โ† Back to brief

project active deal tim beegle

memory ยท project_active_deal_tim_beegle.md

๐Ÿšซ STATUS โ€” CLOSED-LOST (Rachel-vetoed)

Decision-of-record (verbatim):
> Rachel Scott to Joseph Bowens, 2026-04-27 21:38Z (3:38 PM MDT) โ€” "Regarding Tim Beegle. This is a no"
> Source: gmail msg 19dd0e1aa27cf9f8 in thread 19dd0e03b7d8b47b
> Joseph reply same minute: "Got it."

No outreach to this prospect. No HS push. No future drafts. If a re-inquiry comes in (e.g. via Brooke's winterpark@ inbox, via daniela@, or directly), the answer remains no. Brooke's 2026-04-30 forward was a duplicate of the same prospect โ€” Brooke didn't know Rachel had declined three days prior.

What got drafted (and why it was wrong)

Prospect: Tim Beegle (timbeegle@yahoo.com / 970-406-1897)
Property: 357 Hi Country Drive #23-1, Hi Country Haus, Winter Park โ€” 2BR / 2BA, hot tub at clubhouse (shared amenity, not in-unit)
Joseph's drafted reply (now discarded): Gmail draft 19ddf254dde9928e, created 2026-04-30 16:07Z, subject "SkyRun Winter Park โ€” quick intro on Hi Country Haus #23-1". Pitched 30% flat fee + asked for Zillow/closing timeline. Discarded 2026-05-02 03:30 UTC by Joseph after the agent surfaced Rachel's prior veto.

The regression that produced the draft: the live-ea / qb-quarterback agents that processed Brooke's 4/30 forward did NOT cross-check the prospect email against Rachel's prior veto thread. Neither did the deal-memory file (this one, originally written 4/30 16:08Z) acknowledge the 4/27 thread.

Same-shape regression class: agent treats inbound surface as authoritative without checking the prior-decision corpus. Same family as the Hadank false-positive ("4/30 contract-sent email surfaces as fresh state without checking live HS dealstage").

Earlier, for history โ€” what the deal could have been

(Preserved here only so future agents understand why this entry exists at all and don't recreate it as a fresh inbound.)
Commission target: 30% (cold; flat-30 per feedback_commission_messaging.md)
Current PM: None yet โ€” Tim is pre-purchase. Whoever responds first + best-fit wins the relationship.

Why this is RED:

Open items / next actions:
1. TODAY: Send the drafted reply (after voice review) โ€” get Tim into a discovery call within 48h.
2. Pre-call research: pull Hi Country Haus comps from Track (2BR units, recent 12mo); pull KeyData WP submarket trend; check if Tim is already in HubSpot (his email might match a prior inquiry).
3. HOA / STR permit check โ€” Hi Country Haus has its own HOA rules; verify STR is currently permitted before quoting projection.
4. Push to HubSpot โ€” create contact (lead_source = OTHERREFERRAL via Brooke; military_status = "Other Referral"; commission = $700 since Brooke-sourced, NOT Bowens-Sourced). Ensure DNC clean (already verified clean 4/30).
5. Add to SoT โ€” once unit closes and ownership is recorded in EagleWeb, attach an R-number; for now, treat as "pre-purchase prospect" with placeholder.

Engagement signals (from Brooke fwd context):

Risks:

How to apply: Treat as RED active deal. Surface in every morning brief / QB delta until a discovery call is on calendar. After approval-and-send, track stage transitions: inbound_received โ†’ intro_sent_awaiting_reply โ†’ discovery_scheduled โ†’ discovery_complete โ†’ projection_pending โ†’ ... (same playbook as Weber). Use Brooke as the relationship anchor in the reply โ€” "thanks Brooke for connecting us" โ€” to compound goodwill.