The number the standings sort by, and the number the lead-routing engine reads when it needs a best performer. Each contributing metric is min/max normalised within the team, direction-aware, then weighted. A rep missing a metric is not penalised — the remaining weights are rescaled to sum to one.
Also called: one number per rep · composite sales score · 0-100 rep rating · how is my rep doing
- 1Score metrics are those with a weight above zero: close rate 0.6, speed to lead 0.25, time to quote 0.1, follow-up 0.05.
- 2Each value is normalised 0-100 against the peer min and max; where everyone is equal the normalisation returns a neutral 50.
- 3The weighted sum is divided by the weights actually present for that rep.
- 4Final score = team average + (raw − team average) × confidence, where confidence ramps from 0 to 1 as the rep approaches the minimum-leads gate (default 20, configurable per org).
- 5Reps under the gate are marked provisional and shown with an asterisk on the chart axis.
The catalog carries a SCORE TRUTH block written to stop the copy over-promising: 'today the routing engine blends ONLY close rate + speed to lead… which lands at roughly 70/30 with the defaults. Follow-up discipline (time-to-quote + follow-up) is reserved for Phase 2 and is IGNORED by routing today… copy must say "coming", never claim it's in the score now.' Confidence smoothing exists so 'nobody gets crowned (or punished) on a tiny sample' — a rep with one lucky lead cannot top the board.
- Raw close rate crowned whoever had the smallest sample.
- Multiple metrics in different units could not be compared or ranked together.
- Lead routing had no defensible measure of 'best performer'.
See it on your own jobs
Twenty minutes, your numbers, no slide deck. We’ll build one of your real buildings in front of you and send you the estimate link at the end — yours to keep either way.
or keep browsing features →