one agent across many inventories
A mandate desk carries several developments at the same time, each with its own configurations, price bands and sales owner. The first conversation has to work out which of them the lead actually belongs to — and that is a matching problem before it is a sales problem.
inside the call
metrikAapne humare ek project ke liye enquiry ki thi. Main samajh loon ki aap exactly kya dhoondh rahe hain?
lead3BHK, ready possession, around 1.2 crore.
metrikReady possession mein us budget pe do options hain — dono same area mein hain. Aap dono ke baare mein sunna chahenge?
leadHaan, dono bata dijiye.
sample conversation · hinglish · not a customer recording
the challenge
A lead enquires about one listing but is often a better fit for another. Working that out takes someone who holds the whole portfolio in their head, and that person is usually the one who is busiest. So the lead gets answered about the listing they happened to click, and the better match never comes up.
The mirror problem is worse: a lead is routed to a project they were never going to buy, the salesperson spends a week on it, and the desk concludes the lead source is bad when the matching was.
the strategy
Metrik holds every project on the mandate, not just the one the enquiry came from. It captures the requirement first and compares it against the portfolio second, so the match is made on what the lead said rather than on which link they clicked.
Where more than one project fits, the agent says so plainly and lets the lead react. Where none fits, it records that too — an honest no-match is more useful to a mandate desk than a forced routing.
requirement first
The call deliberately does not open with the project the lead enquired about. It opens with what they are looking for, because anchoring on the original listing is exactly what produces the wrong match.
Configuration, budget band, possession preference and area come first; the enquiry source is kept as context, not as the answer.
matching the inventory
Project logic compares the captured requirement against the configurations, price bands and possession status of every development on the mandate. The output is a shortlist with reasons, not a single silent pick.
If two projects match, both are surfaced. If the budget sits just under a band, that is recorded as a near-match rather than dropped, because it is the kind of thing a sales manager wants to decide themselves.
the right owner
Each development on a mandate has its own sales owner. Once the inventory is matched, assignment logic picks the owner for that project and the handoff goes to them — with the shortlist and the reasoning attached, so they can see what else was considered.
Where the requirement matched nothing, the lead is routed to the desk manager with the gap spelled out instead of being pushed at the nearest project.
outcome
Leads land against the inventory they actually fit, and the reasoning behind that is visible to the person who receives them. Near-matches surface as decisions for a human rather than disappearing.
Across the whole mandate, every conversation produces the same structured requirement — which is what makes portfolio-level questions answerable at all.