0 of 10 decided

Review — GLabs client happiness and campaign readiness

Plan: /Users/agency/Documents/Agty/ColdEmail/action-plans/2026-08-13-glabs-client-happiness-campaign-readiness.md

How to review this

T-001 — Restore sender and deliverability readiness

Undecided
Task

Refresh all six assigned senders, diagnose four connection errors, and define the smallest safe repair path.

Problem solved

Warmup scores currently hide a hard sending-readiness problem.

Cost of inaction

New leads could be staged against accounts that cannot send.

Benefit

A dated six-sender readiness decision with exact blockers.

Done

Six of six senders are active in fresh readback, or an exact blocker and repair-authority request exists.

flowchart LR
  A[Current gap] --> B[Restore sender and deliverability readiness] --> C[Verified client value]
flowchart TD
  S1[Refresh sender and campaign objects] --> S2[Separate connection, DNS, warmup and placement evidence]
  S2 --> S3[Diagnose non-secret failure reasons]
  S3 --> D{Evidence passes}
  D -- yes --> DONE[Verified outcome]
  D -- no --> S2
Open questions
Decision

T-002 — Clean and fingerprint the approved English copy

Undecided
Task

Create line-by-line v1 and v2 wording suggestions that fix edit collisions without changing the approved meaning.

Problem solved

The approved source contains broken grammar and corrupted numerical phrases.

Cost of inaction

Campaigns may use broken wording, wrong facts, or later unapproved copy.

Benefit

Every wording choice can be reviewed and discussed safely.

Done

Each approved block has current text, suggested text, reason, meaning-change label and fingerprint.

flowchart LR
  A[Current gap] --> B[Clean and fingerprint the approved English copy] --> C[Verified client value]
flowchart TD
  S1[Read approved Doc revision] --> S2[Apply confirmed factual reconstruction]
  S2 --> S3[Preserve offer and proof]
  S3 --> D{Evidence passes}
  D -- yes --> DONE[Verified outcome]
  D -- no --> S2
Decision

T-003 — Define the GLabs strict-lead and suppression contract

Undecided
Task

Adapt the reusable lead-bank controls into a GLabs-specific strict eligibility and campaign-batch contract.

Problem solved

Legacy files mix valid and catch-all rows and lack one current strict gate.

Cost of inaction

Volume targets could admit unsafe or irrelevant records.

Benefit

Every market uses one reproducible quality definition.

Done

Versioned validators enforce fit, identity, verified non-catch-all email, suppression, prior-contact and personalization gates.

flowchart LR
  A[Current gap] --> B[Define the GLabs strict-lead and suppression contract] --> C[Verified client value]
flowchart TD
  S1[Map GLabs schemas] --> S2[Define namespaced gates]
  S2 --> S3[Build dry-run validators]
  S3 --> D{Evidence passes}
  D -- yes --> DONE[Verified outcome]
  D -- no --> S2
Open questions
Decision

T-004 — Produce at least 500 strict Romania leads

Undecided
Task

Requalify the July Romania list, reconcile 283 paused members, recover repairable rows, and top up only the measured gap.

Problem solved

The paused cohort differs from the newer client-approved list and confidence is weak.

Cost of inaction

Romania could launch stale members or miss the scale target.

Benefit

A large defensible cohort plus exact keep, replace, add and reject sets.

Done

At least 500 unique Romania rows pass the strict contract with zero catch-all and a current QA receipt.

flowchart LR
  A[Current gap] --> B[Produce at least 500 strict Romania leads] --> C[Verified client value]
flowchart TD
  S1[Requalify July rows] --> S2[Reconcile 283 paused members]
  S2 --> S3[Repair evidence gaps]
  S3 --> D{Evidence passes}
  D -- yes --> DONE[Verified outcome]
  D -- no --> S2
Decision

T-005 — Produce at least 500 strict Poland leads

Undecided
Task

Requalify 417 July rows, recover repairable records, and top up to at least 500 strict unique leads.

Problem solved

Poland is below target and includes catch-all and low-confidence records.

Cost of inaction

Poland cannot provide safe scale or a fair comparison with Romania.

Benefit

A consistent 500-lead cohort governed by the same standard.

Done

At least 500 unique Poland rows pass the strict contract with zero catch-all and current QA.

flowchart LR
  A[Current gap] --> B[Produce at least 500 strict Poland leads] --> C[Verified client value]
flowchart TD
  S1[Requalify current rows] --> S2[Repair evidence gaps]
  S2 --> S3[Verify otherwise-ready addresses]
  S3 --> D{Evidence passes}
  D -- yes --> DONE[Verified outcome]
  D -- no --> S2
Decision

T-006 — Build a 500-company Czech approval list

Undecided
Task

Build a fresh strict Czech decision-maker list for client approval, using existing records only as seeds and deduplication evidence.

Problem solved

The client expects a Czech list but no approval-ready cohort exists.

Cost of inaction

The requested next market remains visibly unfinished.

Benefit

GLabs receives a clear evidence-backed approval artifact.

Done

A 500-row strict Czech artifact includes company, site, contact, title, email, fit evidence and status.

flowchart LR
  A[Current gap] --> B[Build a 500-company Czech approval list] --> C[Verified client value]
flowchart TD
  S1[Audit seeds] --> S2[Register novel source cells]
  S2 --> S3[Qualify and enrich]
  S3 --> D{Evidence passes}
  D -- yes --> DONE[Verified outcome]
  D -- no --> S2
Decision

T-007 — Preserve DACH readiness and the German-copy gate

Undecided
Task

Reconcile existing DACH supply under the strict contract and package its hold state.

Problem solved

Large historical volume exists but strict readiness and copy dependency are mixed.

Cost of inaction

DACH may be forgotten or treated as prematurely launch-ready.

Benefit

Progress remains visible while native German copy stays an explicit dependency.

Done

Current strict count, rejection categories, approval state and German-copy dependency are reconciled.

flowchart LR
  A[Current gap] --> B[Preserve DACH readiness and the German-copy gate] --> C[Verified client value]
flowchart TD
  S1[Validate existing rows] --> S2[Separate eligibility cohorts]
  S2 --> S3[Reconcile approval artifacts]
  S3 --> D{Evidence passes}
  D -- yes --> DONE[Verified outcome]
  D -- no --> S2
Open questions
Decision

T-008 — Stage Romania and Poland in paused campaigns

Undecided
Task

Freeze, render, upload and exactly reconcile reviewed copy and strict batches in paused campaigns.

Problem solved

Clean data and copy are not useful until the provider objects match them.

Cost of inaction

The client sees preparation but no launch-ready state.

Benefit

Both markets become one decision away from a controlled canary.

Done

Immutable batches, fingerprints, renders, senders, settings and memberships reconcile exactly while both campaigns remain paused.

flowchart LR
  A[Current gap] --> B[Stage Romania and Poland in paused campaigns] --> C[Verified client value]
flowchart TD
  S1[Freeze cohorts and copy] --> S2[Render representative messages]
  S2 --> S3[Verify senders and settings]
  S3 --> D{Evidence passes}
  D -- yes --> DONE[Verified outcome]
  D -- no --> S2
Decision

T-009 — Run a separately approved canary and monitor it

Undecided
Task

Prepare an exact-object canary packet, then activate only after a later explicit campaign GO.

Problem solved

Paused readiness does not prove delivery, replies or safe real-world performance.

Cost of inaction

Either nothing starts or too much starts without controlled evidence.

Benefit

A small monitored launch can prove safety and value before scaling.

Done

One exact campaign is approved, activated, read back and monitored against success and defensive-stop thresholds.

flowchart LR
  A[Current gap] --> B[Run a separately approved canary and monitor it] --> C[Verified client value]
flowchart TD
  S1[Build exact-object packet] --> S2[Wait for separate GO]
  S2 --> S3[Activate one campaign]
  S3 --> D{Evidence passes}
  D -- yes --> DONE[Verified outcome]
  D -- no --> S2
Open questions
Decision

T-010 — Deliver a concise client progress package

Undecided
Task

Create a one-page evidence summary and two minimal client email drafts for before and after completion.

Problem solved

Operational work does not create client confidence when progress is hard to understand.

Cost of inaction

GLabs may perceive delay despite meaningful preparation.

Benefit

The client sees verified progress, dependencies and the next decision quickly.

Done

A client-ready summary and two factual five-sentence-or-shorter drafts pass copy QA.

flowchart LR
  A[Current gap] --> B[Deliver a concise client progress package] --> C[Verified client value]
flowchart TD
  S1[Read task receipts] --> S2[Separate done and planned]
  S2 --> S3[Link review artifacts]
  S3 --> D{Evidence passes}
  D -- yes --> DONE[Verified outcome]
  D -- no --> S2
Decision