The problem this solves
Lead programs report volume because volume is what the platform counts. Quality - the only property that predicts revenue - gets assessed anecdotally: a rep mentions the leads felt junky lately, someone spot-checks five records, opinions form. By the time quality problems are undeniable, a month of budget has been spent acquiring the wrong people, and the argument about when the rot started has no data to settle it.
A real quality instrument has known requirements: score every lead the same way, aggregate weekly, hold the weeks side by side, and attribute the mix to its sources. None of it is hard; all of it is recurring, and recurring analysis is where marketing operations quietly go to die. The scorecard gets built once in a motivated week and never updated again.
This mission is the scorecard with a pulse. Every Friday it scores the week's leads with the reasoning attached, charts the quality mix against previous weeks, names the campaigns and forms driving each end of the mix, and closes with the three changes most likely to raise next week's number.
How the mission runs
- Score the week, every lead. Each submission is enriched and scored against your ICP - same rubric, every lead, every week - because a quality trend is only trustworthy when the measuring stick never changes between measurements.
- Chart the mix over time. The week's fit/marginal/noise mix renders beside prior weeks as one designed figure - the trend line the anecdotes were always gesturing at, drawn identically every Friday.
- Attribute the ends. The campaigns and forms feeding the top and bottom of the mix are named with their numbers, so quality has causes rather than vibes: this form attracts students, that campaign found directors.
- Propose the three changes. The scorecard ends forward-looking: the three concrete moves - a form question added, a campaign's audience tightened, a budget shift - ranked by expected effect on next week's mix.
- Deliver as a deck. Chart, attribution, and recommendations assemble into a short Gamma deck, delivered on Friday so the Monday conversation starts from the scorecard rather than reconstructing it.
The prompt
This is the exact objective the agent receives. Swap the obvious placeholders for your own domain, segment or channel and run it as-is from the console, Slack, or the API.
What comes back
A weekly quality instrument: every lead scored on an unchanging rubric, the mix charted across weeks, sources attributed at both ends, and three ranked recommendations - delivered as a Friday deck that turns lead quality from an anecdote into a managed number.
Make it yours
- Fold in conversion-event acceptance once the quality loop streams, so the deck shows quality captured AND quality taught to the algorithm.
- Add a cost lane - spend per fit lead beside the mix - when the scorecard doubles as the budget conversation.
- Send a client edition on a different day for agency workspaces, with the same numbers and gentler framing.
Frequently asked questions
What keeps the scoring consistent week to week?
The rubric lives in workspace memory and applies mechanically - same factors, same weights - until you deliberately change it. When you do change it, the scorecard notes the break so nobody reads a rubric change as a quality change.
How is this different from the campaign teardown playbook?
Cadence and audience. The teardown is a deep reallocation analysis run when budget decisions loom; the scorecard is the standing weekly instrument the team steers by. Same scoring engine underneath, so their numbers always agree.
What if we dispute a week's scores?
Every score carries its reasoning, so disputes land on a specific factor - and a factor you correct in workspace memory corrects every future week. The scorecard is an argument you can audit, which is what makes its trend worth trusting.