EverNorth — Daily Callers Report

Wednesday, 05 August 2026

built 06 Aug 2026, 06:13 · America/Toronto
archive

Calls

all attempts

Leads

new today

Reached

68.2% of calls

Qualified

good status

Booked

moved to 1.4

Messages

SMS

Follow-up

older leads

Lead→Booked

3.6%

daily rate

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

070911131517192123

Sara

Anshuman

no calls

Reine

Jonathan

no calls

Leads by source 28 total

PGWP-IG

ITC-PGWP

ITC-WEB

NEW STRATEGY EMPLOYMENT

Speed to lead 0 of 28 leads called

no calls matched to today's leads

Conversion by caller

Caller	Leads	Calls	Reached	Reach	Qualified	Booked	Book
Sara Habchi	0	54	41	75.9%	0	0	0.0%
Anshuman Mishra	12	0	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%
Reine Francis	6	12	4	33.3%	4	1	16.7%
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	54	1:01:28	6:44:22	08:48	15:32	90
Anshuman Mishra	0	0:00	—	—	—	6
Reine Francis	12	10:08	3:19:13	09:46	13:05	81
Jonathan Gutman	0	0:00	—	—	—	0

Booked consultations 1 today

Client	Source	Booked by	Lead created	Booked at
Faustino II Montoya	ITC-PGWP	Reine Francis	29 Jun 02:54	16:00

Call reviews 36 of 45 answered calls

Sara Habchi Kevin 08:48 · 2:56 16/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying 'this is Sarah from Evernorth.' She effectively handled the lead's hesitation by providing detailed explanations about eligibility and program options, addressing the client's concerns about the trades route and alternative pathways. The caller also demonstrated compliance by avoiding any promises of guaranteed outcomes and mentioning the RCIC license.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to confirm key client details such as citizenship, age, and education, which are important for a thorough assessment. There was no explicit offer of a paid consultation or locking in a specific appointment time, and contact details were not confirmed. Additionally, the call ended without summarizing the agreements or next steps clearly to the client.

Sara Habchi Edward 08:52 · 0:38 3/26

What was good

The caller clearly identified herself and the company, saying, "This is Sarah from Evernorth." She also maintained professionalism by leaving a polite and clear voicemail message for Edward.

What went wrong

The call was a voicemail message only, so no opportunity was taken to ask any qualifying questions or handle objections. There was no offer of a next step or attempt to lock a consultation date, and no confirmation of contact details. The call lacked engagement beyond a follow-up message.

Sara Habchi Suno 08:57 · 0:52 6/10

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying 'this is Sarah from Evernorth,' and addressed the lead by name, 'Suno.' She also appropriately followed up on the previous call and invited the lead to reach out with questions or a decision about proceeding with the consultation.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not cover any immigration details such as goals, status, or eligibility. The caller did not lock in a specific appointment time or confirm contact details, nor did she summarize any agreements. This call missed opportunities to engage the lead more deeply and secure the next steps.

Sara Habchi — 09:01 · 0:33 2/26

What was good

The caller respected the client's situation by agreeing to call back later and offered to send an SMS for follow-up, showing consideration for the client's availability.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they attempt to gather any information or move the conversation forward. The call ended abruptly without offering a next step or confirming any details, missing a clear opportunity to engage the lead effectively.

Sara Habchi Chirag 09:05 · 0:22 4/26

What was good

The caller clearly identified herself and the company, and addressed the lead by name, which personalizes the message. The follow-up tone was polite and professional, encouraging the lead to respond when available.

What went wrong

This was a voicemail message, so the caller missed the opportunity to engage directly or gather any information. There was no attempt to confirm details, handle objections, or secure a next step like booking a consultation. The call lacked any substantive interaction beyond a brief follow-up message.

Sara Habchi Eric 09:08 · 0:28 4/26

What was good

The caller clearly identified herself and the company, and addressed the lead by name, showing personalization. The message was polite and professional, inviting the lead to respond with any questions or updates.

What went wrong

The call was only a voicemail message with no opportunity to engage in meaningful conversation or gather any client information. No next steps were offered or scheduled, and no key qualifying questions were asked. This limits the effectiveness of the follow-up.

Sara Habchi Dayo 09:10 · 0:27 4/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, and addressed the lead by name, showing a personal touch. The message was polite and professional, maintaining a respectful tone for a follow-up call.

What went wrong

The caller missed the opportunity to gather any new information or advance the sales process, such as confirming the lead's current status or offering a next step. There was no attempt to handle objections or lock in a consultation, making the call ineffective beyond a simple reminder.

Sara Habchi — 09:14 · 0:21 0/24

What was good

The caller attempted to engage by greeting the lead warmly with "Hello everyone, how are you today?" but the call was extremely short and lacked any substantive interaction.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask any qualifying questions or attempt to gather information. The call ended almost immediately without any meaningful conversation or next steps.

Sara Habchi Faison 09:17 · 0:52 4/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, and addressed the lead by name, showing some personalization. She also referenced prior email communication, which helps maintain continuity.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not progress beyond a greeting and checking availability. There was no attempt to gather any client information, discuss goals, or offer next steps. The call ended abruptly without any engagement or scheduling.

Sara Habchi Rafi 09:21 · 0:25 1/24

What was good

The caller correctly identified the lead by name and left a polite voicemail message referencing prior contact, which maintains engagement.

What went wrong

The call was a voicemail with no direct interaction, so none of the checklist items beyond naming the lead were addressed. There was no introduction, no qualification, no offer of next steps, and no confirmation of details. The caller missed an opportunity to provide more information or invite a callback with specifics.

Sara Habchi Ayush 09:22 · 1:34 10/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, greeting the lead by name which helps build rapport. She successfully offered next steps by discussing possible consultation dates and clarified office availability, showing good handling of scheduling details.

What went wrong

The call lacked any immigration-related discovery or assessment; key information like citizenship, status, and goals were not explored. There was no explanation of services, no mention of RCIC credentials, and no confirmation of contact details or summary at the end, which are important for professionalism and compliance.

Sara Habchi Priscilla 09:25 · 0:24 4/26

What was good

The caller clearly identified herself and the company, and addressed the lead by name, showing a personal touch by referencing the previous conversation.

What went wrong

The call was only a voicemail message with no opportunity to engage or gather information. No next steps or consultation offers were made, and no client details or goals were discussed.

Sara Habchi Sunny 09:30 · 4:38 21/26

What was good

The caller effectively re-engaged the lead Sunny by referencing previous discussions and clearly explained the consultation process and alternative pathways. They successfully locked in a specific date and time for the consultation and confirmed communication details, saying, 'I will send you the link in a few minutes via WhatsApp.'

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to ask about the lead's citizenship, age, education, and language proficiency, which are important for eligibility assessment. Also, there was no handling of the 'I'll do it myself' objection, which could arise in such calls.

Sara Habchi Mohammad 09:39 · 0:46 6/26

What was good

The caller correctly addressed the lead by name and referenced prior communication, showing attentiveness to the client's situation. They also offered a clear next step by reminding about the consultation booking and mentioned WhatsApp as a contact method, which helps maintain engagement.

What went wrong

The call was a voicemail with no introduction or company identification, which misses an opportunity to build trust. There was no attempt to gather or confirm any client details or discuss the immigration goals, eligibility, or process. The caller also did not lock in a specific appointment time or summarize any agreements, making the message less effective for conversion.

Sara Habchi Sabin 09:52 · 0:58 4/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, and addressed the lead by name, showing familiarity and professionalism.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not cover any substantive immigration questions or next steps. There was no offer of consultation or confirmation of details, and no handling of objections. The caller simply left a voicemail message without advancing the sales process.

Sara Habchi Sumit 09:57 · 1:06 6/26

What was good

The caller correctly identified the lead by name and company, and successfully locked in a specific callback date and time, saying 'I will call you back on Friday.'

What went wrong

The caller missed multiple opportunities to gather key information such as the client's immigration status, goals, and eligibility. There was no offer of a next step like a paid consultation, nor any confirmation of contact details or summary of agreements, making the call largely a follow-up without advancing the sales process.

Sara Habchi — 10:01 · 0:48 3/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying, "This is Sarah from Evernorth." She maintained a polite and professional tone throughout the call, closing it courteously with "Thank you and have a lovely day."

What went wrong

The call was very brief and lacked any meaningful engagement with the lead. The caller did not ask for the client's name, immigration details, or goals, nor did she offer any consultation or next steps. There was no attempt to handle objections or confirm contact details, making the call ineffective for progressing the lead.

Sara Habchi — 10:09 · 0:16 0/24

What was good

The caller attempted to reach the lead but encountered voicemail promptly.

What went wrong

The caller did not engage with the lead as the call went to voicemail immediately; no information was exchanged or collected.

Sara Habchi Abdul 10:13 · 1:21 4/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, greeting the lead by name which personalizes the call. She also confirmed a follow-up date with the lead, showing attentiveness to the lead's schedule by agreeing to call back after the 15th.

What went wrong

The call lacked any substantive discussion about the lead's immigration status, goals, or eligibility, missing multiple key qualification steps. There was no offer of a consultation or attempt to lock in a booking, and no confirmation of contact details or summary of next steps, making the call largely a scheduling follow-up without progressing the sales process.

Sara Habchi Muhammad 10:31 · 2:03 10/26

What was good

The caller engaged the lead by confirming his name and discussing his current job situation, showing attentiveness to his concerns about physical work. She handled the 'I'll think about it' objection well by agreeing to follow up next Monday, keeping the conversation open.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key qualification questions such as citizenship, immigration status, age, education, and language proficiency, which are crucial for assessing eligibility. There was no clear explanation of the process, no mention of the RCIC license, and no offer of a paid consultation or confirmation of contact details, which weakens the call's effectiveness.

Sara Habchi Bhavesh 10:43 · 4:22 7/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, addressing the lead by name, which helped establish rapport early on. She offered the next step of booking a paid consultation and confirmed WhatsApp contact details for follow-up, showing good process adherence.

What went wrong

The call lacked any discussion of the lead's immigration details such as status, goals, or eligibility, missing key qualification steps. Also, no specific appointment date or time was locked in, and there was no summary of agreements at the end, which weakens call closure effectiveness.

Sara Habchi Anthony 10:57 · 0:51 4/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, and addressed the lead by name, showing a personal touch.

What went wrong

The call did not progress beyond a voicemail message; no qualifying questions or next steps were discussed, and no consultation was booked.

Sara Habchi Nityam 11:07 · 3:52 10/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, addressing the lead by name and explaining the consultation process and pricing transparently. She handled the lead's objections about pricing well and avoided making any illegal promises, maintaining compliance.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key qualification questions such as citizenship, immigration status, age, education, and work experience, which are essential for assessing eligibility and presenting the right program. No specific appointment was locked, and contact details were not confirmed, which weakens the chance of securing the consultation. Additionally, the call ended without summarizing agreements or next steps clearly.

Sara Habchi Suman 11:28 · 1:21 4/26

What was good

The caller correctly identified the lead by name and company, and referenced the prior consultation, showing continuity. The caller was polite and respectful, ending the call courteously with, 'thank you for your time today.'

What went wrong

The call lacked any substantive immigration discussion or needs assessment; no program or next steps were offered. The caller missed opportunities to confirm details like citizenship, goals, or to book a consultation, making the call unproductive beyond a brief check-in.

Reine Francis Olgan 11:36 · 0:31 5/26

What was good

The caller respectfully left a clear voicemail message addressing Olgan by name and reminded her about the email with consultation details. The message was polite and professional, encouraging a response without pressure.

What went wrong

Since the call went to voicemail, the caller missed the opportunity to engage live and gather key client information or lock a consultation date. There was no confirmation of contact details or summary of next steps, which would have strengthened the follow-up.

Reine Francis — 11:37 · 2:06 7/26

What was good

The caller clearly handled the 'I'll think about it' objection well by agreeing to a follow-up and offered a detailed explanation of the consultation fees and process. They also successfully locked in a specific follow-up date, saying 'Maybe tomorrow? Tomorrow.' and offered a next step with a paid consultation.

What went wrong

The caller missed multiple key qualification steps such as asking the client's name, immigration status, goals, and other eligibility factors. There was no introduction or mention of the company or RCIC license, and no summary of agreements at the end. Contact details were not confirmed, which is important for follow-up. Overall, the call lacked foundational discovery and rapport building.

Sara Habchi Joe 11:37 · 0:55 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, 'Hello, Joe.' She was polite and respectful of the lead's time, acknowledging his busyness and offering to have a colleague call back later.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any substantive information about the lead's immigration status, goals, or eligibility, nor did she attempt to present any program or next steps. There was no effort to lock a specific callback time or confirm contact details. The call ended abruptly without summarizing or advancing the sales process.

Reine Francis — 11:41 · 0:19 0/24

What was good

The caller attempted to reach the lead and left a voicemail message as per protocol.

What went wrong

The call did not connect with the lead, so no engagement or information gathering occurred. There was no opportunity to introduce, qualify, or offer next steps.

Sara Habchi Jay Kumar 11:42 · 0:52 4/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, and confirmed the lead's name, showing professionalism. She also respected the client's decision-making process by offering a follow-up call next week, which keeps the communication open.

What went wrong

The call lacked any substantive discussion about the client's immigration status, goals, or eligibility, and no next steps or consultations were offered or scheduled. The conversation was very brief and did not advance the sales process beyond a simple follow-up arrangement.

Sara Habchi Harman 11:48 · 5:22 15/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, and addressed the lead by name, creating a personal connection. She effectively handled the lead's objections about job sectors and clarified the program eligibility, showing good knowledge of the client's situation. The offer to schedule a follow-up call with a colleague was a good next step to keep the lead engaged.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to confirm key client details such as citizenship, immigration status, age, and education, which are important for eligibility assessment. She did not explain the steps and timelines of the process, nor did she confirm contact details or lock in a specific appointment time, which could lead to follow-up difficulties. Also, there was no summary of the call's agreements to ensure mutual understanding before ending.

Reine Francis Aman Rupani 11:56 · 7:12 20/24

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and named the company, establishing credibility early on. She thoroughly explained the consultation process, fees, and potential immigration pathways, providing a clear picture of what the client can expect. The caller also secured a next step by locking in a consultation date and confirming contact details, ensuring a smooth follow-up.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to gather important client information such as age, education, language proficiency, and work experience, which are crucial for a thorough eligibility assessment. Although eligibility was generally discussed, more detailed questioning would have strengthened the evaluation. There were no objections handled, which could indicate a lack of probing for client concerns or hesitations.

Sara Habchi — 12:00 · 0:23 3/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, saying 'This is Sarah from Evernorth.' The message was polite and professional, inviting the lead to reschedule the call.

What went wrong

The call went to voicemail, so no client interaction occurred beyond the introduction. No questions were asked, no information gathered, and no next steps were offered or confirmed. The caller missed the opportunity to leave a more detailed message or offer a specific reschedule time.

Sara Habchi Emanuel 12:03 · 0:14 1/24

What was good

The caller correctly identified the lead's name, Emanuel, and engaged with him by saying, 'Emanuel, how are you today?'.

What went wrong

The call was extremely short and lacked any meaningful engagement or information gathering. There was no introduction, no discussion of the client's situation or goals, and no attempt to offer next steps or confirm details. The caller missed the opportunity to build rapport or advance the conversation in any way.

Sara Habchi — 12:17 · 1:24 7/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, saying 'this is Sarah from EverNorth.' She successfully locked a specific date and time for a follow-up call, confirming 'I will call you back at 1:30 p.m. today.' She also offered a next step by scheduling the consultation call.

What went wrong

The caller missed many key qualification questions such as the client's name, immigration status, goals, and background details. There was no discussion of eligibility, programs, or timelines, and no confirmation of contact details or summary of agreements. The call was very brief and focused only on scheduling, lacking substantive engagement with the lead.

Sara Habchi Ivan Shusaka 13:30 · 5:12 15/24

What was good

The caller effectively confirmed the lead's identity and gathered detailed information about his immigration status, education, work experience, and language proficiency. She provided a realistic assessment of eligibility, explaining why the current occupation does not qualify for PR pathways, which shows transparency and professionalism.

What went wrong

The caller did not confirm the lead's citizenship or country of residence, nor did she explain the next steps or timelines for the immigration process. There was no mention of the RCIC licence or past successful cases to build trust. The call ended abruptly without offering a paid consultation, locking a follow-up appointment, or confirming contact details, which missed opportunities to advance the lead in the sales funnel.

Sara Habchi Ivan 13:36 · 11:14 16/24

What was good

The caller provided detailed information about the client's current work experience and eligibility, explaining the in-demand sectors and relevant PR pathways clearly. They also mentioned the RCIC license and offered to assist with next steps by creating the form and confirming client details.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company at the start, which is important for professionalism. They missed asking about the client's citizenship, age, education, and language proficiency, which are key eligibility factors. Additionally, no specific appointment date or time was locked, and the call ended without summarizing the agreements made.

data check · 24 calls not matched to a lead · 10 leads unassigned · reached counts every answered call, voicemail included