List health by campaign
lead-grain, list-lifetime · ignores the date filter · lead = last 10 digitsExport CSV| Campaign | List sizeRecords supplied on the list — the authoritative source | Leads dialedUnique leads (identified by last 10 digits) with at least one dial, list-lifetime | PenetrationLeads dialed ÷ list size, capped at 100% — the > list flag shows where the cap is hiding an impossibility | AttemptsTotal dials across all leads, list-lifetime | Att / leadAttempts ÷ leads dialed — how hard the list is being worked | List completionAttempts ÷ (list size × attempt cap 6) — the authoritative completion. The separately-named callable completion lives on classic Campaigns and stays empty until AAA supplies the callable file | ExhaustedLeads at the 6-attempt cap — worked to the end of their permitted attempts | Over-dialedLeads dialed BEYOND the 6-attempt cap. History keeps attempts made under the old cap of 8 (changed 2026-08-03, rulebook v1.7) | ConvertedLeads with at least one sale, list-lifetime | VelocityLeads dialed ÷ days between first and last dial on the list — how fast the list is being consumed | First → last dial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5,974 | 2,408 | 40.3% | 2,491 | 1.03 | 6.9% | 0(0.0%) | 0 | 1(0.04%) | 1,204/day | 2026-06-29 → 2026-06-30 | |
ACA00002curve → | 14,430 | 1,908 | 13.2% | 2,059 | 1.08 | 2.4% | 4(0.2%) | 1 | 11(0.58%) | 47/day | 2026-07-01 → 2026-08-10 |
ACA00003curve below | 7,995 | 7,990 | 99.9% | 19,317 | 2.42 | 40.3% | 12(0.2%) | 1 | 73(0.91%) | 190/day | 2026-06-30 → 2026-08-10 |
ACA00004curve → | 10,268 | 10,329> list | 100.0% | 17,460 | 1.69 | 28.3% | 4(0.0%) | 2 | 47(0.46%) | 287/day | 2026-07-13 → 2026-08-17 |
ACA00006curve → | 11,973 | 12,268> list | 100.0% | 22,224 | 1.81 | 30.9% | 29(0.2%) | 16 | 90(0.73%) | 372/day | 2026-07-16 → 2026-08-17 |
ACA00007curve → | 3,846 | 3,845 | 100.0% | 7,168 | 1.86 | 31.1% | 0(0.0%) | 0 | 24(0.62%) | 226/day | 2026-07-22 → 2026-08-07 |
ACA00008curve → | 6,763 | 6,589 | 97.4% | 6,736 | 1.02 | 16.6% | 0(0.0%) | 0 | 27(0.41%) | 599/day | 2026-07-28 → 2026-08-07 |
ACA00009curve → | 5,994 | 7,216> list | 100.0% | 13,750 | 1.91 | 38.2% | 9(0.1%) | 3 | 31(0.43%) | 154/day | 2026-07-02 → 2026-08-17 |
| 0 | 1,961> list | — | 2,001 | 1.02 | — | 0(0.0%) | 0 | 3(0.15%) | 140/day | 2026-08-04 → 2026-08-17 | |
| 0 | 4,958> list | — | 9,316 | 1.88 | — | 3(0.1%) | 1 | 72(1.45%) | 381/day | 2026-08-05 → 2026-08-17 | |
| 0 | 6,673> list | — | 6,782 | 1.02 | — | 0(0.0%) | 0 | 15(0.22%) | 953/day | 2026-08-11 → 2026-08-17 | |
| 0 | 507> list | — | 515 | 1.02 | — | 0(0.0%) | 0 | 3(0.59%) | 507/day | 2026-08-17 → 2026-08-17 | |
| Total | 67,243 | 66,652 | — | 109,819 | — | — | 61 | 24 | 397 | — | — |
This is the “your data back with interest” view. Exhausted leads are spent inventory; a list mostly exhausted and under goal needs new records, not more passes. Over-dialed counts are leads worked past the attempt cap — history keeps the attempts made while the cap was 8 (it moved to 6 on 2026-08-03, rulebook v1.7). The > list flag marks campaigns where more unique leads were dialed than the list contains — physically impossible, known (FACTS.md L21), and the reason B4 (`prior_call_ids.csv`) is the project’s critical path; penetration is capped at 100% per rulebook §C, which is exactly why the flag exists.
The attempt curve — what each pass over a list is worth · ACA00003
one campaign · list-lifetime| Attempt #The Nth dial to the same lead within a campaign (lead = last 10 digits) | Dials | Net contacts | Net rateNet contacts ÷ dials at this attempt | Sales | Sales / 100 dialsThe marginal yield of THIS attempt ordinal — what one more pass over the list buys |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7,990 | 525 | 6.6% | 41 | 0.51 |
| 2 | 7,016 | 256 | 3.6% | 19 | 0.27 |
| 3 | 3,850 | 149 | 3.9% | 8 | 0.21 |
| 4 | 352 | 13 | 3.7% | 4 | 1.14 |
| 5 | 62 | 3 | 4.8% | 1 | 1.61n=62 |
| 6 | 12 | 1 | 8.3% | 0 | 0.00n=12 |
| 7 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 8 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 9 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 10 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 11 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 12 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 13 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 14 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 15 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 16 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 17 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 18 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 19 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 20 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 21 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 22 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 23 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 24 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 25 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 26 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 27 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 28 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 29 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 30 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 31 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 32 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 33 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 34 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 35 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 36 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 37 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 38 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 39 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 40 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| 41 · over cap | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00n=1 |
| — | 19,317 | 947 | — | 73 | — |
This table is the empirical case for or against the 6-attempt cap. Each row is the marginal yield of that attempt ordinal: if attempts 5–6 convert at a fraction of attempt 1’s rate, the cap is protecting margin; if they still pay, it is costing sales. It is the evidence L13 (per-campaign caps) has been waiting for — per-campaign, use the curve → links above. Thin rows carry their n instead of a confident-looking rate.