EverNorth — Daily Callers Report

Tuesday, 01 September 2026

built 02 Sep 2026, 06:07 · America/Toronto
archive
Calls
31
26 out / 5 in
Leads
35
new today
Reached
8
21 answered − 10 vm, 3 short
Qualified
1
good status
Booked
1
moved to 1.4
Messages
354
SMS
Follow-up
21
7 reached, 7 vm, 1 short, 6 missed
Lead→Booked
2.9%
daily rate

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

070911131517192123
Sara
2894661244
07:404:10
incoming answered
Prabhjot Singh
07:530:10
outgoing voicemail
2894661244
08:230:00
incoming no answer
Prabhjot Singh
08:259:55
outgoing answered
checklist22/26
Rohit Bhambhani
08:5920:16
outgoing answered
checklist20/24
Karan
09:309:01
outgoing answered
checklist22/26
Aatmendra Bhandari
09:430:00
outgoing no answer
Amrit Chalise
12:250:04
outgoing too short
Amrit Chalise
12:2610:31
incoming answered
Josdin
12:470:00
outgoing no answer
Adrian Jimenez
13:0017:06
outgoing answered
2894661244
16:160:00
incoming no answer
Reine
Seng Yang Haw
07:300:00
outgoing no answer
Harman
09:520:00
outgoing no answer
Harman
09:520:00
outgoing no answer
Lovepreet Singh
09:520:00
outgoing no answer
ᴀɴɪʀᴜᴅʜ ᴍᴀᴅʜᴀᴠ
11:180:02
outgoing too short
ᴀɴɪʀᴜᴅʜ ᴍᴀᴅʜᴀᴠ
11:190:37
outgoing voicemail
Lovepreet Singh
11:200:38
outgoing answered
checklist4/26
Alioune Top
11:220:36
outgoing voicemail
Sreekanth Maya
11:220:10
outgoing voicemail
Ashrit Sewani
11:240:36
outgoing voicemail
Clement Frimpong
11:250:25
outgoing voicemail
Stephane Ratolojanahary
11:258:59
outgoing answered
checklist21/26
G M
11:390:26
outgoing voicemail
Daniel Martinez
11:400:37
outgoing voicemail
Seng Yang Haw
11:410:00
outgoing no answer
Seng Yang Haw
11:410:34
outgoing voicemail
2892990235
12:170:00
incoming no answer
Riya
+14378331458
12:450:03
outgoing too short
+14378331458
12:490:16
outgoing no speech
checklist4/26
Jonathan
no calls

Leads by source 35 total

Meta-Form-PGWP
17
Landing-PGWP
8
Reception-Calls
3
Web-Organic
3
Second Job Morocco
2
Second-Job
2

Speed to lead working minutes · 3 of 35 leads called

Fastest
103 min
Sara Habchi 08:00–14:00
220 min on the clock
Slowest
203 min
Reine Francis 08:00–14:00
246 min on the clock
median 199 min · 32 leads never called

Conversion by caller

CallerLeadsCallsReached ReachQualifiedBookedBook
Sara Habchi 6 12 6 50.0% 0 0 0.0%
Reine Francis 3 17 2 11.8% 1 0 0.0%
Riya Kathuria 0 2 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%
Jonathan Gutman 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%

Daily funnel

Leads
35
Contacted
110
Qualified
1
Consultations
1

Reach peaks when they pick up · last 14 days

12:00–14:00 best connect
32/107
29.9%
08:00–10:00
41/141
29.1%
10:00–12:00 worst
94/342
27.5%
average 28.2% over 595 outgoing calls

Lead statuses at end of day one bucket per lead

Consultation booked
0
Not qualified / lost
2
Qualified
1
In progress (contacted)
24
New / no activity
8

Caller activity

CallerCallsTalkSpan FirstLastNotes
Sara Habchi 12 1:10:59 8:36:01 07:40 16:16 103
Reine Francis 17 9:37 4:46:35 07:30 12:17 213
Riya Kathuria 2 0:00 3:50 12:45 12:49 0
Jonathan Gutman 0 0:00 — — — 0

Leads and first call 32 never called · sorted by delay

LeadCreatedFirst call CallerDelayScore
Prethyud 02:29 — Sara Habchi no call —
Anas Khan 02:44 — Sara Habchi no call —
Ajay Sinimol Ashok 05:43 — Sara Habchi no call —
Arushi Singh 09:00 — — no call —
Damey Akins 09:12 — Reine Francis no call —
Bohdan Lazuta 09:26 — Sara Habchi no call —
Jaideep Sharma 09:48 — Sara Habchi no call —
Brenda Mwiza 10:54 — — no call —
Navjot Rai 11:13 — — no call —
onyeka udeh 11:42 — — no call —
𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧 12:33 — — no call —
Oneika 12:49 — — no call —
Lopez Singh 12:49 — — no call —
Unknown Caller 12:50 — — no call —
CLEMENT Yeboah 13:06 — — no call —
Devesh Saini 13:56 — — no call —
Anubandh 14:50 — — no call —
Giovanni Geraldizo 14:54 — — no call —
Hrshh 15:40 — — no call —
Mohamed Hedi Bokri 16:50 — — no call —
Sairam Yedugani 16:55 — — no call —
Gin Conger 17:17 — — no call —
Ogooluwa Oluwafemi Sam 17:24 — — no call —
Jaydev Vaishnav 17:52 — — no call —
Thien Nguyen 18:29 — — no call —
Vishnu Sivan Pillai 19:01 — — no call —
Harmandeep Singh 19:51 — — no call —
Opeyemi Agbola 20:43 — — no call —
Ram Sajwan 20:54 — — no call —
Sandeep Kaur 21:26 — — no call —
Manoj Kumar 22:19 — — no call —
Kamalpreet Singh 22:24 — — no call —
Sreekanth Maya 07:16 11:22 (0:10) Reine Francis 203 min voicemail
ᴀɴɪʀᴜᴅʜ ᴍᴀᴅʜᴀᴠ 06:32 11:18 (0:02) Reine Francis 199 min —
Aatmendra Bhandari 06:03 09:43 (0:00) Sara Habchi 103 min —

Booked consultations 1 today

ClientSourceBooked by Lead createdBooked at
Egor Mashinsky Client-Referall Yana Kizner 31 Aug 14:48 10:14

SMS 340 sent · 14 received · 107 contacts

Reply rate
11.2%
12 of 107 conversations
Median reply
14 min
client's first answer
CallerSentReceived ContactsStartedRepliedReply
Sara Habchi 41 6 18 14 4 28.6%
Reine Francis 299 8 93 93 8 8.6%
Riya Kathuria 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Jonathan Gutman 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Waiting for a reply 8 conversations where the client wrote last

Anmolpreet Singh 08:48 · Sara Habchi 911 min
No, I’m not interested
PATIENCE ANWURI 09:16 · Reine Francis 883 min
I did. Please check your message.
Lokesh Mehta 09:24 · Reine Francis 875 min
Pls close the file
Syed Karim 09:33 · Reine Francis 867 min
Interested, bit busy on work schedule. Let us meet on Thursday this week.
Midhundas Kp 09:37 · Reine Francis 863 min
Not interested
Sreekanth Maya 11:23 · Reine Francis 757 min
Can I call you later?
onyeka udeh 11:44 · Reine Francis 736 min
6AM-2PM
Harmandeep Singh 19:52 · Reine Francis 247 min
12pm

WhatsApp calls 1 calls · 0 out / 1 in · 0:20 talk

4 agents not reporting — WhatsApp calls from Reine, Riya, Sara, Jonathan are missing from this report
CallerCallsOutIn ReachedTalkMatched
Sara Habchi 0 0 0 0 0:00 0/0
Reine Francis 1 0 1 1 0:20 0/1
Riya Kathuria 0 0 0 0 0:00 0/0
Jonathan Gutman 0 0 0 0 0:00 0/0
1 conversations not matched to a lead — the contact is saved in the phone book, so WhatsApp shows a name instead of a number

Agents recording software on callers' machines

CallerLast seenStatus
Reine Francis 15:52 (855 min ago) offline
Riya Kathuria 03:24 (163 min ago) offline
Sara Habchi — offline
Jonathan Gutman — offline

Call reviews 15 of 8 live conversations

Sara Habchi — 07:53 · 0:10 0/0

What was good

The caller correctly identified that the line went to voicemail and did not attempt to force a conversation. No errors were made since no live interaction occurred.

What went wrong

No message was left on the voicemail, so the opportunity to engage the lead was missed.
Sara Habchi Prabhjot 08:25 · 9:55 22/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, confirming key details such as Prabhjot's status, education, and work experience. They clearly explained the immigration pathways and next steps, including the consultation process and employer linkage, which helped address the lead's questions effectively.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation, missing an opportunity to secure a commitment. Otherwise, the call was well handled with no illegal promises made.
Sara Habchi Rohit 08:59 · 20:16 20/24

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and detailed conversation with Rohit, confirming key personal and immigration details and clearly explaining the next steps. The caller also effectively presented the services and the involvement of an RCIC licensed consultant, building confidence without making illegal promises.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock a specific date and time for the consultation nor confirm contact details or summarize agreements at the end, missing opportunities to secure commitment and clarity.
Sara Habchi Karan 09:30 · 9:01 22/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced herself and the company, and engaged well with Karan by confirming his current status and goals. She presented the suitable Francophone mobility program and explained the steps and timelines thoroughly, including the need for the French test results. The caller also secured a follow-up date and offered a paid consultation, confirming contact details and summarizing the plan effectively.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking about Karan's age and education, which are important for a full eligibility assessment. Additionally, no objections such as 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself' were handled, which could have strengthened the call. Otherwise, the call was well managed with no compliance issues.
Reine Francis Anna-Rose 11:19 · 0:37 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and identifying themselves and the company. The message invited the lead to respond at their convenience, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

No issues with the voicemail message; it was concise and professional. Since this was a voicemail, no further selling or qualification could be done.
Reine Francis — 11:20 · 0:38 4/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves clearly and confirmed an important detail about the permit expiry date, showing some engagement with the lead.

What went wrong

The call was very brief and lacked any meaningful qualification or presentation of services. The caller did not ask for the lead's name or immigration goals, nor did they offer a next step or confirm contact details. The lead was asked to be called later, but no follow-up was arranged or locked in.
Reine Francis Alin 11:22 · 0:36 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message addressing the lead by name and identifying themselves and the company. They invited the lead to respond with a preferred time for a call, which is a good practice to encourage engagement.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, no direct interaction occurred and no selling or qualification could take place. The message could have included a brief mention of next steps or benefits to increase the chance of a callback.
Reine Francis — 11:22 · 0:10 0/0

What was good

The call was correctly identified as voicemail, and the system handled it appropriately by forwarding to voicemail.

What went wrong

No message was left, so there was no opportunity to engage or leave information for the lead.
Reine Francis Astras 11:24 · 0:36 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail, identifying themselves and the company, and referenced the lead's website submission. The message included a call to action, asking the lead to respond with a preferred time for a call via message or WhatsApp.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, no live interaction occurred and no selling or qualification steps were completed. The caller could consider leaving a slightly more detailed message to increase engagement, but overall the voicemail was appropriate.
Reine Francis — 11:25 · 0:25 0/0

What was good

The call was correctly identified as voicemail with no human interaction.

What went wrong

No message was left, so no opportunity to engage or leave information for the lead.
Reine Francis Stéphane Turenne 11:25 · 8:59 21/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced himself and the company, confirming the lead's name early on. He thoroughly explained the immigration options and consultation process, including eligibility assessment and program presentation, which shows good knowledge and clarity. The caller also ensured compliance by avoiding any illegal promises and offered a clear next step with a paid consultation.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking the lead's age, which is important for eligibility assessment. There was no attempt to lock a specific date and time for the consultation, which could have improved conversion. Also, common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself' were not addressed during the call.
Reine Francis — 11:39 · 0:26 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and the company, and inviting the lead to respond with a preferred time for a call.

What went wrong

There was no opportunity to engage in a live conversation or gather any client information, so no selling or qualification occurred.
Reine Francis Daniel 11:40 · 0:37 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message, identifying themselves and the company, and invited the lead to respond with a preferred time for a call.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in a conversation or address any objections, and no next steps were locked in. The message was brief but did not include contact details like a phone number or email for immediate reference.
Reine Francis — 11:41 · 0:34 0/0

What was good

The caller left a clear and polite voicemail message identifying themselves and the company, referencing the lead's website application. They requested relevant information and a preferred callback time, which is appropriate for a voicemail.

What went wrong

Since this was a voicemail, there was no opportunity to engage in conversation or handle objections. No message was left beyond the initial voicemail, so no further information was provided to encourage a callback.
Riya Kathuria — 12:49 · 0:16 4/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves and the company clearly, saying, "My name is Jane, I'm a receptionist at Evernorth." They also politely asked for the lead's name.

What went wrong

The call ended very quickly after the introduction and asking the name, so no further qualification or selling steps were taken. There was no attempt to explore the lead's needs or offer next steps.
data check · 6 calls not matched to a lead · 26 leads unassigned · reached counts every answered call, voicemail included