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

Completeness

Calculated on the original extract, before enrichment or deduplication. Complete means nonblank after trimming whitespace; validity is assessed separately.

Field Arithmetic Completeness
Deals: owner No deals extract Not calculable
Deals: stage No deals extract Not calculable
Deals: amount No deals extract Not calculable
Deals: close date No deals extract Not calculable
Deals: why-buys No deals extract Not calculable
Companies: industry 34 ÷ 34 × 100 100.00%
Companies: employee count 25 ÷ 34 × 100 73.53%
Companies: HQ country 28 ÷ 34 × 100 82.35%
Contacts: email 52 ÷ 52 × 100 100.00%
Contacts: title 39 ÷ 52 × 100 75.00%
Contacts: persona 37 ÷ 52 × 100 71.15%

Email syntax validity: (52 − 4) ÷ 52 × 100 = 92.31%. This does not establish deliverability.

Duplicate company clusters

Company names are not provided, so name-variant detection is unavailable. Shared domains identify these candidate duplicate clusters:

Domain Members Proposed survivor
acme-corp.com C-0A092931, C-0A092932 C-0A092931
globex.io C-0A092933, C-0A092934 C-0A092933

Survivors use the lowest alias as a deterministic tie-breaker, not evidence of better data. Confirm they represent the same entity before merging; preserve associations and conflicting values.

• C-0A092931 versus C-0A092932: industry “Technology” versus “tech”; employee count 500 versus 510; HQ country “US” versus “USA”. Industry/country differences can be normalized; employee count requires verification.
• C-0A092933 versus C-0A092934: industry “SaaS” versus “Technology”; employee count 200 and HQ country “US” agree. Preserve the industry conflict pending taxonomy review.

Neither domain has an enrichment row. No supplied source resolves their substantive conflicts.

Invalid emails and domain mismatches

Contact Company Invalid email Problem
CT-0010 C-66D1FC user0@ Missing domain
CT-0080 C-92D97D user0@ Missing domain
CT-0081 C-92D97D user1@ Missing domain
CT-0192 C-425E2A user2@ Missing domain

Obtain verified replacements; do not construct addresses by appending company domains.

CT-0011, C-66D1FC: email “user1@other-domain.com” conflicts with both the contact’s domain field and company domain, “66d1fc.com”. Verify the email and company association before changing either.

All supplied contact domain fields match their linked company domains. The four missing email domains are reported as invalid, not additional valid-domain mismatches.

Supported company fills

Using exact domain matches in zoominfo_enrichment.csv, fill employee_count = 400 for:

C-EC3025, C-96039F, C-44EA29, C-D04904, C-B23205, C-60C75F, C-7BBDFA, C-50D386.

These are eight supported fills. Employee-count completeness would become:
(25 + 8) ÷ 34 × 100 = 97.06%, before deduplication.

Leave these fields blank:

• C-93C8BF: employee count; no matching enrichment row.
• C-2D1F1B, C-D73B89, C-44EA29, C-D04904, C-2C60E5: HQ country; matching enrichment rows also have blank country.
• C-EE9FFB: HQ country; no matching enrichment row.

No HQ-country fill is supported; completeness remains 82.35%.

CRM versus enrichment differences

Industry — every listed enrichment value is “Computer Software”:

Companies CRM value
C-66D1FC, C-44EA29, C-60C75F “tech”
C-EC3025, C-92D97D, C-D04904, C-77A95A,
C-AA8DDA, C-B25F40 “Technology”
C-425E2A “Tech ” (trailing space)

Recommendation: use the matching enrichment value for a standardized industry field if its taxonomy is adopted, while retaining the raw CRM value and source. “Computer Software” is more specific than “Technology”; the data does not establish which source is fresher, so do not silently treat them as equivalent.

HQ country — every listed enrichment value is “United States”:

Companies CRM value
C-66D1FC, C-950043, C-77A95A, C-B23205,
C-D0662E “US”
C-EC3025, C-96039F, C-E51FB7, C-425E2A,
C-2D7423 “USA”

Recommendation: use enrichment’s “United States” as the canonical label. These are formatting differences, not geographic disagreements.

There are no conflicting nonblank employee counts between CRM and matching enrichment rows.

Elsewhere, normalize “tech”/“Tech ” to “Technology” and “health care” to “Healthcare” under an explicit CRM taxonomy; do not infer “Computer Software” for companies without supporting enrichment.

Missing contact fields

Titles — obtain verified values for:
CT-0000, CT-0022, CT-0072, CT-0080, CT-0081, CT-0092, CT-0120, CT-0121, CT-0122, CT-0132, CT-0141, CT-0162, CT-0170.

Personas — obtain confirmed roles for:
CT-0000, CT-0022, CT-0041, CT-0060, CT-0070, CT-0081, CT-0082, CT-0092, CT-0110, CT-0132, CT-0162, CT-0171, CT-0172, CT-0180, CT-0181.

No contact enrichment was supplied. Do not infer persona from title.

10 fixes — pipeline ranking unavailable

No deals, amounts, or deal-to-company/contact associations were supplied. Therefore, the ten highest-pipeline fixes cannot be identified or valued. The following are unranked remediation candidates; pipeline amount at stake is unknown for every item, not zero.

show the model's full answer

Deal amounts and active-deal status are not provided. Classifications below use only transcripts_gaps.csv and product_docs.md; active status cannot be verified.

Candidate review

• Deal-EC3025 — Real gap: SCIM user provisioning. Amount: not provided.
Prospect: “We need SCIM user provisioning — our security team will not approve any tool that requires manual account management.”
Basis: Product docs explicitly say SCIM is not currently listed as supported. (TG-001; product_docs.md, Supported integrations)

• Deal-D0D6B5 — Real gap: ADP Workforce Now integration. Amount: not provided.
Prospect: “Our payroll runs on ADP Workforce Now and I don't see ADP anywhere in your integration list — that's a dealbreaker for us.”
Basis: Product docs explicitly say ADP Workforce Now is not currently listed as supported. (TG-002; product_docs.md, Supported integrations)

• Deal-CFE7F4 — Plan gate. Amount: not provided.
Prospect: “I tried to build a custom report combining recognition frequency with turnover and couldn't — is that possible on our current plan?”
Basis: Custom report builder is Enterprise-only. The prospect’s current plan and support for this specific recognition/turnover combination are not documented. The excerpt supports a plan-gate classification for builder access, not a confirmed gap in reporting functionality. (TG-003; product_docs.md, Plans and tiers)

• Deal-84DBA6 — Rollout/enablement issue. Amount: not provided.
Prospect: “We turned on the Slack integration in July, but half our managers still haven't given a single recognition — nobody ever trained them on it.”
Basis: Slack integration is available on all plans; the prospect describes missing training, not missing functionality. (TG-004; product_docs.md, Plans and tiers)

• Deal-36C33F — Excluded: no prospect-raised gap. Amount: not provided.
Prospect: “Good to know. The web version should be fine for our office staff for now.”
Basis: The mobile-app claim comes from Alex Franklin, not the prospect. Product docs do not address native mobile availability, so no gap/plan-gate/enablement classification is supported. (TG-005)

Real-gap summary

• SCIM user provisioning — Deal-EC3025: explicit security-approval blocker. Amount not provided.
• ADP Workforce Now integration — Deal-D0D6B5: explicit dealbreaker. Amount not provided.

show the model's full answer

Based on the 10 supplied call excerpts:

First five minutes
- Alex Franklin leads with the same customer-outcome story in 8 ÷ 10 × 100 = 80% of calls: a retailer’s claimed turnover reduction through automated milestone awards. These are the rep’s claims, not independently verified results. Calls: Deal-D348E1, Deal-5408B0, Deal-547B2B, Deal-C61CF7, Deal-60C2C2, Deal-EDC141, Deal-D9A12F, Deal-84DBA6.
- Exceptions: Deal-403845 opens with a security-review/pricing agenda; Deal-1E2498 starts with pricing at the prospect’s prior request.
- Early competitive positioning also appears: Alex introduces Workhuman in Deal-C61CF7 at minute 2 and responds to prospect-raised Awardco and Kudos at minute 5 in Deal-547B2B and Deal-EDC141, respectively.

Three most common objections
1. Budget/approval: 5 distinct calls—4 locked-budget objections plus Deal-403845’s budget-committee dependency. The locked-budget calls are Deal-D348E1, Deal-547B2B, Deal-60C2C2, and Deal-84DBA6. Alex reframes cost around avoided turnover/backfills:
“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.” — Deal-D348E1, minute 8.
When committee approval blocks Deal-403845 and Deal-84DBA6, he accepts the delay without securing a concrete follow-up.

2. Timing/workload: 3 calls—Deal-5408B0, Deal-C61CF7, Deal-D9A12F. He proposes a smaller pilot to generate evidence before planning:
“Makes sense. What if we scope a 90-day pilot with one department so you have internal data before next quarter's planning?” — Deal-5408B0, minute 8.
All three agree to a working session; the excerpts do not establish agreement to the pilot itself.

3. Status quo/manual recognition: 3 calls—Deal-403845, Deal-EDC141, Deal-1E2498. He emphasizes automation and visibility:
“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.” — Deal-403845, minute 8.
Only Deal-1E2498 agrees to a concrete next step; Deal-403845 stalls on approval and Deal-EDC141 on lack of urgency.

Counts above are distinct calls per objection category; categories can overlap.

Concrete next-step agreement rate
A concrete agreement requires prospect acceptance of a specific action and time—not just the rep proposing one.

7 ÷ 10 × 100 = 70%.

- Agreed: Deal-D348E1, Deal-5408B0, Deal-547B2B, Deal-C61CF7, Deal-60C2C2, Deal-D9A12F, Deal-1E2498.
- Each accepts a Thursday, 2pm working session and commits to bringing the HRIS manager:
“Yes, Thursday at 2pm works — send the invite and I'll bring our HRIS manager.” — Deal-D348E1, minute 15.
- No concrete agreement recorded: Deal-403845, Deal-EDC141, Deal-84DBA6. Invite delivery and meeting attendance are not provided.

Every prospect-raised competitor
- Awardco — Deal-547B2B, minute 4: “We're also in late talks with Awardco — their rewards catalog looks bigger than yours.”
- Kudos — Deal-EDC141, minute 4: “How are you different from Kudos? Our CEO used them at her last company.”

Workhuman is excluded: Alex, not the prospect, raises it in Deal-C61CF7.

show the model's full answer

Redemptions — YTD through August 2026

Last completed month: 2026-08 (August). Reporting period: January 1–August 31, 2026, using only the supplied redemptions_ytd.csv rows.

- Redemption count: 90 + 192 + 37 + 59 = 378
- Spend: $3,230 + $8,505 + $10,873 + $5,238 = $27,846 USD
- Unique redeemers: 235 distinct user_key values across all providers
- Redemptions per redeemer: 378 ÷ 235 = 1.61

Provider mix (% of spend):
- TangoCard: $3,230 ÷ $27,846 × 100 = 11.60%
- Tremendous: $8,505 ÷ $27,846 × 100 = 30.54%
- custom: $10,873 ÷ $27,846 × 100 = 39.05%
- Snappy: $5,238 ÷ $27,846 × 100 = 18.81%
- Total: 11.60% + 30.54% + 39.05% + 18.81% = 100.00%

Top 5 countries by redemption count:
1. US — 244
2. CA — 24
3. AU — 21
4. GB — 17 (tied)
4. NL — 17 (tied)

Scope: all 80 supplied tickets, June–August 2026. Themes come from body_text, not tags. Ranked by affected ARR, counting each account’s ARR once per theme—not once per ticket. ARR exposure is not confirmed revenue loss; resolution and churn outcomes are missing.

1. HRIS provisioning failures — broad pattern
   Count/share: 12 tickets; 12 ÷ 80 × 100 = 15.0%.
   Distinct accounts: 3.
   ARR affected: C-0B2213A9 ($36,000) + C-0F6C0F34 ($30,000) + C-0DDFC9A7 ($48,000) = $114,000.
   Evidence: IC-460059 reports new-hire accounts not being created; IC-460062 reports skipped hires without logged errors.
   Recommendation: Reconcile HRIS rosters against provisioned accounts, recover missing hires, and alert on silent sync failures.

2. Redemption and gift-card failures — broad pattern
   Count/share: 18 tickets; 18 ÷ 80 × 100 = 22.5%.
   Distinct accounts: 7.
   ARR affected: C-0CEF69FD ($8,900) + C-0B827671 ($10,700) + C-0FCCD2DF ($9,600) + C-0F876796 ($8,700) + C-14264ABD ($11,000) + C-0D9CA315 ($9,600) + C-0B0F1BAB ($10,300) = $68,800.
   Evidence: IC-460025 reports checkout hanging and failing; IC-460024 reports points deducted despite a gift-card order error.
   Recommendation: Trace checkout through fulfillment and reconcile failed orders with deducted points or missing gift cards.

3. Invoice seat-count and renewal-pricing errors — single-account concentration
   Count/share: 16 tickets; 16 ÷ 80 × 100 = 20.0%.
   Distinct accounts: 1.
   ARR affected: C-0E9C27D1 ($52,000) counted once = $52,000.
   Evidence: IC-460069 reports billing for 200 seats versus 150 licensed; IC-460078 reports the wrong annual-renewal tier price.
   Recommendation: Assign one billing owner to reconcile licensed seats and tier pricing, correct discrepancies, and validate the next invoice.
   Interpretation: Material account-specific escalation, not evidence of a broad billing problem; repeated tickets must not inflate ARR exposure.

4. Recognition points not posting — broad pattern
   Count/share: 20 tickets; 20 ÷ 80 × 100 = 25.0%.
   Distinct accounts: 9.
   ARR affected: C-0D3278C7 ($3,500) + C-0BF20542 ($4,500) + C-0D0B047C ($4,500) + C-0BE96399 ($2,700) + C-0D284E42 ($3,400) + C-0D6CC8E3 ($4,200) + C-21FEBCBB ($2,900) + C-0DD0626C ($2,500) + C-0B2895EF ($2,900) = $31,100.
   Evidence: IC-460004 reports delivered recognitions without points; IC-460016 reports team-wide points not posting.
   Recommendation: Reconcile delivered recognitions against point balances, repair missing credits, and monitor posting delays.

5. Slack integration failures — broad pattern
   Count/share: 14 tickets; 14 ÷ 80 × 100 = 17.5%.
   Distinct accounts: 4.
   ARR affected: C-0B843542 ($4,400) + C-10A56B0F ($5,400) + C-0BA71F12 ($3,900) + C-8C2E8F00 ($5,200) = $18,900.
   Evidence: IC-460047 reports recognition sync stopping and its toggle resetting; IC-460051 reports team-wide slash-command errors.
   Recommendation: Test sync-setting persistence, reauthorization, and slash commands end to end, then add integration-health alerts.

Check: 12 + 18 + 16 + 20 + 14 = 80 tickets; shares total 100%. The themes cover 24 distinct accounts with no cross-theme account overlap: $114,000 + $68,800 + $52,000 + $31,100 + $18,900 = $284,800 affected ARR.

Q3-2026 weekly marketing goals update
July 1–September 30; day 66 of 92 = 71.74% elapsed.

Pace assumes linear progress: expected QTD = target × 66/92. Delta = actual − full-quarter target. MIA rate is compared directly with its ceiling, not prorated.

| Metric | QTD actual | Target | Delta | Pace |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---|
| SQMs | 230 | 300 | −70 | Ahead: 230 vs. 300 × 66/92 = 215.22 |
| SQOs | 84 | 120 | −36 | Behind: 84 vs. 120 × 66/92 = 86.09 |
| DS2s | 40 | 75 | −35 | Behind: 40 vs. 75 × 66/92 = 53.80 |
| Closed-lost MIA rate | 5/25 = 20% | ≤10% | +10 percentage points | Behind: 20% exceeds 10% ceiling |
| Same-quarter close count | 10 | 20 | −10 | Behind: 10 vs. 20 × 66/92 = 14.35 |
| Active pipeline coverage against target | 3,000,000 / 4,000,000 = 75% | 4,000,000 (100%) | −1,000,000; −25 percentage points | Ahead on linear proxy: 3,000,000 vs. 4,000,000 × 66/92 = 2,869,565.22 |

Active pipeline is a point-in-time balance; its pace above is a linear proxy, not evidence of pipeline growth. Currency is not specified.

What moved this week: Weekly movement cannot be determined because no prior-week snapshot or weekly activity data was provided. The supplied QTD snapshot shows SQMs ahead of linear pace, SQOs, DS2s and same-quarter closes behind, and the closed-lost MIA rate above its ceiling. Active pipeline covers 75% of target, ahead of the 71.74% elapsed-time proxy but still 1,000,000 below the full target.

Q1. Yes. All customer data is encrypted at rest using AES-256. [P1]

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

Q3. Yes. Bonusly maintains an annually renewed SOC 2 Type II report, available to prospects under NDA. [P2]

Q4. Customer data is retained for 90 days after the contract ends, then deleted from production systems. [P3]

Q5. Our subprocessor list is published at trust.bonusly.com. Customers receive 30 days’ notice before a new subprocessor is added. The notification method and notice for other types of changes are unanswerable from the excerpt; our subprocessor notification policy would be needed. [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. The excerpts do not state whether Bonusly holds ISO 27001 certification. An ISO 27001 certificate or formal certification-status statement would be needed. [P1–P8 reviewed; no supporting excerpt]

Q9. Unanswerable. The excerpts do not specify a contractual uptime SLA percentage. The applicable contractual Service Level Agreement would be needed. [P1–P8 reviewed; no supporting excerpt]

Q10. Unanswerable. The excerpts do not state whether Bonusly will sign a HIPAA Business Associate Agreement. A formal BAA eligibility and execution policy would be needed. [P1–P8 reviewed; no supporting excerpt]

- NDA-1 — [PARTY A] and Bonusly: GREEN (standard approval) — Mutual confidentiality with all five carve-outs, Delaware law, and bounded duration: clause 2 states “Term: two (2) years from the Effective Date; obligations survive for three (3) years after termination.”
- NDA-2 — [PARTY B] and Bonusly: YELLOW (counsel review) — Clause 4 embeds a non-solicit and no-hire restriction: “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 — [PARTY C] and Bonusly: RED (full legal review) — Clause 2 imposes a broad non-compete: “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”; compounded by clause 4, “No confidentiality carve-outs are stated in this Agreement,” the unusually long clause 1 “Term: five (5) years,” and clause 3’s non-Delaware forum: “the laws of the Republic of Ireland, and the parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of its courts.”