<aside> 📋
6 AI agents independently reviewed this onboarding plan against findings from 49 sessions across 9 accounts. Their verdicts converged on every major point below.
</aside>
All 6 agents evaluated the plan against the 5 root causes from the 49-session analysis:
| Root Cause | Days at Stake | Verdict (6/6 agree) | Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inventory file dependency chain | 21-28 days | Partially addressed | ~35-40% |
| Payment processor / treasury | 14-21 days | Partially addressed | ~15-25% |
| Wrong stakeholders in room | 7-14 days | Partially addressed | ~35% |
| Sales-to-onboarding handoff | 7-21 days | Not addressed | 0% |
| Reactive session structure | 7-14 days | Partially addressed | ~50% |
<aside> ⚠️
Overall: The plan addresses roughly 30% of the problems identified in the analysis. It is, as two agents independently called it, "a packaging upgrade, not a system redesign."
</aside>
"If pre-work not completed by first meeting, onboarding PAUSED until ready." Every agent called this the single best element. If enforced, it saves 7-10 days alone.
Directly combats the session decay pattern (Gurstel: 73→11→11→36→12→11→26 min). More frequent touchpoints prevent 10-day gaps from becoming 3-week gaps.
Naming a specific project owner reduces the rotating-attendees problem (Cirqul) and the rapport-with-wrong-person problem (Wolford).
Explicitly carving out merchant processing, shortcode, and email as separate tracks is a structural improvement over implicit sequencing.
Pre-loading 15 product terms addresses the 18% comprehension-gap finding. Less time lost to vocabulary in early sessions.
The 19-step procedure adds repeatability for internal setup. Not a bottleneck fix, but good hygiene.