Naren Yeah, the 20-min lag example — picture this: prospect views the contract a third time at 1am, DocuSign webhook fires instantly, your engine tags it high signal. But the AE had a call 30 min earlier where the prospect said they're going with someone else. AE updated the CRM to closed-lost at 12:45. Your last CRM poll was 12:40. So your engine sees: 3 views in 36h + active deal + late-stage + assigned owner. Everything passes. Manager gets a "high intent" alert on a deal that's already dead.
At your current scale it's probably rare enough to shrug off. But when you've got 50 integrations with different refresh rates, every signal is potentially sitting on stale context somewhere — and the manager can't manually verify each one without defeating the purpose of the engine.
That's why I'd bake staleness into scoring now rather than later. Doesn't need to be complex — even just flagging "CRM context is X min old" in the confidence output changes how the recipient treats it. System that knows what it doesn't know compounds trust. System that presents stale context with full confidence erodes it.
I agree with targeting managers, that's the right call. Signals need someone with authority to act, not just observe. The thing I'd watch for: if every signal routes to one manager, you've just moved the drowning problem up a level. The architecture question is really about ownership routing — signal goes to the person who can close it, manager sees the pattern across signals, not every individual alert.
That's what separates a decision engine (which I believe you're building towards) from a "smarter" dashboard.
Happy to see the demo — send it over whenever!
