Proposal: rebuilding how we collect a missed payment

For the board · prepared 17 September 2026 · every figure is measured from our own Square and CRM records, with the date and source stated. Nothing in this proposal has been started.

What is being asked for

Approve

Eight decisions — listed in full below

Engineering

3–4 weeks of one developer (estimate — needs the team’s own sizing)

People

No new headcount — the existing five-person collections team re-pointed as 3 + 1 + 1

Timeline

12 weeks to fully live, in four phases

At stake

$1,136,232 a year is missed at the first payment alone — 46.9% of every new agreement

Expected return

$57,000–$118,000 a year from the first-payment work, after halving the observed value for customer selection. Two further items are genuinely unquantifiable today and are marked so.

The one-sentence version: nearly half of all new agreements fail their very first payment; the customer then hears nothing for a day, receives two text messages a day apart, and is left alone for a month — while the team who should be calling them averages 34.6 minutes on the phone a day. The evidence says the first 24 hours are worth more than everything that follows put together, and we are not in them.

1. The problem, in numbers

New agreements a year

10,943

on the recurring payment book

Fail their first payment

46.9%

5,127 agreements · $1,136,232

Currently owing

14,109

accounts whose last payment attempt failed

First contact after a failure

23.2h

the fastest one all week; median 24.4h

Never reach collections

20%

12 of 60 failures in the week measured

Answer a message in 30 days

8.3%

across the whole collections book

The three findings that justify this proposal.

1. The first day is worth more than the next nine put together. Of everything a missed payment ever returns within ten days, 48% comes back on day 1, 71% by day 3, 92% by day 7. Today the fastest we contact anybody is 23.2 hours, because the collections system is fed by a once-a-day spreadsheet. We are arriving at the end of the most valuable day we have.

2. Catching it early is worth much more than the payment itself — but not all of the difference is ours to claim. An agreement whose first payment is recovered within ten days goes on to pay $1,165 by day 365; one where it is not pays $243. We are deliberately NOT claiming that $922 gap as the value of rescuing somebody. Much of it is simply who the customer already was: a person whose payment we can recover in a few days is, by nature, a better payer than one we cannot, and they would have paid more anyway. This proposal counts HALF the difference — $461 an agreement — as something the rescue creates, and treats the rest as the customer, not us. That halving is a judgement, not a measurement, and it is the single most important assumption in the financial case. It is still a large number.

3. We are not failing to collect. We are failing to ask. In the week measured, of the people who still had not paid: 22 were sent one message and never followed up, 16 replied to us and nothing happened at all, and 7 were never contacted by anyone. Two of the sixteen were explicitly waiting on us — one asking for a payment link, one telling us they had already paid.

2. What happens today

Every step below is measured against last week’s 60 failed first payments (7–13 September), traced through our own collections system. This is not a characterisation. It is the whole process, end to end.

Hour 0The payment fails, and that is the last attempt of the month

Our payment provider attempts the card once, on the due date, and never again — measured at 0.90 failed attempts per missed cycle across the book.
Nothing further is attempted on that account until next month’s invoice falls due. There is no second attempt, no retry schedule, nothing automatic. If money arrives, a person made it arrive.

Hours 0–23Nothing happens at all

The collections system is fed by a once-a-day spreadsheet drop, so the customer cannot be contacted until the next run.
Across all 60 failures, the fastest first contact was 23.2 hours. The median was 24.4 hours. Nothing went out inside twelve hours, all week.
Set against the recovery curve, this is the expensive part: 48% of everything a missed payment ever returns comes back on day 1. We arrive at the end of it.

Day 1A text — for most, but not all

12 of the 60 never reached the collections system at all (20%). No workflow can see them, so no text was ever possible.
17 of the 60 were never texted — 71.7% got a message, 28.3% got nothing.
The message is identical whatever the bank said. The decline reason never reaches the system that sends it, so a customer whose bank has simply blocked recurring payments gets the same words as one with no money.

Day 2A reminder — and then it stops

The median customer receives exactly two texts. 25 of the 43 who were contacted got two and no more.
The median span from first message to last is 1.0 days. 39 of the 43 had every contact they will ever get inside two days.
After that the account goes quiet until the next invoice fails a month later, by which point the chance of the next payment succeeding has almost halved.

If they replyRoughly a third do — and we do not handle it properly

19 people replied — 44.2% of those texted, 31.7% of all 60 failures. That is a good response rate to a debt message and it is being wasted.
6 of those 19 got no answer back from us at all. They wrote to us about a missed payment and the conversation stopped there.
Among those still unpaid, the pattern is worse: 16 had replied and no money followed. Two were plainly waiting on us — one asking for a payment link, one saying they had already paid.

PhoneWe cannot tell — and that is itself the finding

We cannot say how many times any of these 60 customers was rung, because nothing records it. Our phone system reports call volumes per agent per day and nothing else — no customer, no number. It does not write back into the collections record either, so the account shows nothing.
Do not read that as “nobody rang them”. The team made 5,709 calls in 30 days and those calls reached somebody. Some may well have been these people. We simply have no way to know.
What we can say is about the team as a whole: over the same period the six collections lines averaged 34.6 minutes of talk time per person per day, the busiest made 58 outbound calls a day, one line recorded no activity at all, and between all of them they produced 20.3 conversations of two minutes or more per day.
Being unable to answer “has this customer been called?” is a serious gap in its own right. It means no manager can check whether a queue was worked, and no measurement of any of this can separate a call that happened from one that did not. Closing it is a Phase 0 item.

Put plainly: a customer misses their first payment, hears nothing for a day, gets two text messages a day apart, and is then left alone for a month. A third of them write back, and one in three of those gets no reply. Meanwhile the collections team averages 34.6 minutes of talk time a day and says it is not busy — and we cannot even establish whether any of these particular customers was ever called. This is not a collections process that is underperforming. It is the absence of one.

	Today	Proposed
First contact	23.2 hours at best	Within 2 hours, worded by what the bank actually said
Who gets contacted	71.7% — a fifth never even reach the system	100%, reconciled daily
Messages sent	2, one day apart	A planned sequence to day 30, and a text after every call attempt
How long contact lasts	1 day	30 days, to the next invoice
Phone calls	Unknown — nothing records who was called	2 a day on days 1–3, one on day 5, every attempt logged against the account
If they reply	1 in 3 gets no answer	Named owner, answered the same working day
Staff	34.6 minutes of talk time a day	Same five people, re-pointed

3. What we are proposing

One contact process with three entry points, replacing what is currently a single once-a-day list.

The evidence for treating it as one process is strong and it was a surprise: the reason the bank gives for refusing the payment is almost identical across all three groups — roughly 85% is “not enough money / over a limit” whether the customer is brand new, three weeks in, or a year lapsed. The groups do not differ by why the card failed. They differ by how long ago anybody asked, and whether anybody asked at all.

Group	Size	Money	What we would do differently
New agreements first payment fails	5,127 a year	$1,136,232	Prevent what we can at the till, message before the payment is taken, then contact within hours rather than a day. This is where the money is.
First two months missing payments early on	849 of 1,599 live	$254,182	One message, placed in front of the second missed payment. After one miss the next payment succeeds 44% of the time; after two, 23.5%. Nothing sits in that gap today.
Long-lapsed four or more failures running	9,801	$14,601,622	Stop charging the dead ones, then a priced settlement offer to the 1,469 who have paid us before. Not a calling list — it is the largest number here and the worst use of an hour.

The biggest number is the worst place to spend the effort, and the board should expect that to feel counter-intuitive. The long-lapsed group is $14,601,622 on paper. But $6,691,378 of it belongs to 4,687 accounts that never paid us a single cent, and 3,936 of the group last paid something over 240 days ago. The new-agreement group is a fraction of the size on paper and worth far more per hour of effort, because of the $922 difference above.

One genuinely encouraging finding. Of the 11,622 accounts that have ever gone four or more payments down, 2,286 — 19.7% — later paid us again, contributing $1,024,771 after they had lapsed, an average of $448 each. A lapsed account is not a dead one. Every one of those recoveries happened because a person made contact: nothing in our systems ever attempts a card a second time by itself.

4. What has to change, in order

Phase 0Weeks 1–4Plumbing. Nothing customer-facing changes.

Event-driven feed into the collections system, replacing the once-a-day spreadsheet drop
Carry the bank’s decline reason through, so a message can say something true about why the payment failed
Daily reconciliation so nobody falls out of the process unnoticed
A named owner and a same-working-day answer for anyone who replies
Fix the reply-rate measurement (phone reactions are currently counted as replies)
Log calls against the customer record — today the phone system reports totals per agent per day and nothing else, so nobody can tell whether a given account has ever been rung

Who: Engineering · Effect: No revenue effect on its own. Everything after this depends on it.

Phase 1Weeks 3–6Stop the bleed, and build the tools the calls need.

Nightly sweep to stop charging the 2,867 dead agreements
Apply the payment-portal credit that is promised on screen today and never applied — blocking for anything that sends the link
The one-button follow-up text, wired to the call record
Point the existing notification code at the collections account it was always meant to use

Who: Engineering + Finance · Effect: Cost and risk reduction, not new revenue. Should pay for itself in avoided chargebacks.

Phase 2Weeks 5–10The first ten days after a missed payment.

Same-day message, routed by what the bank actually said, carrying the payment link and its credit
Two calls a day on days 1, 2 and 3, one on day 5 — the highest-value hours on the book
A one-button “we tried to reach you” text after every single call attempt
A day-7 message that offers three replies, one of which is “not this month”
A day-21 warning in front of the second missed payment
Re-point the team 3 + 1 + 1 and hand each role a ready-made list each morning

Who: Collections + Engineering · Effect: This is where the money is. See the financial case.

Phase 3Weeks 8–12Prevention, and the back book.

Pre-payment messages at day −5 and day −1, with the 10% control group
Card-quality step at the point of sale
Priced settlement campaign on the 1,469 lapsed accounts that have paid us before

Who: Sales + Collections · Effect: Prevention compounds; the settlement campaign is one-off.

Phase 0 is not optional and cannot be skipped to get to the revenue faster. If we begin sending more messages before the reply handling and the reconciliation are fixed, we will increase the number of customers who contact us and get no answer. That is measurably worse than the current position, because it spends goodwill we cannot convert. In the week measured, sixteen people replied to a message about a missed payment and nothing came back.

5. Why the payments actually fail — and the one lever that costs nothing

We used to think most first-payment failures were a technical problem. They are not. Roughly 85% of them are the bank saying there is not enough money, and that share is almost identical whether the customer is brand new, three weeks in, or a year lapsed. But who the customer banks with predicts failure better than almost anything else we hold — and unlike affordability, that is something we can influence, at the till, for nothing.

What the bank tells us when it refuses

What the bank said	Share	What it actually means
Over a limit on the account	55%	A money code, not a technical one. It recovers at the same rate as “insufficient funds”, and when we ask customers to pick a reason themselves, almost all choose “money is a bit tight”.
Refused, no reason given	23%	The issuer told us nothing. A conversation is the only way to find out.
Not enough money	10%	Exactly what it says.
Bank has blocked recurring payments on the card	7%	The only code with a thirty-second customer-side fix — a toggle in their banking app. Nobody is ever told this, because the reason never reaches the people making contact.
Card expired, wrong details, or the bank refused the instalment	5%	Genuinely technical. Needs new card details.

A claim we previously made and have withdrawn — the board should hear it from us rather than from somewhere else. We used to say “87% of customers who miss their first payment are not broke”, because the biggest code is a limit rather than insufficient funds. That was wrong. Checked properly, a limit decline recovers at 20.9% within 30 days and an insufficient-funds decline at 21.3% — indistinguishable. The big code is a money code. This proposal is built on affordability and timing, not on telling customers their bank made a mistake.

The finding that matters most: which bank the card comes from

Measured across 3,733 first instalments between 1 May and 31 August 2026, matched to the issuing bank. “App bank” means the sponsor banks behind the app-based accounts that release wages up to two days early — Cash App, Chime, SoFi, Varo, Dave and similar.

Card is from	First instalments	Failed	Share of ALL failures
An early-access app bank	694 (18.6%)	81.1%	31.6%
Any other bank	3,039 (81.4%)	40.1%	68.4%

Under a fifth of our new customers, and nearly a third of everything that fails. They also recover worse afterwards — 18.8% are back within ten days against 25.2%, and 28.3% ever pay against 43.3%. Failing more often and recovering less compounds.

It is the bank, not the prepaid card — we checked

Card	First instalments	Failed
App bank, ordinary card	380	76.1%
App bank, prepaid card	314	87.3%
High-street bank, ordinary card	2,984	39.7%
High-street bank, prepaid card	55	61.8%

An ordinary, non-prepaid card from an app bank still fails 76.1% against 39.7% for the same kind of card from a high-street bank. Prepaid adds roughly ten points on top of that, and about twenty points at a traditional bank — a second, smaller effect. So this is not a “prepaid cards are bad” finding. It is about the account behind the card.

A second, separate signal: credit beats debit

Among high-street banks only	First instalments	Failed
Credit card	786	27.2%
Debit card	2,251	44.7%

Compared like with like, with the app banks stripped out, so this is not the same finding twice. The best card we can be handed — a high-street credit card — fails 27.2%. The worst — an app-bank debit card — fails 82.5%. A threefold difference, settled in the ninety seconds when the card is taken.

The honest caveat, and it is the same one that halved the financial case. Somebody who offers a high-street credit card is, on average, in a better financial position than somebody offering an app-bank debit card. Asking for a different card does not turn one customer into the other. The real and smaller opportunity is the customers who hold both and hand over whichever is nearest — for them, taking the better card is free. This is why decision 7 asks for a trial and a measurement, not a rollout.

Named banks, so the sales floor knows what it is looking at

Issuing bank	First instalments	Failed
Sutton Bank — Cash App, Chime	308	87.3%
The Bancorp Bank — various app accounts	112	76.8%
Stride Bank — Chime	99	74.7%
Navy Federal Credit Union	140	55.7%
Wells Fargo	220	44.5%
Bank of America	377	40.1%
JPMorgan Chase — debit	382	36.6%
JPMorgan Chase — credit	124	6.5%

One theory we tested and had to drop — do not move charge dates on it. The obvious explanation for the app-bank failures is that those customers are paid early, run out early, and should therefore be charged on a different day. The data does not support it. Across 78,016 charges both groups peak on the same day of the week and trough on the same day. What differs is the size of the swing — 1.78 times best-to-worst against 1.14 — so these accounts run empty faster, they are not on a different clock. Moving their charge date would cost effort and change nothing.

6. The operating model — who does what, and does it fit

No new headcount. The five collections people are re-pointed, three ways. The evidence for this is the team’s own call records: over 30 working days to 16 September they averaged 34.6 minutes of talk time per person per day, the busiest made 58 outbound calls a day, and one line recorded no activity at all. Between all of them the team produced 20.3 conversations of two minutes or more per day. The hours exist. They are pointed at the oldest, coldest accounts on the book.

People	On what	Volume	Why they sit there
3	The back book everything four or more payments down	9,801 accounts	The existing job, plus the settlement campaign. Largest pile, lowest return per hour — so it gets the people, not the priority.
1	Missed first payments the first ten days	~100 a week	The highest-value hour on the book. Needs one person whose whole job is speed, because the value halves within days.
1	Irregular missers first two months, missing here and there	~119 a week	Catching the second missed payment before it happens. After one miss the next payment succeeds 44% of the time; after two, 23.5%.

The contact rhythm — two calls a day, and nobody is left wondering

Every call attempt is followed by a text. Not typed by hand — one button in the system that sends “we tried to reach you” with the customer’s own payment link on it. A missed call on an unknown number is nothing; a missed call plus a text is a message.

When	What happens	By whom
Day 0, within 2 hours	Text, worded by what the bank actually said, carrying the payment link and the credit	Automated
Day 1	2 calls, each followed by a one-button text	Person
Day 2	2 calls + texts	Person
Day 3	2 calls + texts	Person
Day 5	1 call + text	Person
Day 7	Three-button message — pay / arrange / not this month	Automated
Days 10, 14, 21, 25, 30	Arrangement offer, check-in, the warning before the next payment, pre-notice, next payment falls due	Automated

Does one person actually fit 100 a week at that rhythm? Yes — and the arithmetic is shown rather than asserted.

20 arrive per working day. Running two calls on days 1–3 and one on day 5 means about 80 accounts live at any moment and 140 dial attempts a day. At the team’s own measured outbound contact rate of 9.1% — not the 20% a textbook would assume — that is 12.7 real conversations a day. Costed at 1.5 minutes a dial, 9 minutes a conversation, 3 minutes of notes and 15 seconds for a one-button text, the day comes to 6.6 hours. It fits.

What the board should know: 140 dials a day is roughly two and a half times what the busiest collector does today. The hours are there, but this is a real change in how the day is worked, and it only holds if the list is handed to them ready — which is what Phase 0 buys.

The irregular-misser role is lighter and that is deliberate. About 71 dials a day, 6.5 conversations, 3.4 hours. The remaining time is the buffer for the first-payment role on a heavy week — arrivals swing from 43 to 144 a week, so a rota built on the average is underwater one week in four.

7. What the board is being asked to decide

1. Engineering time for five plumbing fixes

Approve

Three of them are blocking: nothing else in this proposal reaches its stated value without them. Estimated 3–4 weeks of one developer, and that estimate needs the team’s own sizing before it is relied on.

Why: Without this the first contact after a failed payment cannot leave inside 23 hours, and day 1 is 48% of everything a missed payment ever returns.

2. Re-point the collections team — 3 + 1 + 1, no new headcount

Approve

Three people stay on the existing back book. One takes new missed first payments (about 100 a week). One takes irregular missers — customers in their first two months who miss here and there. The capacity is already in the building; it is pointed at the wrong things.

Why: Measured over 30 working days to 16 September, the six collections lines averaged 34.6 minutes of talk time per person per day, and the busiest made 58 outbound calls a day. One line recorded no activity at all across the whole period. The team produces 20.3 conversations of two minutes or more per day between all of them. This is not a team without hours.

3. The payment link, the credit on it, and a follow-up text after every call

Approve and fund the build

Every call attempt is followed by a text saying we tried to reach them, sent with one button from the system rather than typed. The text carries the customer’s own payment link with the bonus credit already applied — pay in full and 15% is credited to the balance, 75% earns 10%, 50% earns 5%.

Why: The portal already exists and already shows this offer. It has never once applied it. The credit is written into a note and nothing else — no ledger entry, no credit, no change to what the customer owes. We checked all 83,623 recurring payments taken in 2026: not one carries it. Nobody has been short-changed yet because no traffic has been sent there, but this must be fixed before a single link goes out.

4. A settlement policy with a hard ceiling

Approve the policy

Settlement opens at day 40, capped at 25% of balance. Anything deeper needs a named approver and only after day 60. Nothing before day 31 is discountable at all.

Why: Measured on our own book: a reduction under 25% returned $0.74 per $1 given away; at 50–75% it returned $0.14; clearing a balance outright returned −$0.03. And 600 of the 945 accounts we have reduced had no failed charge at all — 72% of the money given away went to people who were never struggling.

5. Stop charging agreements that cannot pay

Approve

A nightly sweep to stop attempting 2,867 accounts whose cards have failed four or more times running. Square cannot end a recurring series through its API, so this has to be a sweep rather than a switch.

Why: 3,100 failed charges were fired at these accounts in the last 30 days and $611,841 a cycle is being attempted into the void. This is a chargeback and processing exposure, and it is also a revenue-recognition question the board should see rather than an operational one.

6. Contact customers BEFORE the first payment

Approve in principle

A short service message five days before and one day before the first instalment. Nobody sends anything today — not us, and not Square. No pay-now link, because a duplicate payment on top of a stored card is the fastest route to a chargeback there is.

Why: This is the only step in the whole process that reaches a customer while nothing has gone wrong. Its effect is UNKNOWN and could be negative, which is why decision 8 matters.

7. A card-quality step at the point of sale

Approve a TRIAL

Where the card offered is an app-bank card or a debit card, ask whether they have another — a high-street card, or a credit card. One sentence in the sales conversation. Trial it and measure it; do not roll it out on the raw numbers alone.

Why: App-bank cards are 18.6% of first instalments and 31.6% of every failure, failing 81.1% against 40.1%. Separately, among high-street banks alone, credit fails 27.2% against debit 44.7%. Best card to worst is 27.2% against 82.5%. It costs nothing to ask — but it changes the sales conversation, and part of the gap is the customer rather than the card, which is why this asks for a trial.

8. Hold back a control group

Approve — and this is the uncomfortable one

Deliberately send 10% of customers nothing at the new steps, so the effect can be measured against a like-for-like group.

Why: We have never run an automated pre-notice or an automated warning message, so their conversion rates do not exist. Without a control they get measured against a human conversation rate and will look like failures however well they do. The cost is real: a small number of people who might have paid will not be contacted.

8. The financial case

Line	Per year	The assumption behind it
First-payment recovery improves by 5 percentage points from 26.4% to 31.4% recovered within 30 days	$57,000–$118,000	5,127 failures a year × 5 points = 256 more agreements rescued. The lower figure values each at the missed payment alone (about $222). The upper values each at $461 — half the $922 whole-agreement difference we can observe, because much of that difference is the customer rather than the rescue: somebody we can recover quickly was always the better payer. Halving it is a judgement, and it is the assumption most worth arguing about. Both ends depend entirely on Phase 0.
Second-miss warning message	not quantified	Deliberately left blank. 353 agreements are sitting one payment down right now and the success rate halves at the second. But we have never sent this message, so its effect is unknown, and borrowing a rate from our collectors’ results would measure a human conversation rather than an automated message. Decision 8 is how we find out.
Stop charging dead agreements	cost, not revenue	3,100 failed attempts in 30 days against cards that cannot succeed. Saves processing fees and, more importantly, reduces chargeback exposure — $385,210 was put at already-dead cards in a single quarter.
Settlement campaign on lapsed payers	~$130,000 pool	1,469 accounts × the measured 19.7% return rate × $448 average. Read this as the size of the pool, not as new money — 19.7% is what the book already achieves with the effort already spent. Whether a priced offer beats that is untested.
Cost	No new headcount + 3–4 dev weeks	The people are already employed — this is a re-pointing, not a hire, and the capacity check in section 6 shows the two new roles fit inside a working day at the team’s own measured contact rate. The only new cash cost is the engineering. The board should note the opposite risk: if the back book is left with three people rather than five, the recovery on the oldest accounts will fall, and that reduction is not modelled here.

9. What this proposal does not claim

It does not claim a return on the two new automated messages. We have never sent a pre-payment notice or a second-miss warning. Their effect is unknown, and could be negative — telling somebody a payment is coming also gives them the opportunity to move the money. That is why a control group is decision 7 rather than an afterthought.

It does not claim the whole observed value of an early rescue. Customers whose first payment we recover quickly go on to pay far more than those we cannot — but they are also, by nature, better payers, and would have paid more regardless. We have halved the observed gap to keep only what is plausibly ours. If the board thinks that is still generous, the lower end of the range assumes we recover nothing but the missed payment itself, and the case is positive there too.

It does not claim that contacting people causes recovery. Customers who pay immediately never get chased, so any comparison of “contacted” against “not contacted” is distorted at both ends. We are proposing this because of the timing evidence, which is not distorted in that way, not because contacted customers pay more often.

It does not assume anything recovers itself. Our payment provider attempts a card once, on the due date, and never again — measured at 0.90 attempts per missed cycle. There is no automatic second attempt anywhere in this business. Every pound in this proposal arrives because a person asked for it, which is why the headcount line is not optional.

It cannot say whether any individual customer has been telephoned. Our phone system reports call counts per agent per day and nothing else — no customer, no number — and it does not write back into the collections record. So every per-customer contact figure in this paper covers text messages only, and nothing here should be read as evidence that a particular person was or was not called. The team-level call figures are sound; the per-account ones do not exist. Closing that is a Phase 0 item, and until it is closed none of the measures in section 10 can separate a call that happened from one that did not.

10. How we will know whether it worked

Measure	Today	What good looks like
Time from failed payment to first contact	23.2 hours at best	Under 2 hours for the automated step; a call attempt inside 48 hours
Share of failures that enter the process at all	80%	100%, reconciled daily with an alarm on the gap
Customers who reply and then receive an answer	Not measured, and 16 went unanswered in one week	100% answered the same working day
First payment recovered within 30 days	26.4%	31.4% — the basis of the financial case
Answering a message within 30 days	8.3%	Rising — and measured excluding phone reactions, which currently inflate it
Second missed payment after a first	56% go on to miss again	Falling — measured against the held-back control group
Call attempts per person per day	58 at the busiest line; 34.6 minutes of talk time	~140 on the first-payment role, with the follow-up text sent on every one
Calls attributable to a customer	None — the phone system records per agent per day only	Every attempt logged against the account, so a queue can be audited
Call attempts that get a follow-up text	None — there is no such step today	100%, one button, logged against the account
Payment-link credit actually applied	0 of 83,623 payments in 2026	Every payment made through the link

A note on how these numbers were produced. Everything here comes from our own payment records and collections system, measured between 1 and 17 September 2026, and each figure is reproducible from the detail behind this page. Where two ways of counting the same thing disagree, both are shown in the underlying analysis rather than averaged. Nothing in this proposal has been implemented, no customer has been contacted as part of it, and no system has been changed.

Supporting detail is on the other tabs of this page: the week that was measured, whether anyone chased those customers, the conversations verbatim, the full three-group analysis, and a worked calling list of 90 people. Prepared 2026-09-17.

The proposal — built 2026-09-17 22:33 UTC by scripts/reports/report_proposal.js

Failed first payments — the week of 2026-09-07 to 2026-09-13

Every agreement whose opening instalment failed in the last seven complete days, the reason the issuer gave Square, and whether the debt-collection GHL then actually texted them. 138 agreements took their first charge in this window; 60 of them failed — 43.5%. The per-person list is a key-gated CSV; this page carries counts only.

Failed first payments

of 138 agreements opened · 43.5% failed

Not collected

$17,054

$17053.91 of opening instalments

In the debt GHL

48 80.0%

12 are not there at all

Texted after the failure

45 75.0%

15 were never texted

Texted us back

46.7% of those texted · 35.0% of all 60

Money in since

15 25.0%

$7,381 banked — read the caveat on the reply tab

By day

Day	Failed openings	Missed	Texted	Replied	Money in since
Mon, 2026-09-07	11	$4206.73	9 81.8%	6 66.7%	2 18.2%
Tue, 2026-09-08	4	$891.65	3 75.0%	0 0.0%	1 25.0%
Wed, 2026-09-09	7	$2686.66	6 85.7%	3 50.0%	1 14.3%
Thu, 2026-09-10	6	$1235.83	5 83.3%	5 100.0%	3 50.0%
Fri, 2026-09-11	21	$6035.14	18 85.7%	6 33.3%	6 28.6%
Sat, 2026-09-12	7	$1297.91	0 0.0%	—	1 14.3%
Sun, 2026-09-13	4	$699.99	4 100.0%	1 25.0%	1 25.0%

By city

City	Failed openings	Missed	In debt GHL	Texted	Replied
Texas	12	$2244.65	10 83.3%	9 75.0%	4 44.4%
Boston	6	$1049.66	5 83.3%	5 83.3%	4 80.0%
New York	15	$3423.72	14 93.3%	14 93.3%	6 42.9%
Florida	20	$7217.89	13 65.0%	11 55.0%	4 36.4%
Chicago	2	$2229.67	1 50.0%	1 50.0%	0 0.0%
Nashville	5	$888.32	5 100.0%	5 100.0%	3 60.0%

Why the count jumps around the week. Charge dates cluster — the 1st and the 15th are the two biggest days on the recurring book, so a week containing one of them carries a spike that is a calendar effect, not a deterioration. Compare like-for-like weeks, not adjacent ones.

What the issuer actually said

Straight off the Square payment record — card_details.errors on the failed opening charge. One row per code, with what it means on this book rather than what the Square docs call it.

Reason	Failures	Missed	Money in since	Texted	Replied	What it means here
Transaction limit TRANSACTION_LIMIT	33 55.0%	$8548.05	8 24.2%	27 81.8%	12 44.4%	The issuer refused it against a limit on the account. On this book it behaves as a MONEY code, not a technical one — it recovers at the same rate as INSUFFICIENT_FUNDS, and of the customers who answered our text and picked an option, almost all picked "money is a bit tight".
Generic decline GENERIC_DECLINE	14 23.3%	$3028.72	3 21.4%	10 71.4%	5 50.0%	The issuer refused and told us nothing. No script follows from this code on its own — the text is the only way to find out why.
Insufficient funds INSUFFICIENT_FUNDS	6 10.0%	$3137.49	2 33.3%	4 66.7%	3 75.0%	Not enough money in the account on the day.
Cardholder permissions CARDHOLDER_INSUFFICIENT_PERMISSIONS	4 6.7%	$806.33	1 25.0%	3 75.0%	0 0.0%	The issuer has fenced this card off from recurring card-not-present charges. ONLY THE CARDHOLDER CAN LIFT IT, usually a toggle in their banking app. This is the one code on the list where "check your bank app" is the correct script — and it is heavily concentrated in the early-access neobanks.
Issuer instalment error ISSUER_INSTALLMENT_ERROR	1 1.7%	$241.66	0 0.0%	0 0.0%	—	The issuer rejected the charge specifically as an INSTALMENT. It is not a balance problem and not a dead card — the bank would not take this card on a payment plan. The card has to be replaced with one that will; asking them to "try again" with the same card does nothing.
CVV failure CVV_FAILURE	1 1.7%	$1150.00	1 100.0%	0 0.0%	—	The security code did not match.
Card expired CARD_EXPIRED	1 1.7%	$141.66	0 0.0%	1 100.0%	1 100.0%	The stored card is past its expiry date. Needs new card details, nothing else.

The two codes worth separating. Cardholder permissions is the only one on this list a customer can fix in thirty seconds — the issuer has fenced the card off from recurring charges and a toggle in their banking app lifts it. Nobody is told that, because the decline reason never reaches GHL at all: the outbound text is identical whatever the issuer said. Transaction limit is the opposite trap — it reads like a technical block and behaves like no money.

By card brand

Brand	Failures	Missed	Money in since
VISA	40 66.7%	$11067.19	9 22.5%
MASTERCARD	16 26.7%	$5136.73	4 25.0%
DISCOVER	3 5.0%	$562.49	2 66.7%
AMERICAN_EXPRESS	1 1.7%	$287.50	0 0.0%

Still not paid

Of the 60 agreements whose opening instalment failed last week, 45 have had no money banked since — $9672.68. "Since" means any completed charge on that customer after the failed opening, not just the opening amount. The per-person list is the key-gated CSV: /first-miss-week-unpaid.csv.

Still owing

of 60 failed openings · 75.0%

Still not collected

$9,673

$9672.68 of opening instalments

Never asked at all

7 15.6%

no text went out after the failure

Asked and silent

22 48.9%

texted, never answered

Answered, still owing

16 35.6%

engaged with us and no money followed

Who could still be worked

Where they stand	People	Owing	What it means
Never reached the GHL	5 11.1%	$852.08	Nobody can chase them — they are not in the sub-account. Getting them in is the fix.
In the GHL, never texted	2 4.4%	$462.49	The contact exists and nothing went out. Check whether the feed dropped them or the workflow did.
Texted, no reply	22 48.9%	$4866.06	Asked once and silent. This is the calling list — a text has already failed on them.
Texted, replied, still no money	16 35.6%	$3492.05	They ENGAGED and still have not paid. Warmest of the four and the one nobody is working.

The four groups need four different actions, and only one of them is a calling list. The people who replied and still have not paid are the warmest names on the page — they answered a text about a missed payment and then nothing happened. The people who were never asked at all are not a performance problem, they are a plumbing problem: nobody has spoken to them yet.

How long they have been owing

Days since the charge failed	People	Owing
3 days or less	3 6.7%	$654.16
4–5 days	21 46.7%	$4174.72
6–7 days	9 20.0%	$2101.66
8 days or more	12 26.7%	$2742.14

By reason

Square's reason	Still owing	Owing	Share of that reason	Texted
Transaction limit	25 55.6%	$4973.89	25 75.8%	23 92.0%
Generic decline	11 24.4%	$2564.15	11 78.6%	8 72.7%
Insufficient funds	4 8.9%	$1057.49	4 66.7%	3 75.0%
Cardholder permissions	3 6.7%	$693.83	3 75.0%	3 100.0%
Issuer instalment error	1 2.2%	$241.66	1 100.0%	0 0.0%
Card expired	1 2.2%	$141.66	1 100.0%	1 100.0%

By city

City	Still owing	Owing	Share of that city	Texted
Texas	8 17.8%	$1468.82	8 66.7%	6 75.0%
Boston	6 13.3%	$1049.66	6 100.0%	5 83.3%
New York	12 26.7%	$2959.15	12 80.0%	12 100.0%
Florida	15 33.3%	$3297.89	15 75.0%	11 73.3%
Chicago	1 2.2%	$279.67	1 50.0%	1 100.0%
Nashville	3 6.7%	$617.49	3 60.0%	3 100.0%

This list will shrink on its own, and not because anything is automated. Money still arrives on these accounts — a collector gets hold of someone, or a customer acts on a text. Nothing on this book charges a card a second time by itself, so every name that drops off did so because a person made it happen. Re-run the report to see the current position rather than working from a saved copy.

This week — built 2026-09-17 11:26 UTC by scripts/reports/report_first_miss_week.js

Did we text them, and did they answer

Cross-checked live against the US Debt Collection GHL sub-account (pcTyOadbzBqZO7v3cbwn) — matched on phone number, then email, then name. Read-only: this page sends nothing and enrols nobody.

Failed first payments

the whole week

Reached the debt GHL

48 80.0%

12 never arrived

A text actually went out

45 75.0%

3 are in the GHL and were still not texted

Replied

46.7% of those texted

Fastest text out

23.2h

median 24.4h · slowest 72.9h

Undelivered texts

of 130 sent · 98 by the workflow, 32 typed by a person

How long after the failure the first text went out

Time from failure to first text	People
Same day (under 12h)	0 0.0%
12–24h	6 13.3%
1–2 days	21 46.7%
2–4 days	18 40.0%
4 days+	0 0.0%

Nobody is contacted on the day. The fastest text in this week left 23.2 hours after the charge failed and the median was 24.4 hours — the feed into this sub-account is a daily Google-Sheet drop, so day 0 does not exist. That is the expensive part: measured over four months, day 1 is 48% of everything a missed opening ever returns inside ten days, and the first text lands at the end of it.

What they said back

The workflow's opening text asks for a reason and offers three numbered options: 1 card issue · 2 money is a bit tight · 3 something else. This is the only part of a reply this report reads, and no message body is ever stored.

Reply	People
1 — Card issue	2 9.5%
2 — Money is a bit tight	7 33.3%
3 — Something else	2 9.5%
Wrote something instead of picking	10 47.6%

The customers agree with the money reading of TRANSACTION_LIMIT. Of the people who picked an option, the large majority picked "money is a bit tight", and nearly all of those had a TRANSACTION_LIMIT decline — not a card-issue one. 2 said card issue. Whatever the code looks like, the people answering are telling us it is affordability.

Do not read the recovery column as an effect of texting. 15 of the 60 have money in since, but the people who pay straight back are exactly the people who never needed chasing — and some of them are out of the texting list precisely because they had already paid. The comparison is selected at both ends. Nothing on this book charges a card a second time on its own; every later payment is a person acting — a collector on the phone, or the customer following up a text.

Where the chase leaks

Two separate holes, and they need different fixes. One group never reaches the debt sub-account at all; the other is sitting in it with no text sent.

Never reached the GHL

$6,095 · no phone-number match in the sub-account

In the GHL, no text sent

$1,612 · contact exists, nothing went out

Total not contacted

15 25.0%

$7,707 of missed openings with no text

Emails sent

SMS is the only channel this sub-account uses

Calls logged in GHL

the team dials from GoTo, which does not write back here — absence is not proof nobody rang

The gap, by day

Day	Failed openings	Never reached GHL	In GHL, not texted	Missed, uncontacted
Mon, 2026-09-07	11	2 18.2%	0	$2247.91
Tue, 2026-09-08	4	0	1 25.0%	$241.66
Wed, 2026-09-09	7	0	1 14.3%	$1150.00
Thu, 2026-09-10	6	1 16.7%	0	$320.00
Fri, 2026-09-11	21	3 14.3%	0	$2450.00
Sat, 2026-09-12	7	6 85.7%	1 14.3%	$1297.91
Sun, 2026-09-13	4	0	0	$0.00

Never reached the GHL, by city

City	Failed openings	Never reached GHL	Missed
Texas	12	2 16.7%	$316.67
Boston	6	1 16.7%	$125.00
New York	15	1 6.7%	$297.91
Florida	20	7 35.0%	$3405.41
Chicago	2	1 50.0%	$1950.00
Nashville	5	0	$0.00

Checked, not assumed. Every one of the 12 was probed on the phone number, the email address and the name. The phone probe returned zero contacts for each of them — they are genuinely absent from the sub-account, not a formatting miss.

In the GHL but not texted — when the contact was created

Contact created	People
2025-11-18	1
2026-06-15	2

A contact created today has not had time to be texted — the feed is a daily drop, so the tail of this table is lag rather than a miss. Anything created before yesterday and still untexted is a real gap.

The chase — built 2026-09-17 11:26 UTC by scripts/reports/report_first_miss_week.js

Did the handover actually land?

Every failed opening payment from 2026-08-20 to 2026-09-16, followed through four links: Square recorded the failure → they still owed a day later → they were in our daily handover file → a contact exists in the debt-collection GHL → a text actually went out. Nothing checked this end to end before.

Failed openings

421

→

Still owed next day

371

→

In our file

352

→

In the debt GHL

350

→

Texted

338

19 were genuinely absent from a file that does exist.

Fixed it themselves inside 24h

50 11.9%

correctly never handed over — the feed is an outstanding-balance snapshot taken about a day after the charge, so by the time it ran these people owed nothing

Needed chasing, reached the GHL

350 94.3%

of the 371 who genuinely still owed

A text went out

338 91.1%

of those who needed chasing — the honest coverage number, measured against people who still owed rather than against every failure

Never reached the GHL

$4136.47 · 20 of them have never paid anything since

Whole days lost

15 people, $2988.56 — days where people needed chasing and not one was created in the GHL

A DROPPED DAY IS PERMANENT — nothing backfills it. The people lost on 4 September had still never been created in the debt GHL thirteen days later, and 14 of those 15 have never paid anything since. No sweep picks up a day the upload missed. That is why this is a daily check rather than a one-off answer: if a row below reads NOTHING LANDED, that day's file has to be loaded by hand and those people contacted, because it will not fix itself.

Day by day — where the chain breaks

One row per day, and the verdict is per day on purpose. Blended across the window the coverage reads 94.3% into the GHL and 91.1% texted, which looks healthy — but the failures are not spread evenly. They are whole days on which nothing loaded at all, and a rate hides an outage.

Day	Failed openings	Self‑fixed <24h	Needed chasing	In our file	In the GHL	Texted	Lost	Verdict
Thu, 2026-08-20	21	—	21	21	21	20	—	landed
Fri, 2026-08-21	29	3	26	24	26	26	—	landed
Sat, 2026-08-22	10	1	9	8	9	9	—	landed
Sun, 2026-08-23	4	—	4	4	4	4	—	landed
Mon, 2026-08-24	13	1	12	11	12	12	—	landed
Tue, 2026-08-25	22	3	19	16	19	19	—	landed
Wed, 2026-08-26	11	3	8	8	8	8	—	landed
Thu, 2026-08-27	7	1	6	6	6	6	—	landed
Fri, 2026-08-28	45	5	40	38	40	38	—	landed
Sat, 2026-08-29	0	—	0	0	—	—	—	no failures
Sun, 2026-08-30	0	—	0	0	—	—	—	no failures
Mon, 2026-08-31	95	7	88	85	88	87	—	landed
Tue, 2026-09-01	13	1	12	12	12	12	—	landed
Wed, 2026-09-02	4	—	4	4	4	4	—	landed
Thu, 2026-09-03	3	2	1	1	1	1	—	landed
Fri, 2026-09-04	18	3	15	15	0	0	15 $2988.56	NOTHING LANDED
Sat, 2026-09-05	2	—	2	2	2	2	—	landed
Sun, 2026-09-06	4	—	4	2	4	3	—	landed
Mon, 2026-09-07	11	2	9	9	9	8	—	landed
Tue, 2026-09-08	4	—	4	3	4	3	—	landed
Wed, 2026-09-09	7	1	6	6	6	6	—	landed
Thu, 2026-09-10	6	2	4	3	4	4	—	landed
Fri, 2026-09-11	21	3	18	18	18	18	—	landed
Sat, 2026-09-12	7	1	6	6	1	0	5 $852.08	part of it landed
Sun, 2026-09-13	4	—	4	4	4	3	—	landed
Mon, 2026-09-14	7	1	6	6	6	5	—	landed
Tue, 2026-09-15	39	9	30	28	30	28	—	landed
Wed, 2026-09-16	14	1	13	12	12	12	1 $295.83	part of it landed

The days that lost their whole handover

Day	Needed chasing	Our file that day	Of them, in our file	Never created in GHL	Missed	Never paid since
Fri, 2026-09-04	15	105 in the file	15	15	$2988.56	14

Our side is not where it broke. On both lost days the handover file existed and held those customers — the file was built and they were in it. What never happened is the load into the GHL: no contact was created, so no workflow could fire and no text could go out. That points at the upload step between the file and the sub-account, not at the report and not at the data. Every person counted as missing has a phone number on their Square record, so none of these are data-quality failures either.

In the GHL and still not texted

A contact exists, so the handover did reach the sub-account — but no message ever went out after the failure. A contact created in the last day or so is lag rather than a miss; anything older is a real gap.

In the GHL, never texted

$2533.64 across the window

Needed chasing and got no text at all

33 8.9%

$6670.11 of missed openings with no message

By city

City	Needed chasing	Never reached the GHL	Texted
Texas	114	4 3.5%	105 92.1%
Boston	43	2 4.7%	41 95.3%
New York	56	2 3.6%	51 91.1%
Florida	91	10 11.0%	79 86.8%
Chicago	36	2 5.6%	32 88.9%
Nashville	31	1 3.2%	30 96.8%

How this is measured

A failed opening is a customer's first-ever charge attempt across the six Square Recurring* locations, taken from the whole attempt history, that did not complete. Same definition as the This week tab, so the two pages cannot disagree.

“Needed chasing” excludes anyone who paid inside 24 hours of the failure. The feed into the debt GHL is an outstanding-balance snapshot taken about a day after the charge, so someone who clears it themselves is correctly never handed over. Measured 7–13 September, the two groups do not overlap at all: none of the 45 people texted had paid inside 24h, and all of the absentees who had paid, had paid inside 24h. That is what makes this exclusion safe rather than convenient — and it is why a raw “texted / all failures” number understates coverage.

Matched on phone, then email, then exact name, against pcTyOadbzBqZO7v3cbwn. Phone is the only field that has ever produced a match in this sub-account; the other two are probed so an “absent” verdict is never really a formatting miss.

Read-only. Square GET, GHL GET. This page sends no message, enrols nobody and uploads nothing.

What this page deliberately does NOT do is compare recovery between the texted and the untexted. Nothing on this book charges a card a second time on its own — every later payment is a person — and the people who pay straight back drop out of the chase, so that comparison is selected at both ends and cannot measure the effect of a text.

The row-level fallout list is a CSV, never on this page — every person in the window who either never reached the GHL or never got a text, with the day, the city, the reason and whether they have paid since: https://reports.iconicbyai.com/chase-coverage/dropped.csv

Built 2026-09-17 22:32 UTC by scripts/reports/report_chase_coverage.js.

Did it land — built 2026-09-17 22:32 UTC by scripts/reports/report_chase_coverage.js

16 people who answered us and still have not paid

Their opening instalment failed in the week of 2026-09-07 to 2026-09-13, we texted them, they texted back, and no money has arrived since. Every SMS below is verbatim, oldest first, with the GHL owner of the contact and of each opportunity card. Read-only — nothing here was sent, moved or assigned by this page. Source: /first-miss-week.

This page carries customer names, phone numbers and their own words about their money. It is key-gated and is never committed, never linked from the dashboard and never indexed. Do not paste its contents anywhere that is not.

People

answered, still owing

Owed

$3492.05

opening instalments only

Nobody owns them

no assigned user on the contact

We spoke last

our text was the final message

THEY spoke last

they wrote and nothing came back

Who owns them

GHL owner	People	Owed
Maria R	5	$1163.33
Ronnie K Studio 1	3	$591.66
Nick S	2	$558.33
Princess Roni	3	$451.66
Emily Lewis	2	$439.57
Charles C	1	$287.50

The 16 at a glance

Name	Owner	Owing	Days	Square reason	Replies	Last heard from them	Who spoke last
Jeanne Harmon	Emily Lewis	$297.91	5	GENERIC_DECLINE	1	2026-09-14	we did
Truly Blessed	Ronnie K Studio 1	$295.83	9	INSUFFICIENT_FUNDS	2	2026-09-08	THEY did
Jordan Smith	Princess Roni	$295.83	9	TRANSACTION_LIMIT	2	2026-09-10	we did
Berthsaida Jeangilles	Nick S	$295.83	5	TRANSACTION_LIMIT	1	2026-09-14	we did
Kylian Loor	Maria R	$287.50	9	GENERIC_DECLINE	1	2026-09-08	we did
Alenid Nahir Rivera	Charles C	$287.50	7	TRANSACTION_LIMIT	1	2026-09-10	we did
Mirka Peñaloza	Nick S	$262.50	7	TRANSACTION_LIMIT	1	2026-09-10	we did
Allyrae Hanus	Maria R	$250.00	9	TRANSACTION_LIMIT	2	2026-09-08	we did
Steven Moreno Estevez	Maria R	$245.00	6	TRANSACTION_LIMIT	2	2026-09-14	THEY did
Johnyah Simone Venette	Maria R	$235.00	6	INSUFFICIENT_FUNDS	1	2026-09-11	we did
Nicky Mangar	Ronnie K Studio 1	$220.83	9	TRANSACTION_LIMIT	1	2026-09-08	we did
Valyntena Lawrence	Maria R	$145.83	5	TRANSACTION_LIMIT	3	2026-09-16	THEY did
Gloria Arnold	Emily Lewis	$141.66	7	CARD_EXPIRED	9	2026-09-11	we did
Hergas Fouedjou	Princess Roni	$85.00	6	GENERIC_DECLINE	3	2026-09-14	we did
Stephanie Pacifique	Ronnie K Studio 1	$75.00	9	TRANSACTION_LIMIT	10	2026-09-09	THEY did
Henry Faviors	Princess Roni	$70.83	5	TRANSACTION_LIMIT	2	2026-09-14	we did

“Who spoke last” is the column to work from. Where THEY spoke last, the customer typed something and nothing came back — that is a dropped conversation, not a reluctant debtor. Read the message before acting on the flag, though: a closing pleasantry (“thanks, you too”) ends a thread perfectly well, while “send me the link” or “I already paid this” is somebody still waiting on us. Only the second kind is a job.

iMessage tapbacks are excluded from that column — a Loved “…” reaction arrives as an ordinary inbound SMS, and counting it as a reply puts a thumbs-up on an invoice link into the “we never answered” pile. They are still shown in the thread, greyed, marked as reactions.

“Owner” is who holds the record TODAY, not who sent the messages. A contact reassigned this morning shows this morning's owner against a conversation somebody else had, so use it to decide who picks it up, never to decide who let it go.

Jeanne Harmon +15635064761 Owner: Emily Lewis $297.91 owing · 5 days · Nashville · GENERIC_DECLINE · replied 1× · picked 2 Money is a bit tight

Debt(Emily) → Call back · owner Emily Lewis · open · $297.91 · last moved 2026-09-15

Mon 2026-09-14 14:57 UTC · US · automated workflow"Hi Jeanne, This is Studio 1 — I noticed your payment didn't go through this month. Can you let me know the main reason so we can get the right person to help and get you back on track. 1- Card issue 2- Money is a bit tight 3- Something else Regards, Finance Department END

Mon 2026-09-14 14:59 UTC · THEM2

Mon 2026-09-14 15:00 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity created

Mon 2026-09-14 15:00 UTC · US · automated workflowJeanne Thank you for time. We will be in touch as soon as possible. Regards, Finance Department

Mon 2026-09-14 15:28 UTC · US · typed by Emily LewisHi Jeanne I understand just call me when you can for a quick chat Thanks! Emily L Finance Department The Photo Studio 929 367 0754

Mon 2026-09-14 15:29 UTC · US · typed by Emily LewisI can reschedule the invoice for you...

Mon 2026-09-14 15:30 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

Mon 2026-09-14 15:31 UTC · activity appointmentJeanne Harmon

2 days later

Wed 2026-09-16 18:27 UTC · activity appointmentJeanne Harmon

Truly Blessed +17186007290 Owner: Ronnie K Studio 1 $295.83 owing · 9 days · New York · INSUFFICIENT_FUNDS · replied 2× · picked 3 Something else

Debt AI(Ronnie) → Customer Service · owner Ronnie K Studio 1 · open · last moved 2026-09-14

Tue 2026-09-08 14:21 UTC · US · automated workflow"Hi Truly, This is Studio 1 — I noticed your payment didn't go through this month. Can you let me know the main reason so we can get the right person to help and get you back on track. 1- Card issue 2- Money is a bit tight 3- Something else Regards, Finance Department END

Tue 2026-09-08 14:44 UTC · THEM3

Tue 2026-09-08 14:45 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity created

Tue 2026-09-08 14:45 UTC · US · automated workflowTruly Thank you for time. We will be in touch as soon as possible. Regards, Finance Department

Tue 2026-09-08 14:48 UTC · THEMI have seen my pic please send me the link I never set up I was having trouble getting in can u check see if I set up to browse of the pics I been working on book launch almost done im gone switch Apple Pay or cash app lmk thank you I have some thing lined up but the keep asking for my c card omg thanks

Tue 2026-09-08 19:41 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

Wed 2026-09-09 16:36 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

Wed 2026-09-09 19:40 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

Wed 2026-09-09 19:43 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

5 days later

Mon 2026-09-14 20:56 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

Jordan Smith +14693161985 Owner: Princess Roni $295.83 owing · 9 days · Texas · TRANSACTION_LIMIT · replied 2× · picked free text

Debt AI(Veronica) → Payment agreement · owner Princess Roni · open · $295.83 · last moved 2026-09-10

Tue 2026-09-08 14:12 UTC · US · automated workflow"Hi Jordan, This is Studio 1 — I noticed your payment didn't go through this month. Can you let me know the main reason so we can get the right person to help and get you back on track. 1- Card issue 2- Money is a bit tight 3- Something else Regards, Finance Department END

1 day later

Wed 2026-09-09 14:12 UTC · US · automated workflow"I don't want to bother you, but we do need to resolve this. Would a 5-minute call later today be okay?" Regards, Finance Department

Thu 2026-09-10 13:11 UTC · THEMHey sorry for the inconvenience my mom should be getting back with yall sometime today

Thu 2026-09-10 13:16 UTC · US · automated workflowJordan Thank you for time. We will be in touch as soon as possible Regards, Finance Department

Thu 2026-09-10 13:16 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity created

Thu 2026-09-10 13:44 UTC · US · typed by Princess RoniHi Jordan thank you, please also see invoice link below for $295.83 for the miss payment https://app.squareup.com/pay-invoice/invtmp:bd45ac14-1341-4716-a944-93458104aa15

Thu 2026-09-10 13:44 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

Thu 2026-09-10 13:45 UTC · THEM · a tapback reaction, not a typed messageLoved “Hi Jordan thank you, please also see invoice link below for $295.83 for the miss payment https://app.squareup.com/pay-invoice/invtmp:bd45ac14-1341-4716-a944-93458104aa15”

Berthsaida Jeangilles +13525041665 Owner: Nick S $295.83 owing · 5 days · Florida · TRANSACTION_LIMIT · replied 1× · picked 2 Money is a bit tight

Debt AI(Nick) → Payment agreement · owner Nick S · open · last moved 2026-09-14

Mon 2026-09-14 14:41 UTC · US · automated workflow"Hi Berthsaida, This is Studio 1 — I noticed your payment didn't go through this month. Can you let me know the main reason so we can get the right person to help and get you back on track. 1- Card issue 2- Money is a bit tight 3- Something else Regards, Finance Department END

Mon 2026-09-14 15:37 UTC · THEM2

Mon 2026-09-14 15:37 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity created

Mon 2026-09-14 15:37 UTC · US · automated workflowBerthsaida Thank you for time. We will be in touch as soon as possible. Regards, Finance Department

Mon 2026-09-14 16:09 UTC · US · typed by Nick SHello Berthsaida, This is Nick from Studio 1 i just called to setup your failed payment . Can i process it now to get you balance back in good steadings ?

Mon 2026-09-14 16:09 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

Kylian Loor +19293422487 Owner: Maria R $287.50 owing · 9 days · New York · GENERIC_DECLINE · replied 1× · picked 2 Money is a bit tight

Debt AI (Maria) → Money is Tight · owner Maria R · open · last moved 2026-09-08

Tue 2026-09-08 14:12 UTC · US · automated workflow"Hi Kylian, This is Studio 1 — I noticed your payment didn't go through this month. Can you let me know the main reason so we can get the right person to help and get you back on track. 1- Card issue 2- Money is a bit tight 3- Something else Regards, Finance Department END

Tue 2026-09-08 14:14 UTC · THEM2

Tue 2026-09-08 14:14 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity created

Tue 2026-09-08 14:14 UTC · US · automated workflowKylian Thank you for time. We will be in touch as soon as possible. Regards, Finance Department

Tue 2026-09-08 14:25 UTC · US · typed by Maria RHola Johanna, por favor comunicate con nuestro departamento de gestion con respecto a cualquier pregunta que tengas sobre tu contrato via correo electronico a inquiries@mapsstudio.nyc. Buen dia.

Alenid Nahir Rivera +14074216506 Owner: Charles C $287.50 owing · 7 days · Florida · TRANSACTION_LIMIT · replied 1× · picked 2 Money is a bit tight

Debt AI(Charles) → Give a Call · owner Charles C · open · last moved 2026-09-10

Thu 2026-09-10 14:11 UTC · US · automated workflow"Hi Alenid, This is Studio 1 — I noticed your payment didn't go through this month. Can you let me know the main reason so we can get the right person to help and get you back on track. 1- Card issue 2- Money is a bit tight 3- Something else Regards, Finance Department END

Thu 2026-09-10 14:32 UTC · THEM2

Thu 2026-09-10 14:33 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity created

Thu 2026-09-10 14:33 UTC · US · automated workflowAlenid Thank you for time. We will be in touch as soon as possible. Regards, Finance Department

Thu 2026-09-10 15:40 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

Thu 2026-09-10 15:41 UTC · US · typed by Charles CHi Nirma, This is Studio 1. We attempted to give you a call but you were unavailable, when you have the chance please let us know when you are available for a quick call.

Mirka Peñaloza +19296651439 Owner: Nick S $262.50 owing · 7 days · New York · TRANSACTION_LIMIT · replied 1× · picked 2 Money is a bit tight

Debt AI(Nick) → Payment agreement · owner Nick S · open · last moved 2026-09-11

Thu 2026-09-10 14:28 UTC · US · automated workflow"Hi Mirka, This is Studio 1 — I noticed your payment didn't go through this month. Can you let me know the main reason so we can get the right person to help and get you back on track. 1- Card issue 2- Money is a bit tight 3- Something else Regards, Finance Department END

Thu 2026-09-10 14:31 UTC · THEM2

Thu 2026-09-10 14:31 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity created

Thu 2026-09-10 14:31 UTC · US · automated workflowMirka Thank you for time. We will be in touch as soon as possible. Regards, Finance Department

Thu 2026-09-10 14:45 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

Fri 2026-09-11 13:08 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

Fri 2026-09-11 13:09 UTC · US · typed by Nick SWe setup your payment for the 17th as requested

Fri 2026-09-11 15:35 UTC · activity appointmentMirka Peñaloza

Allyrae Hanus +14013768057 Owner: Maria R $250.00 owing · 9 days · Boston · TRANSACTION_LIMIT · replied 2× · picked free text

Debt AI (Maria) → Money is Tight · owner Maria R · open · last moved 2026-09-08

Tue 2026-09-08 14:21 UTC · US · automated workflow"Hi Allyrae, This is Studio 1 — I noticed your payment didn't go through this month. Can you let me know the main reason so we can get the right person to help and get you back on track. 1- Card issue 2- Money is a bit tight 3- Something else Regards, Finance Department END

Tue 2026-09-08 17:06 UTC · THEMGive me a few days and we will be All set we sold property in Kentucky and will pay forward to you asap

Tue 2026-09-08 17:07 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity created

Tue 2026-09-08 17:07 UTC · US · automated workflowAllyrae Thank you for time. We will be in touch as soon as possible. Regards, Finance Department

Tue 2026-09-08 19:36 UTC · US · typed by Maria RHello Megan, I understand. Can I reschedule your payment of $295 to 09/11?

Tue 2026-09-08 19:42 UTC · THEMI have to talk to my husband. I'm in the hospital right now, but I will talk to him tonight.

2 days later

Fri 2026-09-11 13:11 UTC · US · typed by Maria RHello Megan, I hope this message finds you well. Please let me know if I can process your payment today.

4 days later

Tue 2026-09-15 14:59 UTC · US · typed by Maria RHello Megan, this is Maria from Maps Studio Finance Department. We recently tried reaching you because we noticed that your payment of ($250) due (09/07) was not processed. Please give us a call back at (954) 866-3035 or reply to this message so we can assist you.

Steven Moreno Estevez +13219603611 Owner: Maria R $245.00 owing · 6 days · Florida · TRANSACTION_LIMIT · replied 2× · picked free text

Debt AI (Maria) → payment made · owner Maria R · open · last moved 2026-09-14

Fri 2026-09-11 14:48 UTC · US · automated workflow"Hi Steven, This is Studio 1 — I noticed your payment didn't go through this month. Can you let me know the main reason so we can get the right person to help and get you back on track. 1- Card issue 2- Money is a bit tight 3- Something else Regards, Finance Department END

2 days later

Mon 2026-09-14 14:08 UTC · US · automated workflow"I don't want to bother you, but we do need to resolve this. Would a 5-minute call later today be okay?" Regards, Finance Department

Mon 2026-09-14 14:17 UTC · THEMOur contract was changed so check the system to see if you see a change

Mon 2026-09-14 14:22 UTC · US · automated workflowSteven Thank you for time. We will be in touch as soon as possible Regards, Finance Department

Mon 2026-09-14 14:22 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity created

Mon 2026-09-14 14:31 UTC · US · typed by Maria RHello Cruz, do see the changes made to your account. I apologize for the inconvenience, have a nice day.

Mon 2026-09-14 14:31 UTC · THEMIt's ok, you too

Mon 2026-09-14 14:41 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

Johnyah Simone Venette +18573314607 Owner: Maria R $235.00 owing · 6 days · Boston · INSUFFICIENT_FUNDS · replied 1× · picked 1 Card issue

Debt AI (Maria) → Card Issue · owner Maria R · open · last moved 2026-09-11

Fri 2026-09-11 14:54 UTC · US · automated workflow"Hi Johnyah, This is Studio 1 — I noticed your payment didn't go through this month. Can you let me know the main reason so we can get the right person to help and get you back on track. 1- Card issue 2- Money is a bit tight 3- Something else Regards, Finance Department END

Fri 2026-09-11 14:57 UTC · THEM1

Fri 2026-09-11 14:58 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity created

Fri 2026-09-11 14:58 UTC · US · automated workflowJohnyah Thank you for time. We will be in touch as soon as possible Regards, Finance Department

Fri 2026-09-11 15:14 UTC · US · typed by Maria RHello Jonhya, this is Maria giving you a call from Studio 1 Finance Department. Please let me know when we can schedule a quick call so I can assist you.

2 days later

Mon 2026-09-14 13:33 UTC · US · typed by Maria RHello Lisberth, this is Maria from Studio Finance Department. We recently tried reaching you because we noticed that your payment of ($235) due (09/10) was not processed. Please give us a call back at (954) 866-3035 or reply to this message so we can assist you.

Nicky Mangar +19547023831 Owner: Ronnie K Studio 1 $220.83 owing · 9 days · Florida · TRANSACTION_LIMIT · replied 1× · picked free text

Debt AI(Ronnie) → Sent to production · owner Ronnie K Studio 1 · open · last moved 2026-09-08

Tue 2026-09-08 14:19 UTC · US · automated workflow"Hi Nicky, This is Studio 1 — I noticed your payment didn't go through this month. Can you let me know the main reason so we can get the right person to help and get you back on track. 1- Card issue 2- Money is a bit tight 3- Something else Regards, Finance Department END

Tue 2026-09-08 14:42 UTC · THEMHi Nicky is out of town She will be back in November When Nicky gets back she can discuss with you about what she wants

Tue 2026-09-08 14:43 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity created

Tue 2026-09-08 14:43 UTC · US · automated workflowNicky Thank you for time. We will be in touch as soon as possible. Regards, Finance Department

Tue 2026-09-08 17:51 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

Valyntena Lawrence +18032920188 Owner: Maria R $145.83 owing · 5 days · Nashville · TRANSACTION_LIMIT · replied 3× · picked free text

Debt AI (Maria) → Payment agreement · owner Maria R · open · last moved 2026-09-16

Mon 2026-09-14 14:43 UTC · US · automated workflow"Hi Valyntena, This is Studio 1 — I noticed your payment didn't go through this month. Can you let me know the main reason so we can get the right person to help and get you back on track. 1- Card issue 2- Money is a bit tight 3- Something else Regards, Finance Department END

1 day later

Tue 2026-09-15 14:43 UTC · US · automated workflow"I don't want to bother you, but we do need to resolve this. Would a 5-minute call later today be okay?" Regards, Finance Department

Wed 2026-09-16 11:14 UTC · THEMHi, I'm sorry I'm out of town. I will handle it Monday. Thank you.

Wed 2026-09-16 11:19 UTC · US · automated workflowValyntena Thank you for time. We will be in touch as soon as possible Regards, Finance Department

Wed 2026-09-16 11:19 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity created

Wed 2026-09-16 13:19 UTC · US · typed by Maria RHello Kandace, I understand. Can I attempt to process the payment with the car don file? I can also send you an invoice due Monday 09/21. Please let me know what option would be the most convenient for you.

Wed 2026-09-16 13:26 UTC · THEMPls send a invoice on Monday Ty

Wed 2026-09-16 13:34 UTC · US · typed by Maria RI have emailed you an invoice for $145.83 due 09/21. Have a nice day.

Wed 2026-09-16 13:36 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

Wed 2026-09-16 13:46 UTC · THEMTy very much

Gloria Arnold +16785587108 Owner: Emily Lewis $141.66 owing · 7 days · Boston · CARD_EXPIRED · replied 9× · picked free text

Debt(Emily) → Other · owner Emily Lewis · open · $141.66 · last moved 2026-09-11

Thu 2026-09-10 14:17 UTC · US · automated workflow"Hi Gloria, This is Studio 1 — I noticed your payment didn't go through this month. Can you let me know the main reason so we can get the right person to help and get you back on track. 1- Card issue 2- Money is a bit tight 3- Something else Regards, Finance Department END

1 day later

Fri 2026-09-11 14:17 UTC · US · automated workflow"I don't want to bother you, but we do need to resolve this. Would a 5-minute call later today be okay?" Regards, Finance Department

Fri 2026-09-11 14:21 UTC · THEMI have filed a complaint with the Attorney General's office. I think you guys are a scam.

Fri 2026-09-11 14:26 UTC · US · automated workflowGloria Thank you for time. We will be in touch as soon as possible Regards, Finance Department

Fri 2026-09-11 14:26 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity created

Fri 2026-09-11 14:45 UTC · US · typed by Emily LewisHello I am not sure what to say I am with the finance dept and I see all the notes on file with Roberto and Alejandro assisting You - they do a great job I hear them all day on the phones You were reduced Received product and assistance and still think we are a scam?? emily L 929 367 0754 as I said I'm not sure what to say

Fri 2026-09-11 14:46 UTC · US · typed by Emily LewisThis is a business like any business No one can DO it for you but you can get help you can advice and " tools" and then go from there We go overboard helping people even after we reduced. Even after they are complete paying We assist people.

Fri 2026-09-11 14:46 UTC · US · typed by Emily LewisWe want out clients to succeed and put their best foot forward with photos and information.

Fri 2026-09-11 14:47 UTC · THEMYes, because the initial lady that I spoke to she told me that you all were gonna get me jobs and you are gonna help me and they're not assisting me. I'm letting them know that they're not doing what she said that you all were supposed to do all I get is automated emails telling me I need to do this. I need to do that and pay y'all almost $4000. No that's a scam and when I put in my complaint with the Attorney General's office, there's other people that have said the same thing just because you all think you're legit that don't mean it's real.

Fri 2026-09-11 14:47 UTC · THEMShe didn't tell me it was tools. I literally told her that I have elderly parents and I work at 9 to 5. We'll do everything for you will find the gigs will vet them will present them to you and it's your choice if you wanna take them. I signed that contract under those pretenses then when I talk to Roberto, that's not the case so yes, that is a scam.

Fri 2026-09-11 14:50 UTC · THEMThe only thing I received from you guys was a website that was not worth $4000 and if you look, I have not been back on that website. I got two emails from Roberto telling me I need to sign on to this agency and this website to look for gigs and all that good stuff no what was her name Naomi? Yeah she got me because if I had known it, you guys were just a Help company. I would've took my pictures and been done.

Fri 2026-09-11 14:50 UTC · US · typed by Emily LewisOk Gloria I see....I understand what you are saying about parents and working 9-5 I know personally HOW busy my life is and if I add anything in- its challenging indeed...we are in back office here...who was the lady at the studio you are referring to? ( name?)

Fri 2026-09-11 14:52 UTC · THEMNaomi

Fri 2026-09-11 14:53 UTC · US · typed by Emily Lewis(so it was lowered to $3000 for you) so here is my question if by chance, just by chance you dont assume the worst :) You do invest in the tasks for yourself -a little each week and you have success in the end, will you feel its wasted? There are success stories without a doubt and not just with us- with all of the people who are actors and models who sacrificed time and money to get there

Fri 2026-09-11 14:54 UTC · US · typed by Emily LewisI'm encouraging you also because I saw your initial pic. you have a great look and smile.

Fri 2026-09-11 14:54 UTC · THEMI was green. All I wanted to do was a photo shoot so I could feel good about myself. I was not expecting to go in this back room and be fed a pitch that I could be a model or something and I feel like you know she got me cause I know exactly what I said. My daughter was sitting right next to me. I know I didn't have time to put in the legwork and I let her know that I did not have the time to do it and she told me that you all would do that for me and then to me that explained the $4000 I was like oh they're gonna be getting me gigs they're gonna create me a website the whole nine but then when I started getting the automated emails, and when I called to talk to Roberto and he told me that's not how you guys work I knew immediately that she got me you all need to explain to people specially people who don't know what's going on. It's unfair.

Fri 2026-09-11 14:54 UTC · THEMSo you all can try to get your money from me, but when it goes to third-party, all I have to do is send them a letter from the Attorney General's office, letting them know that I filed a fraudulent complaint

Fri 2026-09-11 14:55 UTC · THEMWell, thank you for that, but I will deal with a company. That's not gonna try to scam me.

Fri 2026-09-11 14:55 UTC · US · typed by Emily LewisOk I wish I knew what else I could say here. I know you are frustrated.

Fri 2026-09-11 14:55 UTC · THEMOr not at all because you guys have made me feel some way about this whole situation

Fri 2026-09-11 15:00 UTC · US · typed by Emily LewisDid you read what you actually signed ? The pics- the website- the effort does often get you work along with our guidance and support! This team here is wonderful I hear them every day. you do have to put things in place and give it some time. Thats the only thing I wanted to add.

Fri 2026-09-11 15:59 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

Hergas Fouedjou +17813538334 Owner: Princess Roni $85.00 owing · 6 days · Boston · GENERIC_DECLINE · replied 3× · picked free text

Debt AI(Veronica) → Other · owner Princess Roni · open · last moved 2026-09-14

Fri 2026-09-11 14:24 UTC · US · automated workflow"Hi Hergas, This is Studio 1 — I noticed your payment didn't go through this month. Can you let me know the main reason so we can get the right person to help and get you back on track. 1- Card issue 2- Money is a bit tight 3- Something else Regards, Finance Department END

2 days later

Mon 2026-09-14 14:11 UTC · US · automated workflow"I don't want to bother you, but we do need to resolve this. Would a 5-minute call later today be okay?" Regards, Finance Department

Mon 2026-09-14 14:50 UTC · THEMHi, Thank you for contacting me, I'm currently not in the US I had a family emergency overseas and had to take an FMLA. And currently money is a bit tight. I'm will to continue but due to my emergency I can't make those payment at moment.

Mon 2026-09-14 14:53 UTC · THEMAlso as I will be returning in the US on Nov 18,2026. Is there options to assist on getting contract to help me pay for my current plan?

Mon 2026-09-14 14:55 UTC · US · automated workflowHergas Thank you for time. We will be in touch as soon as possible Regards, Finance Department

Mon 2026-09-14 14:55 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity created

Mon 2026-09-14 15:15 UTC · US · typed by Princess RoniHi Hergas this is Veronica from Maps Finance Department I can have the talent guide resend to you, and in that talent guide there are links to agencies and casting, also how to create a resume'

Mon 2026-09-14 15:15 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

Mon 2026-09-14 22:56 UTC · THEMThank you

Tue 2026-09-15 12:34 UTC · US · typed by Princess RoniYou are welcome

Stephanie Pacifique +13477851602 Owner: Ronnie K Studio 1 $75.00 owing · 9 days · New York · TRANSACTION_LIMIT · replied 10× · picked 3 Something else

Debt AI(Ronnie) → Customer Service · owner Ronnie K Studio 1 · open · last moved 2026-09-14

Tue 2026-09-08 14:20 UTC · US · automated workflow"Hi Stephanie, This is Studio 1 — I noticed your payment didn't go through this month. Can you let me know the main reason so we can get the right person to help and get you back on track. 1- Card issue 2- Money is a bit tight 3- Something else Regards, Finance Department END

Tue 2026-09-08 16:25 UTC · THEMHi

Tue 2026-09-08 16:26 UTC · THEMI decided not continue in this process

Tue 2026-09-08 16:26 UTC · US · automated workflowHi Stephanie! Thanks for getting back to me. Just to help you best, could you let me know the main reason your payment didn't go through this month? 1- Card issue 2- Money is a bit tight 3- Something else This will help us get you the right support.

Tue 2026-09-08 16:26 UTC · THEM3

Tue 2026-09-08 16:27 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity created

Tue 2026-09-08 16:27 UTC · US · automated workflowStephanie Thank you for time. We will be in touch as soon as possible. Regards, Finance Department

Tue 2026-09-08 17:08 UTC · THEMSorry I m not going to pay anymore

Tue 2026-09-08 17:09 UTC · THEMUsa model is not a agency of model It s only studiophoto shoot

Wed 2026-09-09 00:07 UTC · THEMI don t owe money

Wed 2026-09-09 00:12 UTC · THEMPlease don't text me again

Wed 2026-09-09 00:13 UTC · THEMThank you

Wed 2026-09-09 00:14 UTC · THEMI m forfaithing

Wed 2026-09-09 00:14 UTC · THEMThe money I already pay

Wed 2026-09-09 16:35 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

Wed 2026-09-09 16:36 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

Wed 2026-09-09 19:43 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

Wed 2026-09-09 19:44 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

5 days later

Mon 2026-09-14 20:56 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

Henry Faviors +19726392834 Owner: Princess Roni $70.83 owing · 5 days · Texas · TRANSACTION_LIMIT · replied 2× · picked 2 Money is a bit tight

Debt AI(Veronica) → Other · owner Princess Roni · open · last moved 2026-09-14

Mon 2026-09-14 14:40 UTC · US · automated workflow"Hi Henry, This is Studio 1 — I noticed your payment didn't go through this month. Can you let me know the main reason so we can get the right person to help and get you back on track. 1- Card issue 2- Money is a bit tight 3- Something else Regards, Finance Department END

Mon 2026-09-14 20:03 UTC · THEM2

Mon 2026-09-14 20:04 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity created

Mon 2026-09-14 20:04 UTC · US · automated workflowHenry Thank you for time. We will be in touch as soon as possible. Regards, Finance Department

Mon 2026-09-14 20:19 UTC · US · typed by Princess RoniHi Henry this is Veronica from Studio 1 Finance Department, please let me know when it is a good time to call you

Mon 2026-09-14 20:20 UTC · THEMCould we text

Mon 2026-09-14 20:20 UTC · activity opportunityOpportunity updated

Mon 2026-09-14 20:20 UTC · US · typed by Princess Roniyes

Mon 2026-09-14 20:27 UTC · US · typed by Princess RoniI understand that money is tight, can you please let me know what you would be able to pay today in order to get your payment current

Built 2026-09-17T09:05:36.079Z by scripts/reports/report_first_miss_chats.js from the debt sub-account pcTyOadbzBqZO7v3cbwn. Re-run it for the current position — money still arrives on these accounts because a person makes it happen, and names drop off this list without anything here changing.

The conversations — built 2026-09-17 09:05 UTC by scripts/reports/report_first_miss_chats.js

The money plan — three populations, one engine

The day−5-to-collections ladder we built for the opening instalment, re-cut against what /first-miss-week and /first-miss-week-chats measured this week, and extended to the two populations it never covered. Every figure here is dated and names the measurement behind it.

The single most useful thing the numbers say: these are not three different problems. The decline-reason mix is almost identical in all three — roughly 85% soft (money, limit, issuer said no) in the never-started pile, in the stumblers, and in the zombies alike. They do not differ by why the card failed. They differ by how long ago anybody last asked, and whether anybody asked at all. So the answer is not three collection strategies. It is one contact engine with three entry points and three different economics — and the entry point decides almost everything, because the earlier it fires the more it is worth.

What each population is worth

Population	Accounts	Money on the floor	Scale	The play in one line
1 · New contracts the opening instalment	5,127 a year	$1,136,232	46.9% of 10,943 opened	Prevent it, then own the first ten days.
2 · Early life opened 10–60 days ago	849 of 1,599 live	$254,182	53.1% have missed at least once	Finish what the opening started. Two very different halves.
3 · Zombie 4+ consecutive failed charges	9,801	$14,601,622	2,867 still being charged	Triage, not chase. Stop the bleed first.

Priority is not the same as size. Population 3 is the biggest number on that table and the worst place to spend the next hour. $6,691,378 of it belongs to 4,687 accounts that never paid a single cent, and 3,936 of the zombie pile last paid us something over 240 days ago. Population 1 is a third the size on paper and worth far more per hour, because an opening instalment caught inside ten days is followed by $922 more per agreement by day 365 — of which we count HALF as ours ($1,165 against $243 — /opening-payment, 16 Sep 2026).

The five things this week changed

What we found	What it breaks	What the plan does about it
Day 0 does not exist. The fastest text all week left 23.2 hours after the charge failed; median 24.4h; nothing inside 12h ever. /first-miss-week, 7–13 Sep	The ladder's day-0 +2h step — the one sitting on 48% of everything a miss ever returns — is physically impossible today. The feed into the debt sub-account is a daily Google-Sheet drop.	Build item 1. Event-driven feed. Nothing else in this plan reaches its stated value until this is done.
The decline reason never reaches GHL at all. No reason field exists on that sub-account. reference_us_debt_collection_ghl	Every outbound text is identical whatever the issuer said — so the four-way routing the ladder is built on cannot happen, and the two codes with a real 30-second customer-side fix are never named.	Build item 2. Reason + bucket as custom fields, and route on them.
20% never arrive. 12 of the 60 failures last week had no contact in the sub-account at all — probed on digits, last-ten, email and surname. /first-miss-week	A fifth of the queue is invisible to every workflow, every report and every collector. They are not being worked badly; they are not being worked.	Build item 3. Reconcile the feed daily and alarm on the gap.
Replying is not the finish line. 16 of the 45 still-unpaid answered our text and no money followed. /first-miss-week-chats	The ladder measures contact rate, and contact rate was the right first metric — but nothing owns what happens after someone answers. Two of those 16 were plainly waiting on us.	Build item 4. A "replied, unpaid" queue with a named owner and a same-working-day SLA.
An iMessage tapback reads as a reply. Loved "…" arrives as an ordinary inbound SMS. /first-miss-week-chats	Reply rate — the number the whole ladder is judged on — is inflated by thumbs-ups on invoice links.	Build item 5. Filter them. Already done on the chats page; the trend reports still count them.

The order of work

Plumbing first, and it is not optional. Real-time feed, decline reason into GHL, close the 20% gap, an inbound SLA, tapback filter. Five items. Until they land, every improvement below is capped at what a next-day generic text can do.
Population 1 — spend the money here. Prevention at the till plus the hot ten days. Best return per hour on the book by a wide margin, even after halving the observed LTV gap for selection.
Population 2 — one message, not a programme. The day-21 cliff message in front of the second miss. 353 accounts are sitting at exactly one miss right now and nothing is in front of them.
Population 3 — stop the bleed, then settle the ones with a payment history. Not a calling list. A sweep and a campaign.

1. New contracts — the opening instalment

The customer's first-ever charge on the recurring book. This is where the plan should spend its money, and it is the population the existing ladder already covers — it just cannot run yet.

Openings a year

10,943

last 12 months · measured 17 Sep 2026

Failed at the door

5,127 46.9%

5,127 agreements a year

Missed at the door

$1,136,232

opening instalments only, per year

Last week

of 138 opened · $17,054

Worth catching early

$461

HALF the $922 observed gap — the rest is the customer, not the rescue

This is the highest-value hour on the whole book and it is not close. An opening instalment recovered inside ten days is followed by $1,165 by day 365 against $243. Do not read all of that as the value of rescuing somebody. A customer whose payment we can recover in days is, by nature, a better payer than one we cannot, and would have paid more regardless — so most of the gap is selection. This plan counts half of it, $461, as something the rescue creates. Even halved it dwarfs the instalment itself. /opening-payment, 16 Sep 2026; halving is a judgement, agreed 17 Sep

Prevention — the part that is not on the phone

Lever	Size	Evidence	Status
Card quality at the point of sale	~33 /wk	Early-access neobank cards are 19.0% of first instalments but 32.3% of the misses, failing 81.4% against 39.8% for a traditional card — and they recover worse too. Sutton Bank (Cash App/Chime) 87.1% on 309. Against JPMorgan Chase 6.5%. /first-miss-handoff, 16 Sep 2026	Nothing in place. The lever is at the till — a second card, or a different funding method, taken at signing.
No card on file at all	6.5%	714 of 10,973 scheduled invoices hold no card. Square cannot attempt them, so they produce no decline code, land in no bucket and appear on no list — and recover 6.3% next cycle against 28.2%. 86 of the worst 100 were paying normally and their card came off. /first-miss-nocard, 16 Sep 2026	List built, never worked. Never tell them their card was declined — nothing was attempted.
The charge date	~11pp	The 31st is our most-chosen charge day and the second worst-performing — 38.9% against 49.5% on the 1st. Moving a date is the cheapest fix we own and needs no conversation. reference_crm_paydays	Available now. Can be offered at signing and at day 10.
The day-before message	~30 /day	Nobody sends anything before a first payment — not us, not Square. 600 of 600 recurring invoices are set to EMAIL, exactly 2 in the business are SMS, and 577 of 600 carry no reminder at all. Checked across 439,694 note lines: no proactive pre-payment message exists. /first-miss-handoff, 16 Sep 2026	Drafted, not sent. Hold 10% back as a control — the effect is UNKNOWN and could be negative.

Do not fix the pre-notice by switching Square's own reminders on. Square's template is an "you have an invoice to pay" email. Send that to someone whose stored card fires tomorrow and a proportion pay manually as well — a duplicate charge on a first payment is the fastest route to a chargeback there is. Same reason the drafted message carries no pay-now link.

The ten days that matter — the ladder, with this week's corrections

Unchanged from the handoff except where marked. new is added by this week's evidence; blocked cannot run until the plumbing lands.

−5

Pre-notice — the relationship message. No ask.The only step that reaches someone while nothing has gone wrong, which is the only time a reply costs them nothing.

−1

Card-ready message. Names amount, date, last four.Carries the neobank line. No pay link — the stored card fires tomorrow.

The charge fires and fails.Square attempts once and never again — 0.90 failed charges per missed cycle. Everything after this is us or nobody.

0 +2h

Reason-routed text + the pay link.blockedDay 1 is 48% of everything the ten-day window ever returns. Today the fastest this fires is 23.2 hours, so this step does not exist yet.

Second touch, different channel (email).A dead phone is not a dead customer. Suppressed instantly if money lands.

First call.By day 3 the ten-day window has given up 71% of everything it will return.

Second call, different time of day.Right-party contact runs 15–25%, so one attempt reaches about one person in five. Three attempts at different hours is why the ladder budgets three.

Third call + text.Day 5 is 84% of the ten-day return. After this the curve flattens hard.

The communication ask — Pay · Arrange · Can't this month.No payment demand. "Can't this month" is a success. This week proves people do answer it — 21 of 45 texted replied, and zero opted out. What nobody owns is what happens next.

Replied-but-unpaid queue. Named owner, same-working-day SLA.new this week16 of the 45 still-unpaid had already answered us. Two were plainly waiting: one asking for the payment link and offering Apple Pay, one saying they had already paid. A reply that goes nowhere is worse than no reply — it spends the goodwill and banks nothing.

Arrangement offer — move the date, or split it.Not dead, just slow: recovery runs 20.1% at day 10 to 26.4% at day 30.

Next-charge warning — the cliff message.The highest-value automated message in the ladder, and it now also serves Population 2. See the next tab.

2. Early life — opened 10 to 60 days ago

1,599 live agreements in that window. 849 of them — 53.1% — have missed at least one charge, and $254,182 has been attempted and refused inside the window. measured 17 Sep 2026

This cohort has one dominant fact and it makes the plan simple: whether the OPENING was paid decides almost everything that follows.

Opening failed → 72.4% are still on a miss streak today, and they have banked an average of $84.
Opening paid → 8.1% are still on a streak, average banked $320.

Nine times the failure rate and a quarter of the money. So Population 2 is mostly not its own problem — it is Population 1 arriving late. The right response is to finish the opening job properly, not to build a second programme beside it.

The four groups, and only two of them are work

Where they stand	Accounts	Banked so far	What it actually is
Clean — never missed	750 46.9%	$246,943	Leave alone. 46.9% of the cohort.
Missed the opening, recovered	204 12.8%	$56,997	Working as intended. This is what the ladder is for.
Paid the opening, missed later	110 6.9%	$27,978	Retention. They have proved they can pay. Smallest group, warmest.
Missed the opening, never paid a cent	503 31.5%	$0	A sale that never began. Biggest group after clean, and the whole problem.

503 accounts — 31.5% of everything opened in the last two months — have never paid us a single cent, and $161,930 has been attempted and refused on them. These are not debtors. They are sales that never started. Treat them as a sale rescue with the studio's own voice, not as a collections case with a collector's — and note that 84.9% of them are soft declines, so the card is not the obstacle.

The intervention point — and there is only one

Sitting at exactly ONE miss

353

right now, in this cohort

At two misses

231

the value has already gone

At three or more

on their way to Population 3

Next charge paid after 1 miss

44.0%

measured 17 Sep 2026

After 2 misses

23.5%

it nearly halves

The collapse is between miss one and miss two, and it is the whole argument for this tab. Given one miss the next charge is paid 44.0% of the time; given two, 23.5%; given three, 16.2%; given four, 14.6% — the curve is nearly flat after that. Arguing about a cut-off at four misses is arguing over what is left after the loss has already happened.

Two measurements agree on the shape and differ on the level: charge-attempt-side (above, 17 Sep 2026) reads 44.0% → 23.5%; invoice-side reads 20.8% → 12.9% (/zombie-reasons, 7 Sep 2026). The invoice view is lower because it counts cycles where no charge was ever attempted as unpaid, which the attempts view cannot see. Quote whichever you name — never mix them.

So the plan for Population 2 is one message and one list

The day-21 cliff message, fired at everyone on a streak of one. It already exists in the ladder and it is the only thing that can sit in front of the second miss. 353 accounts qualify today. Name both the arrears and the amount about to be taken.
Split the never-started 503 out into a sale-rescue list, worked by the studio rather than the debt desk, with the studio's voice and the original booker where we still have them. A first-ever customer who has paid nothing has no relationship to collect against — only one to start.
The 110 who paid then stumbled are a retention call, and they are cheap — they are the smallest group, they have proved the card works, and 91.8% of their declines are soft.

3. Zombie — four or more consecutive failed charges

9,801 accounts whose most recent run of charges are all failures. $14,601,622 has been attempted and refused across them. This is the biggest number in the plan and the last place to spend an hour — but two specific things inside it are worth real money. measured 17 Sep 2026

Zombie accounts

9,801

4+ consecutive failed charges

Never paid a cent

4,687 47.8%

$6,691,378 — never customers

Paid before going quiet

5,114 52.2%

banked $3,064,550 first · avg $599 over 3.0 payments

Still being charged

2,867

$611,841 a cycle fired into the void

A deep run is NOT death

19.7%

2,286 of 11,622 came back and paid again

The one genuinely encouraging number in this whole plan. Of the 11,622 accounts that have ever hit a four-or-more run, 2,286 went on to pay us again — 19.7% — and they have paid $1,024,771 after going deep, an average of $448 each over 2.7 payments. One in five comes back. And every single one of those was a person getting hold of them, because nothing on this book charges a card a second time on its own.

First: stop the bleed. This is free and it is not a collections job.

2,867 zombie accounts are still being charged. 3,100 failed charges were fired at them in the last 30 days and $611,841 a cycle is being attempted into the void. The series mints a fresh invoice every cycle forever — failures never feed back into the schedule, and the Square Invoices API cannot end a series, so this has to be a nightly sweep, not a switch. /zombie-reasons, 7 Sep 2026

This costs us three ways: processing on charges that cannot pass, a chargeback surface on cards the issuer has already declared finished (2,052 later charges put $385,210 at cards that could not pass in Jun–Aug), and a book whose reporting is polluted by accounts nobody believes in.

Then: split the pile in two, because it is two different things

Group	Accounts	Money	What it is, and what to do
Paid before going quiet 1,469 of them still being charged	5,114 52.2%	$3,064,550 already banked	A real customer who stopped. Average $599 over 3.0 payments — though 1,906 of them made exactly one payment and then died, which is a first-cycle failure wearing a zombie's clothes. This is the settlement campaign. They have a payment history, a relationship and a reason to answer.
Never paid a cent	4,687 47.8%	$6,691,378 never collected	Never a customer. $6,691,378 that has only ever existed as an attempted charge. Chasing these as debt is chasing a sale that never happened. Worth a root-cause afternoon, not a collector's month — 85.6% are soft declines, so something is going wrong at signing, not at the bank.

Settlement — priced off what reductions actually returned

Discount late and shallow, and the evidence is unusually clear about the price. A reduction under 25% of balance returned $0.74 per $1 given away. At 50–75% it returned $0.14. Clearing a balance outright returned −$0.03 — we paid for the privilege. So the settlement ladder opens at day 40, caps at 25% of balance, and anything deeper needs an approver after day 60.

And the trap that makes this rule non-negotiable: 600 of the 945 accounts we have reduced had no failed charge at all — 72% of the money given away went to people who were never fighting a card. The ladder structurally prevents that by making nothing below day 31 discountable. /reductions + /first-miss-handoff, 16 Sep 2026

The plan for Population 3

Nightly sweep to stop charging the 2,867 live zombies. Not a collections decision — an operational one. Do this first and it pays for itself in avoided chargebacks alone.
Settlement campaign on the 1,469 live accounts that have paid before. Capped at 25%. The base rate says one in five of a deep-run account comes back for about $448, and these are the half of the pile with a relationship to restart.
Do not build a calling list for the 4,687 who never paid. Send them the settlement message by text, take what comes, and spend the analyst time instead on why $6,691,378 of agreements were signed by people whose card never once worked.
Expect the ceiling to be low and say so up front. 3,936 of the pile last paid us something over 240 days ago. A campaign that converts 5% of the live ever-paid group is a good campaign, not a disappointing one.

What has to be built, in order

Three of these are blocking: the plan does not reach its stated value without them, and shipping the messages first would produce a next-day generic text and a reply nobody reads. That is measurably worse than the current position, because it spends goodwill it cannot convert.

#	Item	Priority	Why it is there
1	Event-driven feed into the debt sub-account	BLOCKING	Replaces the daily Google-Sheet drop. Until this lands the first text cannot leave inside 23 hours, and day 1 is 48% of everything a miss ever returns. Every value in this plan is capped by it.
2	Decline reason + bucket as GHL custom fields	BLOCKING	No reason field exists on that sub-account today. Without it every message is generic and the four-way routing cannot happen — including the one code a customer can fix in 30 seconds in their banking app.
3	Daily feed reconciliation + gap alarm	BLOCKING	12 of 60 failures last week never reached the sub-account at all. A fifth of the queue is invisible to every workflow and every report.
4	Replied-but-unpaid queue, named owner, same-day SLA	HIGH	16 of 45 still-unpaid had already answered. A reply that goes unread spends the goodwill and banks nothing — and a customer's agreement to pay $885 once sat unread until it was found by accident.
5	Tapback filter in the trend reports	HIGH	Reply rate is the metric the ladder is judged on. Loved "…" arrives as an ordinary inbound SMS. Fixed on /first-miss-week-chats; /debt-trend still counts them, and its cache holds no bodies so it cannot be corrected retrospectively.
6	Nightly sweep to stop charging dead series	HIGH	2,867 accounts, 3,100 failed charges in 30 days, $611,841 a cycle. The Invoices API cannot end a series, so it must be a sweep. Pays for itself in avoided chargebacks.
7	Apply the /pay portal bonus credit	HIGH	The portal promises "+15% credited to your balance" and nothing applies it — no CRM write, no ledger write, no Square credit. Latent rather than live (zero of 83,623 recurring payments in 2026 carry the note), but it must be fixed before any traffic is sent there.
8	Repoint notifyGHL off the empty sub-account	HIGH	It reads ghl_config.json, which points at a near-empty "AI Debt Collection" location. Anything it sends goes nowhere anyone is watching.
9	Day −5 / −1 pre-notices, with a 10% control	MEDIUM	Drafted, never sent. Hold 10% back and send them nothing — the effect is UNKNOWN and could be negative; telling someone a charge is coming also lets them move the money out.
10	Sale-rescue list for the never-started	MEDIUM	503 accounts in the 10–60 day window have never paid a cent. Studio voice, not collector voice.
11	Card quality prompt at the point of sale	MEDIUM	Neobank cards fail 81.4% against 39.8%. The lever is at the till and no phone call can replace it.
12	Settlement campaign, capped at 25%, opening day 40	MEDIUM	1,469 live zombies with a payment history. Under 25% returns $0.74/$1; deeper collapses to $0.14.

Do not send step one of any ladder until items 3 and 4 are done. A ladder whose replies go unread is worse than silence — this week 16 people answered a text about a missed payment and nothing came back, and two of them were explicitly waiting on us. Scaling the sending without fixing the answering multiplies that.

What it is worth — with the assumption behind each line

Line	Range a year	What has to be true
Population 1 — lift 30-day recovery on failed openings by 5pp from 26.4% to 31.4%	$57k – $236k	5,127 failed openings a year × 5pp = 256 more agreements recovered. The low end values each at the opening instalment alone (~$222). The high end values each at $461 — HALF the $922 observed gap, because most of that gap is selection: an account we can recover quickly belongs to a better payer who would have paid more anyway. Halving it is a judgement, not a measurement. Both ends depend entirely on build item 1.
Population 2 — the cliff message in front of the second miss	not modelled	Deliberately not given a number. 353 accounts sit at one miss today and the hazard drops 44.0% → 23.5% at the second, but we have never run this message, so its conversion is UNKNOWN. Borrowing a rate from the collector data would measure a human conversation, not an automated text. It needs a holdout arm to produce a real figure.
Population 3 — stop charging dead series	cost, not revenue	3,100 failed charges in 30 days on cards that cannot pass. Saves processing and, more importantly, chargeback exposure — $385,210 was aimed at already-dead cards in a single quarter.
Population 3 — settlement on the live ever-paid	~$130k at the base rate	1,469 accounts × the measured 19.7% deep-run return rate × $448 average. Read this as the size of the pool, not as incremental revenue — 19.7% is what the book already achieves with the effort it already spends. The incremental question is whether a priced settlement beats that, and nobody has tested it.

Two numbers in this plan are honestly unknown, and they are marked that way on purpose. We have never run an automated pre-notice and we have never run an automated cliff message, so their conversion rates do not exist. Every conversion figure we do have for a second attempt is selected — a collector only puts a card through once the customer has agreed to pay, so of course it converts. Quoting one of those as the expected rate for something automated is the single most misleading thing these reports can do. Both new messages need a no-contact control arm, or they will be judged against a human conversation rate and look like failures however well they do.

The plan — built 2026-09-17 22:00 UTC by scripts/reports/report_money_plan.js

90 people to ring — a deliberate cross-section

Three owner buckets × the three populations from /money-plan, 10 in each cell. This is not the 90 best calls on the book — it is a spread, so that after a week of dialling you can tell whether the problem is an owner, a population, or neither. $21357.12 of missed charges across them, $98871.91 counting everything they have ever missed. Download: /call-list.csv?key=studio1-sales-2026

On the list

10 per cell × 9 cells

Missed charges

$21,357

$98,872 counting all their misses

Nobody owns them

no assigned user in the debt GHL

Not in the GHL at all

a call is the only channel that exists

Never paid a cent

35 38.9%

sales that never started, not debtors

Excluded as DND

the customer's own flag — never overridden

The grid

Who owns them	New contracts	Early life 10–60 days	Zombie — 4+ misses	People	Missed
Emily Lewis	5 $1180.81	13 $2538.32	12 $2721.40	30	$6440.53
Nobody owns them	10 $2996.98	10 $1756.47	10 $1962.91	30	$6716.36
Owned by someone else	10 $2089.16	10 $2504.07	10 $3607.00	30	$8200.23
TOTAL	25 $6266.95	33 $6798.86	32 $8291.31	90	$21357.12

1 cell could not be filled to 10 from its own population: Emily Lewis / New contracts — 5 available. That is the population genuinely not holding enough people for that owner, not a bug — there are only 94 people on the whole book with a failed opening under 10 days old.

The 30-per-owner quota was kept by topping those buckets up from their other populations — 5 rows in total, marked backfill in the list and in the CSV. Owner counts are exact; the population split is therefore slightly uneven, and the grid above shows exactly where.

Neil, on the chase ledger: "i dont care if they are on a chase list. they're not getting chased properly." So being handed over before is shown, never used to exclude — 53 of these were handed to the chase list at some point and still have not paid, and the date is in the CSV. A name that has survived one handover is a stronger call, not a weaker one.

What each population is, and how to judge it

Population	On the list	What it is	How to play it
New contracts	25	The opening instalment failed and the agreement is under 10 days old.	Worth the most per dial on the whole book — an opening caught inside ten days is worth $922 more per agreement by day 365. Nothing is lost yet and the relationship has not soured.
Early life 10–60 days	33	Opened 10 to 60 days ago and 1 to 3 misses deep.	The cliff sits here. After one miss the next charge is paid 44.0% of the time; after two, 23.5%. A call placed before the second miss is worth roughly double one placed after it.
Zombie — 4+ misses	32	Four or more consecutive failed charges, any age.	The hardest of the three and included here because Neil asked for a cross-section. 19.7% of accounts that go this deep do eventually pay again, worth $448 each — but 47.8% never paid a cent, so expect a low hit rate and judge this cell on what you learn, not on what it collects.

The 90, grouped by cell

Within each cell the order is the recommendation — freshest miss and shallowest run first. Columns sort, but sorting the whole table by amount will make it worse: it drags stale misses above fresh ones, and the whole point of the grid is the spread.

#	Name & phone	City	Missed	Ago	Run	What the bank said	GHL owner	Why they are here
New contracts — Emily Lewis (5 of 10 — see the shortfall note)
1	Elisa Hanson-Linton +18324740746	Texas	$297.50	1d	1	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
2	Brian Campbell +19365294245	Texas	$222.91	1d	1	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
3	Jeanne Harmon +15635064761	Nashville	$297.91	5d	1	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Emily Lewis	missed this week · sitting at exactly one miss · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started · handed to the chase list 2026-09-11 and still unpaid
4	Zaiden Kai +16822275403	Texas	$220.83	4d	1	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Emily Lewis	missed this week · sitting at exactly one miss · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started · handed to the chase list 2026-09-12 and still unpaid
5	Gloria Arnold +16785587108	Boston	$141.66	7d	1	Card expired new card details	Emily Lewis	missed this week · sitting at exactly one miss · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started · handed to the chase list 2026-09-09 and still unpaid
Early life 10–60 days — Emily Lewis (13)
6	Regina Lasater +19189821791	Texas	$104.17 $208.34 total	1d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has paid us 1× before ($104) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
7	Aria Mark +12812209705	Texas	$100.00 $200.00 total	2d	1	Bank has blocked recurring a 30-second fix in their banking app	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has paid us 1× before ($100)
8	Bri Wadley +12146952978	Texas	$300.00 $600.00 total	6d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	Emily Lewis	missed this week · sitting at exactly one miss · has paid us 1× before ($300) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-11 and still unpaid
9	Lakesha Malonga +17732314046	Chicago	$295.83 $591.66 total	1d	2	Money / limit affordability and timing	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 2 misses in a row · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
10	Kinsleigh Allen +14698797106	Texas	$287.50 $575.00 total	1d	2	Bank has blocked recurring a 30-second fix in their banking app	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 2 misses in a row · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
11	Branden Butler +14695349242	Texas	$287.50 $575.00 total	1d	2	No money on the day affordability and timing	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 2 misses in a row · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
12	Wesley Olcima +19546731338	Florida	$285.00 $570.00 total	1d	2	Card expired new card details	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 2 misses in a row · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
13	Margaritte Bush +17732401974	Chicago	$229.16 $458.32 total	1d	2	Money / limit affordability and timing	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 2 misses in a row · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
14	Nia Barrett +19045775915	Florida	$183.33 $366.66 total	1d	2	Money / limit affordability and timing	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 2 misses in a row · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
15	Rick Thomas Cheek +19043609370	Florida	$150.00 $300.00 total	3d	2	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 2 misses in a row · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started · handed to the chase list 2026-08-13 and still unpaid
16 BACKFILL	Saylee Opela +19403378327	Texas	$145.83 $291.66 total	0d	2	No money on the day affordability and timing	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 2 misses in a row · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started · handed to the chase list 2026-08-16 and still unpaid
17 BACKFILL	Alivia Raye Skipper +13124973794	Chicago	$85.00 $170.00 total	2d	2	No money on the day affordability and timing	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 2 misses in a row · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started · handed to the chase list 2026-08-14 and still unpaid
18 BACKFILL	Terrance Lusk +18327273263	Texas	$85.00 $170.00 total	1d	2	Money / limit affordability and timing	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 2 misses in a row · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
Zombie — 4+ misses — Emily Lewis (12)
19	Annika Saenz +19562055195	Texas	$296.00 $1776.00 total	1d	5	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 5 misses in a row · has paid us 1× before ($296) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
20	David Marcell +12253241842	Texas	$295.33 $2362.64 total	1d	4	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 4 misses in a row · has paid us 3× before ($741) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
21	Patrick Garcia +19723361411	Texas	$265.00 $3710.00 total	0d	13	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 13 misses in a row · has paid us 1× before ($265) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-16 and still unpaid
22	Jordan Browning +19194922881	Texas	$262.50 $1050.00 total	1d	4	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 4 misses in a row · has paid us 1× before ($263) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
23	Evan Mukerjee +19549935739	Florida	$257.50 $3605.00 total	2d	5	Bank has blocked recurring a 30-second fix in their banking app	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 5 misses in a row · has paid us 8× before ($2,060) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-14 and still unpaid
24	Megan Ackerman +19733893985	New York	$247.91 $991.64 total	0d	4	Bank has blocked recurring a 30-second fix in their banking app	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 4 misses in a row · has paid us 2× before ($496) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-16 and still unpaid
25	Twyla Propps +14302930279	Texas	$241.67 $966.68 total	1d	4	Money / limit affordability and timing	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 4 misses in a row · has paid us 2× before ($483) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
26	Preston Brockington +14322546453	Texas	$225.00 $1100.00 total	3d	4	No money on the day affordability and timing	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 4 misses in a row · has paid us 1× before ($100) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-13 and still unpaid
27	Rakeisha Elliott +16156744454	Nashville	$183.33 $733.32 total	1d	4	Money / limit affordability and timing	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 4 misses in a row · has paid us 1× before ($183) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
28	Manoushka Guillaume +16469720891	Florida	$150.00 $3275.00 total	1d	6	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 6 misses in a row · has paid us 3× before ($450) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-06 and still unpaid
29 BACKFILL	Breanna Williams +19185084269	Florida	$150.00 $2737.47 total	3d	4	Money / limit affordability and timing	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 4 misses in a row · has paid us 1× before ($150) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-13 and still unpaid
30 BACKFILL	Nidia Zuluaga +14077565915	New York	$147.16 $662.31 total	0d	4	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Emily Lewis	missed in the last 3 days · 4 misses in a row · has paid us 8× before ($1,767) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-16 and still unpaid
New contracts — Nobody owns them (10)
31	Bradley Baliey +12704848256	Nashville	$295.83	0d	1	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	not in GHL	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · NOT in the debt GHL — a call is the only way to reach them · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
32	Daniela Perez +18572988548	Boston	$350.00	1d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
33	Promise Curtis +13465379253	Texas	$296.00	1d	1	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
34	Sawyer Goodwin +16038001921	Boston	$296.00	1d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
35	Darlin Lopez +12145795189	Texas	$295.83	0d	1	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
36	Casper Marrero +17086005304	Chicago	$295.83	0d	1	Card number dead new card details	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
37	Ta’Miiya Mays +16154141684	Nashville	$295.83	0d	1	No money on the day affordability and timing	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
38	Anthony Hernandez +14043546326	Chicago	$291.67	1d	1	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
39	Samara Segovia +14698830896	Texas	$291.66	3d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started · handed to the chase list 2026-09-13 and still unpaid
40	Makaila Rush +13525124972	Florida	$288.33	0d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
Early life 10–60 days — Nobody owns them (10)
41	Sebastian Vargas +12019654471	New York	$295.92	0d	1	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has paid us 1× before ($296)
42	Lonia lilani Batista +17186629409	New York	$295.00	1d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has paid us 1× before ($295)
43	Kaitlyn Reed +19312481954	Nashville	$222.91	0d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has paid us 1× before ($223)
44	Dereck Hernandez +19364994104	Texas	$220.00	1d	1	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has paid us 1× before ($220)
45	Jose Rodriguez +14078440358	Florida	$179.16 $358.32 total	2d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has paid us 1× before ($179) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-14 and still unpaid
46	Fabian Das Escorcia +14078005434	Florida	$136.66	2d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has paid us 1× before ($137)
47	Michele Renay Strain +19728053518	Texas	$111.00	1d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has paid us 1× before ($111)
48	Collin Branch +19727290461	Texas	$104.16	0d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has paid us 1× before ($104)
49	Mekayleana Zeilman +16155614435	Nashville	$100.00	3d	1	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has paid us 1× before ($100) · handed to the chase list 2026-09-13 and still unpaid
50	Cameron Ford +17087692781	Chicago	$91.66 $183.32 total	1d	1	Bank has blocked recurring a 30-second fix in their banking app	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has paid us 1× before ($92)
Zombie — 4+ misses — Nobody owns them (10)
51	Qecia Nkay +18155820461	Chicago	$300.00 $1800.00 total	1d	4	Bank has blocked recurring a 30-second fix in their banking app	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · 4 misses in a row · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has paid us 1× before ($300) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
52	Kyndalyn Minatrea +19369334846	Texas	$262.50 $1837.50 total	1d	5	Money / limit affordability and timing	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · 5 misses in a row · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has paid us 1× before ($263) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
53	Avery Digges +14344201127	New York	$255.00 $4080.00 total	1d	5	Card number dead new card details	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · 5 misses in a row · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has paid us 5× before ($1,275) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
54	Charlene Howard +13176089052	Chicago	$250.00 $2250.00 total	1d	7	Money / limit affordability and timing	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · 7 misses in a row · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has paid us 5× before ($1,250) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
55	Tiffany Dodson +13478795265	New York	$183.33 $1924.94 total	0d	12	Bank has blocked recurring a 30-second fix in their banking app	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · 12 misses in a row · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has paid us 1× before ($92) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-16 and still unpaid
56	Diana Taylor +17577757305	Texas	$164.58 $1316.64 total	1d	4	Money / limit affordability and timing	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · 4 misses in a row · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has paid us 5× before ($823) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
57	Karry-Ann Morris +12817454010	New York	$162.50 $2437.50 total	0d	15	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · 15 misses in a row · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has paid us 2× before ($325) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-16 and still unpaid
58	Brooke Georges +13477771334	New York	$150.00 $1395.82 total	1d	6	Money / limit affordability and timing	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · 6 misses in a row · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has paid us 2× before ($398) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
59	Christina Morrison +13179973947	Nashville	$125.00 $1375.00 total	1d	4	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · 4 misses in a row · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has paid us 5× before ($625) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
60	Gerald Holder-Maldonado +13128062465	Chicago	$110.00 $1210.00 total	1d	7	Money / limit affordability and timing	NOBODY	missed in the last 3 days · 7 misses in a row · in the GHL but nobody owns them · has paid us 3× before ($440) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
New contracts — Owned by someone else (10)
61	Loretta Herrera +15129965143	Texas	$296.00	1d	1	Bank has blocked recurring a 30-second fix in their banking app	Ronnie K Studio 1	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
62	Giselle Munoz +15167212237	New York	$255.00	1d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	Nick S	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
63	Janet Nabors +13522639703	Texas	$250.00	1d	1	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Charles C	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
64	Ayana Avitia +12622875314	Chicago	$229.16	1d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	Charles C	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
65	Pedro Martinez +18633899287	Florida	$222.01	2d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	Charles C	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
66	Alondra Roman +19393251362	Texas	$220.83	2d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	Maria R	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
67	Becky Salas +18725882632	Chicago	$200.00	1d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	Maria R	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
68	Krissie Nelson +16824442744	Texas	$179.16	1d	1	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Ronnie K Studio 1	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
69	Nicki Gonzalez +19404429770	Texas	$125.00	2d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	Alejandro S	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
70	Brooklynn Joe +17133493991	Texas	$112.00	0d	1	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Princess Roni	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has never paid a cent — a sale that never started
Early life 10–60 days — Owned by someone else (10)
71	Aaron Arrington Fields +13465628584	Texas	$296.00 $592.00 total	2d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	Maria R	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has paid us 1× before ($296) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-14 and still unpaid
72	Alondra Fernandez +13464792019	Texas	$296.00	1d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	Ronnie K Studio 1	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has paid us 1× before ($296)
73	Joshua Bearden Jr +19807487378	Nashville	$295.83	1d	1	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Maria R	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has paid us 1× before ($296)
74	Zaylee Trevino +19714939353	Texas	$287.50 $862.50 total	1d	1	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Maria R	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has paid us 1× before ($288) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
75	Joshua Cross +17814081775	Florida	$287.50	1d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	Princess Roni	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has paid us 1× before ($288)
76	Liz Labidou +15614652841	Florida	$255.00	2d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	Maria R	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has paid us 1× before ($255)
77	Trina Scott +12144318236	Texas	$229.16	1d	1	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Maria R	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has paid us 1× before ($229)
78	Trong Tran +18326084859	Texas	$220.00 $440.00 total	3d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	Princess Roni	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has paid us 1× before ($220) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-13 and still unpaid
79	Tinna Broughton +16158860263	Nashville	$174.58	1d	1	Money / limit affordability and timing	Maria R	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has paid us 1× before ($175)
80	Yatziri Najera +12242682347	Chicago	$162.50	1d	1	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Princess Roni	missed in the last 3 days · sitting at exactly one miss · has paid us 1× before ($163)
Zombie — 4+ misses — Owned by someone else (10)
81	Kin-ling Leung +12672515122	Texas	$320.00 $4160.00 total	1d	7	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Kimberly graham	missed in the last 3 days · 7 misses in a row · has paid us 5× before ($1,600) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
82	Joshua Brown +12109960517	Texas	$320.00 $4800.00 total	3d	14	No money on the day affordability and timing	Caet S	missed in the last 3 days · 14 misses in a row · has paid us 1× before ($320) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-13 and still unpaid
83	Anesia Calhoun +12149292070	Texas	$357.50 $5005.00 total	1d	13	Money / limit affordability and timing	Nick S	missed in the last 3 days · 13 misses in a row · has paid us 1× before ($358) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
84	Veronica Cagle +19726702619	Texas	$575.00 $5750.00 total	1d	10	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Nick S	missed in the last 3 days · 10 misses in a row · has paid us 3× before ($1,725) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
85	Trista Heil +19455429648	Texas	$309.50 $4023.50 total	0d	12	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Caet S	missed in the last 3 days · 12 misses in a row · has paid us 1× before ($310) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-16 and still unpaid
86	Phyllis Thompson +12145421483	Texas	$355.00 $3195.00 total	1d	7	Money / limit affordability and timing	Nick S	missed in the last 3 days · 7 misses in a row · has paid us 2× before ($710) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
87	Le Pham +18176838060	Texas	$355.00 $3905.00 total	1d	5	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Charles C	missed in the last 3 days · 5 misses in a row · has paid us 3× before ($1,065) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
88	Trinadi McGhee +13307165267	Texas	$300.00 $2400.00 total	1d	7	Money / limit affordability and timing	Caet S	missed in the last 3 days · 7 misses in a row · has paid us 4× before ($1,200) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
89	Austin Gutierrez +14699745008	Texas	$355.00 $3550.00 total	1d	10	Issuer said no, no reason find out why	Charles C	missed in the last 3 days · 10 misses in a row · has paid us 1× before ($355) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-15 and still unpaid
90	Gerron McNear +13146889956	Texas	$360.00 $2520.00 total	3d	5	Money / limit affordability and timing	Maria R	missed in the last 3 days · 5 misses in a row · has paid us 1× before ($360) · handed to the chase list 2026-08-13 and still unpaid

What to say, by what the issuer actually said

The decline code is on every row and in the CSV. It changes the call more than anything else does — and today none of it reaches GHL, so every text these people ever got was identical whatever their bank said. On the phone you can do better than that.

What the bank said	People	Missed	Ask for	How to play it
Money / limit TRANSACTION_LIMIT	40 44.4%	$9138.03	affordability and timing	The issuer refused it against a limit. Treat it as a money conversation, not a technical one — it recovers at the same rate as INSUFFICIENT_FUNDS, and when customers pick a reason themselves almost all pick "money is a bit tight". Do NOT open with "your bank made a mistake". Offer to move the charge date or split it.
Issuer said no, no reason GENERIC_DECLINE	32 35.6%	$8118.54	find out why	The issuer refused and told us nothing, so the call is the only way to find out why. Open by asking rather than telling; do not guess a cause on their behalf.
Bank has blocked recurring CARDHOLDER_INSUFFICIENT_PERMISSIONS	8 8.9%	$1763.90	a 30-second fix in their banking app	The one call on this list with a genuine 30-second fix. The issuer has fenced this card off from recurring card-not-present charges and only the cardholder can lift it — usually a toggle in their banking app. The ONLY case where "check your bank app" is right, and heavily concentrated in the neobanks (Cash App, Chime, SoFi).
No money on the day INSUFFICIENT_FUNDS	6 6.7%	$1359.16	affordability and timing	Not enough in the account on the day. The date is the cheapest fix we own — the 31st is our most-chosen charge day and the second worst-performing (38.9% against 49.5% on the 1st).
Card expired CARD_EXPIRED	2 2.2%	$426.66	new card details	The stored card is past its expiry date. Take new details on the call.
Card number dead PAN_FAILURE	2 2.2%	$550.83	new card details	The card number itself is wrong or dead. New details.

Do not offer a discount or a settlement on these calls. Measured on our own book, a reduction under 25% of balance returns $0.74 per $1 given away, 50–75% returns $0.14, and clearing a balance outright returns −$0.03 — and 600 of the 945 accounts we have reduced had no failed charge at all. Nothing below day 31 is discountable. The tools on this call are the date, the split, and a different card. The zombie cells are the exception the plan allows, and even there a settlement is a priced campaign with an approver, not something offered on a cold dial.

The aim is to open the line, not to win the call. A reply that is not a payment still counts — "I can't this month" tells us who to restructure and who to stop chasing. The whole debt book runs at 8.3% answering a text in 30 days, so almost anything beats silence.

Never tell someone their card was declined unless it was. Some accounts hold no card at all — nothing was attempted, there is no decline to explain, and saying otherwise opens the call with something they can hear is untrue.

Who to ring — built 2026-09-17 13:59 UTC by scripts/reports/report_call_list.js

How every number here is made

The population

A failed first payment = a Square customer whose first-ever charge attempt in the recurring book lands between 2026-09-07 and 2026-09-13 and did not complete. The attempt history searched runs from June 2023 to now across both attempt files, so a customer with any earlier charge anywhere in it is not counted as an opening. Only the six Recurring* locations are in scope — deposits, studio sales and office takings are excluded, because they are not instalments.

"Last week" is the last complete MONDAY-to-SUNDAY week — here 2026-09-07 to 2026-09-13 — not the last seven days. A rolling seven-day window always contains part of the week we are currently in, which is a different question and makes the name wrong. The current week is never included, and today is a part-day and would read as a collapse. Run with --from / --to for any other period.

"Not paid" means no completed charge of any amount on that customer after the failed opening — not merely that the opening amount is outstanding. Someone who paid a different figure, or paid part of it, counts as money in and is off the unpaid list.

The decline reason is the issuer's own, read off card_details.errors on the failed payment. Where Square recorded no reason the row shows "no reason given" rather than being assigned one.

The cross-check

Matched on phone first, then email, then exact name, against pcTyOadbzBqZO7v3cbwn — the live US Debt Collection sub-account. Not the location in ghl_config.json, which is a near-empty account that 403s with this token.

"Texted" means at least one outbound SMS dated on or after the moment the charge failed, on any conversation belonging to that contact. An older text from a previous cycle does not count. "Replied" is an inbound SMS after the same moment.

No message body is stored. The only thing read out of a reply is whether it starts with 1, 2 or 3 — the options the workflow's own opening text offers.

What this page cannot tell you

Phone calls. The debt team dials through GoTo and those calls do not write back into GHL, so a zero in the calls column is a limit of the source, not evidence that nobody rang.

Cause and effect. Whether a person was texted is not random — the ones who pay immediately drop out of the chase, so any comparison of "texted" against "not texted" is selected at both ends and cannot be read as the effect of texting.

Nothing here is automated recovery. No system on this book charges a card a second time on its own. Every later payment is a person acting.

Sources

Reports/finance_cohort/square_attempts.jsonl + square_attempts_pre2025.jsonl — the charge attempts, refreshed by scripts/reports/pull_square_declines_history.js.
Square /v2/customers/{id} — name, phone, email, reference id.
GHL /contacts/, /conversations/search, /conversations/{id}/messages — all GET.
Built by scripts/reports/report_first_miss_week.js at 2026-09-17T11:26:24.183Z.

How every number here is made

The three populations

All three are cut from the same source — Reports/finance_cohort/square_attempts.jsonl plus the 2023-06 backfill, deduped by payment id, restricted to the six Recurring* locations, grouped by Square customer. Deposits, studio sales and office takings are excluded because they are not instalments. Measured 17 Sep 2026 against data complete to 16 Sep 2026.

Population 1 = the customer's first-ever attempt in that history. A customer with any earlier charge anywhere in it is not an opening, so it cannot pick up a mid-contract miss.

Population 2 = accounts whose first attempt was 10 to 60 days before the data end. "Missed" means at least one non-COMPLETED attempt. "Never paid a cent" means zero COMPLETED attempts, ever.

Population 3 = accounts whose trailing run of attempts are all failures, four or more deep. This is the charge-attempt view. It is not the same population as /zombie-reasons, which counts series still billing from the invoice cache and reported 2,656 on 7 Sep 2026. The attempts view is larger because it includes long-dead accounts nobody is billing any more; the comparable live figure here is the 2,867 still being charged in the last 30 days. Name which one you are quoting.

Where the two hazard curves disagree, and why

Charge-attempt-side (17 Sep 2026): after one miss the next charge is paid 44.0%, after two 23.5%, three 16.2%, four 14.6%. Invoice-side (/zombie-reasons, 7 Sep 2026): 20.8% then 12.9%, 7.9%, 5.0%. The invoice view is lower because it counts cycles where no charge was ever attempted as unpaid — 13.3% of the zombie pile was never attempted at all — and the attempts view cannot see those. Both show the same shape and the same conclusion: the collapse is between miss one and miss two. Never average them and never mix them in one sentence.

What is quoted from elsewhere

/opening-payment (16 Sep 2026) — the $922 LTV difference, the 20.1%/26.4% recovery curve.
/Studio1_First_Miss_Handoff.html (16 Sep 2026) — the ladder, the neobank measurements, the no-card 6.5%, the day-1-is-48% curve, the reduction returns, the Square-sends-nothing finding.
/first-miss-week + /first-miss-week-chats (17 Sep 2026) — the 23.2-hour first text, the 12 who never reached the GHL, the 16 who replied and still owe, the tapback finding.
/zombie-reasons (7 Sep 2026) — the series mechanism, the invoice-side hazard curve, the never-attempted share.
/decline-buckets (1 Sep 2026) — the soft/hard/structural split and the $385,210 put at dead cards.
/reductions — what a discount actually returned per dollar.

What this plan deliberately does not claim

No automated conversion rate. We have never run an automated pre-notice or cliff message, so both are UNKNOWN. A trial needs a control arm or it gets measured against a human conversation rate.

No causal claim about texting. Whether a person was texted is not random — the ones who pay immediately drop out of the chase — so any texted / not-texted comparison is selected at both ends.

Nothing here is automated recovery. No system on this book charges a card a second time on its own. Square attempts once on the due date and never again, measured at 0.90 failed charges per missed cycle. Every second attempt is a person, which is why none of the money in this plan arrives without someone doing something.

Phone calls are invisible. The debt team dials through GoTo, which does not write back into GHL, so any call count from the GHL side is a floor, not a measurement.

Built by scripts/reports/report_money_plan.js at 2026-09-17T22:00:25.537Z.

How these 90 were picked

The structure Neil asked for

Three owner buckets × three populations, 10 per cell. Owner comes from assignedTo on the contact in the debt sub-account pcTyOadbzBqZO7v3cbwn, read from a bulk pull of all 12,491 contacts rather than a lookup per person. This is a cross-section, not a ranking — the best 90 calls on the book would be almost entirely fresh misses in one or two cells, which cannot tell you whether an owner or a population is the problem.

The pool

Everyone on the Square recurring book whose most recent charge failed — 14,109 accounts, data complete to 2026-09-16. The top 320 of each population by the Square-side score were enriched with contact details, joined to the GHL index on phone, and the grid filled from what was left.

The order inside a cell

Signal	Weight	Why it carries that weight
How fresh the miss is	up to 50	0–3 days 50 · 4–7 35 · 8–14 20 · 15–30 8 · older 2. Day 1 is 48% of everything a miss ever returns inside ten days, day 3 is 71%, day 7 is 92%. /opening-payment, 16 Sep 2026
How deep the run is	up to 25	1 miss 25 · 2 misses 12 · 3 misses 5 · zombie 0. After one miss the next charge is paid 44.0%; after two, 23.5%. measured 17 Sep 2026
Whether anyone has asked	up to 20	Not in the GHL at all 20 · in it but unowned 15 · owned 5. Someone outside the sub-account cannot be texted by any workflow, so a call is the only channel that exists for them.
Has paid us before	10	A proven payer has a relationship to call on. Someone who has never paid a cent is a sale that never started — still worth the call, but the script should not assume a customer.
The amount	up to 15, capped	Deliberately last and deliberately capped. Uncapped, a large balance drags three-week-old misses above fresh ones and the list quietly becomes a rich-list instead of a recovery list.

Who is excluded, and who is not

DND is the only hard exclusion — 38 people here. That is the customer's own flag, not a chase-list artefact, and it is never a sortable column and never overridden.

The chase ledger is NOT an exclusion, on Neil's explicit instruction. It is shown in the CSV with the date they were handed over.

Anyone with no phone number is out — 0 candidates — because this is a calling list. Anyone whose most recent charge succeeded is out, because they are not owing.

What this list does NOT tell you

Whether anyone has already rung them. The team dials through GoTo, which does not write back into GHL. Any contact signal here is a floor, never a measurement.

An up-to-date balance. "Total missed to date" is the sum of what has been attempted and refused on this book. It is not the Debtor Ledger balance and the two will not agree.

Who owns them historically. assignedTo is current state — it says who holds the record today, not who has or has not worked it. Use it to decide who picks up the phone, never to decide who let it go.

Anything automated is going to do this for you. Nothing on this book charges a card a second time on its own — Square attempts once on the due date and never again. Every dollar this list recovers arrives because a person rang someone.

Built by scripts/reports/report_call_list.js at 2026-09-17T13:59:39.630Z.