Built on Genna's signal model, with what we can actually build today.
Three campaigns are already built, corrected and loaded. That is the pre-release wave and nothing here gates it.
Genna's nine signals are a tool for what we build from here: the signal columns we stand up in Clay, and how we pick who enters a lemlist campaign next. Sourcing machinery, not a review of what is already running.
What is added below is which of the nine we can actually compute, three places the arithmetic needs a decision, and the angle each cohort carries.
Nate's Finance, Quality and Resurrection campaigns hold 72 leads. Every one was selected on a contract under 4.0 with a gap in one of the six service measures that survived the CMS recalculation. The copy was re-cut on Sep 21 for that recalculation and verified live on all 29 steps. The 13 leads whose plans cleared 4.0 on the July re-issue came out this morning.
Under the scoring model those 72 are the measure-drop and near-the-line cohorts, already assembled. They are waiting on one thing, everyone signing off on the copy rather than Nate alone. Once that lands this goes live.
The model as proposed: strong signals 3 points, moderate 2, supporting 1, plus 2 when two signals land together. Tier 1 at 8 or more, Tier 2 at 5 to 6, Tier 3 at 3 to 4, low priority under 3. ICP fit stays separate from the score.
The 7 is unassigned. Tier 1 starts at 8 and Tier 2 tops out at 6. Nothing catches a 7. This is not a corner case: new executive plus declining rating is 2 plus 3, then the combination bonus, which is exactly 7. The most likely pair in the model falls in the gap. Proposed fix, Tier 2 becomes 5 to 7.
The bonus fires on two different rules. The summary says the bonus is for two strong signals together, but four of the six named combinations pair a moderate with a strong, since a new executive is a moderate. Proposed fix, the bonus fires on any pair from the named combination list.
Five supporting signals make a Tier 2 with no trigger in it. Relevant executive identified, recent hiring, large company, significant Medicare presence and recent restructuring are 1 point each and close to always true for a large payer. Five of them is a 5. Proposed fix, supporting signals cannot lift an account above Tier 3 on their own.
Seven of the nine we can compute today. Four came from files we already held; three more came from the CMS county enrollment file, a free public download pulled this afternoon and joined on contract id.
| Signal | Build it | Where it comes from |
|---|---|---|
| Deterioration in a specific measure | Yes | 12,240 contract by measure rows. 460 of 800 contracts have a service measure down, and the parent-grain read is send-ready |
| Rating declined year over year | Yes | 120 of 800 contracts. Correct against the Jul 22 re-issue first, it moved 34 |
| Rating is 3.0 to 3.5 | Yes | 264 of 800 contracts |
| Multiple contracts below 4 stars | Yes | 26 parents have two or more. Centene 42, Elevance 27, UnitedHealth 24, Humana 24 |
| Large Medicare Advantage enrollment | Yes, new today | Coverage went from 297 of 800 contracts to 709. The 91 without one are not in the CMS file at all |
| Enrollment growth | Yes, new today | July 2025 against July 2026. 88 parents have a read solid enough to say out loud |
| A peer improved while they declined | Yes, new today | 26 contracts fell while the plans competing for the same members in the same counties rose |
| Public statement on Stars or the bonus | Partly | Roughly 8 of our 93 parents are publicly traded. The rest are Blues, mutuals, county authorities and nonprofit systems |
| New Medicare or quality executive | No | The only one unbuilt, and the only one that costs money. Needs a paid title sweep with a start-date read across 93 parents |
Two things in that enrollment data would have produced bad emails. Contract-level growth is contaminated by members migrating between contracts inside a parent, which is why one Humana contract reads as 13,000 percent growth, so growth is parent grain with a floor. And a peer comparison that only asks whether more plans rose than fell fires on a 68 to 56 split, so a peer now has to share the counties holding 80 percent of a contract's members, with a real margin.
One caveat sits under all of it. All 19 measures we track are marked unknown for the October release, because the Clover ruling and the CMS recalculation pulled a set of operational measures out of the 2027 bonus and CMS took no position on what October uses.
This is what the signals become once they are columns in Clay: six ways an account can qualify, each its own campaign. Each carries one idea, and persona changes the framing inside a cohort, never the idea. The trigger decides why we write today; the measure-level read is the payload in all six, because the overall rating is public and the measure read is work.
A service measure dropped. A durable service measure moved on their largest contract, whether or not the overall rating did. Quality and Stars seats get the measure math, Finance gets the same read against the bonus line.
Close to 4 stars with a big Medicare book. Rating at 3.0 to 3.5 with large Medicare Advantage enrollment. The half-star is worth more at their enrollment than at almost anyone else's, so the same fix pays differently here. Finance leads this one.
A new Medicare or quality exec. Hired in the last 6 to 12 months. The listening tour ends and the agenda gets written, and the service measures are the part of that agenda that needs no restructure. The email cannot open on the rating. They inherited it, they already know, and opening there makes us the fifth vendor that week to tell them their score. Congratulate, name the moment, offer the first-year win, and let the measure read sit second.
They fell while their market rose. Their rating fell while the plans competing for the same members rose. What changed is not the market. Quality seats. Frame it as the field moving differently for different plans, never as falling behind.
They've talked about Stars publicly. A public executive statement names Stars, the bonus or Medicare Advantage economics, so the email answers a question they already put on the record. Not an earnings-call cohort: for the Blues, mutuals and county plans the surface is a press release, a rate filing or a state insurance filing.
Growing faster than service can keep up. Growth becomes contact volume, and the member-experience scores are set in the weeks when volume peaks. Operations and service seats, not quality.
Customer exclusion sits outside the score. A current customer can score 11 and must never enter a cold campaign, it routes to the account manager. This matters more with scoring than without it, because scoring surfaces the largest and most exposed plans first, and those are the likeliest to already be customers.
Every signal here is a public fact with a date. Each ships with its primary source and an as-of date, re-checked at send time because CMS re-issues. Nothing in this model is an Intradiem claim.
Every Stars number says they know their own numbers better than we do. The number is proof we did the reading, never the argument.