EverNorth — Daily Callers Report

Friday, 31 July 2026

built 07 Aug 2026, 15:14 · America/Toronto
archive

Calls

23 out / 5 in

Leads

new today

Reached

53.6% of calls

Qualified

good status

Booked

moved to 1.4

Messages

SMS

Follow-up

older leads

Lead→Booked

29.4%

daily rate

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

070911131517192123

Sara

Anshuman

Reine

Jonathan

no calls

Leads by source 17 total

PGWP-IG

ITC-PGWP

ITC-WEB

Speed to lead 2 of 17 leads called

Fastest

515 min

Sara Habchi

Slowest

522 min

Sara Habchi

median 522 min · 15 leads never called

Conversion by caller

Caller	Leads	Calls	Reached	Reach	Qualified	Booked	Book
Sara Habchi	4	20	14	70.0%	0	2	50.0%
Anshuman Mishra	8	5	0	0.0%	8	1	12.5%
Reine Francis	3	3	1	33.3%	1	2	66.7%
Jonathan Gutman	1	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	20	1:19:07	5:41:44	08:01	13:43	25
Anshuman Mishra	5	0:00	10:04	19:28	19:38	8
Reine Francis	3	0:39	22:13	10:38	11:01	55
Jonathan Gutman	0	0:00	—	—	—	0

Booked consultations 5 today

Client	Source	Booked by	Lead created	Booked at
Shrijan Thapa	Client's referral	Sara Habchi	30 Jul 20:00	10:51
Solomon Ayankoya	ITC-WEB	Reine Francis	30 Jul 09:57	11:11
Ritik Singh Tanwar	New Lead Organic	Reine Francis	30 Jul 20:00	12:41
Calvin Rohit Panchal	ITC-PGWP	Sara Habchi	27 Jul 17:54	13:53
Chukwubuikem Okonkwo	PGWP-IG	Anshuman Mishra	29 Jul 18:54	18:53

Call reviews 9 of 15 answered calls

Sara Habchi Edward 08:01 · 15:06 19/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, and effectively gathered detailed information about Edward's immigration status, education, and work experience. She provided a thorough explanation of the available immigration pathways and next steps, showing good knowledge of the programs relevant to his profile.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask Edward's age, nor did she mention the RCIC license or past successful cases to build trust. There was no confirmation of contact details or locking in a specific next appointment time. The call ended without a summary of agreements, which could have strengthened the closure and commitment.

Sara Habchi Edward 08:18 · 2:36 11/26

What was good

The caller clearly explained the consultation process and payment details, stating, "you would be required to make a payment of a security deposit of $99 CAD." They handled the 'I'll think about it' objection well by encouraging further questions and offering multiple contact methods. The caller also confirmed contact details and summarized the agreements effectively before ending the call.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key qualification questions such as citizenship, immigration status, goals, and work experience, which are essential for assessing eligibility. There was no clear introduction or company name given, which can reduce professionalism and trust. The call focused mostly on consultation logistics without exploring the lead's needs or presenting suitable immigration programs.

Sara Habchi Rahul 09:44 · 0:55 4/24

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying 'This is Sarah from Evernorth.' She also addressed the lead by name, 'Hello Rahul,' which personalizes the call and shows attention to detail.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not progress beyond introduction and scheduling intent. There was no attempt to gather any client information or discuss immigration goals. No next steps were locked in, and no consultation was offered. The call ended abruptly without confirming contact details or summarizing any agreements.

Sara Habchi Kevin 09:57 · 0:21 4/26

What was good

The caller correctly introduced herself and the company, and addressed the lead by name, showing some personalization. The message was polite and clear about the missed scheduled call, asking the lead to reschedule via SMS.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not include any qualification questions or discussion about the lead's immigration goals or status. No next steps or consultations were offered, and no contact details were confirmed. The caller missed the opportunity to engage the lead further or lock in a new appointment time.

Sara Habchi Shrijan 10:30 · 15:56 19/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and gathered detailed information about Shrijan's status, education, language skills, and work experience. She explained the PR pathways and next steps thoroughly, including the role of the RCIC license consultant, and offered a paid consultation as the next step.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask about citizenship or country of residence, nor did she confirm contact details or lock in a specific consultation date and time. There was no summary of agreements at the end, and no handling of common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself.'

Reine Francis Mo 10:39 · 0:39 4/22

What was good

The caller personalized the message by addressing the lead by name, saying "Hi Mo" and suggested a specific follow-up time, "we can schedule our call for Monday." They also requested a response by email, which helps maintain contact.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, missing a key opportunity to build trust. There was no attempt to gather any client information or discuss immigration goals, and no next steps like a paid consultation were offered. The voicemail was very brief and lacked any substantive engagement.

Sara Habchi Suno 11:04 · 15:49 20/24

What was good

The caller thoroughly gathered detailed information about Suno's status, education, work experience, and language proficiency, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the lead's profile. She clearly explained the available immigration pathways, including Canadian Experience Class and PNP, and outlined the next steps involving a consultation with the director and RCIC licensed consultant. The caller maintained compliance by avoiding any guaranteed promises and emphasized personalized strategies based on evaluation.

What went wrong

The caller missed locking in a specific date and time for the consultation, which is crucial to secure the lead's commitment. Additionally, there was no explicit confirmation of contact details such as WhatsApp or email, nor was there a summary of agreements at the end of the call to reinforce the next steps. These omissions could lead to follow-up challenges and reduce the likelihood of conversion.

Sara Habchi Hassan 13:23 · 0:46 4/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying 'This is Sarah from Avro North,' and addressed the lead by name, 'Hassan.' The tone was polite and professional, aiming to follow up on a payment update.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and missed many key qualification and sales steps such as asking about Hassan's immigration status, goals, or offering a next step like a paid consultation. There was no attempt to handle objections or confirm details, making the call incomplete for progressing the lead effectively.

Sara Habchi Calvin 13:30 · 0:37 4/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying, "this is Sarah from Evernorth," and addressed the lead by name, "Calvin." The caller was polite and respectful of the lead's time, asking if it was a suitable time to talk.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not progress beyond introductions and scheduling a callback. The caller missed the opportunity to gather any immigration-related information or discuss next steps. There was no attempt to engage the lead further or confirm contact details, and no consultation was offered or scheduled.

data check · 8 calls not matched to a lead · 1 leads unassigned · reached counts every answered call, voicemail included