§ 12
Part 12 of 12
Sagetap Applicant Tracker
Universal, living roster of every Sagetap inbound application across all Empathic campaigns. One row per application (return applicants appear once per campaign). Maintained by the sagetap-harvest skill; raw source data for each application lives in sagetap-raw-captures.
Legend — Fit: 🟢 STRONG · 🟡 MODERATE · 🟠 UNCERTAIN · 🔴 WEAK · ⏳ pending harvest
Archetype: A1 = Engineering Effectiveness · A2 = Governance/Security · A1+A2 = hybrid
Campaigns: leaders = Engineering Leaders (May) · engineer = Engineers (Jun) · cto = CTOs/Platform (Jun)
New / To Harvest
2026-07-01 harvest: the 28-item “Awaiting Response” queue is fully enumerated and all genuinely-new applications are captured (raw data in sagetap-raw-captures, assessed below). Full meetingId→handle→campaign map for all 28 is in the ledger (agents/skills/sagetap-harvest/ledger.json).
Remaining to harvest:
- CRM page 2 (~15 older rows) — the “Awaiting Response” rail covers the 28 recent applications; the CRM
/sagetap-crmlist paginates to 35. Page 2 (older, mostly already-assessed or completed) not yet enumerated. - Re-applications to a NEW campaign are new applications — process them. (Correction 2026-07-01: an earlier pass wrongly “log-only”-skipped these.) A Sage who was assessed on an older campaign and re-applies to a newer one — especially the Pathbase/engineer campaign now that the product is live — is a fresh application and often a rekindle opportunity. Processed this pass: JosephB (engineer 68380 — passed in May on the old product, re-applied to Pathbase; rekindle drafted → 2026-07-01-josephb-reengagement), RobertK (engineer 67880, 🔴), Femo (leaders 66452, 🔴). Genuinely same-campaign duplicates already assessed (log-only, correct to skip): Femo engineer 68033, Link engineer 68108 / cto 67825, Wizard engineer 68126, DJC engineer 68140 (→ full intake). NicholasE leaders 66810 is his origin app, deliberately not re-evaluated (relationship already converted via engineer, call done).
Assessed
Every application that has been evaluated. Most-relevant first within each fit tier.
🟢 Strong fits
| Handle | Role | Company | Campaign | Fit | Archetype | Status / Recommendation | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NicholasE | Engineering Manager | Retail, 10,000+, Sweden | engineer | 🟢 ✅ | A1 | Call completed 2026-06-29, 29/30. Sept deployment target; volunteered design-partner model. The active deal. | 2026-06-29-nicholas-e-sagetap-debrief |
| pumiki | Senior Engineering Manager | Financial Services, 5,001-10,000, CA | engineer | 🟢 | A1 (+A2 gov, passing) | NEW 2026-07-01 — top new fit. Full intake done. Autonomous Claude agent pushing PRs, Pathbase Interested in his Developer Productivity initiative, passing on governance tools. 380 cr. Accept, demo-led. | 2026-07-01-sagetap-pumiki-evaluation · 2026-07-01-pumiki-meeting-prep |
| DJC | AI Product Leader (VP) | Financial Services, 10,000+, CA | engineer + cto | 🟢 | A1 answers / A2 initiative (converging) | Full intake done 2026-07-01. Sharpest answers in the pipeline (70% why, prompt-histories-in-Slack); applied to both campaigns. Sole initiative is LLM security → probe budget. Accept via engineer app (1,125 cr). | 2026-07-01-sagetap-djc-evaluation · 2026-07-01-djc-meeting-prep |
| Kevin_5542 | CTO/CISO | Software, 51-200, UK | leaders | 🟢 | A1+A2 | Claude Code in prod, “none have solved it.” | 2026-05-14-sagetap-inbound-evaluation |
| Joseph_1446 | DevOps Director | Financial Services, 10,000+, Canada | leaders | 🟢 | A1 | Meeting completed. Described Pathbase’s value prop unprompted. | 2026-05-20-joseph-1446-sagetap-call |
| JosephB | VP Product, Gen AI | Insurance F500, 10,000+ | leaders → engineer (re-app) | 🟢 rekindle | A1+A2 | RE-APPLIED to Pathbase campaign 2026-07-01 (passed May on old product). Now Evaluating stage, comparing Claude Code vs Copilot — the live agent-comparison decision. Rekindle message ready; send + ask to install. | 2026-07-01-josephb-reengagement |
| Wizard | Sr. Director Eng | Banking, 10,000+, NY | leaders / engineer | 🟢⚠️ | A1+A2 | Return applicant, Pathbase in his initiative, 60-70% why-comments. But 10% opt-in rate. | 2026-06-19-sagetap-engineer-inbound-evaluation |
🟡 Moderate
| Handle | Role | Company | Campaign | Fit | Archetype | Status / Recommendation | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pavel_ | Sr. Director Cloud Ops (all IT + infosec) | Software, 1,001-5,000, CA | engineer | 🟡 | A2 | Return applicant. Real coding-tool user, but 5 initiatives all security/ops; Pathbase among 108 solutions. Skip call, bank answers. | 2026-07-01-sagetap-pavel-evaluation |
| Pavel_ | (same) | (same) | leaders | 🟡 | A2 | Governance/risk frame, explicit interest (May assessment). | 2026-05-14-sagetap-inbound-evaluation |
| Eran_8204 | CIO/VP MIS/IT & CyberSecurity | Enterprise, 130+ R&D | leaders | 🟡 | A2 | Archetype 2 at scale; MCP-aware. Take only at Market Awareness pricing. | 2026-05-28-sagetap-eran-8204-evaluation |
| RU | Head of Engineering (Director) | Internet/marketplace, 1,001-5,000, UK | leaders | 🟡 | A1 (early) | NEW 2026-07-01 — right persona, in-geo, actively benchmarking AI ROI, but early (35 eng, 50% Copilot). One to watch. 600 credits. | sagetap-raw-captures |
| Tobie Quartzfolder | CIO + CISO | Computer Games, 201-500, Israel | leaders | 🟡 | A2 (hybrid) | NEW 2026-07-01 — ~100 devs, genuine ROI-visibility pain, but buying AI-governance (Knostic/SlashID). Israel geo. 600 credits. | sagetap-raw-captures |
| Mohammed_1270 | VP of Engineering | Financial Services, 10,000+, Germany | leaders | 🟡 | A1/architecture | NEW 2026-07-01 — biggest scale signal (thousands of eng, 50-60% adoption), but 0 initiatives / Germany. Bank data, skip call. | sagetap-raw-captures |
| Tad Pasteblack | Senior software lead | Computer Software (OSINT), 201-500, NE | engineer | 🟡 | A1 | NEW 2026-07-01 — on-persona, 50% why-comments, md-file handoff hack, but 0 initiatives / low authority. Bank answers, skip call. | sagetap-raw-captures |
| Pawel | VP Cybersecurity (CXO) | Banking, 10,000+, MA | engineer | 🔴 call / 🟡 data | A2 (A1 vocab) | NEW 2026-07-01 — articulate DevOps framing of the pain, but 10 security initiatives, heavy spray (119 activities). 1500 credits. Skip. | sagetap-raw-captures |
| DannyG | Principal Security Authority (VP) | Telecom, 10,000+, UK | cto | 🔴 call / 🟡 data | A2 | NEW 2026-07-01 — secure-by-design gatekeeper, generic thesis-echo. 1250 credits. Skip. | sagetap-raw-captures |
| TheCloudGuru | Director Cloud Eng | Retail, 10,000+, IL | leaders | 🟡 | A2/Cost | 900 Copilot users — largest deployment, but FinOps buyer. | 2026-05-14-sagetap-inbound-evaluation |
| Alki | Director of IT | Software, 501-1,000, Canada | leaders | 🟡 | A2 | Security concern re: insecure AI code, agent inventory. | 2026-05-14-sagetap-inbound-evaluation |
| Weimin | Director IT Security | Healthcare, 10,000+, GA | leaders | 🟡 | A2 (revised) | Sharp framing, but LinkedIn revealed IT security at a hospital. Canceled. | 2026-05-14-sagetap-inbound-evaluation |
| Leopold_R | CISO | Manufacturing, 1,001-5,000, TX | cto | 🔴 call / 🟡 data | A2 | Machine-consumer Q2 answer, but ~3 agent users + pure DLP/shadow-AI initiative. | 2026-06-19-sagetap-cto-platform-inbound-evaluation |
🟠 Uncertain / 🔴 Weak
| Handle | Role | Company | Campaign | Fit | Archetype | Status / Recommendation | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HelpIsOnTheWay | Director of IT | Construction, 1,001-5,000, CO | leaders | 🟠 | Uncertain | Highest urgency, but possibly business-process agents not coding agents. | 2026-05-14-sagetap-inbound-evaluation |
| Link | CISO | Insurance, 10,000+, France | engineer / cto | 🔴 call / 🟢 data | A2 | Elite evaluator, wrong buyer. AI-app-security initiative. Skip call. | 2026-06-19-sagetap-engineer-inbound-evaluation |
| Femo | Technical Project Manager | Automotive, 10,000+, TX | engineer | 🔴 | Wrong persona | IT PM installing ERP, 111 solutions in one initiative. Skip. | 2026-06-19-sagetap-engineer-inbound-evaluation |
| RobertK | Cybersecurity Mgr | Computer Games, 201-500, Poland | leaders | 🔴 | A2 | Polished vendor-eval answers, early adoption, wrong buyer. | 2026-05-14-sagetap-inbound-evaluation |
| Stonewall | VP security/tech exec | Civil Engineering, 10,000+, VA | leaders | 🔴 | A2 | NEW 2026-07-01 — non-software industry, generic answers, extreme spray (13 initiatives, 194 activities). 1250 credits. Skip. | sagetap-raw-captures |
| Kennith | CISO / InfoSec Manager | Broadcast Media, 1,001-5,000, Switzerland | leaders | 🔴 call / 🟡 data | A2 | NEW 2026-07-01 — ISO 27001 CISO, non-core geo, heavy evaluator, governance frame. Skip. | sagetap-raw-captures |
Harvest 2026-07-21 — three new cto applications
| Handle | Role | Fit | Key signal | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CloudDB | Head of Cloud Engineering (VP), UK finserv 10,000+ | 🟢 | ~5,000 engineers on agents daily; leads ~400 platform eng; “open to a product in this space”; AWS-hostable; sessions classed with Teams/email retention; 5.0 rating. 0 initiatives. 1,250 cr. | Recommend accept — the CTO campaign’s “rare exceptional call.” Chat probe first: confirm who’d own the evaluation + whether a design-partner motion fits. |
| ggzuazo | Sr. Director IT Architecture (Enterprise Architect), finserv, Brazil | 🟢 data / 🟡 call | Already stores sessions in Elastic for audit; “I would buy a solution like that… need something better”; “I’m the Final Decision Maker, holding the budget”; 5.0 over 158 reviews. 50% on-prem. 900 cr. | Geo dampens call economics. Chat probe: what does Elastic fail at today? (Free competitive/requirements intel; decides the call.) |
| Pawel (3rd app) | VP Cybersecurity, bank | 🔴 call / 🟡 data | Self-disqualifies: “I’m not the architecture owner — that’s engineering and platform leadership.” Hands over security requirements: VPC, pre-capture PII/secret redaction, classification mapping. 1,500 cr. | Skip. Fold his requirements into the data-handling answer. |
Campaign validation: CloudDB + ggzuazo are the CTO campaign’s thesis answered by its exact target buyer — both independently describe session retention as inevitable/already-attempted, name hosting+redaction requirements, and lean buy. ggzuazo’s Elastic setup is existence proof of the build-side demand the campaign was designed to detect.
Inbound Chat Activity (2026-07-21 update)
- pumiki: Jul 6 3:04 PM — “I have time this week, but going on a biz trip next week, let me know when is a good time.” His offered window lapsed unanswered; he’s now back from the trip. URGENT: reply with concrete times + formal Accept. (Install C++ bug context in 2026-07-01-pumiki-meeting-prep.)
- Leopold_R: Jul 20 — “Please let me know if you have availability - thanks.” 🔴 call / 🟡 data CISO; send courteous hold + security survey probe (same as RobertK’s).
- NicholasE: Bryan sent circle-back Jul 21 (“hope your last month has been good… good time to circle back?”).
- Queue now 38 connections; Awaiting Response badge 31.
Inbound Chat Activity (2026-07-06)
Three Sages messaged us (all pending replies — drafts in session log / meeting-prep notes):
| From | Fit | Message (verbatim) | When | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pumiki | 🟢 | “getting C++ errors trying to compile your app” · “Spend some time trying to fix it, but not sure I’d like to invest more time in this. I’m willing to have a meeting…” | Jul 5 6:02 PM | Install failed: source-build C++ errors (installer fallback; prebuilt-binary gap — product task filed). Bryan replied Jul 6. Open: error tail, answer his Jul 1 real-data/security question (say NO real data needed), formal Accept. Full thread in 2026-07-01-pumiki-meeting-prep. |
| DJC | 🟢 | “Following up on this, thanks!” | Jul 6 1:39 PM | Chasing us on the engineer app — send the drafted accept note (nudge-adapted opening). |
| RobertK | 🔴 | “Hi, any update ?” | Jul 6 12:36 PM | Courteous hold + security survey probe (visibility: seeing vs blocking, which has budget). No call spend. |
Lesson (2026-07-06): drafted outreach decays — both 🟢s nudged us while accept notes sat ready since Jul 1. Send same-day.
Chat Probes to Send
Sagetap chat is free — the call decision is not binary. For each applicant below, a specific question to send in chat that either decides the call or harvests survey data. Plain text, copy-paste ready, references their own answers. (Methodology: discovery-call-playbook → “The Chat Surface”.)
Decide-the-call probes (🟢 / 🟡 borderlines)
pumiki (🟢 — pre-warm the demo + confirm budget line):
Before we talk, two quick things. Would you be open to installing Pathbase and sharing one Claude-agent session beforehand, so we spend the 30 minutes on your real data instead of slides? And is your Employee Productivity initiative where a tool like this would sit, or does it fall under a different budget?DJC (🟢 — the budget question that shapes the whole call):
Quick one before we meet: is the reasoning-visibility pain your team feels part of your LLM security and monitoring budget, or a separate line? And do you personally review these PRs, or is this mainly your engineers' day-to-day?RU (🟡 — early, but ROI-measuring; decide if there’s a project):
You mentioned you benchmarked AI ROI on time reduction — what did that show? And if you could see and keep what the agents actually did in each session, is there a project where you'd put budget behind that, or is it still early rollout for now?Tobie (🟡 — real ROI pain but buying governance; find the priority):
You said PR frequency and lines of code don't tell the real story. If you could keep the full session — what the agent tried, changed, and discarded — which decision would that help you make first: the engineering ROI question, or the AI-governance one you're evaluating tools for?Mohammed_1270 (🟡 — big scale, 0 initiatives; find the buying motion):
At several-thousand-engineer scale with 50-60% adoption, is there a team or initiative where you'd fund better visibility into what the agents produce versus what they cost — or is it still centralized exploration right now?Tad Pasteblack (🟡 — great pain, no initiative; test for budget):
The md-file handoff you described is exactly the pain we remove. Is there a project or budget line where better, portable agent context would go — or is it a personal workflow pain for now? Either way I'd love to hear how the 9 R&D teams handle it.Survey probes (🔴 / clear skips — free thesis data)
Pawel, DannyG, Kennith (security CxOs — calibrate the visibility-vs-control read):
You described the reasoning-loss pain precisely. When you evaluate "visibility" for AI agents, do you mean seeing and retaining what the agents actually did (audit/trace), or blocking what they shouldn't (runtime control)? And which of the two has budget behind it today?(Stonewall — non-software spray evaluator; no probe worth sending.)
Cross-cutting patterns (running)
- The campaign titles reliably attract senior security/IT leaders at software companies who touch coding agents governance-side but buy security tooling (Pavel_, Link, Eran, Alki, Leopold_R, DannyG?, Pawel?, Tobie?). The “reasoning disappears / see what agents are doing” framing reads to them as a transparency/audit concern.
- Initiatives outrank answers. The strongest tell of a real fit is a developer-effectiveness / agent-observability purchase initiative, not eloquent Q&A. Pavel_’s five security initiatives outweigh his sharp engineer answers.
- Return applicants are signal — persistence across campaigns (Pavel_, NicholasE, Wizard, DJC, Link) indicates a tracked problem space, but re-check the archetype each time; the framing changes, the buyer usually doesn’t.
- Call economics (2026-06-12): data is free, calls are expensive. Bank every application’s answers regardless of call decision; recommend a call only with a realistic path to a close (or, engineer campaign, a live demo on the Sage’s own installed sessions).
Related
- sagetap-raw-captures — raw three-surface source data per application (reprocessable)
- 2026-06-19-sagetap-engineer-inbound-evaluation · 2026-05-14-sagetap-inbound-evaluation · 2026-06-19-sagetap-cto-platform-inbound-evaluation — batch trackers
- 2026-06-04-sagetap-engineer-campaign · 2026-06-12-sagetap-cto-platform-campaign · 2026-05-10-sagetap-onboarding — campaign setups
agents/skills/sagetap-harvest/SKILL.md·agents/skills/sagetap-intake/SKILL.md