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 DATA AUDIT
===============

CRITICAL DATA GAP: No deals file was provided (no deals.csv or equivalent in the extract). Every deal-level requirement of this audit — owner, stage, amount, close date, why-buys completeness, and the pipeline-amount ranking — CANNOT be computed. I will not invent deal data. Company and contact audits follow.

1. COMPLETENESS PER FIELD
-------------------------
Companies (34 rows):
  domain          34/34  = 100.0%
  industry        34/34  = 100.0% (but heavily inconsistent — see §4)
  employee_count  25/34  =  73.5%
  hq_country      28/34  =  82.4%

Contacts (52 rows):
  email (valid)   48/52  =  92.3% (4 syntactically invalid, see §3)
  title           39/52  =  75.0%
  persona         37/52  =  71.2%

Deals (0 rows provided): completeness not computable for owner, stage, amount, close date, why-buys.

2. DUPLICATE COMPANY CLUSTERS
-----------------------------
Cluster A — shared domain acme-corp.com:
  Members: C-0A092931 (Technology, 500, US) and C-0A092932 (tech, 510, USA)
  Conflict: employee_count 500 vs 510; no enrichment row exists to arbitrate.
  Survivor: C-0A092931 — chosen only on the tie-break that 500/US are the more internally consistent pair; the employee-count conflict is UNRESOLVED and requires a source-of-truth call, not a data-derived answer.

Cluster B — shared domain globex.io:
  Members: C-0A092933 (SaaS, 200, US) and C-0A092934 (Technology, 200, US)
  Conflict: industry SaaS vs Technology; employee_count and hq_country agree.
  Survivor: C-0A092934 — industry value "Technology" matches the taxonomy used elsewhere in this CRM; "SaaS" appears nowhere else. No enrichment row exists for globex.io.

No other shared-domain or name-variant clusters exist (all other 30 domains are unique). Note: the extract carries no company names, only aliases, so name-variant matching beyond domain was not possible.

3. INVALID EMAILS AND DOMAIN MISMATCHES (contacts)
--------------------------------------------------
Invalid emails (no local part after @):
  CT-0010  "user0@"    (company C-66D1FC, stated domain 66d1fc.com)
  CT-0080  "user0@"    (company C-92D97D, stated domain 92d97d.com)
  CT-0081  "user1@"    (company C-92D97D, stated domain 92d97d.com)
  CT-0192  "user2@"    (company C-425E2A, stated domain 425e2a.com)

Domain mismatches (valid email, but email domain ≠ company domain):
  CT-0011  user1@other-domain.com  vs company domain 66d1fc.com

Note: I did NOT "repair" these by guessing user0@66d1fc.com etc. — that would be inventing values. Pattern-suggests but does not prove.

4. CRM vs ENRICHMENT (zoominfo_enrichment.csv)
----------------------------------------------
Enrichment coverage: 25 of 34 companies have a matching enrichment row. No enrichment row exists for: C-BA969B (ba969b.com), C-332637 (332637.com), C-93C8BF (93c8bf.com), C-EE9FFB (ee9ffb.com), C-C9BB20 (c9bb20.com), C-0A092931/C-0A092932 (acme-corp.com), C-0A092933/C-0A092934 (globex.io). Their gaps cannot be filled.

A. MISSING FIELD FILLS (CRM empty, enrichment populated — safe, no conflict):
  employee_count = 400 for: C-EC3025, C-96039F, C-44EA29, C-D04904, C-B23205, C-60C75F, C-7BBDFA, C-50D386 (8 fills, all from matching enrichment rows)
  hq_country: enrichment is ALSO blank for every company missing it (C-2D1F1B, C-D73B89, C-44EA29, C-D04904, C-2C60E5, C-EE9FFB; enrichment blank for 2d1f1b.com, d73b89.com, 44ea29.com, d04904.com, 2c60e5.com, and no row for ee9ffb.com). Zero hq_country fills possible.
  employee_count for C-93C8BF: missing in CRM AND no enrichment row. Cannot fill.

B. DISAGREEMENTS (both sides populated). Two classes:

  Class 1 — cosmetic/normalization only (same real-world value, different string). Recommend: keep either; canonicalize to enrichment form (it is the more standardized taxonomy):
    hq_country: "US"/"USA" (CRM) vs "United States" (ZI) — C-66D1FC, C-950043, C-EC3025, C-96039F, C-77A95A, C-B23205, C-E51FB7, C-D0662E, C-425E2A, C-2D7423
    industry: "tech"/"Tech " (with trailing space)/"Technology" (CRM) vs "Computer Software" (ZI) — C-66D1FC, C-EC3025, C-44EA29, C-92D97D, C-D04904, C-77A95A, C-AA8DDA, C-B25F40, C-60C75F, C-425E2A
    Recommendation: adopt ZI values as the canonical taxonomy (enrichment vendor is the external source of record for firmographics), but flag that "Technology" vs "Computer Software" is a genuine taxonomy choice the team should ratify once and apply globally.

  Class 2 — substantive (no disagreement of this class found beyond the acme-corp.com internal 500-vs-510 employee conflict noted in §2, which enrichment cannot arbitrate because acme-corp.com has no enrichment row).

5. TOP 10 FIXES — PIPELINE AMOUNT AT STAKE
------------------------------------------
CANNOT BE RANKED BY PIPELINE AMOUNT. No deal records were provided, so no fix can be tied to a dollar figure. Ranking them by pipeline amount would require inventing numbers, which I will not do. What I can offer is a severity ranking with the amount-at-stake column explicitly NULL pending the deals extract:

 #  Fix                                                        Amount at stake
 1  Supply deals extract; re-run this audit                    UNKNOWN (blocks all below)
 2  Resolve acme-corp.com duplicate cluster (C-0A092931 vs     UNKNOWN
    C-0A092932) incl. 500-vs-510 employee conflict
 3  Resolve globex.io duplicate cluster (C-0A092933 vs         UNKNOWN
    C-0A092934) incl. SaaS-vs-Technology conflict
 4  Fix 4 invalid emails: CT-0010, CT-0080, CT-0081, CT-0192   UNKNOWN
    (re-verify at source; do not auto-complete the domain)
 5  Resolve domain mismatch CT-0011 (user1@other-domain.com    UNKNOWN
    on 66d1fc.com) — wrong-company contact risk
 6  Apply 8 employee_count fills from enrichment (all =400,    UNKNOWN
    §4A) — zero-conflict, mechanical
 7  Fill 13 missing contact titles (§1 list)                   UNKNOWN
 8  Fill 15 missing contact personas (§1 list) — persona gaps  UNKNOWN
    include economic-buyer-blind accounts C-60C75F, C-B25F40
 9  Canonicalize industry/hq_country strings per §4B Class 1   UNKNOWN
    (20 records)
10  Escalate 6 unfillable hq_country gaps + C-93C8BF           UNKNOWN
    employee_count (no enrichment coverage) to manual research

Send me the deals file (owner, stage, amount, close date, why-buys) and I will complete §1 for deals and re-rank the top 10 with actual dollars at stake.

CLASSIFICATION OF CANDIDATES

1. TG-001 — Deal-EC3025
Prospect line (IT Security Lead): "We need SCIM user provisioning — our security team will not approve any tool that requires manual account management."
Classification: REAL GAP. Product docs state "SCIM user provisioning ... NOT currently listed as supported capabilities." Not a tier gate — absent from all plans.
Amount: not provided in the data.

2. TG-002 — Deal-D0D6B5
Prospect line (HRIS Manager): "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 integrations as Workday, BambooHR, Gusto, Rippling only, and explicitly note "ADP Workforce Now integrations are NOT currently listed as supported capabilities."
Amount: not provided in the data.

3. TG-003 — Deal-CFE7F4
Prospect line (VP People): "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 gap. Docs show Custom report builder exists on the Enterprise tier (— / — / yes). Capability exists; prospect's plan lacks it.
Amount: not provided in the data.

4. TG-004 — Deal-84DBA6
Prospect line (People Ops Manager): "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 docs; the failure is adoption/training, not product capability.
Amount: not provided in the data.

5. TG-005 — Deal-36C33F
EXCLUDED. The mobile-app statement ("we don't have a native mobile app for hourly workers yet") is rep language (Alex Franklin), not prospect voice. The prospect's only line ("The web version should be fine for our office staff for now.") raises no gap. Additionally, mobile apps are not addressed in the product docs excerpt, so no classification against docs is possible.

SUMMARY — TRUE PRODUCT GAPS (prospect-raised, confirmed against docs)

- SCIM user provisioning — raised by Prospect (IT Security Lead), Deal-EC3025. Amount: missing from provided data.
- ADP Workforce Now integration — raised by Prospect (HRIS Manager), Deal-D0D6B5. Amount: missing from provided data.

show the model's full answer

REP: Alex Franklin — 10 calls (TT-001 through TT-010), 2026-07-28 to 2026-09-03

1) WHAT HE LEADS WITH (first five minutes)
- 8 of 10 calls open with the identical customer-proof story (TT-001, TT-002, TT-003, TT-005, TT-006, TT-007, TT-008, TT-010): "Quick one to kick off: a 400-person retailer we work with cut regretted turnover 18% in two quarters after automating milestone awards..."
- 2 of 10 open with a tailored frame: TT-004 (Deal-403845) "I put together a short agenda — security review first, then pricing." and TT-009 (Deal-1E2498) "You asked for straight pricing last time, so let's start there."

2) THREE MOST COMMON OBJECTIONS AND HANDLING
a. Budget locked — 4x (TT-001/Deal-D348E1, TT-003/Deal-547B2B, TT-006/Deal-60C2C2, TT-010/Deal-84DBA6). Handled by reframing funding source: "Totally fair. Most teams fund this out of turnover savings — that retailer saved about $210k in avoided backfills..."
b. Timing / "revisit next quarter" — 3x (TT-002/Deal-5408B0, TT-005/Deal-C61CF7, TT-008/Deal-D9A12F). Handled by shrinking commitment: "Makes sense. What if we scope a 90-day pilot with one department so you have internal data before next quarter's planning?"
c. Status quo (spreadsheet + gift cards) — 3x (TT-004/Deal-403845, TT-007/Deal-EDC141, TT-009/Deal-1E2498). Handled by scale/automation contrast: "Spreadsheets work until they scale — the difference is automation..."
Not in the top three but present: committee/stall objections 3x (TT-004 min 11, TT-007 min 14, TT-010 min 11) — these were conceded, not handled ("Fair enough.").

3) CONCRETE NEXT STEP AGREED — RATE
- Rep proposed a next step in 7 of 10 calls ("Should we lock the next step — a working session with your team this week?"); all 7 got explicit agreement ("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.
- No next step asked or agreed: TT-004, TT-007, TT-010.
- Rate: 7 ÷ 10 = 70%.

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

show the model's full answer

REDEMPTION SECTION — WEEKLY REWARDS REPORT
Last completed month: 2026-08 (August 2026). All rows in redemptions_ytd.csv fall between 2026-01 and 2026-08, so the full YTD file (378 rows) is in scope through 2026-08.

CORE METRICS
- Redemption count: 378
- Total spend: $27,846.00
- Unique redeemers (distinct user_key): 235
- Redemptions per redeemer: 378 / 235 = 1.61

PROVIDER MIX (percent of spend)
Spend by provider: custom $10,873.00; Tremendous $8,505.00; Snappy $5,238.00; TangoCard $3,230.00
Check: 10,873 + 8,505 + 5,238 + 3,230 = 27,846 ✓

Exact shares (provider spend / 27,846 × 100):
- custom: 10,873 / 27,846 × 100 = 39.05%
- Tremendous: 8,505 / 27,846 × 100 = 30.54%
- Snappy: 5,238 / 27,846 × 100 = 18.81%
- TangoCard: 3,230 / 27,846 × 100 = 11.60%
Sum of exact shares = 100.00%

Rounded to whole percent (largest-remainder so shares sum to 100): custom 39% + Tremendous 30% + Snappy 19% + TangoCard 12% = 100% (Snappy 18.81→19 and TangoCard 11.60→12 get the remainder points).

TOP 5 COUNTRIES BY REDEMPTION COUNT
1. US — 244
2. CA — 24
3. AU — 21
4. GB — 17 (tie)
4. NL — 17 (tie)
GB and NL are tied at 17 redemptions each; the data provides no tiebreaker, so both are shown at rank 4.

All figures computed directly from redemptions_ytd.csv as provided; no data was missing for any requested metric.

Quarter support-ticket synthesis — 80 tickets total (2026-06-01 to 2026-08-29), classified by reading body_text, ignoring tags. Tags were confirmed unreliable (e.g., IC-460055 tagged "billing" but body is HRIS provisioning; IC-460040 tagged "how-to" but body is a Slack bug).

All 80 tickets fall into 5 text-based themes (12+18+16+20+14 = 80; 25.0%+22.5%+20.0%+17.5%+15.0% = 100%). ARR affected = sum of distinct accounts' ARR (each account counted once even with repeat tickets).

RANKED BY ARR EXPOSURE

1. HRIS provisioning failures — BROAD PATTERN
   Count: 12 | Share: 15.0% (12/80) | Distinct accounts: 3
   ARR affected: $114,000 = 48,000 (C-0DDFC9A7) + 36,000 (C-0B2213A9) + 30,000 (C-0F6C0F34)
   Ticket ids: IC-460059, IC-460062
   Highest ARR exposure in the book; all three affected accounts are mid-market/enterprise ($30K+). New hires not provisioned means seats go unused — direct expansion/renewal risk. Recommendation: escalate to engineering as P1, audit the silent sync failures ("log shows no errors"), and have CSMs proactively contact all three accounts before renewal conversations start.

2. Redemption / gift-card checkout failures — BROAD PATTERN
   Count: 18 | Share: 22.5% (18/80) | Distinct accounts: 7
   ARR affected: $68,800 = 11,000 + 10,700 + 10,300 + 9,600 + 9,600 + 8,900 + 8,700 (C-14264ABD, C-0B827671, C-0B0F1BAB, C-0FCCD2DF, C-0D9CA315, C-0CEF69FD, C-0F876796)
   Ticket ids: IC-460025, IC-460030
   Worst breadth-to-value ratio: checkout hangs, gift-card emails never arrive, and points are deducted on failed orders (IC-460024, IC-460023, IC-460026, IC-460037) — customers paying for goods they don't receive. Recommendation: fix the points-deducted-on-error bug first (refund/credit sweep), then stabilize the checkout and email-delivery pipeline.

3. Billing/invoice errors — SINGLE-ACCOUNT NOISE (in volume), but real ARR risk
   Count: 16 | Share: 20.0% (16/80) | Distinct accounts: 1 (C-0E9C27D1)
   ARR affected: $52,000
   Ticket ids: IC-460071, IC-460069
   20% of all tickets come from ONE account: repeated seat-count overbilling (200 charged vs 150 licensed), wrong renewal tier pricing, "third invoice in a row." This is single-account concentration, not a platform-wide pattern — but at $52K ARR with 16 touches over 10 weeks and unresolved repeat invoices, it reads as churn-in-progress. Recommendation: exec-sponsor outreach, full billing audit and credit for the seat/tier errors, and confirm the root cause is account-specific contract data rather than the billing engine.

4. Points not posting / balances not updating — BROAD PATTERN (highest volume, lowest ARR)
   Count: 20 | Share: 25.0% (20/80) | Distinct accounts: 9
   ARR affected: $31,100 = 4,500 + 4,500 + 4,200 + 3,500 + 3,400 + 2,900 + 2,900 + 2,700 + 2,500 (C-0BF20542, C-0D0B047C, C-0D6CC8E3, C-0D3278C7, C-0D284E42, C-21FEBCBB, C-0B2895EF, C-0BE96399, C-0DD0626C)
   Ticket ids: IC-460004, IC-460016
   The single most common complaint and the widest account spread, but concentrated in small accounts (all ≤$4.5K). Core-product trust issue: recognitions show "delivered" but points never land. Recommendation: instrument the points-award pipeline end-to-end and reconcile delivered-vs-credited events; volume here will keep support costs high even though ARR exposure is modest.

5. Slack integration failures — BROAD PATTERN
   Count: 14 | Share: 17.5% (14/80) | Distinct accounts: 4
   ARR affected: $18,900 = 5,400 (C-10A56B0F) + 5,200 (C-8C2E8F00) + 4,400 (C-0B843542) + 3,900 (C-0BA71F12)
   Ticket ids: IC-460041, IC-460047
   Distinct failure modes: sync stops posting, the toggle resets itself, re-auth doesn't stick, slash commands error. Recommendation: treat the self-resetting toggle and re-auth persistence as one OAuth/token-refresh bug and ship a fix; Slack is likely the primary recognition surface for these accounts.

NOTES ON DATA
- No tickets were unclassifiable; no missing ARR values.
- Broad patterns: themes 1, 2, 4, 5 (3–9 distinct accounts each). Single-account noise: theme 3 (all 16 tickets from C-0E9C27D1).
- Ranking is by ARR exposure as instructed; note volume rank is the inverse at the top (points is #1 by volume, #4 by ARR; HRIS is #1 by ARR, last by volume).
- Total ARR touched by tickets: $284,800 across 24 distinct accounts (114,000 + 68,800 + 52,000 + 31,100 + 18,900).

WEEKLY MARKETING GOALS UPDATE — Q3-2026 (2026-07-01 to 2026-09-30)
Days elapsed: 66 / 92 = 71.7% of quarter. Pace benchmark = target x 0.7174.

METRIC | QTD ACTUAL | TARGET | DELTA | PACE-EXPECTED @ 66d | PACE
SQMs | 230 | 300 | -70 | 213.0 (300x66/92) | AHEAD (230 > 213.0; 76.7% of target vs 71.7% time)
SQOs | 84 | 120 | -36 | 86.1 (120x66/92) | BEHIND, marginally (84 < 86.1; 70.0% vs 71.7%)
DS2s | 40 | 75 | -35 | 53.8 (75x66/92) | BEHIND (40 < 53.8; 53.3% vs 71.7%)
Closed-lost MIA rate | 20.0% (5/25) | 10.0% | +10.0pp worse | n/a (rate, not paced) | BEHIND (lower_better; 2x target)
Same-quarter closes | 10 | 20 | -10 | 14.3 (20x66/92) | BEHIND (10 < 14.3; 50.0% vs 71.7%)
Active pipeline | $3,000,000 | $4,000,000 | -$1,000,000 | $2,869,565 (4Mx66/92) | AHEAD on time-proration (3.0M > 2.87M); note pipeline is a stock metric, so time-proration is an approximation — coverage is 75.0% of target

WHAT MOVED THIS WEEK
Missing data: the files contain only a QTD snapshot with no prior-week values, so week-over-week movement cannot be computed from the data provided. Based solely on the QTD position: the top of funnel is the bright spot — SQMs (230 vs 213.0 pace-expected) are ahead of time-proration and active pipeline ($3.0M vs ~$2.87M pace-expected) is marginally ahead. The problem is conversion depth and quality: SQOs sit just under pace, DS2s (53.3% of target at 71.7% of the quarter) and same-quarter closes (50.0% of target) are materially behind, and the closed-lost MIA rate is 20.0% (5 of 25), double the 10% target — meaning one in five lost deals is being lost without a recorded reason, which understates our ability to diagnose the DS2/close shortfall. With 26 days left, closing the DS2 gap requires 35 more DS2s (~9.6/week vs the 3.0/week QTD average of 40/13 weeks implied — actual weekly rate not derivable from data given).

Weekly GTM Digest — Week of 2026-08-31

Marketing: This week's engine delivered 46 SQMs against a target of 52 — we came up short, and we're owning it. The bright spot: our webinar channel punched above its weight with 18 of those SQMs, proving that when we bring people together, recognition-worthy conversations follow. Paid search kept its discipline with cost per SQM holding steady at $150, so the gap was volume, not efficiency. Same playbook, more swings next week.

Sales: The team turned 46 SQMs into 14 SQOs and booked 9 DS2 meetings — real momentum moving deals deeper into the pipeline. New pipeline created hit $310,000, and 3 same-quarter closes landed in the week, proof that speed and quality can coexist. That's the kind of hustle worth celebrating: disciplined qualification feeding a pipeline that's building for the quarter ahead, not just the week in front of us.

CS: Two renewals saved this week — two customer relationships kept growing where they might have walked. Team NPS moved to 61, a number that says our customers feel seen and valued. We're also carrying 3 open red-flag accounts into next week, and the plan is simple: get in front of them, listen hard, and turn things around. Recognition isn't just our product; it's how we show up for every account.

PLG: 412 new signups joined the platform this week, with activation at 31 percent. The most exciting number: 38 companies reached the aha moment of 10 recognition gives — the point where teams feel what a culture of appreciation actually does. That's 38 workplaces where recognition went from idea to habit. Our job now is widening the path from signup to that moment.

—

All figures sourced from week_extracts.md (week of 2026-08-31). Word count: ~260. No data was missing from the extracts for the requested teams; nothing has been added beyond what was provided.

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 $0.0116 · 15s · in 1,252 / out 871 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

ACTIVE PARTNERS

1. Apex Rewards Co
   Status: Active. Co-webinar locked for 09-15. Two sourced opps this week, both in DS1 (logged with UTM Source = Partner, per Cole Ingram).
   Pipeline: 2 deals — Deal-DDAAF2 ($180,000) + Deal-2CF33E ($95,000) = $275,000
   Arithmetic: 180,000 + 95,000 = 275,000

2. HRCloud Partners
   Status: Active. Integration referral closed security review; opp moved to DS2. One sourced opp this period (per Alex Franklin).
   Pipeline: 1 deal — Deal-F1CDA5 ($140,000) = $140,000

3. CultureBridge
   Status: Active. Lunch-and-learn produced two sourced opps, both early stage (per Farid Osman).
   Pipeline: 2 deals — Deal-096E1D ($60,000) + Deal-067213 ($75,000) = $135,000
   Arithmetic: 60,000 + 75,000 = 135,000

4. WorkWell Group
   Status: Active. Wants to restart joint playbook in Q4; no sourced deals this period; planning call booked for 09-09 (per Dana Mercer).
   Pipeline: 0 deals — $0

QUIET PARTNERS (no activity in data this period)

5. Recogniq — Quiet; no sourced deals or Slack activity in the provided data.
6. KudosWave — Quiet; no sourced deals or Slack activity in the provided data.
7. PeopleFirst Advisors — Quiet; no sourced deals or Slack activity in the provided data.
8. TotalPerk — Quiet; no sourced deals or Slack activity in the provided data.

PERIOD TOTALS (all UTM Source = Partner)
Partner-sourced pipeline: 5 deals
Total amount: 275,000 + 140,000 + 135,000 + 0 = $550,000
Arithmetic check: 180,000 + 95,000 + 140,000 + 60,000 + 75,000 = 550,000 — matches the 5 rows in partner_deals.csv.

Reconciliation notes:
- Slack counts match deal data: Apex 2 sourced opps = 2 deals; HRCloud 1 sourced opp = 1 deal; CultureBridge 2 sourced opps = 2 deals; WorkWell 0 = 0 deals.
- No deal aliases or partners appear in the data beyond those listed. No additional facts available for the quiet partners beyond roster status.

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 $0.0095 · 12s · in 1,223 / out 529 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. 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. A SOC 2 Type II report is maintained and renewed annually. A copy is available to prospects under NDA. [P2]

Q4 — 90 days after the end of the contract. Data is retained for the duration of the contract plus 90 days, then deleted from production systems. [P3]

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

Q6 — Yes. SAML 2.0 single sign-on is supported, along with SCIM user provisioning, 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. No excerpt addresses ISO 27001. The SOC 2 Type II report is mentioned [P2], but that is a different certification and should not be substituted. Documents that would answer this: Bonusly's certification page/compliance section of the trust portal (trust.bonusly.com) or a completed security questionnaire from the vendor.

Q9 — UNANSWERABLE from the provided excerpts. No excerpt states an uptime SLA percentage. Document that would answer this: the order form, Master Subscription Agreement (MSA), or the SLA/uptime page on the trust portal.

Q10 — UNANSWERABLE from the provided excerpts. No excerpt mentions HIPAA or a Business Associate Agreement (BAA). Documents that would answer this: the BAA itself (if offered), the MSA/DPA, or vendor confirmation from the compliance team via the trust portal.

show the model's full answer

NDA-1 ([PARTY A]) — GREEN
Reasoning: Standard mutual NDA — 2-year term with 3-year survival (5 years total exposure), all five standard carve-outs present ("publicly available… previously known… third party… independently developed… by law or court order"), Delaware law, and an express "No license, no obligation to proceed, no exclusivity" clause. Nothing to flag.

NDA-2 ([PARTY B]) — YELLOW
Reasoning: Confidentiality terms are standard (3-year term, full carve-out set, Delaware), but it embeds a non-solicitation 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." — a hiring restriction beyond NDA scope; total exposure = 3 years + 18 months = 4.5 years. Mutual and contact-limited, so counsel review, not full legal.

NDA-3 ([PARTY C]) — RED
Reasoning: Three compounding problems — (1) 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." (3 years, indirect scope, no geographic limit stated); (2) unusual governing law and forum: "the laws of the Republic of Ireland… exclusive jurisdiction of its courts" (only non-US/non-Delaware NDA of the three); (3) it is one-way in favor of [PARTY C] and, per the document, "No confidentiality carve-outs are stated in this Agreement" — meaning even publicly available or independently developed info would be covered. Full legal review.

Data note: the source file contains no party names (all redacted), no Effective Dates, and no signature/execution details, so term start dates and actual counterparty identities cannot be assessed.