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
Source files provided: companies.csv (34 rows), contacts.csv (52 rows), zoominfo_enrichment.csv (25 rows). No deals extract was provided, so deal-level completeness and pipeline ranking cannot be computed.

============================================================
1. COMPLETENESS PER FIELD
============================================================

COMPANIES (34 rows)
  industry        : 34/34 = 100.0%  (all rows have a value; 12 need normalization, see sec 4b/4c)
  employee_count  : 25/34 =  73.5%  (9 blank: C-EC3025, C-96039F, C-44EA29, C-D04904, C-B23205, C-60C75F, C-7BBDFA, C-50D386, C-93C8BF)
  hq_country      : 27/34 =  79.4%  (7 blank: C-2D1F1B, C-D73B89, C-44EA29, C-D04904, C-2C60E5, C-93C8BF, C-EE9FFB)
  Note: 25 present hq_country values are non-standard format (US / United States / USA / Canada / UK) — present but not normalized.

CONTACTS (52 rows)
  email   : 48/52 = 92.3%  (4 invalid, no domain: CT-0010, CT-0080, CT-0081, CT-0192)
  title   : 39/52 = 75.0%  (13 blank: 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)
  persona : 36/52 = 69.2%  (16 blank: CT-0000, CT-0022, CT-0041, CT-0060, CT-0070, CT-0081, CT-0082, CT-0092, CT-0110, CT-0132, CT-0141, CT-0162, CT-0171, CT-0172, CT-0180, CT-0181)

DEALS (0 rows — extract not provided)
  owner, stage, amount, close_date, why_buys : 0.0% each. Cannot audit; the deals file is missing from the provided data.

============================================================
2. DUPLICATE COMPANY CLUSTERS (shared domain)
============================================================
No company-name column exists, so clustering is by shared domain.

CLUSTER A — domain acme-corp.com
  C-0A092931  (Technology, 500, US)
  C-0A092932  (tech, 510, USA)
  Survivor: C-0A092931 (cleaner industry label, first alias). Retire/merge C-0A092932.
  Neither row is present in zoominfo_enrichment.csv.

CLUSTER B — domain globex.io
  C-0A092933  (SaaS, 200, US)
  C-0A092934  (Technology, 200, US)
  Survivor: C-0A092933 (first alias). Retire/merge C-0A092934.
  Neither row is present in zoominfo_enrichment.csv.

All other 30 company domains are unique.

============================================================
3. INVALID EMAILS & DOMAIN MISMATCHES
============================================================

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

DOMAIN MISMATCH (email domain != contact.domain / company domain) — 1
  CT-0011  user1@other-domain.com  vs contact.domain 66d1fc.com (company C-66D1FC, domain 66d1fc.com)
  All other 47 valid emails match their company domain exactly.

============================================================
4. ENRICHMENT FILLS & DISAGREEMENTS
============================================================
Matching key: company domain -> zoominfo_enrichment.domain. 25 of 34 companies have a matching enrichment row; 9 do not (C-BA969B, C-332637, C-93C8BF, C-EE9FFB, C-C9BB20, C-0A092931, C-0A092932, C-0A092933, C-0A092934).

4a. FILLED FROM ZOOMINFO (CRM blank, ZoomInfo present) — never invented
  employee_count:
    C-EC3025   <- 400   (ZI ec3025.com)
    C-96039F   <- 400   (ZI 96039f.com)
    C-44EA29   <- 400   (ZI 44ea29.com)
    C-D04904   <- 400   (ZI d04904.com)
    C-B23205   <- 400   (ZI b23205.com)
    C-60C75F   <- 400   (ZI 60c75f.com)
    C-7BBDFA   <- 400   (ZI 7bbdfa.com)
    C-50D386   <- 400   (ZI 50d386.com)
  hq_country: 0 fillable — every missing-hq company also has a blank zi_hq_country (C-2D1F1B, C-D73B89, C-44EA29, C-D04904, C-2C60E5) or no enrichment row (C-93C8BF, C-EE9FFB).
  industry: 0 needed — no CRM industry is blank.

  After these fills, employee_count rises to 33/34 = 97.1%; hq_country stays 27/34 = 79.4%.

4b. DISAGREEMENTS (CRM present AND ZoomInfo present, values differ) — list both, recommend source
  All 10 are industry. CRM uses free-text variants (tech / Technology / "Tech "); ZoomInfo uses "Computer Software".
    C-66D1FC   CRM "tech"            vs ZI "Computer Software"
    C-EC3025   CRM "Technology"      vs ZI "Computer Software"
    C-44EA29   CRM "tech"            vs ZI "Computer Software"
    C-92D97D   CRM "Technology"      vs ZI "Computer Software"
    C-D04904   CRM "Technology"      vs ZI "Computer Software"
    C-77A95A   CRM "Technology"      vs ZI "Computer Software"
    C-AA8DDA   CRM "Technology"      vs ZI "Computer Software"
    C-B25F40   CRM "Technology"      vs ZI "Computer Software"
    C-60C75F   CRM "tech"            vs ZI "Computer Software"
    C-425E2A   CRM "Tech " (trailing space) vs ZI "Computer Software"
  Recommendation: adopt ZoomInfo as the source of truth for industry taxonomy (it is the consistent external standard; CRM values are inconsistent case/whitespace variants of the same segment). Normalize to a single label.

  employee_count: 0 disagreements (all present-present pairs agree; only blank-vs-present fills above).
  hq_country: 0 true disagreements — present values are semantically equal (US/USA/United States; Canada; UK) but need format normalization to "United States".

4c. CANNOT FILL (no enrichment row or enrichment also blank) — left blank, not invented
  employee_count: C-93C8BF (no ZI row)
  hq_country: C-2D1F1B, C-D73B89, C-44EA29, C-D04904, C-2C60E5 (ZI blank), plus C-93C8BF and C-EE9FFB (no ZI row) = 7 companies remain missing hq_country.
  Manual research required for these; ZoomInfo does not supply a value.

============================================================
5. TOP 10 FIXES
============================================================
PIPELINE-AT-STAKE RANKING IS NOT POSSIBLE: no deals extract with amounts was provided, so "most pipeline amount at stake" cannot be computed from the data. The 10 fixes below are ordered by data-criticality (what blocks segmentation, outreach, and accurate attribution). Pipeline impact is unknown for every item.

  1. Merge acme-corp.com cluster — keep C-0A092931, retire C-0A092932 (prevents double-counted accounts/attribution).
  2. Merge globex.io cluster — keep C-0A092933, retire C-0A092934 (same risk as #1).
  3. Fix 4 invalid emails — CT-0010, CT-0080, CT-0081, CT-0192 (outreach blocked, no domain).
  4. Fix domain mismatch — CT-0011 (user1@other-domain.com != 66d1fc.com; likely wrong/ personal domain).
  5. Backfill 8 employee_counts from ZoomInfo (=400 each): C-EC3025, C-96039F, C-44EA29, C-D04904, C-B23205, C-60C75F, C-7BBDFA, C-50D386 (enables account-size segmentation).
  6. Standardize 10 industry disagreements to ZoomInfo "Computer Software": C-66D1FC, C-EC3025, C-44EA29, C-92D97D, C-D04904, C-77A95A, C-AA8DDA, C-B25F40, C-60C75F, C-425E2A.
  7. Backfill 13 missing contact titles: 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.
  8. Backfill 16 missing contact personas: CT-0000, CT-0022, CT-0041, CT-0060, CT-0070, CT-0081, CT-0082, CT-0092, CT-0110, CT-0132, CT-0141, CT-0162, CT-0171, CT-0172, CT-0180, CT-0181.
  9. Normalize present-but-messy values: hq_country US/USA -> "United States" (25 rows); "health care" -> "Healthcare" (C-7BBDFA, C-50D386); trim "Tech " -> "Technology" (C-425E2A, C-BA969B, C-93C8BF, C-C9BB20).
  10. Manual research for unenriched gaps: 7 missing hq_country (C-2D1F1B, C-D73B89, C-44EA29, C-D04904, C-2C60E5, C-93C8BF, C-EE9FFB) and 1 missing employee_count (C-93C8BF) — ZoomInfo has no value, so leave blank; do not invent.

If you can supply the deals extract (owner, stage, amount, close_date, why_buys), I will recompute section 5 ranked by actual pipeline amount at stake.

Candidates (prospect-raised lines only)

1) Deal-EC3025 (TG-001)
Prospect line: "We need SCIM user provisioning — our security team will not approve any tool that requires manual account management."
Classification: REAL GAP
Docs basis: product_docs.md "Supported integrations" explicitly states "SCIM user provisioning ... are NOT currently listed as supported capabilities." Prospect requires it; product does not offer it.
Amount: NOT PROVIDED in the data (CSV has no amount field).

2) Deal-D0D6B5 (TG-002)
Prospect line: "Our payroll runs on ADP Workforce Now and I don't see ADP anywhere in your integration list — that's a dealbreaker for us."
Classification: REAL GAP
Docs basis: product_docs.md "Supported integrations" explicitly states ADP Workforce Now integration is NOT currently listed as supported. Prospect requires it; product does not offer it.
Amount: NOT PROVIDED in the data.

3) Deal-CFE7F4 (TG-003)
Prospect line: "I tried to build a custom report combining recognition frequency with turnover and couldn't — is that possible on our current plan?"
Classification: PLAN GATE
Docs basis: Custom report builder is listed under Enterprise tier (yes), not Core/Pro. Alex confirms it sits on Enterprise. Capability EXISTS; prospect is on a lower plan. Not a missing product capability, so excluded from real-gap summary.
Amount: NOT PROVIDED in the data.

4) Deal-84DBA6 (TG-004)
Prospect line: "We turned on the Slack integration in July, but half our managers still haven't given a single recognition — nobody ever trained them on it."
Classification: ROLLOUT/ENABLEMENT ISSUE
Docs basis: Slack integration is supported on all plans (docs). The blocker is untrained managers, not a missing feature. Excluded from real-gap summary.
Amount: NOT PROVIDED in the data.

Excluded (rep voice, not prospect):
- TG-005: "native mobile app for hourly workers" was raised by Alex Franklin (rep), not the prospect. Prospect's reply ("The web version should be fine for our office staff for now") does not raise it as a gap. Per instruction, rep language does not count as prospect voice.

Summary of REAL GAPS (only these)
- Deal-EC3025 — SCIM user provisioning (not supported). Amount: not in data.
- Deal-D0D6B5 — ADP Workforce Now integration (not supported). Amount: not in data.

show the model's full answer

FIRST FIVE MINUTES — LEAD
8 of 10 calls open with the same story 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." (Deal-D348E1, Deal-5408B0, Deal-547B2B, Deal-60C2C2, Deal-EDC141, Deal-D9A12F, Deal-84DBA6, Deal-C61CF7)
Two outliers opened differently at minute 0: Deal-403845 "I put together a short agenda — security review first, then pricing." and Deal-1E2498 "You asked for straight pricing last time, so let's start there."

THREE MOST COMMON OBJECTIONS (count / how handled)
1. Budget locked — 4 calls (Deal-D348E1, Deal-547B2B, Deal-60C2C2, Deal-84DBA6)
   Handled with turnover-savings reframe: "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; identical in the other 3)
2. Revisit next quarter — 3 calls (Deal-5408B0, Deal-C61CF7, Deal-D9A12F)
   Handled with 90-day pilot offer: "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; identical in the other 2)
3. Already use spreadsheet + gift cards — 3 calls (Deal-403845, Deal-EDC141, Deal-1E2498)
   Handled with automation/analytics diff: "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; identical in the other 2)

NEXT-STEP AGREEMENT RATE
7 of 10 = 70%.
Agreed (prospect accepted the working-session ask): Deal-D348E1, Deal-5408B0, Deal-547B2B, Deal-C61CF7, Deal-60C2C2, Deal-D9A12F, Deal-1E2498.
Not agreed: Deal-403845 ("Understood — I'll leave it with you."), Deal-EDC141 ("I need to think about it — there's no urgency on our side."), Deal-84DBA6 ("We'll have to wait for the committee — I can't commit to anything today.").
Ask used when present (minute 14): "Should we lock the next step — a working session with your team this week?"

COMPETITORS A PROSPECT RAISED
- Awardco — Deal-547B2B: "We're also in late talks with Awardco — their rewards catalog looks bigger than yours."
- Kudos — Deal-EDC141: "How are you different from Kudos? Our CEO used them at her last company."
(Note: Workhuman appears at minute 2 in Deal-C61CF7 but was raised by the rep, not a prospect, so it is excluded from this list.)

COACHING NOTES
1. The three no-next-step calls (Deal-403845, Deal-EDC141, Deal-84DBA6) all stalled on a committee/approval or no-urgency objection — and in two of them (Deal-403845, Deal-84DBA6) the rep skipped the standard "Should we lock the next step" ask entirely and folded. Keep the ask in play even when a committee is cited; offer the one-department pilot or an exec ROI readout as the next step.
2. The budget-locked objection gets one identical play every time ($210k turnover-savings story) but converted only 3 of 4 — Deal-84DBA6 still lost after a later committee objection at minute 11. Pair the ROI reframe with the pilot offer so budget and approval stalls both get the same single-department, low-commitment next step instead of separate plays.

⚠ Stream stalled mid tool-call (execute_code); the action was not executed. Ask me to retry if you want to continue.

⚠ Stream stalled mid tool-call (write_file); the action was not executed. Ask me to retry if you want to continue.Done. All 378 redemptions in the file fall on or before 2026-08-31, so the dataset covers exactly through the last completed month.

REDEMPTION SECTION — through last completed month 2026-08

Last completed month: 2026-08 (August 2026). The file contains 378 redemptions, all dated 2026-01-01 through 2026-08-31; none fall in September 2026, so the entire dataset is in scope.

Headline metrics
- Redemption count: 378
- Total spend: $27,846.00
- Unique redeemers: 235 (distinct user_key)
- Redemptions per redeemer: 378 / 235 = 1.609

Provider mix (percent of spend) — shares sum to 100
- custom: $10,873.00 → 10,873 / 27,846 = 39.0%
- Tremendous: $8,505.00 → 8,505 / 27,846 = 30.5%
- Snappy: $5,238.00 → 5,238 / 27,846 = 18.8%
- TangoCard: $3,230.00 → 3,230 / 27,846 = 11.6%
Check: 10,873 + 8,505 + 5,238 + 3,230 = 27,846 (spend ties out); 39.0 + 30.5 + 18.8 + 11.6 = 100.0

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

(Next tier for reference: DE 9, FR 9, CH 9, SG 12, IN 8, NZ 2, BR 6.)

Notes / data flags
- No redactions or gaps: every row has a provider, amount, country, and user_key.
- "custom" is the highest-spend provider at 39% of dollars but is not the highest by redemption volume — that is US-led and provider-agnostic (US = 244 of 378 redemptions, 64.6%).
- The two countries tied for 4th/5th (GB and NL, 17 each) are reported in alphabetical order; no tie-break was specified or needed.

I read all 80 ticket bodies and grouped by text (ignoring the tag column). Recurring root causes collapsed into 5 themes.

METHOD: "count" = tickets in theme; "share" = count / 80; "ARR affected" = sum of ARR of DISTINCT accounts in that theme (each account counted once).

================================================================
RANKED BY ARR EXPOSURE (not volume)
================================================================

1) HRIS / NEW-HIRE PROVISIONING FAILURE
   count 12 (15.0%) | distinct accounts 3 | ARR affected $114,000
   accounts: C-0B2213A9 (36000, x7), C-0DDFC9A7 (48000, x3), C-0F6C0F34 (30000, x2)
   tickets cited: IC-460059, IC-460062
   rec: Fix the SCIM/HRIS provisioning job + add failure alerting; 3 enterprise accounts are blocked from onboarding new hires (log shows "no errors" but hires are skipped).

2) REDEMPTION / GIFT-CARD / CHECKOUT FAILURE
   count 18 (22.5%) | distinct accounts 7 | ARR affected $68,800
   accounts: C-0CEF69FD 8900, C-0B827671 10700, C-0FCCD2DF 9600, C-0F876796 8700, C-14264ABD 11000, C-0D9CA315 9600, C-0B0F1BAB 10300
   tickets cited: IC-460025, IC-460035
   rec: Investigate the redemption service end-to-end — failures span checkout spin, missing gift-card email/code, and points deducted without delivery; 7 accounts affected.

3) BILLING ERRORS (SEAT-COUNT + WRONG-TIER)
   count 16 (20.0%) | distinct accounts 1 | ARR affected $52,000
   accounts: C-0E9C27D1 (52000, x16)
   tickets cited: IC-460071, IC-460078
   rec: SINGLE-ACCOUNT NOISE (all 16 from C-0E9C27D1) — run a billing audit + corrected invoicing for that account before renewal; recurring seat-count and wrong-tier charges.

4) RECOGNITION POINTS NOT CREDITING
   count 20 (25.0%) | distinct accounts 9 | ARR affected $31,100
   accounts: C-0D3278C7 3500, C-0BF20542 4500, C-0D0B047C 4500, C-0BE96399 2700, C-0D284E42 3400, C-0D6CC8E3 4200, C-21FEBCBB 2900, C-0DD0626C 2500, C-0B2895EF 2900
   tickets cited: IC-460004, IC-460001
   rec: Fix the point-crediting pipeline (recognition "delivered" but points never post / balance doesn't update) — highest-volume theme, 9 distinct accounts, mostly sub-$5K logos.

5) SLACK INTEGRATION / SLASH-COMMAND FAILURE
   count 14 (17.5%) | distinct accounts 4 | ARR affected $18,900
   accounts: C-0B843542 4400, C-10A56B0F 5400, C-0BA71F12 3900, C-8C2E8F00 5200
   tickets cited: IC-460041, IC-460047
   rec: Repair the Slack app auth/sync (token refresh not sticking, toggle resets, slash command erroring) — 4 accounts, repeated re-auth failures.

================================================================
BROAD PATTERNS vs SINGLE-ACCOUNT NOISE
================================================================
BROAD (multi-account, treat as systemic):
 - HRIS provisioning (3 accounts, $114K)
 - Redemption/gift-card (7 accounts, $68.8K)
 - Points not crediting (9 accounts, $31.1K)
 - Slack (4 accounts, $18.9K)

SINGLE-ACCOUNT NOISE (high ticket count, one logo):
 - Billing errors: ALL 16 tickets are C-0E9C27D1 (one $52K account). It ranks #3 by ARR only because that one logo is large; it is NOT a broad product defect — it is one account's billing/invoicing problem.

ARITHMETIC CHECK (all 80 tickets accounted for):
 20 + 14 + 18 + 16 + 12 = 80
 shares: 25.0 + 17.5 + 22.5 + 20.0 + 15.0 = 100.0%

Note on tags: several tickets' tags did NOT match their text (e.g., IC-460020 tagged "billing" but text is points-not-crediting; IC-460002 tagged "feedback" but text is points-not-crediting; IC-460050 tagged "billing" but text is Slack slash-command error). Grouping was done on body_text only, as instructed.

WEEKLY MARKETING GOALS UPDATE — Q3-2026 (as of day 66 of 92; 71.7% elapsed)
Pace basis: days_elapsed / days_in_quarter = 66 / 92 = 0.7174 (71.7%).
"On pace" threshold for higher-better metrics = target × 0.7174.
For the MIA rate (lower-better), actual is compared directly to the full-quarter target.

SQMs
  QTD actual: 230
  Target: 300
  Delta: 230 − 300 = −70
  Pace: threshold 300 × 0.7174 = 215.2; actual 230 ≥ 215.2 → AHEAD of pace

SQOs
  QTD actual: 84
  Target: 120
  Delta: 84 − 120 = −36
  Pace: threshold 120 × 0.7174 = 86.1; actual 84 < 86.1 → BEHIND pace

DS2s
  QTD actual: 40
  Target: 75
  Delta: 40 − 75 = −35
  Pace: threshold 75 × 0.7174 = 53.8; actual 40 < 53.8 → BEHIND pace

Closed-Lost MIA Rate
  QTD actual: 5 / 25 = 0.20 (20%) — computed from closed_lost_mia (5) ÷ closed_lost_total (25)
  Target: 0.10 (10%)
  Delta: 0.20 − 0.10 = +0.10 (over target)
  Pace: actual 20% already exceeds the full-quarter target of 10% → BEHIND pace (worse than plan)

Same-Quarter Closes
  QTD actual: 10
  Target: 20
  Delta: 10 − 20 = −10
  Pace: threshold 20 × 0.7174 = 14.3; actual 10 < 14.3 → BEHIND pace

Active Pipeline Coverage vs Target
  QTD actual: 3,000,000
  Target: 4,000,000
  Delta: 3,000,000 − 4,000,000 = −1,000,000
  Pace: threshold 4,000,000 × 0.7174 = 2,869,565; actual 3,000,000 ≥ 2,869,565 → AHEAD of pace
  Coverage: 3,000,000 / 4,000,000 = 75% of target (0.75x)

WHAT MOVED THIS WEEK
Cannot be computed from the data provided. The three files (marketing_qtd.csv, targets.csv, quarter_meta.csv) contain only QTD cumulative figures as of day 66 and the full-quarter targets — there is no prior-week snapshot, no daily/period delta feed, and no per-deal or weekly time series. Reporting "what moved" would require inventing week-over-week deltas, which I will not do. To produce the movement paragraph, supply a prior-period extract (e.g., QTD values as of day 59, or a daily log of SQM/SQO/DS2/close/pipeline changes) and I will recompute the week-over-week deltas exactly.

Q1 — Is customer data encrypted at rest? If so, how?
Yes. AES-256. [P1]

Q2 — Is data encrypted in transit?
Yes. TLS 1.2 or higher. [P1]

Q3 — Do you hold a SOC 2 report, and can we obtain a copy?
Yes. Bonusly maintains a SOC 2 Type II report, renewed annually, available to prospects under NDA. [P2]

Q4 — How long is customer data retained after contract termination?
Retained for the duration of the contract plus 90 days, after which it is deleted from production systems. [P3]

Q5 — Where is your subprocessor list published and how are changes notified?
Published at trust.bonusly.com. Customers receive 30 days notice before a new subprocessor is added. [P4]

Q6 — Do you support SAML single sign-on?
Yes. SAML 2.0 single sign-on is available on the Enterprise plan. (SCIM user provisioning also available on Enterprise per [P5].) [P5]

Q7 — What is your production backup schedule and retention?
Production databases backed up daily; backups are encrypted and retained for 35 days. [P6]

Q8 — Do you hold an ISO 27001 certification?
Unanswerable from the provided excerpts. The excerpts (P1–P8) contain no ISO 27001 reference. The document that would answer this is Bonusly's security/compliance certifications listing (e.g., the Trust portal certifications page or a formal ISO 27001 certificate) — not included here.

Q9 — What is your contractual uptime SLA percentage?
Unanswerable from the provided excerpts. The excerpts (P1–P8) contain no uptime/SLA figure. The document that would answer this is the Master Subscription Agreement or the SLA/Terms of Service — not included here.

show the model's full answer

NDA-1 — GREEN (standard approval)
Reasoning: Mutual, standard carve-outs, Delaware law, two-year term with three-year survival, no unusual terms — classifies as standard per the file's clause 5 ("No license, no obligation to proceed, no exclusivity.") and clause 3 carve-outs (a–e).

NDA-2 — YELLOW (counsel review)
Reasoning: Otherwise standard (mutual, Delaware, standard carve-outs) but contains an embedded non-solicit — clause 4: "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." — which needs counsel review.

NDA-3 — RED (full legal review)
Reasoning: Three red flags — (1) one-way confidentiality in favor of [PARTY C] (clause 1), (2) embedded non-compete, clause 2: "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) no confidentiality carve-outs (clause 4: "No confidentiality carve-outs are stated in this Agreement."), and (4) foreign governing law, clause 3: "laws of the Republic of Ireland, and the parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of its courts." — collectively requiring full legal review.