EN/DELog inBook a callGet started
All articles
Scoring & Research

Understand P1, P2, P3, and DQ

Use P1, P2, P3, and DQ to make consistent review decisions—not as automatic truth. A priority is useful only when the team shares a definition and checks company fit, persona fit, source evidence, and the next action together.

Your workspace definitions remain authoritative. The intended pattern in the approved brief is: P1 is the strongest and most immediate, P2 supports timely proactive review, P3 is usually for monitoring or a later reason to engage, and DQ removes an irrelevant lead or signal.

Before you start

  • Read the approved priority definitions in your workspace.
  • Confirm that company, persona, and signal data is available.
  • Know which actions the team permits for each priority.
  • Use positive, negative, and boundary examples.
  • Do not treat a priority as consent or permission to send.

Read each result consistently

ResultTypical interpretationTypical next action
P1A strong, clear, and time-relevant signal under the approved definition.Review first; verify evidence and ownership before any outreach.
P2A meaningful reason for proactive review, but not the strongest immediate intent.Review in the normal queue and act only if fit and evidence hold.
P3A weaker or longer-term signal.Monitor, add context, or revisit later.
DQThe lead or signal is not relevant for the defined purpose.Exclude with a reproducible reason.

Signalist lead review showing P1, P2, P3, DQ, reasoning, and source context.

Combine fit and signal strength

A strong signal from the wrong company or persona is not automatically valuable. A highly suitable lead with a weak signal may belong in monitoring rather than immediate outreach.

  • Company fit: does the organisation match the target segment?
  • Persona fit: does the person have a relevant role or influence?
  • Signal evidence: what happened, when, and according to which source?
  • Priority definition: does the evidence meet the approved threshold?
  • Next action: is review, monitoring, research, outreach, or DQ appropriate?

Steps

  1. **Check fit first. **Review the company and persona segments before interpreting the signal.
  2. **Read the source and summary. **Confirm what happened, when, and whether the evidence supports the wording.
  3. **Compare with the approved definition. **Use the current rules and their examples.
  4. **Assign P1 sparingly. **Reserve it for evidence that meets the strongest approved threshold.
  5. **Use P2 and P3 deliberately. **Choose timely review for P2 and monitoring or later context for P3 according to team rules.
  6. **Document DQ. **Record whether the reason is company fit, persona fit, signal relevance, data quality, or a protected exclusion.
  7. **Choose the next action. **Keep permissions, sender readiness, ownership, and message review separate from the priority decision.

Signalist calibration sample with anonymized positive, negative, and boundary examples for each priority.

Review and safety checks

  • The priority matches the approved definition and examples.
  • The source supports the signal summary.
  • Company and persona fit were reviewed.
  • The wording does not overstate intent or urgency.
  • DQ has an understandable reason.
  • The next action still includes required human, ownership, and sender checks.

Signalist final review queue showing company and persona fit, priority, exclusion reason, and next action.

Troubleshooting

ProblemSolution
Most signals become P1Tighten the P1 definition and examples so it is reserved for explicit or exceptionally strong evidence.
Reviewers interpret P2 differentlyAdd positive, negative, and boundary examples, then calibrate disputed cases.
A strong signal belongs to an unsuitable personaKeep signal strength and persona fit separate. Exclude, reassign, or find the appropriate person.
DQ reasons are inconsistentUse a small controlled vocabulary for company fit, persona fit, signal relevance, data quality, and protected exclusions.
The displayed priority conflicts with the evidenceKeep the record in review and correct or escalate the scoring logic before action.

Frequently asked questions

Is P1 automatic approval to send?

No. Verify evidence, fit, ownership, opt-outs, sender readiness, and the message first.

Can a strong lead have a weak signal?

Yes. Company and persona fit can be strong while the current event is weak; monitoring may be appropriate.

Can a strong signal be DQ?

Yes. The company, person, source, or event can still be irrelevant to the defined use case.

How should DQ be documented?

Use a concise reason another reviewer can reproduce, such as company non-fit, persona non-fit, irrelevant signal, or protected exclusion.

How often should priorities be calibrated?

Review examples whenever definitions, segments, sources, or outcomes change, and when reviewers become inconsistent.

Do definitions have to match this article exactly?

No. Use the approved definitions in your workspace; this article explains how to apply them consistently.

Keep reading

Set up copywriting, prompts, and templates

Use Copywriting settings for shared style and delivery rules, and use Templates for reusable prompts, replies, and Deep Research instructions. Each campaign still needs the correct list, signal, persona, language, and sender context.

Review and approve the Knowledge DB

Review every Knowledge DB section before approving it for research or copywriting. Approval means the content is trusted enough to influence customer facing output, so persuasive wording is not a substitute for accurate evidence.

Write effective Deep Research prompts

Write Deep Research prompts around a decision: qualify an account, verify a signal, identify the relevant role, or find a factual conversation angle. A focused prompt produces more useful results than an open ended request to research everything.