Service Architecture Map
How the service actually operates — not how management describes it
Acquisition Channel
Primarily broker-referred. Customer has no prior relationship with the brand before onboarding begins. The expectation gap is structurally embedded before the service starts.
Map finding
Three of six service nodes show structural failure. The contact center is operating as the system of last resort for every upstream breakdown — masking true operational cost and creating a dependency that degrades under the growth assumptions in the thesis.
Friction Audit
Where operational drag is concentrated, what drives it, and what it costs
Failure point
Severity
Annual cost
Onboarding abandonment
Digital completion failure drives phone channel overflow. 34% default rate × $18 cost differential × projected new member volume. Root cause: form sequence mapped to internal process, not member cognition.
Critical
$3.4M
Claims rework cycle
61% first-submission failure. $14 per re-contact × ~300K claims annually. Submission UI maps to backend fields, not member mental model. No inline validation.
Critical
$4.2M
Renewal confusion churn
Months 10–13 churn from members who cannot explain their own coverage. No proactive outreach. $1,200 avg. member LTV impact per churned member.
High
$1.2M
Portal abandonment
71% mobile abandonment. Navigation mirrors internal org chart. Members default to phone. Structural nav problem, not content problem.
Medium
$0.3M
Total identified drag — conservative estimate
$9.1M / yr
Friction finding
The $9.1M figure is conservative — it excludes brand erosion, secondary churn from word-of-mouth, and the regulatory exposure that comes with claims SLA degradation at scale. The structural driver across all four failure points is the same: the service was designed inside-out, for operational convenience rather than member cognition. That is a fixable problem, but it requires deliberate remediation, not incremental improvement.
Scale Stress Test
How the service architecture performs under the growth assumptions in the thesis
Current members
82K
baseline at assessment
Thesis target (yr 3)
210K
2.6× growth required
Contact center capacity
~95K
before structural failure
Contact center load43% capacity
▲ Threshold at 45%. Thesis requires 2.6×. System fails before year 2.
Claims SLA compliance72% load
▲ Threshold at 80%. SLA degrades to 14-day avg resolution at thesis volume.
Digital onboarding completion66% digital
▲ Model assumes 80% digital. Current: 66%. Gap compounds with member growth.
Current state
At current scale the architecture is stressed but functional. Drag the slider above to simulate growth toward the thesis target and observe where the system begins to fail.
Valuation Impact Summary
Experience failures translated into numbers for the model
Annual drag (identified)
$9.1M
preventable annual cost
Remediation cost est.
$2.4M
to fix root causes
Net valuation exposure
$18–24M
at 2–2.5× EBITDA
Onboarding drag (annual)
$3.4M
Claims rework (annual)
$4.2M
Renewal confusion churn (annual)
$1.2M
Portal abandonment (annual)
$0.3M
Total annual drag
$9.1M+
At 2.0× EBITDA multiple
$18.2M overpayment risk
At 2.5× EBITDA multiple
$22.8M overpayment risk
Instrument finding
The service architecture as assessed does not support the investment thesis at current price. The operational drag is real, quantifiable, and structurally embedded. It will not resolve without deliberate remediation. Recommend a price adjustment or escrow provision of $18–24M, conditional on 100-day post-close remediation milestones.
100-Day Remediation Plan
Three phases. Four workstreams. $9.1M drag recoverable within 18 months.
Day 1Day 100
Phase 1: Stabilize (d1–30)
Phase 2: Redesign (d31–70)
Phase 3: Validate (d71–100)
Days 1–30. No redesign yet. Identify fastest interventions to reduce cost and stop compounding damage. Quick wins only — no engineering sprints until Day 20.
Onboarding triage
$420K / mo recoverable›
D1–5Experience lead
Map actual completion failure points
Session replay analysis of drop-off screens. Identify top 3 abandonment points. Diagnosis only — no changes yet.
D6–12Product + ops
Deploy phone-to-digital rescue flow
Members who call during onboarding receive an SMS link back to their exact drop-off point. No dev work required — existing platform supports it. Est. 12–15% reduction in phone overflow.
D13–30Content + product
Rewrite top 3 failure-point screens
Copy and label rewrite only — no UI rebuild. Target screens with highest abandonment. A/B test against control. Expected 8–10% completion lift.
Claims rework reduction
$680K / mo recoverable›
D1–7Ops analyst
Categorize rework by failure type
Pull 90 days of re-contact reasons. Bucket into: missing documentation, wrong field entry, member confusion, system error. Prioritize by volume × cost.
D8–20Ops + comms
Deploy pre-submission checklist
Single-page guide sent 48 hours before claim window. Addresses top 3 rework categories. No system changes — ops and email only.
D21–30Engineering
Add inline validation to submission form
Surface errors at field level before submission. Targets top 2 system-detectable failure types. Est. 15–18% rework reduction in first month.
Contact center deflection
$110K / mo recoverable›
D1–10CC ops
Identify top 10 call reasons
Tag last 30 days of contact center volume by reason code. Map each to upstream failure point. This list drives Phase 2 redesign priorities.
D11–30Comms + product
Deploy self-serve answers for top 5 reasons
Surface existing FAQ content for highest-volume call reasons via IVR and post-call SMS. Target 8% deflection in 30 days.
Phase 1 exit condition
Onboarding phone overflow reduced ≥10%. Claims rework volume down ≥12%. Contact center top-10 reasons documented and mapped upstream. All three required before Phase 2 begins.
Days 31–70. Fix root causes, not symptoms. Structural redesign of onboarding, claims, and renewal architecture. Highest execution risk phase.
Onboarding flow rebuild
Target: 20% completion lift›
D31–40Experience lead
Redesign information architecture
Reorganize steps around member mental model, not internal process. Progressive disclosure for complex inputs. Reduce required fields at each step.
D41–55Product + eng
Build and test revised flow
Engineering build with usability testing against 8–10 representative members before release. Iterate on top 3 issues found in testing.
D56–70Product + ops
A/B rollout — 50% new flow
Release to 50% of new members. Monitor completion rate and phone overflow. Gate full release on ≥15% completion improvement.
Claims experience redesign
Target: 35% rework reduction›
D31–45Experience + eng
Redesign submission UI around member tasks
Remap from backend field structure to member task structure: What happened → When → Who treated you → Upload. Reduces cognitive load at each step.
D46–60Engineering
Build status visibility into portal
Real-time claim status with plain-language milestones: Received → Under review → Decision pending → Resolved. Eliminates the top single call driver.
D61–70Comms + eng
Deploy proactive status notifications
Push SMS/email at each status change. Member knows before they wonder. Target: 20% reduction in status-inquiry contacts within 2 weeks.
Renewal architecture
Target: 15% churn reduction›
D31–45Comms + experience
Design proactive renewal journey
90-day pre-renewal sequence: Month 3 — coverage summary. Month 2 — personalized usage snapshot. Month 1 — one-click re-enroll. Converts confusion into confidence.
D46–70Marketing + product
Build and deploy renewal sequence
Marketing automation build with personalization tokens. Test send to 10-month cohort. Monitor against churn control group. Submit for compliance review Day 31.
Phase 2 exit condition
Onboarding A/B showing ≥15% improvement. Claims rework down ≥25% from baseline. Renewal sequence live and sending. All three required before Phase 3.
Days 71–100. Confirm fixes are holding. Lock in learnings. Produce the escrow milestone report.
Target drag recovery
$4.8M
annualized run rate by d100
Remaining drag
$4.3M
structural — months 4–18
Escrow release
Day 100
if milestones confirmed
Milestone confirmation
›
D71–80Product + ops
Full rollout of validated onboarding flow
A/B gates passed. Full release. Confirm completion rate holds at scale. Monitor phone channel daily for regression.
D75–85Ops + experience
Claims rework audit
Pull 30-day post-redesign rework rate. Compare to pre-close baseline by failure category. Confirm ≥30% reduction before milestone sign-off.
D80–95CC ops
Contact center volume analysis
Measure call reason shift from pre-close baseline. Confirm top-5 stabilization interventions holding. Project 12-month forward trajectory.
D95–100Raven Manocchio
Milestone report and escrow release memo
Formal documentation of achieved vs. target metrics across all workstreams. Recommendation on escrow release — full, partial, or deferred. Roadmap for remaining structural drag through month 18.
100-day outcome
If exit conditions are met across all three phases: $4.8M annualized drag recovered, escrow provision released, and a documented roadmap for the remaining $4.3M over months 4–18. The investment thesis is restored. The business performs the way the pitch deck said it would.