB: CRM blank; no matching enrichment row

Industry disagreements

| Company alias | CRM value | Enrichment value | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| C-66D1FC | tech | Computer Software | Prefer enrichment as the standardized value |
| C-EC3025 | Technology | Computer Software | Prefer enrichment as the standardized value |
| C-44EA29 | tech | Computer Software | Prefer enrichment as the standardized value |
| C-92D97D | Technology | Computer Software | Prefer enrichment as the standardized value |
| C-D04904 | Technology | Computer Software | Prefer enrichment as the standardized value |
| C-77A95A | Technology | Computer Software | Prefer enrichment as the standardized value |
| C-AA8DDA | Technology | Computer Software | Prefer enrichment as the standardized value |
| C-B25F40 | Technology | Computer Software | Prefer enrichment as the standardized value |
| C-60C75F | tech | Computer Software | Prefer enrichment as the standardized value |
| C-425E2A | Tech  | Computer Software | Prefer enrichment as the standardized value |

The recommendation is to use the enrichment value for normalization, while retaining the CRM value in history or an audit field.

Employee-count disagreements

The matching enrichment rows disagree with CRM because CRM is blank for the nine companies listed in the enrichment-fix table above. No populated CRM employee counts conflict with populated enrichment counts.

HQ-country representation disagreements

These appear to be country-label normalization differences rather than different countries:

| Company alias | CRM value | Enrichment value | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| C-66D1FC | US | United States | Standardize to `United States` |
| C-C6FE92 | United States | United States | No substantive disagreement |
| C-950043 | US | United States | Standardize to `United States` |
| C-EC3025 | USA | United States | Standardize to `United States` |
| C-96039F | USA | United States | Standardize to `United States` |
| C-77A95A | US | United States | Standardize to `United States` |
| C-E51FB7 | USA | United States | Standardize to `United States` |
| C-D0662E | US | United States | Standardize to `United States` |
| C-425E2A | USA | United States | Standardize to `United States` |

Contact fixes

- Correct malformed emails for CT-0010, CT-0080, CT-0081, and CT-0192.
- Resolve the domain mismatch for CT-0011.
- Populate missing titles for 9 contacts.
- Populate missing personas for 14 contacts.
- Validate whether contact `domain` should be derived from the email domain or remain linked to the company domain.

Top 10 fixes by pipeline amount at stake

Cannot be calculated. No deal records, deal amounts, owners, stages, close dates, or why-buys were provided.

Candidate classification

| Deal | Amount | Prospect quote | Classification | Basis |
|---|---:|---|---|---|
| Deal-EC3025 | Not provided | “We need SCIM user provisioning — our security team will not approve any tool that requires manual account management.” | Real gap | Product docs state SCIM user provisioning is not currently listed as supported. |
| Deal-D0D6B5 | Not provided | “Our payroll runs on ADP Workforce Now and I don't see ADP anywhere in your integration list — that's a dealbreaker for us.” | Real gap | Product docs state ADP Workforce Now integration is not currently listed as supported. |
| Deal-CFE7F4 | Not provided | “I tried to build a custom report combining recognition frequency with turnover and couldn't — is that possible on our current plan?” | Plan gate | Product docs place the custom report builder on Enterprise only. |
| Deal-84DBA6 | Not provided | “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.” | Rollout/enablement issue | Slack integration is supported on all plans; the stated issue is lack of manager training. |
| Deal-36C33F | Not provided | “Good to know. The web version should be fine for our office staff for now.” | Not a product gap raised by the prospect | The mobile-app limitation was stated by the rep, not the prospect, and the prospect accepted the web version. |

Summary — real product gaps only

- Deal-EC3025 — Amount: not provided  
  “We need SCIM user provisioning — our security team will not approve any tool that requires manual account management.”  
  Product gap: SCIM user provisioning is not listed as supported.

- Deal-D0D6B5 — Amount: not provided  
  “Our payroll runs on ADP Workforce Now and I don't see ADP anywhere in your integration list — that's a dealbreaker for us.”  
  Product gap: ADP Workforce Now integration is not listed as supported.

Arithmetic: No deal amounts were provided, so no amount calculation is possible.

- First five minutes: They lead with a customer proof point about a 400-person retailer reducing regretted turnover through automated milestone awards in 8 of 10 calls (80%). The other two starts were an agenda/security-and-pricing opener (TT-004) and a pricing-first opener (TT-009). 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.”

- Objection 1 — budget locked: 3 of 10 calls. They reframe the purchase as funded by turnover savings and use avoided-backfill savings as financial proof. Quote: “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.”

- Objection 2 — revisit next quarter/timing: 3 of 10 calls. They propose a limited 90-day, one-department pilot to generate internal data before planning. Quote: “Makes sense. What if we scope a 90-day pilot with one department so you have internal data before next quarter's planning?”

- Objection 3 — current spreadsheet and gift-card process is sufficient: 3 of 10 calls. They position automation and recognition analytics as the reason to change. Quote: “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.”

- Concrete next step agreed: 7 of 10 calls = 70%. Agreements occurred in TT-001, TT-002, TT-003, TT-005, TT-006, TT-008, and TT-009. In each, the prospect agreed to a Thursday 2pm working session and to bring the HRIS manager.

- Competitors raised by prospects: Awardco (TT-003) and Kudos (TT-007). Workhuman was mentioned by Alex Franklin, not raised by a prospect.

show the model's full answer

Redemption section — through 2026-08

Last completed month: 2026-08

- Redemption count: 378
- Spend: $27,846.00
- Unique redeemers: 235
- Redemptions per redeemer: 378 ÷ 235 = 1.6085 ≈ 1.61

Provider mix by spend:

- custom: $10,873.00 ÷ $27,846.00 = 39.05%
- Tremendous: $8,505.00 ÷ $27,846.00 = 30.54%
- Snappy: $5,238.00 ÷ $27,846.00 = 18.81%
- TangoCard: $3,230.00 ÷ $27,846.00 = 11.60%
- Total: 39.05% + 30.54% + 18.81% + 11.60% = 100.00%

Top 5 countries by redemptions:

1. US: 244
2. CA: 24
3. AU: 21
4. GB: 17
5. NL: 17

Quarter total: 80 tickets.

Ranked by ARR exposure. Theme classification is based on ticket text, not existing tags.

1. HRIS provisioning failures — broad pattern
- Count: 12
- Share: 12 / 80 = 15.0%
- Distinct accounts: 3
- ARR affected: $36,000 + $30,000 + $48,000 = $114,000
- Ticket IDs: IC-460059, IC-460062
- Recommendation: Prioritize investigation of HRIS sync and provisioning failures, including skipped hires and missing provisioning errors.

2. Redemption and gift-card failures — broad pattern
- Count: 18
- Share: 18 / 80 = 22.5%
- Distinct accounts: 7
- ARR affected: $8,900 + $10,700 + $9,600 + $8,700 + $11,000 + $9,600 + $10,300 = $68,800
- Ticket IDs: IC-460025, IC-460024
- Recommendation: Stabilize checkout and gift-card fulfillment, including cases where points are deducted but the order or delivery fails.

3. Billing and invoice discrepancies — single-account noise
- Count: 16
- Share: 16 / 80 = 20.0%
- Distinct accounts: 1
- ARR affected: $52,000 = $52,000
- Ticket IDs: IC-460071, IC-460078
- Recommendation: Treat this as a concentrated account issue for C-0E9C27D1 and resolve the recurring seat-count and renewal-tier discrepancies directly.

4. Recognition points not posting — broad pattern
- Count: 20
- Share: 20 / 80 = 25.0%
- Distinct accounts: 9
- ARR affected: $3,500 + $4,500 + $4,500 + $2,700 + $3,400 + $4,200 + $2,900 + $2,500 + $2,900 = $31,100
- Ticket IDs: IC-460004, IC-460016
- Recommendation: Investigate the points-posting pipeline for both individual recognitions and team-wide posting delays.

5. Slack integration and command failures — broad pattern
- Count: 14
- Share: 14 / 80 = 17.5%
- Distinct accounts: 4
- ARR affected: $4,400 + $5,400 + $3,900 + $5,200 = $18,900
- Ticket IDs: IC-460041, IC-460047
- Recommendation: Fix Slack authentication persistence, recognition syncing, and slash-command errors across affected accounts.

Total ARR exposure calculated from distinct accounts within each theme: $114,000 + $68,800 + $52,000 + $31,100 + $18,900 = $284,800.

Weekly marketing goals update — Q3-2026

Pace calculation: 66 days elapsed ÷ 92 days = 71.7% of the quarter. Pace-to-date targets are calculated as full-quarter target × 71.7%.

- SQMs: QTD actual 230; target 300; delta = 230 − 300 = −70; pace-to-date target = 300 × 66 ÷ 92 = 215.2; pace: ahead.
- SQOs: QTD actual 84; target 120; delta = 84 − 120 = −36; pace-to-date target = 120 × 66 ÷ 92 = 86.1; pace: behind.
- DS2s: QTD actual 40; target 75; delta = 40 − 75 = −35; pace-to-date target = 75 × 66 ÷ 92 = 53.8; pace: behind.
- Closed-lost MIA rate: QTD actual = 5 ÷ 25 = 20.0%; target 10.0%; delta = 20.0% − 10.0% = +10.0 percentage points; pace: behind because lower is better.
- Same-quarter closes: QTD actual 10; target 20; delta = 10 − 20 = −10; pace-to-date target = 20 × 66 ÷ 92 = 14.3; pace: behind.
- Active pipeline coverage against target: QTD actual = $3,000,000; target = $4,000,000; delta = $3,000,000 − $4,000,000 = −$1,000,000; pace-to-date target = $4,000,000 × 66 ÷ 92 = $2,869,565; pace: ahead.

What moved this week: The provided data contains only QTD totals and no prior-week totals, so week-over-week movement cannot be determined. Based on QTD pacing, SQMs and active pipeline are ahead, while SQOs, DS2s, closed-lost MIA rate, and same-quarter closes are behind.

Q1: Yes. Customer data is encrypted at rest using AES-256. [P1]

Q2: Yes. Data in transit is encrypted using TLS 1.2 or higher. [P1]

Q3: Yes. We maintain a SOC 2 Type II report, renewed annually. The report is available to prospects under NDA. [P2]

Q4: Customer data is retained for the duration of the contract plus 90 days. After that, it is deleted from production systems. [P3]

Q5: The current subprocessor list is published at trust.bonusly.com. Customers receive 30 days’ notice before a new subprocessor is added. [P4]

Q6: Yes. SAML 2.0 single sign-on is available on the Enterprise plan. [P5]

Q7: Production databases are backed up daily. Backups are encrypted and retained for 35 days. [P6]

Q8: Unanswerable from the provided excerpts. An ISO 27001 certification document or certification statement would be required. [P1–P8]

Q9: Unanswerable from the provided excerpts. The contractual uptime SLA or service-level agreement would be required. [P1–P8]

Q10: Unanswerable from the provided excerpts. A HIPAA compliance document or Business Associate Agreement policy would be required. [P1–P8]

NDA-1 — GREEN: Standard mutual confidentiality with stated carve-outs, a two-year term, Delaware governing law, and no license, exclusivity, or obligation to proceed. Driving clauses: “Mutual confidentiality”; “Carve-outs: information that (a) is or becomes publicly available through no breach, (b) was known prior to disclosure, (c) is received from a third party without duty of confidence, (d) is independently developed, or (e) must be disclosed by law or court order”; “Governing law: the laws of the State of Delaware, USA.”

NDA-2 — YELLOW: Counsel review is required because it contains an embedded 18-month employee non-solicitation and hiring restriction. Driving clause: “During the term of this Agreement and for eighteen (18) months thereafter, neither party shall solicit for employment or hire any employee of the other party with whom it came into contact under this Agreement.”

NDA-3 — RED: Full legal review is required because it contains a broad three-year non-compete, one-way confidentiality favoring [PARTY C], no stated confidentiality carve-outs, and unusual Ireland governing law with exclusive court jurisdiction. Driving clauses: “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”; “One-way confidentiality in favor of [PARTY C]”; “No confidentiality carve-outs are stated in this Agreement”; “This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Ireland, and the parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of its courts.”