Recruitment Note — Revision v1

Why this exists. pilot-package-additions-v1.md §A is a strong note and most of it should be sent as written. Three passages in it are wrong, and all three are the kind of thing the recipient discovers rather than the sender. This file replaces those three and leaves the rest alone.

Full reasoning in strategic-review-v1 §4 (compliance), §2 (time), §3.5 (the scale question).

The three changes

#	Passage	Problem	Severity
1	”Planning and education only, so there’s nothing to clear with compliance.”	Contradicted by SDC’s own Risks SSOT §6.3 — both channels require supervisor pre-approval of client-facing material, and every piece of this kit is client-facing material carrying the advisor’s brand	Critical — do not send as written
2	”Roughly 90 minutes all in for your first one.”	The kit’s own instructions add up to ≈6 hours for a first run, ≈2.2 hours per client after that	High
3	(absent) — no answer to why a one-to-one process, when the project’s own analysis says scale beats one-to-one by 20×	An advisor who is being asked for their scarce hours deserves to know why this shape	Medium

Replacement text

1 — Compliance

Remove:

No product, no leverage, no forecast. Planning and education only, so there’s nothing to clear with compliance.

Replace with:

No product, no leverage, no forecast — it’s built to be cleared, not to dodge clearing. Client-facing material goes to your supervisor for approval like anything else does; the point is that this one gives them nothing to argue with. Every output carries its assumptions on its face, nothing in it determines suitability, and I’ll send you a one-page summary written for whoever reviews it.

What makes this stronger than the original claim: it tells the advisor something useful about their own working life instead of something they will discover is false. It also names a deliverable — the one-pager — that SDC’s Risks department has already specified (Canada-Leverage-Compliance.md §6.6) and should produce before this note goes out.

2 — Time

Remove:

What I’d want from you: run it once, with one client you want to keep. Roughly 90 minutes all in for your first one. Then twenty minutes telling me what was useless, what was missing, and whether you’d do it again.

Replace with:

What I’d want from you: run it once, with one client you want to keep.

Honest about the time, because I’d rather you decline than resent it: your first one is about half a day — an hour or so reading it, an hour running the numbers on yourself first, and the rest on the client. After that it settles to roughly two hours per client, most of it before the meeting. There’s a calculator in the kit that breaks that down line by line and lets you argue with every number in it.

Then twenty minutes telling me what was useless, what was missing, and whether you’d do it again.

Why this is the right trade. Half a day is a bigger ask than ninety minutes and a smaller number of advisors will say yes. The ones who do will finish. An advisor told ninety minutes who spends six hours does not fill in the feedback form saying it was too long — they run it once, say nothing, and never book the second meeting. That outcome produces no referrals, no retention effect, and no usable pilot data, which is the whole point of the pilot.

3 — Why one-to-one

Add, after the “three things it’s built to do” paragraph:

One thing you’ll probably think and might not say: a one-to-one meeting is an expensive way to deliver this, and you’d be right. The scaled version — an email that goes to your whole book the week a decline starts — is worth far more per hour of your time. I can’t build that one until I know which parts of this actually land with a real client, and the only way to find that out is the slow version, once.

What to leave exactly as it is

The rest of the note is well built and the reasoning behind it holds. In particular, keep:

“I’d rather have you tell me it’s wrong now than find out later” — sets the right frame for blunt feedback
“Yours to keep and use regardless of what you tell me” — and the reasoning in the notes that making it contingent turns a favour into a transaction
“A process advisors admire and never run is worth nothing” — this is the project’s own best sentence and it is the one the changes above are in service of
The three named benefits: learn the client’s full situation, be harder to replace, earn a referral ask that doesn’t feel like one

One change to the surrounding advice

The note’s own guidance says “keep it to three advisors.” The reasoning — that more produces contradictory feedback before there is anything stable to contradict — applies to feedback volume, not to recruitment volume. Three recruited typically yields one or two completed runs.

Recruit five or six to get three completed Discoveries. Then hold the feedback synthesis to those three.

Before this note is sent at all

Two blockers from strategic-review-v1 §8, both outside this file:

R1 — the harmful list does not exist in the vault. The note promises “the client handouts”; the reference card requires the advisor to hand the harmful list over in Stage 2 and again at the door. The pilot cannot run without it.
R3 — the compliance one-pager promised by the replacement text in §1 above. Owned by Risks, specified in Canada-Leverage-Compliance.md §6.6.

A third, from §8 R5: run the Discovery on yourself before sending this, not after. The kit’s own rule — “rushing to step 4 is the most likely way to spend your best relationships on a first draft” — applies to advisor relationships too, and there are fewer of those than client relationships.

strategic-review-v1 — the full review this revision comes from
pilot-package-additions-v1 — the note being revised
Canada-Leverage-Compliance — §6.3, §6.6
MDW-review