ClearCompare requirements meeting · 20-Oct-26
Main points and action items
| # | Action | Owner | Due |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Write the Business Requirements Document, the KPI Requirements Table with draft calculations, and the Project Plan | Gary | Before the Monday exec meeting, 26-Oct-26 |
| 2 | Review and sign off Gary's proposed owners, actions, dates and targets | Adam (acting subject matter expert) | At the Stage 1 gate |
| 3 | Answer the 4 open questions below | Priya | Before Stage 2 starts |
| 4 | Test every draft calculation on the Snowflake data, and set baselines and the pace needed | Kewpie | After Stage 1 sign-off |
Test case. ClearCompare is a made-up organisation. Priya is played by Ovy, answering only from stakeholder-file.md. Anything not in that file gets "I don't know". Items marked "only if asked" are given only when Gary's question touches them.| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Date | 20-Oct-26 |
| Length | 30 minutes (simulated) |
| Interviewer | Gary, KPI Creator Stage 1 |
| Stakeholder | Priya, Chief Commercial Officer (played by Ovy) |
| Observer | Adam (acting subject matter expert for sign-off) |
| Questions used | 7 of 7, plus 4 probes |
| Source record | 2026.10.20 - ClearCompare - 01 Interview Notes.md |
Thanks for the time, Priya. I'm Gary. My job today is to understand the business problem, then agree with you which measures matter, why, and what someone does when one goes off track. I'll ask up to 7 questions, one or two at a time. At the end I'll play it all back and you tell me if I've got it right.
Fine. I've got 30 minutes. I want something I can use in the Monday exec meeting.
Understood. Anything I don't hear today I'll log as an open question rather than guess.
What's the business problem, and why does it matter now?
Revenue per lead dropped 9% last quarter. Marketing blames sales, sales blames lead quality, and finance says it's clawbacks. I need to know which.
three competing explanations, three teams, no shared answer. The stated problem is "revenue per lead fell". The real problem looks like "nobody can split a movement into its causes". Check this in the playback, don't lead the witness.
What happens if nothing changes in the next 6 months?
I don't know.
no cost-of-inaction figure. Log as open. Move on.
What are the 2 or 3 outcomes the business is trying to achieve? And how would you know each one is happening: any numbers in mind?
Three things:
On numbers: cut cost per acquisition on paid search, lift health insurance conversion back to 11% (it's 9.4% now), and reduce 90-day clawbacks.
the probe surfaced the three sub-objectives. Only one has a target value: health conversion at 11%. "Net" in the first objective matters: today's reporting may be gross. Ask about revenue rules in Q4.
So the three objectives, with sub-objectives:
Have I grouped those correctly?
Yes.
Who will use this, and what decisions will they make with it?
What format: a screen in the meeting, on a phone, or a printed board pack?
I don't know.
two audiences, two rhythms. Exec view weekly, operational view daily. Format unknown: open question. Decisions are implied, not stated: exec decides where to push spend and sales effort; vertical heads and marketing make daily channel and team changes. Label as Strong Inference.
the most valuable question. Ask it per outcome.
Take each outcome in turn. What do you want to know, and what would you do if it went off track?
When a number moves, the dashboard tells me why before anyone asks.
On revenue specifically: how is commission earned and reported today?
Partners claw back commission if a health or life policy is cancelled within 90 days. Reporting today shows gross revenue.
this is the "only if asked" commission rule. It explains why finance blames clawbacks, and why gross reporting hides it. Net revenue per lead must be net of clawbacks, and the latest 90 days of clawbacks are still landing, so the current quarter is incomplete.
If revenue per lead or conversion went off track, who would act on it, and what would they do?
I don't know.
no actions or owners given. A KPI without an action and an owner fails the Must Have test. I'll propose actions and owners as Working Hypotheses, clearly labelled, for Adam to sign off as subject matter expert. Never present them as Priya's words.
What targets and dates are you working to?
Health conversion back to 11%.
Any date for that, or targets for the other outcomes?
I don't know.
one target value, no dates. Propose dates and FY26-based targets as Working Hypotheses. Log "target dates" as open.
What data exists today, and what do you trust or not trust about it?
We've got leads, contacts, sales with clawbacks, marketing spend by day and channel, and complaints. 24 months of history. It's all in Snowflake, and we use Tableau.
Anything you don't trust?
6% of sales can't be matched back to a lead, because of manual partner uploads. And Manila call outcomes were in a separate system before March 2025.
five tables, 24 months each. Two known gaps:
Refresh frequency not stated: assume daily from the "daily" audience, label as Working Hypothesis.
Anything I must or mustn't do: privacy, tools, chart likes and dislikes?
We're financial services. Complaints and compliance breaches must stay visible.
Agent-level data is fine for team leaders, but not on the exec view.
And show me a bridge from last quarter to this quarter. I hate funnels that don't add up.
Here's what I've heard, in one line:
Net revenue per lead fell about 9% last quarter, and nobody can say whether the mix of leads, sales conversion or cancelled policies caused it. Without one trusted answer, teams argue about the numbers instead of fixing the problem.
In more detail: you want to grow net commission revenue profitably, convert leads more efficiently, and explain any movement within a day. You and the exec team will use this weekly, at the Monday meeting, to decide where to push or pull marketing spend and sales effort. Vertical heads and marketing will use it daily.
The five measures that drive action are:
| Measure | Objective | Type | Proposed owner | Proposed target |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net revenue per lead | Grow net commission revenue profitably; Explain changes within a day | Lagging | CCO | Back to the April to June 2026 level by 30-Jun-27 |
| Cost per acquisition, by channel | Grow net commission revenue profitably | Lagging | Head of Marketing | Paid search 10% below its FY26 average by 30-Jun-27 |
| 90-day clawback rate | Grow net commission revenue profitably | Lagging | Vertical heads | Back to the FY26 average by 30-Jun-27 |
| Lead-to-sale conversion, by product area | Convert leads more efficiently | Leading | Vertical heads | Health 11% (your number); others hold FY26 average |
| Speed to contact | Convert leads more efficiently | Leading | Head of Sales Operations | Median of 10 minutes or less by 31-Mar-27 |
Underneath those sit three supporting measures: lead mix by product area (under net revenue per lead), health insurance conversion, and complaints per 1,000 sales (both under lead-to-sale conversion). The revenue bridge from last quarter to this quarter sits next to net revenue per lead and answers "why did it move".
I've parked 4 Nice to Haves: total leads, revenue by partner, agent-level conversion and website visits. None has an action or owner, or it breaks the exec-view rule.
To be clear on what came from you and what came from me:
Still open:
Is this right?
The problem and the objectives are right. On the owners and dates, I don't know.
Priya confirms what's in her file. She can't confirm my proposals. In test mode, those pass to Adam at the Stage 1 gate.
Thanks, Priya. Next steps:
Good. Get it to me before Monday.
| Area | Status |
|---|---|
| Who | ✅ Audiences and rhythm known · ⚠️ format open |
| What | ✅ Problem, 3 objectives, 3 sub-objectives |
| Where | ✅ 5 tables, 24 months, 2 known gaps · refresh assumed daily (Working Hypothesis) |
| When | ⚠️ One target (health 11%), no dates · dates proposed by Gary |
| Why | ✅ Why now and why each measure · ⚠️ actions and owners proposed by Gary for sign-off |
| Version | Date | Change | By |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 20-Oct-26 | Meeting script simulated from the stakeholder file and the Stage 1 interview notes | Gary |