Thirty-eight signups researched, six routed to a rep

What can a companion see that a scoring model cannot?

The text.

The "what are you trying to do" answer that names your competitor, the company site that reveals a services firm dressed as a SaaS, the LinkedIn profile showing the "analyst" is the founder.

A companion reads all of that for every lead, not the top ten, and writes down which line decided it. MadKudu and the enrichment-driven scoring in HubSpot’s Breeze score fit from firmographics, and Chili Piper and peers solve the instant handoff, as of this writing.

Every signup researched inside the hour

The way your best SDR would if the SDR had time for all of them. A companion reads the company site against your written ICP, looks the person up in your session, enriches through native Hunter and Lusha, checks your CRM for history, then classifies with a stated reason.

Sales-ready leads become staged Attio records, creation pausing for approval, plus a Slack ping carrying the reason: "140-person logistics company, work email, pricing page twice, asked about SSO". When it is wrong you fix the criteria. Enrichment mechanics match lead enrichment.

Thirty-eight signups, triaged with reasons

The companion classifies 6 sales-ready, staged in the CRM with reasons and the sales team pinged before they went cold, 9 nurture with a suggested segment each, and 23 self-serve. One of the six was a consultant researching for a client, caught in a minute because the reason line was visible. Median signup to routed: under twenty minutes.

Why does the ICP have to be written down?

Because routing applies your definition to every signup identically, so the definition deserves an hour of disagreement first. At very high volume a scoring model carries the bulk and the companion reads the borderline band. Pair it with research companies before sales calls so somebody calls.

Frequently asked questions