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

AUDIT RESULT — note upfront: no deals file was provided. Only companies.csv (34 rows), contacts.csv (52 rows), and zoominfo_enrichment.csv (25 rows) are in this extract, so deal-level completeness (owner, stage, amount, close date, why-buys) cannot be measured, and no dollar amounts exist anywhere in the supplied data.

DEALS (owner, stage, amount, close date, why-buys)
- Not auditable: 0% complete by inspection — no deals.csv present. Every check below is company/contact-level.

FIELD COMPLETENESS (arithmetic shown)

companies.csv (n = 34):
- industry: 34/34 = 100.0% present — but values are non-canonical: {Technology 9, Retail 5, tech 4, "Tech " 4, Healthcare 4, Manufacturing 3, Finance 2, "health care" 2, SaaS 1}. 16 of 34 use a variant spelling of tech/healthcare.
- employee_count: 25/34 = 73.5% present; missing 9 (34 − 25 = 9)
- hq_country: 28/34 = 82.4% present; missing 6 (34 − 28 = 6). Variants: US 9, USA 6, "United States" 2, Canada 8, UK 3 — three spellings for the US.

contacts.csv (n = 52):
- email: 52/52 = 100.0% non-empty, but 4 are syntactically invalid (below), so valid-email = 48/52 = 92.3%
- title: 39/52 = 75.0%; missing 13
- persona: 37/52 = 71.2%; missing 15

Coverage: 20/34 companies (58.8%) have at least one contact; 14 companies (C-2C60E5, C-2D7423, C-332637, C-50D386, C-7BBDFA, C-93C8BF, C-B97B4E, C-BA969B, C-C9BB20, C-EE9FFB, C-0A092931, C-0A092932, C-0A092933, C-0A092934) have zero contacts.

INVALID EMAILS (4)
- CT-0010 (C-66D1FC): user0@ — no domain
- CT-0080 (C-92D97D): user0@ — no domain
- CT-0081 (C-92D97D): user1@ — no domain
- CT-0192 (C-425E2A): user2@ — no domain

DOMAIN MISMATCH (1)
- CT-0011 (C-66D1FC): user1@other-domain.com vs company domain 66d1fc.com. Likely a free/personal address — verify or replace.

DUPLICATE COMPANY CLUSTERS (2)
1. acme-corp.com: C-0A092931 (Technology, 500, US) + C-0A092932 (tech, 510, USA). Survivor: C-0A092931 (lower alias sorts first and 500 is the rounder, more likely-reviewed figure; both defensible). Merge C-0A092932 into it. Note 500 vs 510 is a real value conflict inside the merge.
2. globex.io: C-0A092933 (SaaS, 200, US) + C-0A092934 (Technology, 200, US). Survivor: C-0A092933 (first alias; "SaaS" is the more specific industry). Merge C-0A092934 in.
No name-variant clusters detectable — aliases are hashes, so only shared-domain detection works here.

ENRICHMENT APPLIED (matching row in zoominfo_enrichment.csv only)
Fillable employee_count (7 of the 9 missing — never invented):
- C-EC3025 → 400; C-96039F → 400; C-44EA29 → 400; C-D04904 → 400; C-B23205 → 400; C-60C75F → 400; C-7BBDFA → 400; C-50D386 → 400 (that is 8; recount: C-EC3025, C-96039F, C-44EA29, C-D04904, C-B23205, C-60C75F, C-7BBDFA, C-50D386 = 8 rows).
- NOT fillable: C-93C8BF (no enrichment row for 93c8bf.com).
- Post-fill employee_count: 33/34 = 97.1%.
Fillable hq_country: 0 — every missing-country company either has a blank zi_hq_country (C-2D1F1B, C-D73B89, C-44EA29, C-D04904, C-2C60E5) or no row (C-EE9FFB). hq_country stays 28/34 = 82.4%.

CRM vs enrichment disagreements
- No hard value conflicts: on all 25 matched domains, employee_count and country agree wherever both are populated (e.g., C-66D1FC 900/US vs 900/United States; C-E51FB7 1500/USA vs 1500/United States).
- Taxonomy disagreement only: CRM industry "tech"/"Technology"/"Tech " (17 rows) vs zi "Computer Software"; CRM "health care" (C-7BBDFA, C-50D386) vs zi "health care" (agrees) but other CRM rows say "Healthcare". Recommendation: adopt CRM canonical set {Technology→Computer Software mapping} or standardize on one taxonomy; for the acme-corp merge the real conflict is CRM-internal (500 vs 510) — recommend the survivor row C-0A092931's 500 pending source check.

10 FIXES MOST VALUABLE TO PIPELINE
(No dollar amounts exist in this extract, so "amount at stake" cannot be quantified — I will not invent it. Ranked instead by deals exposed: every deal on a duplicate or contactless company is at risk, and deal volume per company is unknown.)
1. Obtain/receive a deals.csv — owner, stage, amount, close date, why-buys are 0% auditable today; this blocks the money-weighted half of the audit.
2. Merge C-0A092932 → C-0A092931 (acme-corp.com) and C-0A092934 → C-0A092933 (globex.io); split deals/contacts across duplicates silently under-report pipeline per company.
3. Reconcile acme-corp employee_count 500 vs 510 during the merge with the data owner.
4. Fix 4 invalid emails (CT-0010, CT-0080, CT-0081, CT-0192) — unreachable champions/economic buyers on C-66D1FC, C-92D97D, C-425E2A.
5. Investigate CT-0011 (user1@other-domain.com) — contact hygiene risk on C-66D1FC, which otherwise has 3 duplicate "VP People/champion" contacts suggesting messy import.
6. Backfill 8 missing employee_counts from ZoomInfo (C-EC3025, C-96039F, C-44EA29, C-D04904, C-B23205, C-60C75F, C-7BBDFA, C-50D386) — segmentation/ICP sizing feeds deal scoring.
7. Source hq_country for the 6 unknowns (C-2D1F1B, C-D73B89, C-44EA29, C-D04904, C-2C60E5, C-EE9FFB) — enrichment is blank too; territory/quote compliance depends on it.
8. Normalize industry and country to one controlled vocabulary (tech/Tech /Technology → Computer Software; USA/United States → US; "health care" → Healthcare).
9. Add contacts to the 14 contactless companies — any open deal there has no champion, no economic buyer, no why-buys capture path.
10. Close the 13 missing titles and 15 missing personas (priority: C-92D97D, C-AA8DDA, C-D04904, C-B25F40, which each lack a reachable persona-tagged contact).

CANDIDATE-BY-CANDIDATE REVIEW (5 candidates: TG-001 to TG-005)

TG-001 — Deal-EC3025 (amount: NOT PROVIDED in data)
Prospect quote: "We need SCIM user provisioning — our security team will not approve any tool that requires manual account management."
Classification: REAL GAP. The docs state "SCIM user provisioning and ADP Workforce Now integrations are NOT currently listed as supported capabilities." The capability does not exist at any tier, so this is not a plan gate.

TG-002 — Deal-D0D6B5 (amount: NOT PROVIDED in data)
Prospect 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."
Classification: REAL GAP. Docs list HRIS support as Workday, BambooHR, Gusto, Rippling only, and explicitly note ADP Workforce Now is not a supported capability. Prospect, not the rep, raised it.

TG-003 — Deal-CFE7F4 (amount: NOT PROVIDED in data)
Prospect quote: "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. The custom report builder exists but is Enterprise-only per the tier table. The missing capability is packaging/access, not product. Not a product gap.

TG-004 — Deal-84DBA6 (amount: NOT PROVIDED in data)
Prospect 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."
Classification: ROLLOUT/ENABLEMENT ISSUE. Slack integration is supported on all plans per the docs; the failure is manager training, not product. Not a product gap.

TG-005 — Deal-36C33F (amount: NOT PROVIDED in data)
Prospect line: "Good to know. The web version should be fine for our office staff for now."
Classification: EXCLUDED — no gap raised by the prospect. The mobile-app limitation was introduced by the rep (Alex Franklin: "we don't have a native mobile app for hourly workers yet"), and rep language does not count as prospect voice. The prospect explicitly accepted the web version.

DATA MISSING: Deal amounts are not present anywhere in transcripts_gaps.csv or product_docs.md. Deals are identified by alias only; I am not inventing amounts.

SUMMARY — TRUE PRODUCT GAPS RAISED BY PROSPECTS IN ACTIVE DEALS

1. Deal-EC3025 — SCIM user provisioning. Prospect security team will block approval without it. Confirmed unsupported at every tier per docs.
2. Deal-D0D6B5 — ADP Workforce Now integration. Prospect calls it a dealbreaker; docs confirm ADP is not among supported HRIS integrations.

show the model's full answer

OPENING (FIRST 5 MINUTES)
- 8 of 10 calls (TT-001, TT-002, TT-003, TT-005, TT-006, TT-007, TT-008, TT-010) lead with the same customer-proof stat at minute 0:
  "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."
- TT-004 (Deal-403845) leads with an agenda frame:
  "I put together a short agenda — security review first, then pricing."
- TT-009 (Deal-1E2498) leads with a pricing callback:
  "You asked for straight pricing last time, so let's start there."
- Additional first-5-minute content: TT-005 includes a rep-introduced Workhuman comparison at minute 2.

TOP THREE OBJECTIONS AND HOW HE HANDLES THEM
Counts: budget lock 4 (TT-001, TT-003, TT-006, TT-010); revisit next quarter/open enrollment 3 (TT-002, TT-005, TT-008); spreadsheet status quo 3 (TT-004, TT-007, TT-009).

1. Budget locked until next fiscal year — reframes funding source to turnover savings, same line all 4 times:
   "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."
2. Revisit next quarter (open enrollment) — counters with a scoped 90-day pilot, identical all 3 times:
   "Makes sense. What if we scope a 90-day pilot with one department so you have internal data before next quarter's planning?"
3. Already doing recognition with spreadsheets/gift cards — answers automation + analytics, identical all 3 times:
   "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."

NEXT-STEP AGREEMENT RATE
- Concrete next step agreed (working session confirmed with a date/time) in 7 of 10 calls: TT-001, TT-002, TT-003, TT-005, TT-006, TT-008, TT-009. Example (TT-001, Prospect, min 15):
  "Yes, Thursday at 2pm works — send the invite and I'll bring our HRIS manager."
- No next step in 3 of 10: TT-004 ("Understood — I'll leave it with you."), TT-007 ("Fair enough."), TT-010 ("Understood, thanks for the candor.").
- Rate: 7 ÷ 10 = 70%.

COMPETITORS RAISED BY PROSPECTS
- Awardco (TT-003, Deal-547B2B, Prospect, min 4):
  "We're also in late talks with Awardco — their rewards catalog looks bigger than yours."
- Kudos (TT-007, Deal-EDC141, Prospect, min 4):
  "How are you different from Kudos? Our CEO used them at her last company."
- Workhuman was raised only by the rep (TT-005, min 2), not by a prospect, so it is excluded from this list.

COACHING NOTES
1. The three no-close calls (TT-004, TT-007, TT-010) all died at committee/urgency objections, where his response was pure concession ("I'll leave it with you", "Fair enough"). On calls where budget-locked was followed by a committee or no-urgency push (TT-010, TT-007), he has a proven pattern elsewhere — the 90-day pilot or any calendar-dated micro-step — and should always land one before ending; note his next-step ask ("Should we lock the next step — a working session with your team this week?") never even appears in those three calls.
2: The minute-0 proof story is verbatim identical across 8 calls, and so is every rebuttal line. It's consistent, but it reads as scripted — vary the stat to the account's context (e.g., he reused the retailer/backfill-savings framing even where the objection was timing, not budget) and stop opening TT-004-style security/pricing-agenda calls with a generic agenda that never gets followed on.

REDEMPTION SECTION — Weekly Rewards Report (YTD through last completed month)

Last completed month: **August 2026 (2026-08)** — the latest month in the data is 2026-08, with the final redemption dated 2026-08-31T11:53:00. All figures below cover redeemed_at from 2026-01-01 through 2026-08-31 (every row in the file falls in this window).

Headline metrics
- Redemption count: 378
- Total spend: $27,846.00
- Unique redeemers: 235 distinct user_key values
- Redemptions per redeemer: 378 ÷ 235 = 1.61

Provider mix (% of spend) — shares sum to 100.00%
| Provider   | Count | Spend       | % of spend |
|------------|-------|-------------|------------|
| custom     | 37    | $10,873.00  | 39.05%     |
| Tremendous | 192   | $8,505.00   | 30.54%     |
| Snappy     | 59    | $5,238.00   | 18.81%     |
| TangoCard  | 90    | $3,230.00   | 11.60%     |
| Total      | 378   | $27,846.00  | 100.00%    |

Arithmetic check: 10,873 + 8,505 + 5,238 + 3,230 = 27,846 ✓
Share check: 10,873/27,846 = 39.05%; 8,505/27,846 = 30.54%; 5,238/27,846 = 18.81%; 3,230/27,846 = 11.60%; sum = 100.00% ✓

Top 5 countries by redemptions
| Rank | Country | Redemptions | Spend (context) |
|------|---------|-------------|-----------------|
| 1    | US      | 244         | $18,547.00      |
| 2    | CA      | 24          | $2,286.00       |
| 3    | AU      | 21          | $1,606.00       |
| 4    | GB      | 17          | $944.00         |
| 4    | NL      | 17          | $1,122.00       |

Note: GB and NL are tied at 17 redemptions each, sharing 4th place (next: SG with 12). US accounts for 244/378 = 64.6% of redemptions.

August-only context: 48 redemptions, $3,536.00 spend.

**Q3 SUPPORT TICKET SYNTHESIS — 80 tickets (IC-460001–IC-460080), classified by body text; tags ignored and found unreliable (e.g., IC-460059 "HRIS provisioning" tagged `how-to`; IC-460016 points bug tagged `feedback`)**

RANKED BY ARR EXPOSURE (ARR = sum of distinct accounts' ARR, counted once per account; no account appears in two themes):

---

**1. HRIS provisioning failures — new hires not created**
- Count: 12/80 = 15.0% | Distinct accounts: 3 | ARR: 36,000 + 30,000 + 48,000 = **$114,000**
- Sample tickets: IC-460059 (C-0B2213A9), IC-460060 (C-0DDFC9A7)
- Recommendation: Sev-1 engineering fix on the HRIS sync (silent skip — "provisioning log shows no errors") plus a backfill/reconciliation, before these three enterprise accounts hit renewal.

**2. Redemption / gift-card fulfillment failures**
- Count: 18/80 = 22.5% | Distinct accounts: 7 | ARR: 8,900 + 10,700 + 9,600 + 8,700 + 11,000 + 9,600 + 10,300 = **$68,800**
- Sample tickets: IC-460025 (C-0CEF69FD), IC-460024 (C-0FCCD2DF)
- Recommendation: Fix checkout hang + gift-card email delivery, and auto-refund points when an order errors after deduction (IC-460024 pattern).

**3. Invoice/billing errors — seat counts and renewal tier pricing** ⚠ single-account
- Count: 16/80 = 20.0% | Distinct accounts: 1 (C-0E9C27D1, all 16) | ARR: **$52,000**
- Sample tickets: IC-460069, IC-460078 (both C-0E9C27D1)
- Recommendation: Assign a finance/CS owner to reissue the erroneous invoices and correct the renewal tier price — "third invoice in a row" (IC-460071) means the standard support loop has failed this account.

**4. Recognition points not posting / balance missing**
- Count: 20/80 = 25.0% (highest volume) | Distinct accounts: 9 | ARR: 3,500 + 4,500 + 4,500 + 2,700 + 3,400 + 4,200 + 2,900 + 2,500 + 2,900 = **$31,100**
- Sample tickets: IC-460004 (C-0D3278C7), IC-460016 (C-0BF20542)
- Recommendation: Audit the points-award pipeline (delivered-but-not-credited = write-path failure) and run a one-time balance reconciliation across affected accounts.

**5. Slack integration breakage — sync toggle, auth, slash commands**
- Count: 14/80 = 17.5% | Distinct accounts: 4 | ARR: 4,400 + 5,400 + 3,900 + 5,200 = **$18,900**
- Sample tickets: IC-460041 (C-0B843542), IC-460049 (C-10A56B0F)
- Recommendation: Fix OAuth token persistence ("re-auth does not stick") and the self-resetting sync toggle; add an integration health-check alert.

Totals: 20 + 18 + 16 + 14 + 12 = 80 tickets ✓ | $114,000 + 68,800 + 52,000 + 31,100 + 18,900 = **$284,800 ARR touched**, across 24 distinct accounts (9+7+1+4+3).

---

**Broad patterns vs. single-account noise:**
- Genuine fleet-wide issues: #2 redemption (7 accounts), #4 points (9 accounts), #1 HRIS (3 accounts but $114K — concentrated among the three biggest non-E9C accounts: 48K, 36K, 30K).
- Single-account escalation, not noise: #3 billing is 100% C-0E9C27D1 ($52K) — highest ARR-per-account; treat as an exec-sponsored remediation, not a product theme.
- Repeat-ticket inflation to watch: C-14264ABD filed the identical text 3x (IC-460038/460029/460034) inside #2; C-0E9C27D1's 16 tickets collapse to 2 underlying issues (seat count, tier price). By distinct account, #4 points posting (9 accts) is the second-broadest pattern after redemption (7 accts) — volume rank (#4 first) ≠ ARR rank (#1 first).

Pace basis: days_elapsed / days_in_quarter = 66 / 92 = 71.7% of Q3-2026 elapsed. 26 days remaining. A metric is "ahead" if QTD actual exceeds its even-pace expectation (target x 0.717).

METRIC            QTD ACTUAL   TARGET     DELTA          EXPECTED@71.7%   PACE
SQMs              230          300        -70            215.2            AHEAD (230 > 215.2; 76.7% of target achieved)
SQOs              84           120        -36            86.1             BEHIND (84 < 86.1; 70.0%) — marginal miss
DS2s              40           75         -35            53.8             BEHIND (40 < 53.8; 53.3%) — significant
closed_lost_mia   5 / closed_lost_total 25 = 5/25 = 20.0%   target closed_lost_mia_rate <= 10%   +10.0 pts over   AHEAD OF TARGET IN THE BAD DIRECTION (rate 2x ceiling; lower_better, so "behind")
same_quarter_closes 10         20         -10            14.3             BEHIND (10 < 14.3; 50.0%)
active_pipeline   3,000,000    4,000,000  -1,000,000     2,869,565        AHEAD of even-pace line (3.0M > 2.87M; 75.0% of target) — note this is a stock (point-in-time) figure, so it only shows "ahead" if compared to a pro-rated end-of-quarter target; the real bar is 4.0M at quarter close.

Rate-metric detail (closed_lost_mia_rate = 20.0% vs 10% ceiling): even if zero new MIA closed-losses land the rest of the quarter, you need closed_lost_total >= 50 (i.e., +25 non-MIA closed-losses) to dilute to 5/50 = 10%. At current closed_lost_total pace (25/66 = 0.38/day, projecting ~35 by quarter end), 5/35 = 14.3% — still above target. Hitting the ceiling on a volume basis: to land at 10% with projected total, allowed MIA = 0.10 x ~35 = ~3.5, i.e., you are ~1.5–2 MIA deals over.

End-of-quarter projections at current run rates:
- SQMs: 230/66 = 3.48/day x 92 = ~320 -> finishes above 300
- SQOs: 84/66 = 1.27/day x 92 = ~117 -> finishes just under 120; needs 36 in 26 days = 1.38/day
- DS2s: 40/66 = 0.61/day x 92 = ~56 vs 75; needs 35 in 26 days = 1.35/day, 2.2x current rate
- same_quarter_closes: 10/66 = 0.15/day x 92 = ~14 vs 20; needs 10 in 26 days
- active_pipeline: needs +1,000,000 by 2026-09-30

What moved this week: the source files contain only QTD snapshots — there is no prior-week actual anywhere in marketing_qtd.csv, so literal week-over-week movement cannot be computed from the provided data and any "this week" delta would be invented. What the data does say about the quarter's shape: SQMs are carrying the funnel at 3.48/day and will overshoot 300 if held, but conversion is leaking downstream — SQOs are pace-negative on that volume (84 vs 86.1 expected), DS2s are the worst gap (40 vs 53.8 expected, requiring a 2.2x step-up), and only 10 of 20 same_quarter_closes are banked with 26 days left, meaning closes are aging out of Q3-2026. The clearest red flag is quality-of-close, not volume: 5 of 25 closed-losses are MIA, a 20.0% rate against a 10% ceiling, and the arithmetic shows it cannot be diluted to target at current closed-loss volume. Pipeline at 3.0M against a 4.0M bar is the cushion, but DS2 velocity has to roughly double from it.

**Weekly GTM Digest — Week of 2026-08-31**

**Marketing**
Solid demand-gen energy from the marketing crew: 46 SQMs in the books against a target of 52 — a 6 short of goal (52 − 46), said straight so we can sprint at it next week. The webinar channel led the pack, delivering 18 of those 46 SQMs, which earns it plenty of recognition. Paid search stayed disciplined, with cost per SQM holding steady at $150. Steady efficiency, a strong webinar pull, and a clear gap to close — that's a week worth celebrating and building on.

**Sales**
The sales team kept the pipeline engine warm: 14 SQOs converted and 9 DS2 meetings set. The week's new pipeline created landed at $310,000, and the scoreboard also shows 3 same-quarter closes — wins that crossed the line fast enough to get their flowers immediately. Big applause for the hustle: conversion activity, meeting volume, pipeline dollars, and closes all tell a good story this week.

**CS**
Customer Success came through where it counts most: 2 renewals saved this week. When a customer chooses to stay, that's a recognition moment all by itself. Team NPS moved to 61, reflecting goodwill the team keeps compounding. And eyes wide open: 3 red-flag accounts remain open heading into next week — they're on the board, they've got attention, and they're first up on the win list for the week ahead.

**PLG**
Product-led love is spreading: 412 new signups walked through the door, and activation came in at 31 percent. The stat that makes this feel most like Bonusly? 38 companies reached the aha moment of 10 recognition gives. That's nearly 40 teams discovering what happens when people start celebrating each other out loud. The flywheel is spinning — feed it more wins, and more good karma.

*(~300 words. All figures sourced directly from week_extracts.md; no external facts added.)*

partner-digest-sectionPASS 1.00

? The Question

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 $0.0012 · 20s · in 520 / out 1,816 tok

✓ all_partners✓ pipeline_amount✓ quiet_one_line

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

roster: partner_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)
per_partner_pipeline: {"Apex Rewards Co": {"count": 2, "amount": 275000}, "HRCloud Partners": {"count": 1, "amount": 140000}, "CultureBridge": {"count": 2, "amount": 135000}}
partner_sourced_pipeline: count=5; amount=550000
quiet_partners: Recogniq, KudosWave, PeopleFirst Advisors, TotalPerk
active_no_deals: WorkWell Group
rule: every roster partner named exactly once; quiet partners get one line; no partners outside roster.
graded checks: all_partners · pipeline_amount · quiet_one_line

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

PARTNER DIGEST — 2026-08-24 to 2026-09-04

PERIOD TOTAL: 5 partner-sourced deals, $550,000
Arithmetic: 180,000 + 95,000 + 140,000 + 60,000 + 75,000 = 550,000

ACTIVE PARTNERS

Apex Rewards Co — 2 deals, $275,000
  Deal-DDAAF2 $180,000 + Deal-2CF33E $95,000 = $275,000
  Co-webinar locked for 09-15; Slack reports both opps at DS1.

HRCloud Partners — 1 deal, $140,000
  Deal-F1CDA5 $140,000
  Integration referral closed security review; opp moved to DS2.

CultureBridge — 2 deals, $135,000
  Deal-096E1D $60,000 + Deal-067213 $75,000 = $135,000
  Sourced via lunch-and-learn; both reported early stage.

WorkWell Group — 0 deals, $0
  No sourced deals this period; planning call booked 09-09, joint playbook restart targeted for Q4.

QUIET PARTNERS

Recogniq — quiet; no Slack activity or deals recorded this period.
KudosWave — quiet; no Slack activity or deals recorded this period.
PeopleFirst Advisors — quiet; no Slack activity or deals recorded this period.
TotalPerk — quiet; no Slack activity or deals recorded this period.

RECONCILIATION & DATA NOTES
- All 5 rows in partner_deals.csv carry utm_source = Partner; none excluded. Partner totals (2/1/2/0 deals) match each partner's own Slack claims exactly.
- Sum check: 275,000 + 140,000 + 135,000 + 0 = 550,000 ✓
- Stage data (DS1, DS2, early stage) comes from Slack only — partner_deals.csv has no stage column.
- Deal amounts are the only dollar figures in the data; no win rates, dates-per-stage, or owner fields were provided.
- For the four quiet partners, the roster supplies status only — no activity detail exists to report.

rfp-answer-from-policyPASS 1.00

? The Question

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 $0.0007 · 9s · in 491 / out 750 tok

✓ answered_count✓ unanswerable_flagged✓ citations✓ no_guess

✓ Correct Answer (ground truth)

answered_count: 7
answer_map: {"Q1": ["P1"], "Q2": ["P1"], "Q3": ["P2"], "Q4": ["P3"], "Q5": ["P4"], "Q6": ["P5"], "Q7": ["P6"]}
unanswerable: Q8, Q9, Q10
valid_citation_ids: P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8
rule: unanswerable items must be flagged and the document that would answer them named; do not guess.
graded checks: answered_count · unanswerable_flagged · citations · no_guess

Model's actual answer

show the model's full answer

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 a SOC 2 Type II report, renewed annually. Available to prospects under NDA. [P2]

Q4 — Customer data is retained for the duration of the contract plus 90 days, after which it is deleted from production systems. [P3]

Q5 — 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 (SCIM user provisioning is included on the same plan). [P5]

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

Q8 — Unanswerable from the provided excerpts. No ISO 27001 certification is mentioned; [P2] covers SOC 2 Type II only. This would be answered by a certifications/compliance page on the trust portal or the security whitepaper — do not infer that absence of mention equals absence of certification.

Q9 — Unanswerable from the provided excerpts. No uptime commitment or SLA percentage appears in any excerpt. This would be in the Master Services Agreement / Service Level Agreement (or the signed contract addendum), not the trust-portal policy excerpts.

show the model's full answer

**NDA-1 — [PARTY A] and Bonusly: GREEN (standard approval)**
All standard terms — mutual, short term, full carve-outs including independent development, no embedded restrictions, and a mainstream US governing law: "Term: two (2) years from the Effective Date; obligations survive for three (3) years after termination" and "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."

**NDA-2 — [PARTY B] and Bonusly: YELLOW (counsel review)**
Body terms are clean, but clause 4 embeds an 18-month post-term no-hire/non-solicit — an employment restriction disguised in an NDA that can constrain Bonusly recruiting after the evaluation ends: "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)**
Three independent red flags stack: an open-ended 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"), zero confidentiality carve-outs ("No confidentiality carve-outs are stated in this Agreement"), and offshore exclusive jurisdiction ("the laws of the Republic of Ireland, and the parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of its courts") — compounded by a one-way 5-year term favoring [PARTY C].

Note: data provided covers only these three files; no other NDA terms, party identities, or Bonusly playbook standards were available to check against (e.g., whether an 18-month non-solicit is within Bonusly's acceptable range could shift NDA-2 to GREEN with a waiver).