Systems Audit & Diagnostic Presentation
Celigo Revenue Operations Transformation
A unified narrative synthesizing HubSpot and Salesforce findings into a comprehensive transformation roadmap.
The Story We're Telling
Narrative Arc
The Situation
Celigo's revenue operations infrastructure has accumulated years of technical debt. What began as tactical workarounds has calcified into structural constraints that now actively block revenue recovery.
The Diagnosis
Two parallel audits—HubSpot and Salesforce—reveal the same root cause: the organization has been using vendors and custom objects to compensate for avoiding standard lifecycle architecture.
The Path Forward
The fix is not more tooling. The fix is restoring native lifecycle discipline, letting tools do their intended jobs, and augmenting human capacity with AI where it creates the most leverage.
Part 1
Context & Engagement Overview
Engagement Summary
- Client
- Celigo
- Primary Contact
- Nicole Penland (Sr. Director, Revenue Marketing)
- Engagement Start
- October 2025
- Duration
- 6 months (through May 2026)
SOW Deliverables
- Full diagnostic report with system architecture map
- Critical issues briefing (top 7 gaps)
- Tool consolidation roadmap
- Campaign to BDR flow recommendations
- BDR team composition recommendations
- Six-month AI transition plan
- Prioritized implementation roadmap
Discovery
Stakeholder Interviews
Brian Knaupe
Key decision makerVP, GTM Operations
Sales Ops, Partner Ops, Overall GTM Systems
Dean Davis
NEW ROLEHead of Marketing Ops
HubSpot, Salesforce (Marketing side), Lead Scoring
Jerry Patterson
9.5 yearsSystem Operations Analyst
Gong (Admin), Chili Piper (Admin)
Aaron Young
6 yearsSr. Sales Operations Analyst
Lead processes, routing oversight
Karen Lacambra
4 yearsSales Operations Analyst
Territory routing, lead routing
Cody Loyer
6 monthsSr. Marketing Ops Manager
HubSpot configuration
Part 2
Executive Diagnosis
HubSpot Assessment
HubSpot is not merely misconfigured — it is structurally constrained by prior architectural decisions that now block revenue recovery, break lead recycling, undermine attribution investments, and force manual sales workarounds.
This is no longer a marketing ops problem. It is a revenue system integrity issue.
Salesforce Assessment
Salesforce is experiencing compounding technical debt and integration failures that block accurate pipeline reporting, force manual workarounds, create data trust issues, and risk critical knowledge loss during team transitions.
This is no longer a data hygiene problem. It is an operational reliability issue.
The Cascade Effect
Current vs. Target Metrics
MQL to Opportunity Conversion
Current
~6.3%
Target
10%
Speed to Lead
Current
Unknown
Target
Under 5 minutes
SDR SLA Adherence
Current
~60-75%
Target
Over 90%
Attribution Accuracy
Current
~50%
Target
Over 95%
AI Handling (Month 6)
Current
0%
Target
70%
Stakeholder Data Trust
Current
Low
Target
Over 80%
Part 3
System Architecture — Current State
Part 3.4
Tool Consolidation Roadmap
Consolidation Targets
Already Deprecated
Sunset Candidates
Client decision: Being replaced by Chili Piper as primary routing engine
Client chose Chili Piper as primary routing solution. Fix attribution preservation issues and rebuild integration properly.
Assess consolidation opportunities once primary routing solution is stabilized
Client Routing Strategy Direction
Client has made key strategic decisions regarding routing consolidation:
Strategic Direction
- Goal: ONE routing engine (not three) to consolidate routing logic
- Chili Piper is the chosen path for primary routing solution
- Traction Complete is being deprecated in Q1
Other Options Being Evaluated
- Default (mentioned by Brian as another option)
- Building with Integrator.io (third option)
Note: Client already passed on Qualified (acquired by Salesforce). Not pursuing this option.
Part 4
Critical Findings — HubSpot
Custom Funnel Stages Are the Root Cause
CRITICALHubSpot uses custom 'Marketing Funnel Stage' instead of native Lifecycle Stage. Funnel stamps are irreversible, re-qualification is impossible, and leads rot permanently.
Impact: Leads that re-engage can NEVER become MQLs again. Database full of stale records. Completely breaks lead recycling motion.
Recommendation: Use HubSpot lifecycle stages as designed. Allow lifecycle regression and progression.
Re-Qualification Failure Is Self-Inflicted
CRITICALHard 'has ever been MQL' conditions block re-entry. No lifecycle clearing mechanism exists.
Impact: Re-engaged prospects never convert. Nurture is meaningless. Marketing ROI suppressed.
Recommendation: Remove 'ever been MQL' hard blocks. Enable lifecycle-based re-qualification. Use engagement + fit to re-trigger MQL.
Workflow Volume Is a Symptom
HIGH~1,200-1,300 workflows in HubSpot. Built on 'quicksand' with no strong foundations.
Impact: Duplicate properties, complex dependencies, hard-coded values causing campaign association problems.
Recommendation: Lifecycle-first triggers replace hundreds of workflows. Campaign logic simplified. Brand logic enforced upstream.
Two Brands, One Instance — No Guardrails
HIGHCeligo Core + CloudExtend share infrastructure with no guaranteed exclusion logic. No inclusion list is being used in HubSpot to connect SFDC.
Impact: Cross-brand contamination, mis-attribution, incorrect nurture, undetected reporting errors.
Recommendation: Introduce explicit brand enforcement with hard exclusions, brand-aware workflows, and brand-locked nurture.
Routing & Notification Failures
HIGHEmail notifications broken for ~2 months. SDRs polling list views all day. Note: The 'Suggested AE' field is powered by Traction Complete, not Chili Piper.
Impact: SLA breaches, lost high-intent leads, territory leakage, shadow IT proliferation. Traction Complete deprecation will impact the Suggested AE field functionality.
Recommendation: HubSpot must act as routing safety net providing redundant alerting, SLA monitoring flags, and exception queues.
Part 5
Critical Findings — Salesforce
Email Notification Failure — SDRs Working Blind
CRITICALEmail notifications for new lead assignments broken for approximately 2 months. SDRs manually refreshing list views.
Impact: SLA breaches on high-intent leads, manual polling gaps, 15-25% of inbound leads not contacted within SLA.
“We're literally using a Google Sheet to track meetings because we can't trust the Salesforce numbers.” — Aaron Young
Attribution Failure in Chili Piper Integration
CRITICALMore than 50% of leads have attribution errors (per Brian). 'Suggested AE' field (powered by Traction Complete, not Chili Piper) is untrustworthy. 3 US states stuck in routing round robin.
Impact: Marketing ROI reporting compromised, compensation disputes, forecasting accuracy degraded. Traction Complete deprecation will require replacement strategy for the Suggested AE field.
“We can't tell which marketing channel actually drove the meeting because the attribution gets overwritten.” — Karen Lacambra
“The Suggested AE field is basically useless at this point — reps just manually route.” — Jerry Patterson
“Three states have been stuck in our round robin for months while we wait on hiring.” — Aaron Young
Gong Sync Failures — Meeting Overreporting
HIGHRescheduled meetings counted multiple times. Manual spreadsheet tracking used as workaround.
Impact: SDR performance metrics unreliable, trust in Salesforce numbers collapsed.
“I booked 4 meetings the week of 11/24, but the report only showed 1.” — Cece (SDR)
Data Hygiene Crisis
HIGHNo systematic lead cleanup. Kaitlyn: ~1,100 leads with zero activity. Meredith: ~1,300 leads. Total: ~2,400 leads in limbo.
Impact: Reporting accuracy compromised, operational inefficiency, cost waste, lost nurture opportunities.
Automation Technical Debt
HIGH534 active flows with significant overlap. 69 workflow rules must migrate to flows (Salesforce platform sunset deadline has passed—URGENT).
Impact: Operational risk, performance degradation, error propagation, compliance risk from deprecated workflow rules.
No Accurate Lifecycle Stage Tracking
MEDIUM-HIGHNo lifecycle stage tracking in Salesforce. Marketing cannot report on full lifecycle conversions in SFDC.
Impact: Strategic reporting impossible, cross-team misalignment, forecasting accuracy degraded.
Critical Context
The organization is currently using Full Circle as a vendor-driven, campaign-based attribution bypass instead of native lifecycle logic. This means the company is paying a vendor to compensate for foundational system misalignment. Full Circle should enhance attribution — not replace lifecycle logic, not dictate system architecture. Implementing proper lifecycle tracking does not break Full Circle's plans; it improves them by giving Full Circle cleaner, more truthful data to work with. We are strongly recommending against Full Circle as a path forward.
Part 6
Where the Audits Converge
Part 6.2
Campaign to BDR Flow Recommendations
Current State (Broken)
- Broken notifications
- Attribution overwrites
- No SLA enforcement
Target State (Fixed)
High Intent
Route to AE
If no action 4hr: escalate
Low Intent
Route to SDR
If no action 2hr: AI SDR
Key Recommendations
Define Intent Tiers
High → AE, Low → SDR
Implement SLA Enforcement
4hr AE, 2hr SDR escalation
Brand-Lock Campaigns
Celigo vs CloudExtend separation
Restore Attribution Chain
Lock fields, prevent overwrites
AI SDR Safety Net
Catches all missed SLAs
Part 7
BDR/SDR Team Assessment
| Rep | Location | H2 Meetings | Book Rate | Show Rate | CVR | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kaitlyn Scott | US | 146 | 14.6% | 84% | 9.2% | Top performer |
Meredith Kimball | US | 131 | 13.1% | 88% | 7.6% | Top performer |
Claire Philippe | EMEA | 103 | 10.3% | 63% | 3.8% | EMEA specialist |
Cece Capistrano | APAC | 102 | 10.2% | 69% | 4.7% | APAC coverage |
| TEAM AVERAGE | — | — | 10.7% | 77% | 6.3% | — |
Recent Changes
Q1 2026 Gap Analysis
Month 6 End State: 2 Humans + AI
Claire and CeCe transition out as AI assumes EMEA/APAC coverage
Team Transformation Timeline
Month 1-2
AI: 0% → 30%
Month 3-4
AI: 30% → 50%
Month 5-6
AI: 70%
Part 8
AI SDR Transition Framework
Selected Vendor: Unify
unifygtm.com
Approved January 20, 2026 — Awaiting Signature
Capability
AI reengagement campaigns
Capability
Speed-to-lead (<5 min first touch)
Capability
Automatic multithreading to buying committees
Human Benchmarks (AI Must Match)
These are the current human SDR metrics that AI must match or exceed to justify transition
| SDR | Book Rate | Show Rate | CVR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kaitlyn ScottTop | 14.6% | 84% | 9.2% |
| Meredith KimballTop | 13.1% | 88% | 7.6% |
| Claire Philippe (EMEA) | 10.3% | 63% | 3.8% |
| Cece Capistrano (APAC) | 10.2% | 69% | 4.7% |
| TEAM AVERAGE | 10.7% | 77% | 6.3% |
AI SDR must achieve ≥6% CVR on re-engagement to be considered successful in Phase 1
Phased Rollout Plan
Re-Engagement
~7,500 stale leads
Speed-to-Lead
~40% of real-time MQLs
Multi-Threading
All MQLs
Full-Funnel (Optional)
Any list, any segment
Implementation Timeline
Vendor Selected
Unify approved
Contract
Awaiting signature
Setup + Warmup
Weeks 1-3
Phase 1 Launch
Week 4
Phase 2
Week 5-6
Full Deploy
Week 7+
Deploy Timing Impact
Mid-Feb deploy (7 wks)
~195
Early Feb deploy (9 wks)
~205
Full quarter (13 wks)
~209
Every week of delay = ~5-8 fewer opps
How AI SDR Closes the Gap
| Use Case | Mechanism | Impact | Additional Opps |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speed-to-lead | First touch <5 min on all MQLs | +2-3% on low intent | +15-20 |
| Re-engagement | 7,500 stale leads @ 2% book | Additive pool | +10-15 |
| Instant demo follow-up | When AEs don't respond in SLA | Captures leakage | +5-10 |
| Total AI SDR Contribution | +30-45 | ||
Implementation Questions Answered
Lead selection criteria
Phase 1: 7,500 stale leads. Phase 2: real-time MQLs. Phase 3: multi-threading on all inbound.
Human-in-the-loop process
Humans control messaging templates, can review before send, handle all responses. Autonomy increases as performance validates.
Leading indicators
Response rate, positive reply rate, book rate, show rate, time to first touch, contacts per account.
Benchmarking
H2 2025 data by rep provides baseline. Weekly AI vs human comparison planned.
Meeting booking
Chili Piper remains scheduling tool. AI proposes correct AE calendar based on territory/account mapping.
Timeline
Weeks 1-3: Setup + warmup. Week 4: Phase 1. Week 5-6: Phase 2. Week 7+: Full deploy.
Identity
TBD — options: individual domain (jack@celigo.com) or general (sales@celigo.com).
Part 9
Unified Transformation Roadmap
Phase 1: Emergency Stabilization
Month 1
Phase 2: Architecture Correction
Month 2-3
Phase 3: Operational Cleanup
Month 3-5
Phase 4: Attribution & Trust Rebuild
Month 5-6
Part 10
Success Metrics & Exit Criteria
Note: Exit criteria, definition targets, and owners are pending final review from Cole and Tess.
| Metric | Current | Month 3 | Month 6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| MQL → Opp Conversion | 6.3% | 8% | 10% |
| Speed to Lead | Unknown | Under 2 hours | Under 5 minutes |
| AI Handling | 0% | 30% | 70% |
| Human SDRs | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| Regional Coverage | US only | All regions | All (AI primary EMEA/APAC) |
Immediate
Month 1-2
Medium-term
Month 3-4
Long-term
Month 5-6
Appendix
Key Stakeholder Quotes
Appendix
Strategic Option: HubSpot Instance Rebuild
Full HubSpot Instance Rebuild
A complete HubSpot instance rebuild is a viable strategic option if incremental fixes prove untenable. Brian raised this as a real question during discussions.
Benefits of Fresh Start
- Delete all contacts/records from HubSpot and start clean
- Re-establish syncing logic from scratch with proper architecture
- Remap objects with clean field structure and naming conventions
- HubSpot now allows ability to move workflows from one instance to another
- Eliminates years of technical debt in one move
- Not unusual for companies of Celigo's size (confirmed by Ani)
Significant Tradeoffs
- 3-6 month total timeline to fully reconfigure instance from ground up. MarOps could be back in HubSpot after 2-3 months, with remaining time for optimization and stabilization.
- Marketing operations paused for 2-3 months during initial rebuild and migration phase
- Marketing team unable to do anything other than work on this rebuild during migration phase
- Day-to-day marketing campaigns and activities halted during initial 2-3 month migration window
- Revenue impact from paused marketing activities during rebuild phase
Alternative: Incremental Revision Approach
Keeping HubSpot as-is and working on incremental revisions is possible and allows the team to continue day-to-day marketing operations without interruption. However, there is a critical tradeoff: the longer this approach is stretched out, the more data will continue to accumulate that will eventually need to be redone or cleaned up.
- Marketing can continue operating while fixes are implemented in parallel
- No operational pause required — campaigns continue running
- Lower risk of revenue disruption from paused campaigns
- Critical consideration: Every day of delay means more data accumulates under the old, flawed structure — creating more cleanup work later
Recommendation
Evaluate this decision based on Q1 pipeline health and marketing's capacity to absorb a full operational pause. If incremental fixes show progress in Phase 1 (first 4-6 weeks), continue with revision approach. If foundational issues prove too deeply entrenched, pivot to full rebuild as a strategic reset.
Appendix
Strategic Option: Marketing Operations Partnership
The Matchbox as an Extended Arm
An extended MarOps partnership is a viable strategic option to give the internal team the bandwidth they need.
The Core Problem
The MarOps team has grown recently, but they feel like they're stuck in reactive mode. Stakeholders pull them into day-to-day tasks, reducing their bandwidth to fix HubSpot or Salesforce. This leads to data cleanup and implementation work required to get to a good spot taking much longer. Without committed personnel focused solely on the work, there is a fear of being stuck playing catchup and allowing data issues to pile up.
Benefits of Partnership Model
- Internal team stays responsive to stakeholder requests
- Dedicated arm focused on data cleanup and implementation
- Breaks the reactive cycle — structural work actually gets done
- Prevents data issues from compounding further
Significant Considerations
- 3-6 month initiative minimum
- If re-implementing from scratch, timeline extends longer
- Current state is disjointed — this is not a quick fix
- Requires coordination and clear ownership boundaries
Recommendation
Evaluate this option based on MarOps team capacity after Phase 1 begins. If the internal team cannot execute foundational fixes while managing day-to-day stakeholder demands, this partnership model provides the committed personnel needed to reach a stable operational state.
Fact-Check
Evidence Strength
Document prepared by The Matchbox | Celigo Systems Audit & Diagnostic | January 2026