EverNorth — Daily Callers Report

Thursday, 30 July 2026

built 31 Jul 2026, 06:05 · America/Toronto
archive

Calls

all attempts

Leads

new today

Reached

80.0% of calls

Qualified

good status

Booked

moved to 1.4

Messages

SMS

Follow-up

older leads

Lead→Booked

16.7%

daily rate

Day timeline bar height = call length · grey = no answer

070911131517192123

Sara

Anshuman

no calls

Reine

Jonathan

no calls

Leads by source 18 total

PGWP-IG

ITC-PGWP

ITC-WEB

Speed to lead 5 of 18 leads called

Fastest

164 min

Reine Francis

Slowest

566 min

Reine Francis

median 369 min · 13 leads never called

Conversion by caller

Caller	Leads	Calls	Reached	Reach	Qualified	Booked	Book
Sara Habchi	0	18	16	88.9%	0	0	0.0%
Anshuman Mishra	6	0	0	0.0%	0	2	33.3%
Reine Francis	5	17	12	70.6%	3	1	20.0%
Jonathan Gutman	0	0	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%

Daily funnel

Leads

Contacted

Qualified

Consultations

Lead statuses at end of day one bucket per lead

Consultation booked

Not qualified / lost

Qualified

In progress (contacted)

New / no activity

Caller activity

Caller	Calls	Talk	Span	First	Last	Notes
Sara Habchi	18	21:50	5:11:43	06:38	11:49	25
Anshuman Mishra	0	0:00	—	—	—	8
Reine Francis	17	28:13	2:59:47	09:05	12:05	48
Jonathan Gutman	0	0:00	—	—	—	0

Booked consultations 3 today

Client	Source	Booked by	Lead created	Booked at
Vishw Patel	ITC-WEB	Reine Francis	29 Jul 15:06	12:31
Darshan Bhagavath	—	Anshuman Mishra	30 Jul 15:33	18:16
Adnan Alim	PGWP-IG	Anshuman Mishra	28 Jul 13:51	20:59

Call reviews 20 of 28 answered calls

Reine Francis Mohammed 09:05 · 10:27 19/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, and effectively explored the client's immigration status, goals, and work experience. They explained the relevant programs and timelines well, and handled objections professionally, especially the 'I'll think about it' concern, while emphasizing the importance of the consultation with the RCIC director.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking for the client's age and education, which are important for eligibility assessment. They also did not confirm contact details or lock in a specific consultation date and time, leaving the next step somewhat open-ended. Additionally, there was no summary of the agreements at the end of the call to reinforce understanding and commitment.

Reine Francis — 09:24 · 0:12 2/26

What was good

The call was very brief and did not contain any misleading or illegal promises. The caller maintained compliance by not guaranteeing any visa or approval.

What went wrong

The call ended too quickly to engage the lead or gather any information. There was no introduction, no questions asked, and no attempt to offer a consultation or next steps.

Reine Francis Sarah 09:24 · 1:30 4/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly as 'Ren, team leader at FNorth' and addressed the lead by name, 'Hi Sarah.' The caller attempted to engage despite technical difficulties, showing persistence.

What went wrong

The call was dominated by technical issues and did not progress to any immigration-related discussion or qualification. No questions about the lead's situation or goals were asked, and no next steps were offered. The call ended abruptly without any meaningful engagement or scheduling.

Sara Habchi — 09:26 · 0:53 0/24

What was good

The caller attempted to engage by checking audio quality, showing some effort to communicate.

What went wrong

The call lacked any meaningful immigration discussion or sales process steps; no introduction, no client info gathered, and no next steps offered.

Reine Francis — 09:32 · 1:27 2/26

What was good

The call did not contain any illegal promises or guarantees, which is important for compliance.

What went wrong

The caller did not perform any meaningful engagement with the lead; there was no introduction, no questions asked, no information gathered, and no next steps offered. The call transcript is essentially nonsensical and unprofessional, lacking any relevant content.

Sara Habchi Sahil 09:40 · 0:49 4/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, and addressed the lead by name, showing some personalization. There were no illegal promises made during the call, maintaining compliance.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not progress beyond the initial introduction and voicemail message. The caller missed the opportunity to gather any client information, assess eligibility, present services, or offer a next step. No attempt was made to handle objections or confirm contact details, resulting in a lost engagement opportunity.

Sara Habchi — 09:44 · 1:31 7/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, saying, "This is Sarah, case manager with Evernorth." She effectively locked in a specific date and time for the next call, confirming "I will schedule the call for tomorrow at 11:30 a.m." and offered a next step by arranging a follow-up discussion.

What went wrong

The caller missed multiple key qualification steps such as asking the client's name, citizenship, immigration status, goals, and other eligibility factors. There was no explanation of services, no handling of objections, and no confirmation of contact details. The call was very brief and mostly focused on scheduling without gathering any client information or building rapport.

Reine Francis Amrit 09:44 · 0:49 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed the lead's identity, saying, "This is Ren, team leader at Evernorth" and "Is this Amrit?" They handled the lead's request to talk later politely and offered to send an email with details, showing respect for the lead's time.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not cover any substantive immigration questions or assessments. The caller missed opportunities to gather key information like the lead's goals, status, or eligibility, and did not lock in a specific follow-up time. There was also no confirmation of contact details or summary of next steps beyond a vague promise to email.

Reine Francis RJ 09:47 · 1:07 6/24

What was good

The caller introduced himself clearly as Ram from Evernorth and confirmed the lead's name, RJ. He was polite and offered to send an email with details, showing respect for the lead's current unavailability.

What went wrong

The caller missed multiple key qualification questions such as immigration status, goals, and eligibility assessment. No next step was firmly scheduled, and contact details were not confirmed. The call ended abruptly without summarizing any agreements or locking a follow-up time.

Reine Francis Olga 09:51 · 0:53 8/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed the lead's name, saying, "This is Ren, Team Leader at Evernorth" and "Hello, Olga?" They also successfully locked a specific callback time at 1 p.m. and offered a clear next step by promising to send an email for further details and confirmation.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and lacked any substantive qualification or needs assessment; the caller did not ask about Olga's immigration status, goals, or background. There was no explanation of the process or programs, no confirmation of contact details, and no summary of agreements. This limited engagement missed an opportunity to build rapport and gather essential information.

Sara Habchi — 09:58 · 0:12 2/26

What was good

The call was very brief and did not contain any misleading or illegal promises. It was clear that no commitments were made, maintaining compliance.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they engage the lead in any meaningful way. No information was gathered or next steps offered, resulting in a missed opportunity to connect with the lead.

Sara Habchi Praveen 10:01 · 13:46 21/24

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, confirming the lead's name and detailed background thoroughly. She explained the PR pathways and next steps clearly, including the involvement of an RCIC licensed consultant and the paid consultation offer. The discussion was professional and compliant, avoiding any illegal promises.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation, which is important to secure the next step. Also, the call ended without a clear summary of the agreements made, which could help reinforce the lead's understanding and commitment.

Reine Francis — 10:15 · 1:47 7/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed the client's current immigration status, showing attentiveness to details like the work permit type and expiry. They also offered a clear next step by proposing to send details via email and schedule a follow-up call.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key qualification questions such as the client's name, immigration goals, age, education, and language proficiency, which are essential for proper assessment. They also failed to lock in a specific follow-up date or confirm contact details, and did not summarize the call's agreements before ending it.

Sara Habchi Zuharuf 10:17 · 1:14 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying 'this is Sarah from Evernorth,' and correctly used the lead's name, Zuharuf. She effectively arranged a specific follow-up time, saying 'I can transfer your case manager that works after 4 p.m.' which shows good handling of scheduling despite the lead's limited availability.

What went wrong

The caller missed many key qualification questions such as citizenship, immigration status, goals, and work experience, which are essential for assessing eligibility. No next steps like offering a paid consultation were presented, and contact details were not confirmed. The call was very brief and mostly focused on scheduling rather than exploring the lead's needs or explaining services.

Reine Francis Sandeep 10:20 · 7:23 16/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced himself and the company, addressing the lead by name and confirming the current immigration status. He effectively presented relevant immigration programs and explained the next steps, including the paid consultation, and successfully locked a specific date and time for the meeting.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking about the lead's citizenship, age, education, language proficiency, and work experience, which are important for eligibility assessment. There was no summary of agreements at the end of the call to reinforce understanding. Also, no objections were handled, though none were raised by the lead during this call.

Sara Habchi — 10:31 · 0:10 0/24

What was good

The caller attempted to reach the lead promptly but reached voicemail quickly.

What went wrong

The caller did not leave a message or attempt to engage the lead further, missing an opportunity to introduce themselves or offer a callback.

Reine Francis Harsh 10:32 · 0:36 4/26

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company, and addressed the lead by name, which is good for personalization. The message was polite and invited the lead to respond with their preferred time and communication method.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not cover any substantive immigration questions or next steps like offering a consultation or confirming contact details. There was no attempt to assess the lead's situation or lock in a follow-up appointment, which limits the effectiveness of the outreach.

Sara Habchi Navjeep 10:32 · 1:41 4/23

What was good

The caller was polite and confirmed the client's name and immigration status accurately, showing attentiveness to details like the PGWP expiry date. They clearly communicated the limitation regarding the short time left on the PGWP, setting realistic expectations without making any illegal promises.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask about the client's goals, age, education, or language skills, missing key qualification steps. They also failed to offer any next steps or consultations, and did not confirm contact details or summarize the call, resulting in a very limited engagement with the lead.

Reine Francis Mo 10:35 · 0:40 4/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, and addressed the lead by name, showing personalization. The message was polite and invited the lead to respond for next steps, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not cover any qualifying questions or offer any consultation details. There was no attempt to confirm contact details or lock a follow-up appointment, which limits the effectiveness of the outreach.

Sara Habchi Calvin 11:49 · 0:58 8/24

What was good

The caller efficiently scheduled a follow-up consultation call, confirming a specific date and time with the lead, saying 'I will schedule the call for tomorrow at 1:30.' The introduction was clear, identifying herself and the company, and the lead's name was used appropriately.

What went wrong

The call lacked any discussion of the lead's immigration details such as status, goals, or eligibility, missing a key opportunity to engage and qualify the lead. There was no confirmation of contact details or summary of agreements at the end, which are important for ensuring clarity and next steps.

data check · 7 calls not matched to a lead · 7 leads unassigned · reached counts every answered call, voicemail included