The tier decides how much the email is allowed to claim — not how confident it sounds. Every merge field maps to a real column in the CSV. And two tiers get no email at all. That’s the whole point of having tiers.
When: Rising share of national dispute complaints, a second signal agreeing, and an adversarial review it survived.
Channel: 1:1, sent by a human, not a sequence
Hi {{first_name}},
{{account_name}}'s share of every dispute complaint filed in the US has gone from {{share_base_pct}} to {{share_recent_pct}}. At today's volumes that is roughly {{effect_per_quarter}} more a quarter landing in your queue than the market's own growth accounts for.
It is public CFPB data - happy to send the workings.
Does that match what you are seeing? If it is noise at your end, say so and I will leave it.
{{sender}}Hi [first name], PayPal's share of every dispute complaint filed in the US has gone from 1.12% to 1.87%. At today's volumes that is roughly 78 more a quarter landing in your queue than the market's own growth accounts for. It is public CFPB data - happy to send the workings. Does that match what you are seeing? If it is noise at your end, say so and I will leave it. [sender]
When: The numbers say rising, but no second signal has confirmed it yet, or the review is not complete.
Channel: semi-personalised sequence, trigger named but not leaned on
Hi {{first_name}},
{{account_name}} has been taking a slowly rising share of US dispute complaints - about {{share_base_pct}} to {{share_recent_pct}} of everything filed nationally over the last couple of years.
That is a market-share number, so it can look quite different from the inside. Is it matching what your team sees?
We build the automation behind dispute and chargeback decisions. Happy to send what the public data shows either way.
{{sender}}Hi [first name], Chime has been taking a slowly rising share of US dispute complaints - about 3.62% to 6.37% of everything filed nationally over the last couple of years. That is a market-share number, so it can look quite different from the inside. Is it matching what your team sees? We build the automation behind dispute and chargeback decisions. Happy to send what the public data shows either way. [sender]
When: Right size, right business, NO trigger found. Most of the list.
Channel: standard segment sequence
Hi {{first_name}},
We build the dispute and chargeback automation for card issuers and fintechs - pulling the evidence together, applying the policy, and cutting the manual handling per case.
Worth a look only if disputes are already an operational cost for you.
If they are, I will send over how it works. If not, tell me and I will stop.
{{sender}}Hi [first name], We build the dispute and chargeback automation for card issuers and fintechs - pulling the evidence together, applying the policy, and cutting the manual handling per case. Worth a look only if disputes are already an operational cost for you. If they are, I will send over how it works. If not, tell me and I will stop. [sender]
Watchlist No outbound. Its licensed sentence is "we cannot prove it yet", and you do not email a stranger about something you cannot prove. Re-score monthly; it promotes itself into Warm the moment a second signal agrees.
DQ SUPPRESSION LIST, not a bin. Feeding these back into the CRM as do-not-work is what stops SDRs burning time and domain reputation - and the reason is attached to every row, so the suppression can be argued with.
| Field | Comes from |
|---|---|
{{account_name}} | leads.csv account_name, shortened for the body (the CFPB stores legal filing names; the engine keeps them as the join key) |
{{first_name}} | from contact enrichment (Clay) - NOT produced by this engine |
{{share_base_pct}} | leads.csv trigger_evidence, first figure |
{{share_recent_pct}} | leads.csv trigger_evidence, second figure |
{{effect_per_quarter}} | leads.csv effect_per_quarter |
{{baseline_window}} | leads.csv signal_window, first half |
{{recent_window}} | leads.csv signal_window, second half |
{{sender}} | the sending rep |