EverNorth — Daily Callers Report

Friday, 14 August 2026

built 15 Aug 2026, 06:05 · America/Toronto
archive

Calls

24 out / 5 in

Leads

new today

Reached

22 answered − 4 vm, 4 short

Qualified

good status

Booked

moved to 1.4

Messages

SMS

Follow-up

7 reached, 4 vm, 2 short, 7 missed

Lead→Booked

3.8%

daily rate

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

070911131517192123

Sara

Saurabh Rathi

08:3010:12

outgoing answered

checklist22/24

Dickson Nzete

08:580:26

outgoing voicemail

Sandeep Yadav

09:030:00

outgoing no answer

Yatrik dave

09:070:18

outgoing voicemail

Saad Suhaib

09:170:16

outgoing voicemail

Nicolas López

09:192:38

outgoing answered

checklist8/26

Nicolas López

09:229:09

outgoing answered

checklist4/26

Harmeet Singh

09:342:37

outgoing answered

checklist11/26

Thiago Damiao

09:400:37

outgoing voicemail

Nirav Pujari

09:420:05

outgoing too short

Mohamad Hammoud

09:4332:52

outgoing answered

Amer Imtiaz Ali

10:191:17

outgoing answered

checklist6/26

+14379377879

10:240:03

outgoing too short

Darveed Kumar

10:287:12

outgoing answered

checklist21/26

2894661244

10:353:52

incoming answered

Nene Dotse

11:080:06

outgoing too short

Saif Khan

11:109:21

outgoing answered

checklist22/26

John Joseph

11:201:49

outgoing answered

checklist8/26

Ajay Singh

11:240:00

outgoing no answer

Ajay Singh

11:250:00

outgoing no answer

rick

11:541:30

outgoing answered

checklist8/24

Kirtan Patel

12:0014:30

outgoing answered

checklist24/26

Ishpreet Singh

12:411:31

outgoing answered

checklist4/26

Sajan Nedumpilly Martin

13:210:04

outgoing too short

Harshdeep singh

13:411:23

outgoing answered

checklist8/26

Anshuman

no calls

Reine

DON Thomas

12:240:00

incoming no answer

DON Thomas

12:240:00

incoming no answer

DON Thomas

12:240:00

incoming no answer

DON Thomas

12:240:00

incoming no answer

Jonathan

no calls

Leads by source 53 total

Reception-Calls

Meta-Form-PGWP

Landing-PGWP

SMM-Organic

Second-Job

Web-Organic

Speed to lead working minutes · 7 of 53 leads called

Fastest

0 min

Anshuman Mishra 17:00–21:00

called outside shift · 596 min on the clock

Slowest

241 min

Sara Habchi 08:00–21:00

583 min on the clock

median 188 min · 46 leads never called · 1 unassigned, counted on 08:00–21:00

Conversion by caller

Caller	Leads	Calls	Reached	Reach	Qualified	Booked	Book
Sara Habchi	5	25	14	56.0%	3	1	20.0%
Anshuman Mishra	8	0	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%
Reine Francis	0	4	0	0.0%	0	1	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

12:00–14:00 best connect

37/87

42.5%

16:00–18:00

6/16

37.5%

10:00–12:00

88/244

36.1%

08:00–10:00 worst

51/146

34.9%

average 36.7% over 498 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	25	1:39:53	5:11:01	08:30	13:41	63
Anshuman Mishra	0	0:00	—	—	—	68
Reine Francis	4	0:00	0:25	12:24	12:24	0
Jonathan Gutman	0	0:00	—	—	—	0

Leads and first call 46 never called · sorted by delay

Lead	Created	First call	Caller	Delay	Score
Prince Albert	09:14	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Srujan	13:17	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Benjamim Veloso	13:43	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Taiwo Jolayemi	13:45	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Enrique Mendoza	13:54	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Syed Irfanuddin	14:03	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Alpesh S Patel	14:14	—	Anshuman Mishra	no call	—
Taiwo	15:36	—	—	no call	—
Ben	15:37	—	—	no call	—
Unknown Caller	15:56	—	—	no call	—
Harshdeep Singh	15:58	—	—	no call	—
Jaime	16:13	—	—	no call	—
Rahul	16:14	—	—	no call	—
Harid	16:14	—	—	no call	—
Anand	16:15	—	—	no call	—
Singh	16:15	—	—	no call	—
Sanji	16:18	—	—	no call	—
Armen	16:19	—	—	no call	—
Annlyn Annlyn Davis	16:19	—	—	no call	—
Anton	16:19	—	—	no call	—
Sama	16:20	—	—	no call	—
Unknown	16:20	—	—	no call	—
Chamsing	16:21	—	—	no call	—
Leo	16:21	—	—	no call	—
Odi Vilab	16:21	—	—	no call	—
Don	16:22	—	—	no call	—
Harsh Singh	16:23	—	—	no call	—
Hareesh	16:24	—	—	no call	—
Yuzhwan	16:24	—	—	no call	—
Zeez Singh	16:25	—	—	no call	—
Salman	16:26	—	—	no call	—
Aaron	16:26	—	—	no call	—
Sahil Bhatti	16:27	—	—	no call	—
Ramanjeet Singh	16:54	—	—	no call	—
Fuad ahmed Quraishi	17:25	—	—	no call	—
Hilmi Deprem	18:04	—	—	no call	—
Satya Sekhar Bonda	19:51	—	—	no call	—
Dharmveer Singh	20:25	—	—	no call	—
dax patel	20:31	—	—	no call	—
Zak	20:43	—	—	no call	—
Arpandeep Singh	22:05	—	—	no call	—
Peter Agyei	22:06	—	—	no call	—
khushdeep singh	22:50	—	—	no call	—
Neeraj	23:05	—	—	no call	—
Arpandeep Singh	23:17	—	—	no call	—
P Nabeel	23:18	—	—	no call	—
Kirtan Patel	02:18	12:00 (14:30)	—	241 min	24/26
John Joseph	04:42	11:20 (1:49)	Sara Habchi	200 min	8/26
Saif Khan	04:35	11:10 (9:21)	Sara Habchi	191 min	22/26
Nene Dotse	00:51	11:08 (0:06)	Sara Habchi	188 min	—
Darveed Kumar	00:38	10:28 (7:12)	Sara Habchi	148 min	21/26
Mohamad Hammoud	00:20	09:43 (32:52)	Sara Habchi	104 min	—
Amer Imtiaz Ali	00:24	10:19 (1:17)	Anshuman Mishra	off-shift	6/26

Booked consultations 2 today

Client	Source	Booked by	Lead created	Booked at
Don Thomas	Meta-Form-PGWP	Reine Francis	02 Jul 09:50	12:11
Kirtan Patel	Landing-PGWP	Sara Habchi	14 Aug 02:18	12:19

SMS 42 sent · 6 received · 20 contacts

Reply rate

10.0%

2 of 20 conversations

Median reply

4 min

client's first answer

Caller	Sent	Received	Contacts	Started	Replied	Reply
Sara Habchi	33	6	15	11	1	9.1%
Anshuman Mishra	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%
Reine Francis	9	0	9	9	1	11.1%
Jonathan Gutman	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%

Waiting for a reply 1 conversation where the client wrote last

Kirtan Patel 10:12 · Sara Habchi 827 min

Liked “Call wll be scheduled for today at 12pm.”

Call reviews 16 of 14 live conversations

Sara Habchi Sarabh 08:30 · 10:12 22/24

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, confirming detailed client information and clearly explaining eligibility and program options. They carefully outlined the consultation process and payment details, ensuring the lead understood the next steps. The caller maintained a polite and clear tone throughout, making the client feel comfortable and informed.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation, which could have improved conversion. Also, no objections were handled, but none were raised by the lead. Otherwise, the call was well managed with no compliance issues or misleading promises.

Sara Habchi Dixon 08:58 · 0:26 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and explaining the reason for the call.

What went wrong

No live conversation occurred, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. The message could have included a direct call to action or contact details for easier follow-up.

Sara Habchi — 09:07 · 0:18 0/0

What was good

The call reached voicemail promptly, avoiding wasted time. The system message was clear about the customer's unavailability.

What went wrong

No message was left for the lead, missing an opportunity to engage or leave contact details.

Sara Habchi — 09:17 · 0:16 0/0

What was good

The call was correctly identified as voicemail with no live conversation possible. The system message was clear and concise.

What went wrong

No message was left for the lead, missing an opportunity to engage or leave contact details.

Sara Habchi Nicholas 09:19 · 2:38 8/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's identity by asking his name and current immigration status. She also verified educational background and language proficiency, showing attentiveness to the lead's submitted form.

What went wrong

The caller did not explore the lead's goals, work experience, or assess eligibility, missing key qualification steps. There was no presentation of programs, explanation of next steps, or attempt to book a consultation, which limited the call's effectiveness. The call ended abruptly due to technical issues without progressing further.

Sara Habchi Nicholas 09:22 · 9:09 4/26

What was good

The caller engaged the lead, Nicholas, and confirmed his French language skill level clearly, showing some rapport by repeating and clarifying the information. The conversation was calm and the caller avoided making any illegal promises about visa outcomes.

What went wrong

The caller failed to introduce themselves or the company, which is a basic professional standard. The call focused excessively on the French language skill without exploring other important immigration factors like goals, status, or eligibility. No next steps or consultation offers were made, and no summary or confirmation of details occurred, resulting in a missed opportunity to advance the lead effectively.

Sara Habchi Harmit 09:34 · 2:37 11/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, and addressed the lead by name, creating a personal connection. She successfully scheduled a specific date and time for a follow-up consultation, summarizing the agreement clearly at the end.

What went wrong

The caller missed several key qualification questions such as citizenship, immigration status, age, education, and language proficiency, which are essential for assessing eligibility. There was also no mention of the RCIC licence or explanation of the process, which could build trust and credibility with the lead.

Sara Habchi Tiago 09:40 · 0:37 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message identifying themselves and the company, mentioning the lead's interest in PR services, and inviting a callback to schedule a call.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or gather information from the lead. No message content was inappropriate or unprofessional.

Sara Habchi Amer 10:19 · 1:17 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name, showing polite engagement by asking if it was a suitable time to talk. She handled the scheduling issue professionally by offering to transfer the case to a colleague available at the lead's preferred time.

What went wrong

The call lacked any substantive qualification or needs assessment beyond confirming the lead's interest in PR. No next steps, consultation offers, or contact confirmations were made, missing key opportunities to advance the sale.

Sara Habchi Darvit 10:28 · 7:12 21/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing a good rapport. She thoroughly assessed the lead's background and eligibility, providing a detailed explanation of the suitable immigration pathways and next steps. The caller also clearly explained pricing and the consultation process, maintaining transparency throughout.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask about the lead's age, which is important for eligibility assessment. She missed the opportunity to handle common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself.' Additionally, no specific appointment date or time was locked, which could reduce conversion chances.

Sara Habchi Saif 11:10 · 9:21 22/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, confirming the lead's name and current immigration status. She thoroughly assessed eligibility and explained the programs and next steps, including the paid consultation and RCIC licensing, providing a professional and informative experience.

What went wrong

The caller did not handle any 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 have improved the call's effectiveness.

Sara Habchi John 11:20 · 1:49 8/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name early on, establishing a polite and professional tone. She successfully scheduled a specific follow-up call time, securing a commitment from John for Monday at 11 a.m.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any substantive information about John's situation such as his citizenship, immigration status, or goals beyond a brief mention of PR interest. There was no discussion of eligibility, programs, or next steps, and no offer of a paid consultation. Contact details were not confirmed, and the call ended without summarizing agreements.

Sara Habchi Rick 11:54 · 1:30 8/24

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, and successfully scheduled a follow-up call for Monday at 1 p.m., locking in a specific date and time. She addressed the lead by name and maintained polite communication despite technical difficulties.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any information about the lead's immigration status, goals, or background, nor did she explain the process or present any programs. There was no confirmation of contact details or summary of agreements, which are important for a productive follow-up.

Sara Habchi Kritan 12:00 · 14:30 24/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, confirming all relevant client details and clearly explaining eligibility and pathways. They successfully handled objections and secured a consultation appointment for Monday at 2 p.m., showing good control of the call.

What went wrong

The caller did not explicitly confirm contact details such as WhatsApp or email, nor did they summarize the agreements at the end of the call. Including these would improve clarity and client confidence.

Sara Habchi Esprit 12:41 · 1:31 4/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, and confirmed the lead's name, Esprit. She was polite and offered to transfer the case to a manager who could assist further, showing good customer service.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any immigration-related information or discuss the lead's goals, eligibility, or next steps. No consultation was offered or scheduled, and no contact details were confirmed. The call ended without advancing the sales process beyond transferring the lead.

Sara Habchi HR chief 13:41 · 1:23 8/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly and confirmed the lead's name, showing good initial engagement. She also acknowledged the lead's interest in PR and offered to transfer the case to a suitable case manager, demonstrating responsiveness to the lead's schedule.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any detailed information about the lead's situation such as citizenship, immigration status, or goals beyond PR, missing an opportunity to assess eligibility or present appropriate programs. No specific appointment was locked, and no contact details were confirmed, which weakens the chance of securing a follow-up.

data check · 2 calls not matched to a lead · 1 leads without a phone number · 40 leads unassigned · reached counts every answered call, voicemail included