EverNorth — Daily Callers Report

Friday, 07 August 2026

built 08 Aug 2026, 06:05 · America/Toronto
archive

Calls

27 out / 3 in

Leads

new today

Reached

24 answered − 4 vm, 6 short

Qualified

good status

Booked

moved to 1.4

Messages

SMS

Follow-up

11 reached, 4 vm, 5 short, 4 missed

Lead→Booked

23.5%

daily rate

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

070911131517192123

Sara

Roshan Kasti

09:031:36

outgoing answered

checklist6/26

Roshan Kasti

09:0514:47

outgoing answered

checklist3/26

Yash Lakra

09:210:05

outgoing too short

Md Abu Sayed

09:230:04

outgoing too short

Yash Lakra

09:240:00

incoming no answer

Yash Lakra

09:2510:01

outgoing answered

checklist22/26

मोहित शर्मा

09:400:00

outgoing no answer

Sakthi Ji

09:420:09

outgoing too short

Karthik

09:4411:13

outgoing answered

checklist20/26

Devang Patel

10:0014:05

outgoing answered

checklist20/26

Mina

10:3117:45

outgoing answered

checklist21/26

+6478352572

10:580:00

incoming no answer

Kartik

10:591:22

outgoing answered

checklist9/24

Zubeyt Akbaba

11:109:23

outgoing answered

checklist11/26

Vivek Shenoy

11:2511:33

outgoing answered

checklist23/26

Ibaad Baig

12:000:05

outgoing too short

Jaypee Julaton

12:040:52

outgoing voicemail

Christopher Iklaki

12:060:13

outgoing no speech

Forhad Sharif

12:111:01

outgoing answered

checklist4/26

Raymond Balliram

12:160:07

outgoing too short

Ashimolowo Adedayo Akeem

12:180:31

outgoing voicemail

Çağlar Babür Mirici

12:202:35

outgoing answered

checklist9/26

Parveen

12:270:06

outgoing too short

masum Ahmed

12:291:18

outgoing answered

checklist10/26

Amrit Pal Singh

12:320:38

outgoing answered

checklist3/26

Uchechukwu Uzoma

12:350:00

outgoing no answer

Krishna Kishore

12:370:00

outgoing no answer

Jeet Chaniyara

12:429:51

outgoing answered

checklist20/26

Sahil Patial

13:000:24

outgoing voicemail

Ibaad Baig

15:560:00

incoming no answer

Anshuman

no calls

Reine

no calls

Jonathan

no calls

Leads by source 17 total

Meta-Form-PGWP

Landing-PGWP

Web-Organic

Speed to lead working minutes · 1 of 17 leads called

Fastest

240 min

Sara Habchi 08:00–14:00

552 min on the clock

Slowest

240 min

Sara Habchi 08:00–14:00

552 min on the clock

median 240 min · 16 leads never called

Conversion by caller

Caller	Leads	Calls	Reached	Reach	Booked	Book
Sara Habchi	1	30	14	46.7%	2	200.0%
Anshuman Mishra	3	0	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
Reine Francis	3	0	0	0.0%	1	33.3%
Jonathan Gutman	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

39/65

60.0%

18:00–20:00

7/12

58.3%

10:00–12:00

50/108

46.3%

12:00–14:00 worst

17/58

29.3%

average 47.2% over 246 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	30	1:47:08	6:53:44	09:03	15:56	87
Anshuman Mishra	0	0:00	—	—	—	2
Reine Francis	0	0:00	—	—	—	100
Jonathan Gutman	0	0:00	—	—	—	0

Leads and first call 16 never called · sorted by delay

Lead	Created	First call	Caller	Delay	Score
Anand Miglani	00:12	—	Reine Francis	no call	—
Mr Chizzy	00:38	—	Reine Francis	no call	—
Yahya Nachit	08:05	—	Reine Francis	no call	—
Omar Faruq	12:35	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Anthony Bailey	12:36	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Jermaine Henry	15:49	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Ajal benny	18:44	—	—	no call	—
Parth Soni	18:45	—	—	no call	—
Luis Osorio	20:17	—	—	no call	—
John Lester Riveral	20:29	—	—	no call	—
Sudipto Chatterjee	21:31	—	—	no call	—
Gurjot Singh	21:54	—	—	no call	—
Udit Sangroha	22:11	—	—	no call	—
Opeyemi Agbola	22:16	—	—	no call	—
Murtaza Mustafa	22:43	—	—	no call	—
Glen Fany Sebastian	23:54	—	—	no call	—
Ibaad Baig	02:48	12:00 (0:05)	Sara Habchi	240 min	—

Booked consultations 4 today

Client	Source	Booked by	Lead created	Booked at
Shahana Bibi	Web-Organic	Reine Francis	06 Aug 11:00	09:58
kartik sharma	Landing-PGWP	Sara Habchi	07 Aug 08:05	10:53
Krunal Thakor	Omid-Referral	Omid Doostmohammadi	06 Aug 20:00	13:49
Mohammad Naved Noor	Landing-PGWP	Sara Habchi	18 Jul 15:29	18:30

SMS 49 sent · 9 received · 33 contacts

Reply rate

15.2%

5 of 33 conversations

Median reply

90 min

client's first answer

Caller	Sent	Received	Contacts	Started	Replied	Reply
Sara Habchi	49	9	33	33	5	15.2%
Anshuman Mishra	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%
Reine Francis	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%
Jonathan Gutman	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%

Waiting for a reply 3 conversations where the client wrote last

Sakthi Ji 09:43 · Sara Habchi 857 min

I am in travel... get back you later

Sahil Patial 19:46 · Sara Habchi 254 min

Sorry I was asleep when you called

Meet Patel 22:09 · Sara Habchi 111 min

Hello Sara, how are you? I will be available tomorrow 9am to 12 noon. Is it possible to schedule a call within this time

Call reviews 18 of 14 live conversations

Sara Habchi Roshan 09:03 · 1:36 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name, establishing a polite and professional tone. She also confirmed the lead's interest in PR application services, which aligns with the inquiry.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any key information such as citizenship, immigration status, or eligibility, nor did she explain the process or offer a next step. The call ended prematurely without advancing the sales process or securing a follow-up.

Sara Habchi — 09:05 · 14:47 3/26

What was good

The caller successfully engaged the lead and confirmed the current immigration status and expiry date, which is a key piece of information for further assessment.

What went wrong

The caller failed to introduce themselves or the company, did not ask for the lead's name, and missed many important qualification questions such as citizenship, goals, and language proficiency. There was no presentation of programs, no explanation of next steps, and no attempt to secure a consultation or confirm contact details. The call lacked structure and did not progress beyond the initial status confirmation.

Sara Habchi Yash 09:25 · 10:01 22/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, confirming detailed client information and clearly explaining PR pathways and next steps. The caller also effectively presented the RCIC license and offered a paid consultation, ensuring the client understood the process and payment details.

What went wrong

The caller did not handle common objections such as 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself,' and did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation, which could improve conversion rates.

Sara Habchi Karthik 09:44 · 11:13 20/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing a good rapport. She thoroughly assessed Karthik's status and eligibility, explaining the programs and next steps in detail, including the consultation process and fees. The conversation was informative and professional, with clear explanations about language requirements and work permit options.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation, only provided options for booking later. Also, no objections such as 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself' were addressed, missing an opportunity to handle potential hesitations.

Sara Habchi Devan 10:00 · 14:05 20/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and detailed conversation, confirming Devan's status, education, work experience, and goals. They clearly explained the PR pathways, timelines, and next steps, including the paid consultation with the director, showing good knowledge and professionalism.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation nor confirm contact details, which are important to secure the lead. Also, there was no summary of agreements at the end to reinforce the next steps. Handling of common objections was missing.

Sara Habchi Mina 10:31 · 17:45 21/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and engaged Mina in a detailed discussion about her brother's and relatives' immigration profiles. She carefully assessed eligibility and explained the challenges candidly, showing transparency and professionalism.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask about language proficiency, which is important for eligibility. Also, no specific next appointment was scheduled and the call ended without a clear summary of agreements, missing an opportunity to secure commitment.

Sara Habchi Kartik 10:59 · 1:22 9/24

What was good

The caller efficiently confirmed the lead's name and successfully booked a paid consultation, locking in a specific date and time and confirming WhatsApp as the contact method. The summary at the end was clear and concise, ensuring the lead understood the appointment details.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, nor did they ask any qualifying questions about the lead's background, goals, or eligibility. This call missed an opportunity to gather important information and build rapport before scheduling the consultation.

Sara Habchi Zubait 11:10 · 9:23 11/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, stating, 'my name is Sarah, and I am a case manager with Evernorth.' She identified the lead by name and discussed the lead's goal of permanent residency, including eligibility requirements related to English proficiency. The caller also appropriately involved a translator to assist communication and mentioned the RCIC license to build credibility.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather key information such as citizenship, current immigration status, age, education, or work experience, which are important for assessing eligibility. There was no clear explanation of the process or timelines, nor was a next step or consultation offered. The call ended without confirming contact details or summarizing agreements. The conversation was somewhat repetitive and did not progress toward booking a consultation or follow-up.

Sara Habchi Vivek 11:25 · 11:33 23/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, and engaged in a detailed, two-way conversation with Vivek. She effectively gathered detailed information about his situation and explained multiple immigration pathways, showing good knowledge and care in handling his concerns. The caller also successfully scheduled a specific follow-up appointment, demonstrating good call control and progression.

What went wrong

The caller did not confirm contact details such as WhatsApp or email, which is important for follow-up communication. Also, there was no clear summary of the agreements or next steps at the end of the call, which would help reinforce the lead's understanding and commitment. The 'I'll do it myself' objection was not addressed, though it may not have arisen explicitly.

Sara Habchi — 12:04 · 0:52 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified herself and the company in the voicemail, stating the purpose of the call related to PR services. The message was polite and professional, inviting the lead to stay on the line or leave a message.

What went wrong

The caller did not reach the lead directly and left a voicemail without leaving a detailed message or next steps, missing an opportunity to engage the lead further.

Sara Habchi — 12:06 · 0:13 0/0

What was good

There was no interaction in this call, so no positive actions to highlight.

What went wrong

The call did not connect with a lead or produce any conversation, resulting in no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead.

Sara Habchi Farhad 12:11 · 1:01 4/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name, showing polite engagement by asking if it was a good time to talk. She handled the scheduling conflict professionally by offering to reassign the case to a more suitable manager.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and did not explore any details about the lead's situation or goals, missing many opportunities to qualify the lead or present services. No next steps or consultations were offered, and no contact details were confirmed, which limits progress from this call.

Sara Habchi — 12:18 · 0:31 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message explaining the reason for the call and mentioning follow-up via WhatsApp.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The message could have included a direct invitation to schedule a call to improve callback rates.

Sara Habchi Saglar 12:20 · 2:35 9/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, and successfully scheduled a specific follow-up call time with the lead, confirming contact details including email and WhatsApp. The caller was polite and accommodating to the lead's schedule, showing flexibility and professionalism.

What went wrong

The caller missed multiple opportunities to gather important information such as the lead's immigration goals, current status, and background details. There was no discussion of eligibility, programs, or RCIC credentials, and no summary of the call's agreements at the end. This limited the call's effectiveness in advancing the sales process beyond scheduling.

Sara Habchi Masum 12:29 · 1:18 10/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, and successfully scheduled a follow-up consultation call with Masum, locking in a specific date and time. She was polite and confirmed the lead's availability effectively.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any qualifying information such as citizenship, immigration status, or goals beyond PR interest, nor did she confirm contact details or summarize the call agreements. This missed opportunity to build rapport and assess eligibility early in the process could reduce conversion chances.

Sara Habchi — 12:32 · 0:38 3/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly at the start, establishing the purpose of the call by referencing the lead's form submission. She was polite and responsive when the lead requested a callback after 4 p.m., offering to transfer the case to another manager.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's name or any qualifying information such as immigration status or goals, missing an opportunity to engage and assess eligibility. No next steps were offered or scheduled, and no contact details were confirmed, resulting in a very brief and incomplete call.

Sara Habchi Jeez 12:42 · 9:51 20/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, confirming key details such as the client's name, immigration status, and goals. They clearly explained the available programs, steps, and next actions, including offering a paid consultation and sending relevant documents. The caller maintained clarity and engagement throughout the call, ensuring the client understood the process and options.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation, which could have strengthened the commitment. Additionally, no objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself' were addressed, missing opportunities to reinforce the value of the service. Otherwise, the call was well handled with no compliance issues.

Sara Habchi Sahil 13:00 · 0:24 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and referencing a previous arrangement. This shows professionalism and an attempt to maintain engagement.

What went wrong

There was no live conversation to assess sales skills or follow-up opportunities. The caller could consider leaving a callback number or a more specific next step to encourage a response.

data check · 4 calls not matched to a lead · 10 leads unassigned · reached counts every answered call, voicemail included