EverNorth — Daily Callers Report

Thursday, 06 August 2026

built 07 Aug 2026, 17:34 · America/Toronto
archive

Calls

25 out / 3 in

Leads

new today

Reached

23 answered − 5 vm, 6 short

Qualified

good status

Booked

moved to 1.4

Messages

SMS

Follow-up

6 reached, 4 vm, 3 short, 1 missed

Lead→Booked

4.0%

daily rate

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

070911131517192123

Sara

Himanshu sikka

07:540:06

outgoing too short

Mirza Baig

08:5422:46

outgoing answered

checklist22/26

Rajdhami Chandra

09:180:11

outgoing voicemail

Ribin Lazer

09:190:06

outgoing too short

Bibek Gautam

09:220:54

outgoing voicemail

Samanda Mau

09:242:50

outgoing answered

checklist8/26

Samanda Mau

09:2717:21

outgoing answered

checklist22/26

Taha sajid

09:460:03

outgoing too short

albin antony

10:008:54

outgoing answered

checklist22/26

Anwar MD

10:340:49

outgoing answered

checklist8/26

+971585063961

10:370:00

outgoing no answer

+971585063961

10:370:00

outgoing no answer

Mohamad Salamoun

10:440:05

outgoing too short

Amit Kumar

10:460:19

outgoing voicemail

2894661244

10:559:16

incoming answered

Mohamad Salamoun

11:110:04

outgoing too short

Mohamad Salamoun

11:120:00

incoming no answer

Mohamad Salamoun

11:1216:03

outgoing answered

checklist17/26

Krishna Prasad Ojha

12:353:21

outgoing answered

checklist13/24

+14374291777

13:290:05

outgoing too short

+14374291777

13:3111:45

incoming answered

Anshuman

no calls

Reine

+13124712284

11:230:00

outgoing no answer

+13124712284

11:230:00

outgoing no answer

Harmanjot Singh

11:261:03

outgoing answered

checklist9/26

Sanjay Patel

11:301:31

outgoing answered

checklist7/26

Ibrahim Dauda

11:450:38

outgoing voicemail

YUG CHAUDHARY

11:493:55

outgoing answered

checklist12/26

Dîpêñ Jâmkâtêl

12:010:50

outgoing voicemail

Jonathan

no calls

Leads by source 25 total

PGWP-IG

ITC-PGWP

ITC-WEB

Speed to lead working minutes · 6 of 25 leads called

Fastest

54 min

Sara Habchi 08:00–14:00

525 min on the clock

Slowest

120 min

Sara Habchi 08:00–14:00

418 min on the clock

median 84 min · 19 leads never called

Conversion by caller

Caller	Leads	Calls	Reached	Reach	Qualified	Booked	Book
Sara Habchi	11	21	9	42.9%	3	1	9.1%
Anshuman Mishra	10	0	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%
Reine Francis	4	7	3	42.9%	2	0	0.0%
Jonathan Gutman	0	0	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%

Daily funnel

Leads

Contacted

Qualified

Consultations

Reach peaks when they pick up · last 14 days

08:00–10:00 best connect

35/57

61.4%

18:00–20:00

7/12

58.3%

10:00–12:00

45/103

43.7%

12:00–14:00 worst

12/44

27.3%

average 46.6% over 219 outgoing calls

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	21	1:33:05	5:37:06	07:54	13:31	42
Anshuman Mishra	0	0:00	—	—	—	8
Reine Francis	7	6:29	37:36	11:23	12:01	73
Jonathan Gutman	0	0:00	—	—	—	0

Leads and first call 19 never called · sorted by delay

Lead	Created	First call	Caller	Delay	Score
Muhammad Muzammil Ali Subhani Bhatti	07:46	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Goodness E Afonughe	09:22	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Bhavesh Ameta	10:24	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Shahana Bibi	11:00	—	Reine Francis	no call	—
Albin Antony	13:49	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Animesh Negi	13:51	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Mohammed Shaik	13:56	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Sahil Saini	14:57	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Ravi Ravi	15:38	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Shailesh Tiwari	17:30	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Faizan Bacharwala	17:56	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Roshan Kasti	19:52	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
Ameer Jawabra \| Software Engineer	20:01	—	Reine Francis	no call	—
Manjot Singh Rai	20:15	—	Reine Francis	no call	—
Iyiola Olawale	21:02	—	Reine Francis	no call	—
Yash Lakra	21:06	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
Md Abu Sayed	21:44	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
मोहित शर्मा	22:10	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
Sakthi Ji	23:54	—	Sara Habchi	no call	—
albin antony	03:02	10:00 (8:54)	Sara Habchi	120 min	22/26
Taha sajid	04:46	09:46 (0:03)	Sara Habchi	106 min	—
Samanda Mau	04:32	09:24 (2:50)	Sara Habchi	84 min	8/26
Bibek Gautam	00:24	09:22 (0:54)	Sara Habchi	82 min	voicemail
Ribin Lazer	00:05	09:19 (0:06)	Sara Habchi	80 min	—
Mirza Baig	00:09	08:54 (22:46)	Sara Habchi	54 min	22/26

Booked consultations 1 today

Client	Source	Booked by	Lead created	Booked at
Christian G Doekpar	PGWP-IG	Sara Habchi	17 Jun 21:47	15:47

SMS 20 sent · 3 received · 10 contacts

Reply rate

20.0%

2 of 10 conversations

Median reply

92 min

client's first answer

Caller	Sent	Received	Contacts	Started	Replied	Reply
Sara Habchi	17	3	8	8	2	25.0%
Anshuman Mishra	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%
Reine Francis	3	0	2	2	0	0.0%
Jonathan Gutman	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%

Call reviews 15 of 12 live conversations

Sara Habchi Mirza 08:54 · 22:46 22/26

What was good

The caller established a strong rapport with Mirza, confirming detailed personal and immigration information clearly, and thoroughly explained the PR pathways and options available. The caller also carefully handled objections and set realistic expectations without making illegal promises.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock in a specific date and time for the next step, nor did they confirm contact details or summarize agreements at the end, missing opportunities to secure commitment and ensure clarity.

Sara Habchi — 09:18 · 0:11 0/0

What was good

The caller attempted to reach the lead and left a voicemail as the number was unavailable.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no selling or engagement was possible.

Sara Habchi — 09:22 · 0:54 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company, mentioning the lead's interest in PR services.

What went wrong

The call went to voicemail and ended quickly without leaving a message, missing an opportunity to engage the lead further.

Sara Habchi Paul 09:24 · 2:50 8/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing a personal connection by addressing Paul and referencing his wife Samantha. The caller also handled the scheduling question well, showing flexibility and confirming communication preferences by discussing WhatsApp call timing.

What went wrong

The caller did not explore key client details such as citizenship, age, education, language proficiency, or work experience, which are essential for assessing eligibility and tailoring advice. There was no presentation of programs, explanation of steps, or offer of a next step like a paid consultation. The call ended without summarizing agreements or locking in a follow-up appointment, missing opportunities to advance the sales process.

Sara Habchi Paul 09:27 · 17:21 22/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, gathering detailed information and explaining the PR pathways clearly. They handled objections well and emphasized the role of the licensed consultant, maintaining compliance throughout.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation nor confirm contact details or summarize agreements at the end. These missed steps could reduce conversion effectiveness.

Sara Habchi Anthony 10:00 · 8:54 22/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, confirming Anthony's details and clearly explaining the PR pathways and services. The explanation of the consultation process and payment was clear and well communicated.

What went wrong

The caller did not explicitly address common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself.' Also, no specific date or time for the consultation was locked during the call, which could improve conversion.

Sara Habchi Anwar 10:34 · 0:49 8/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying 'this is Sarah from EverNorth.' She confirmed the lead's name and the purpose of the call regarding PR. The caller successfully locked a specific callback time at 11 as requested by the lead.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any information about the lead's citizenship, immigration status, or goals beyond a brief mention of PR. No eligibility assessment or program presentation was done. There was no offer of a paid consultation or confirmation of contact details. The call ended quickly without summarizing next steps.

Sara Habchi — 10:46 · 0:19 0/0

What was good

The caller reached the voicemail promptly and did not waste time. No message was left, avoiding unnecessary clutter.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, missing an opportunity to engage the lead or provide a callback number.

Sara Habchi Mohammed 11:12 · 16:03 17/26

What was good

The caller established a clear and detailed conversation with Mohammed, gathering comprehensive information about his status, education, and goals. The caller explained multiple immigration pathways and eligibility criteria clearly, helping the lead understand his options.

What went wrong

The caller did not mention their RCIC licence or past success cases, which could build trust. There was no handling of common objections or offering a paid consultation and no attempt to lock a follow-up appointment or confirm contact details. The call ended without summarizing agreements or next steps.

Reine Francis Harmanjit 11:26 · 1:03 9/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and addressed the lead by name, establishing a personal connection. They handled objections professionally by offering to send information via WhatsApp, showing flexibility and respect for the lead's preferences. The caller also confirmed the preferred contact method, ensuring follow-up is possible.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and lacked any substantive discussion about the lead's immigration status, goals, or eligibility. No program was presented, and no next steps such as booking a consultation were locked in. The caller missed the opportunity to gather important information or summarize agreements before ending the call.

Reine Francis Sanjay 11:30 · 1:31 7/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed the lead's current immigration status and expiry date, showing attentiveness to the client's situation. They also confirmed the preferred contact method, ensuring follow-up communication would be effective.

What went wrong

The caller did not explore the lead's goals, age, education, language skills, or work experience, missing key qualification steps. No program was presented, no next steps like a paid consultation were offered, and no appointment was scheduled, which limits progress in the sales process.

Reine Francis Abraham 11:45 · 0:38 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail, mentioning the lead's name and the next steps. They informed the lead about the email and upcoming messages on SMS and WhatsApp, which is helpful for follow-up.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity for a live conversation or to engage the lead directly. No checklist items could be addressed beyond leaving a message.

Reine Francis Yak 11:49 · 3:55 12/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed the lead's name, current immigration status, and expiry date. They explained the next steps thoroughly, including the consultation with licensed staff, and offered to send details via WhatsApp as requested.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key qualification questions such as citizenship, goals, age, education, language proficiency, and work experience. They did not handle objections or lock in a specific appointment time, nor did they summarize the agreements at the end of the call.

Reine Francis Dyson 12:01 · 0:50 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear, polite voicemail message explaining the reason for the call and next steps. They mentioned multiple contact methods and requested a callback, which is helpful for engagement.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or address objections. No issues with the voicemail content itself.

Sara Habchi Krishna 12:35 · 3:21 13/24

What was good

The caller handled the conversation professionally and clearly explained why they could not assist Krishna at this time, saying 'unfortunately, we would be unable to assist' and outlining the reasons related to the permit and French language requirements. The caller also confirmed the client's current immigration status and goals effectively.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask about citizenship, age, education, or work experience, missing opportunities to gather more comprehensive information. They also did not offer a next step or consultation, nor confirm contact details or summarize agreements, which could have improved engagement and follow-up potential.

data check · 7 calls not matched to a lead · 1 leads without a phone number · reached counts every answered call, voicemail included