# Eval Results: carrier-relationship-management

**Mode:** Baseline (No Capability Context)  
**Version:** 1.0.0  
**Model:** claude-sonnet-4-20250514  
**Timestamp:** 2026-02-25T05:30:12Z  
**Aggregate Score:** 90.3%  
**Passed (>=70%):** 20/22

## Summary by Difficulty

| Difficulty | Avg Score | Count |
|---|---|---|
| Easy | 90.0% | 7 |
| Medium | 95.6% | 9 |
| Hard | 82.9% | 6 |

## Summary by Category

| Category | Avg Score | Count |
|---|---|---|
| compliance-vetting | 91.7% | 3 |
| contract-management | 89.2% | 3 |
| market-intelligence | 100.0% | 1 |
| portfolio-strategy | 87.5% | 3 |
| rate-negotiation | 97.5% | 4 |
| relationship-management | 78.8% | 4 |
| rfp-process | 88.8% | 2 |
| scorecarding | 100.0% | 2 |

## Scenario Details

### CRM-001: Basic carrier scorecard evaluation and allocation recommendation

**Difficulty:** easy | **Category:** scorecarding | **Score:** 100.0%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| scorecard_analysis | 0.3 | pass | 1.0 |
| allocation_recommendation | 0.35 | pass | 1.0 |
| corrective_action | 0.35 | pass | 1.0 |

**scorecard_analysis:** Response correctly identifies Heartland as top-tier performer with specific metrics (97.2% OTD, 94% tender acceptance, 0.2% claims ratio, 98.5% invoice accuracy) and Crosswind as underperformer (88.1% OTD below 90% threshold, 76% tender acceptance below 80%, 1.4% claims ratio above 1%, 91.2% invoice accuracy below 93%). Uses appropriate performance categories and references specific KPI thresholds that align with carrier management standards.

**allocation_recommendation:** Recommends increasing Heartland's allocation from 60% to 70% based on superior performance, and reducing Crosswind from 30% to 20% due to poor metrics. Maintains spot at 10% appropriately. Notes the spot premium issue ($2.65 vs $2.28 benchmark) and applies the correct principle that top performers earn more volume. The recommendation is data-driven and proportional to performance differentials.

**corrective_action:** Identifies Crosswind for formal corrective action with specific metrics (OTD target >95%, tender acceptance >90%, invoice accuracy improvement), defines 30-day timeline, includes root cause analysis requirement for claims, and implies consequences through volume reduction already implemented. Recommends direct engagement with account manager and includes structured improvement plan with measurable targets.

---

### CRM-002: FMCSA compliance vetting for new carrier onboarding

**Difficulty:** easy | **Category:** compliance-vetting | **Score:** 82.5%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| compliance_assessment | 0.4 | pass | 1.0 |
| onboarding_recommendation | 0.35 | partial | 0.5 |
| rate_analysis | 0.25 | pass | 1.0 |

**compliance_assessment:** The response identifies all critical concerns: (1) 6-month operating period flagged as new entrant risk, (2) auto liability at $750K correctly identified as below industry standard $1M, (3) cargo coverage at $50K noted as inadequate, (4) Vehicle Maintenance CSA at 81st percentile explicitly called HIGH RISK in top 20% of worst performers, and (5) unrated safety rating attributed to insufficient operating history. The agent demonstrates clear understanding of FMCSA compliance standards and risk thresholds.

**onboarding_recommendation:** The response recommends DO NOT ONBOARD, which is more conservative than the conditional onboarding in the pass rubric. However, it does provide future conditions: insurance upgrade to $1M auto/$100K cargo, safety improvement requirements, 12-month operating history, and trial period structure. The agent identifies the below-market rate as a red flag for corner-cutting but doesn't explicitly frame it as a sustainability concern for rate renegotiation risk.

**rate_analysis:** The response correctly identifies Falcon Ridge's $1.85/mile as 7% below market benchmark ($1.98/mile) and 12% below current carrier ($2.10/mile). Critically questions the sustainability of below-market pricing, stating it 'may indicate corner-cutting on maintenance/compliance' and notes that '12% savings does not justify the operational and liability risks.' This demonstrates understanding that unsustainably low rates are a risk factor, not just a cost opportunity.

---

### CRM-003: Basic rate benchmarking and renegotiation trigger identification

**Difficulty:** easy | **Category:** rate-negotiation | **Score:** 100.0%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| lane_analysis | 0.4 | pass | 1.0 |
| action_recommendations | 0.35 | pass | 1.0 |
| market_awareness | 0.25 | pass | 1.0 |

**lane_analysis:** The agent correctly identifies all three outlier situations: (1) Atlanta-Chicago with Summit Express at 22.8% premium with good but not exceptional service metrics (93% OTD, 89% acceptance), (2) LA-Phoenix with Desert Sun at 18.6% DISCOUNT below market despite outstanding performance (96% OTD, 92% acceptance), and (3) Dallas-Memphis with Riverbend at 21% premium combined with poor performance (87% OTD, 72% acceptance). The agent explicitly recognizes the LA-Phoenix situation as below-market pricing that 'may not be sustainable' and poses carrier exit risk.

**action_recommendations:** The agent provides distinct, appropriate recommendations for each lane: (1) Summit Express ATL-CHI: renegotiate to $2.50-$2.55/mile (7-10% premium) justified by performance, (2) Desert Sun LA-PHX: proactive rate adjustment to $1.95-$2.00/mile to prevent carrier defection, and (3) Riverbend DAL-MEM: immediate renegotiation to $2.15/mile with performance guarantees or replacement. The recommendations correctly address both rate and service issues where applicable, and the agent explicitly identifies Desert Sun as needing a rate INCREASE rather than decrease.

**market_awareness:** The agent demonstrates clear understanding of carrier economics and sustainability concerns. For Desert Sun, they explicitly state 'significant underpayment may not be sustainable' and recommend proactive rate adjustment to 'prevent carrier defection to higher-paying customers.' The response shows awareness that below-market pricing creates carrier exit risk and that maintaining good carriers requires sustainable rates, not just the lowest possible rates.

---

### CRM-004: Drafting a carrier performance review communication

**Difficulty:** easy | **Category:** relationship-management | **Score:** 100.0%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| specificity_and_data | 0.35 | pass | 1.0 |
| tone_and_relationship | 0.3 | pass | 1.0 |
| actionable_next_steps | 0.35 | pass | 1.0 |

**specificity_and_data:** Response cites all specific metrics (97.5% OTD, 96% tender acceptance, 0.1% claims ratio, 99.2% invoice accuracy) and compares to portfolio averages (93.2% OTD, 87.4% tender acceptance). Includes quantified business context (18-month partnership, 5 lanes, 22 weekly loads, $3.8M annual spend). Proposes specific allocation increases (55% to 70% on top 3 lanes) and identifies new Seattle-Denver lane opportunity (4 loads/week). Avoids generic praise in favor of data-driven recognition.

**tone_and_relationship:** Tone is warm and partnership-oriented with phrases like 'strategic partnership,' 'exceptional dedication,' and 'growing with partners who share our operational standards.' Frames allocation increases as earned rewards ('reflecting our confidence' and 'appreciation for your outstanding service') rather than routine business decisions. References the carrier team's contributions and positions expansion as mutual commitment to strengthening the partnership. Avoids transactional or generic vendor language.

**actionable_next_steps:** Proposes specific actions: allocation increase from 55% to 70% for Q4, award of Seattle-Denver lane, and includes concrete ask for a call next week to discuss details. Structures next steps around both immediate changes (Q4 allocation review timing) and future growth opportunities. Provides clear path forward with specific meeting request rather than leaving communication as congratulatory note only.

---

### CRM-005: Spot vs. contract decision on an irregular lane

**Difficulty:** easy | **Category:** contract-management | **Score:** 85.0%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| strategy_recommendation | 0.4 | pass | 1.0 |
| carrier_sourcing | 0.3 | partial | 0.5 |
| risk_assessment | 0.3 | pass | 1.0 |

**strategy_recommendation:** The agent recommends a 'Hybrid Spot-First Approach' starting with spot market procurement for weeks 1-8, which aligns with the pass criterion of establishing volume patterns before contracting. The response correctly identifies that 1-2 loads/week is irregular and difficult to contract competitively, noting 'Volume is low and irregular' and 'Low volume makes lane unattractive to carriers.' The agent suggests transitioning to selective contracting 'if volume stabilizes' and provides a specific trigger of '3+ consistent loads/week' to reassess for dedicated contract rates, demonstrating understanding of volume thresholds for contracting decisions.

**carrier_sourcing:** The agent suggests digital freight platforms (DAT, Truckstop.com) and emphasizes targeting 'carriers with good safety ratings,' which shows awareness of vetting requirements. However, the response lacks specific mention of FMCSA compliance checking and insurance verification for spot carriers. While it mentions 'established carriers with good safety ratings,' it doesn't explicitly address the operational challenge of the 2,100-mile distance or driver domicile considerations. The recommendation to maintain '3-4 qualified carrier relationships' is sound but missing the broker partnership focus suggested in the pass criterion.

**risk_assessment:** The agent demonstrates strong risk awareness by identifying this as a new customer relationship with associated service risks, stating 'Your sales team just won a new customer' and tracking 'On-time delivery % (target: >95%)' as a key metric. The response includes a comprehensive risk management section covering capacity risk, rate volatility, service reliability, and customer growth risk with specific mitigations. The agent recommends tracking carrier performance from day one through a 'carrier scorecard system' and 'preferred carrier tiers,' building data for future decisions. The strategy includes quarterly reviews to transition from spot to contract as volume patterns emerge.

---

### CRM-006: Fuel surcharge table comparison and total cost analysis

**Difficulty:** easy | **Category:** rate-negotiation | **Score:** 100.0%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| cost_modeling | 0.5 | pass | 1.0 |
| fsc_analysis | 0.25 | pass | 1.0 |
| recommendation | 0.25 | pass | 1.0 |

**cost_modeling:** The agent correctly calculates total cost per load for both carriers at all three diesel price points, including linehaul, FSC, and detention components. Shows Southern Express at $1,652.64 vs Gulf Coast at $1,747.02 at current diesel ($3.92), and demonstrates the widening cost gap at $4.50 diesel ($1,729.20 vs $1,885.36). Properly identifies that Gulf Coast's lower linehaul is more than offset by their aggressive FSC structure at current and elevated diesel prices.

**fsc_analysis:** The agent identifies the critical FSC base price difference ($3.50 vs $2.90) and calculates how this $0.60/gal difference means Gulf Coast starts charging FSC much sooner. Correctly shows Gulf Coast's steeper increment rate ($0.018 vs $0.01) compounds the cost disadvantage. Explicitly notes this as a carrier tactic: 'lower linehaul with aggressive FSC' and demonstrates the math showing Gulf Coast's FSC rate of $0.367/mile vs Southern Express's $0.084/mile at current diesel.

**recommendation:** Recommends Southern Express as primary carrier based on total cost analysis rather than linehaul alone, despite Southern Express having the higher linehaul rate ($2.42 vs $2.28). Provides clear rationale citing cost advantage at current and elevated diesel prices ($94.38 cheaper at $3.92, $156.16 cheaper at $4.50), notes better protection against fuel cost escalation, and quantifies annual savings potential ($24,539). Shows understanding that Gulf Coast only becomes economical below ~$3.35/gal diesel.

---

### CRM-007: Routing guide failure analysis and remediation

**Difficulty:** easy | **Category:** portfolio-strategy | **Score:** 62.5%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| root_cause_diagnosis | 0.4 | partial | 0.5 |
| remediation_plan | 0.35 | partial | 0.5 |
| prevention | 0.25 | pass | 1.0 |

**root_cause_diagnosis:** The response correctly identifies carrier acceptance rate problems and notes that contract rates may be below market equilibrium, which shows awareness of the rate-market dynamic. However, it fails to connect the routing guide failure to the market cycle shift indicated by the OTRI. It frames this as a 'carrier capacity crisis' and suggests carriers are having 'performance problems' rather than recognizing that carriers are simply becoming selective in a tightening market (OTRI at 11%). The response doesn't identify that contract rates set in a softer market are now below carriers' floor, which is the core issue.

**remediation_plan:** The response recommends rate benchmarking against DAT and carrier calls to understand rejection reasons, which is directionally correct. It also suggests adding backup carriers, which addresses routing guide depth. However, it recommends a full 'routing guide rebuild' and 'carrier portfolio optimization' over 60-90 days rather than the targeted mini-bid approach on the top 5 lanes that would provide faster relief. The response is too broad and slow for an $85K/month bleeding problem that needs immediate rate adjustments on specific problem lanes.

**prevention:** The response recommends ongoing monitoring with weekly KPIs tracking tender acceptance rates, monthly carrier performance reviews, and quarterly rate adjustments - all key preventive measures. It suggests tracking spot percentage and cost variance, and proposes flexible contracts with market adjustment clauses. While it doesn't specifically mention the 80% threshold trigger or 15% DAT movement reopener clauses, it captures the essence of systematic monitoring and market-responsive contracting needed to prevent future routing guide failures.

---

### CRM-008: Rate negotiation strategy for contract renewal in a tightening market

**Difficulty:** medium | **Category:** rate-negotiation | **Score:** 100.0%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| market_context_awareness | 0.25 | pass | 1.0 |
| negotiation_strategy | 0.35 | pass | 1.0 |
| contingency_planning | 0.2 | pass | 1.0 |
| relationship_preservation | 0.2 | pass | 1.0 |

**market_context_awareness:** The response clearly acknowledges carrier-favorable market conditions, stating 'Market heavily favors carriers (13% OTRI, 18% spot premium)' and recognizes Pinnacle has legitimate grounds for increase by noting 'Acknowledge market pressures' in opening position. The strategy appropriately positions defensive rather than aggressive tactics given tight capacity.

**negotiation_strategy:** Response provides structured negotiation with clear phases: Opening at 3-4% increase, concession plan moving to 6% then 8% with performance ties, walk-away at 10%. Includes non-rate concessions like 2-year extension, fuel cost sharing, enhanced service commitments. Proposes creative solutions like volume commitments and operational efficiency sharing. Uses performance-based increases rather than blanket rate changes.

**contingency_planning:** Response identifies concentration risk explicitly ('Significant volume leverage' as both strength and challenge) and details backup plans: 'pre-qualified carrier alternatives,' '60% lane coverage at 5-8% premium,' and structured transition timeline with 90-day implementation. Recommends pre-qualifying 2-3 backup carriers before negotiation begins.

**relationship_preservation:** Strategy consistently frames negotiation as partnership evolution: 'Frame negotiation as partnership evolution, not adversarial,' 'Acknowledge Partnership Value,' and 'Position as problem-solving session, not win-lose negotiation.' Recognizes Pinnacle's strong performance (94% OTD, 91% tender acceptance) and emphasizes mutual value creation through enhanced service commitments and operational collaboration.

---

### CRM-009: RFP bid evaluation with competing carrier trade-offs

**Difficulty:** medium | **Category:** rfp-process | **Score:** 85.0%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| scoring_methodology | 0.3 | pass | 1.0 |
| routing_guide_design | 0.4 | pass | 1.0 |
| risk_identification | 0.3 | partial | 0.5 |

**scoring_methodology:** The agent applies weighted scoring systematically across all four criteria. For Rate: normalizes scores with Sunbelt (lowest cost) getting 10/10 and others scored proportionally. For Service: correctly flags Sunbelt's 91% as 'self-reported' versus verified performance from others, scoring it lower (6.0 vs 8.0-9.5). For Capacity: appropriately values Appalachian's 95% guarantee and Cincinnati hub location over Sunbelt's broker network model. For Ops Fit: rewards Appalachian's full EDI integration and penalizes Blue Ridge's limited EDI. Produces clear scoring tables with weighted calculations.

**routing_guide_design:** Awards Appalachian Express as primary (8.88 total score) based on best overall performance despite higher cost. Places Blue Ridge as secondary (6.9 score) recognizing asset-based reliability. Correctly positions Sunbelt as tertiary (6.85 score) for spot/emergency use given broker risks and unverified performance. Allocation is appropriate: 60% primary, 30% secondary, 10% tertiary. Recognizes that 12 loads/week justifies a 3-carrier routing guide structure for capacity security.

**risk_identification:** Identifies some key risks: notes Sunbelt's 'all-in rate provides cost certainty vs. FSC fluctuation risk' and flags their 'limited reference verification.' Recognizes broker model risks with Sunbelt's 'broker network' versus asset carriers. However, misses critical risks: doesn't identify that Sunbelt's $750K insurance is at FMCSA minimum (below $1M standard), doesn't explain that all-in rates lack fuel cost transparency for benchmarking, and doesn't fully articulate the broker vs. asset risk profile implications for a $2.8M lane.

---

### CRM-010: Carrier corrective action plan after service failures on JIT lane

**Difficulty:** medium | **Category:** scorecarding | **Score:** 100.0%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| corrective_action_plan | 0.3 | pass | 1.0 |
| chargeback_management | 0.25 | pass | 1.0 |
| contingency_planning | 0.3 | pass | 1.0 |
| relationship_management | 0.15 | pass | 1.0 |

**corrective_action_plan:** The response structures a comprehensive CAP with: (1) Immediate action within 24 hours including emergency meeting with operations manager and specific weekly reporting requirements; (2) 30-day targets including 95%+ OTD requirement and dedicated driver pool of minimum 3 drivers; (3) Clear consequences with split allocation (60% Velocity, 40% Midway) and volume shifts based on performance; (4) Specific weekly scorecards and daily status calls for monitoring; (5) Escalation triggers including contract termination consideration if targets not met. Goes beyond minimum requirements by including specific driver backup protocols and real-time tracking requirements.

**chargeback_management:** Addresses the $60K Honda chargebacks on multiple fronts: (1) Proactive communication to Honda procurement about remediation steps and requests meeting to discuss chargeback mitigation; (2) Proposes Velocity assumes 50% liability for Honda chargebacks during probation period as recovery mechanism; (3) Clearly prioritizes the Honda relationship noting '$12M revenue at stake' and positions chargebacks within broader relationship risk context; (4) Includes chargeback recovery negotiation in long-term success metrics. Demonstrates understanding that protecting the $12M customer relationship is paramount.

**contingency_planning:** Immediately activates backup capacity by contacting Midway Transport for 2-3 loads/week (significant increase from 1/month baseline) and tests with 1 load this week to validate capability. Implements split allocation (60% Velocity, 40% Midway) as immediate risk mitigation. Plans RFP for third carrier within 90 days to create true multi-carrier model with 50%/30%/20% allocation. Includes clear escalation triggers for shifting to 70% Midway if performance doesn't improve. Addresses JIT requirements through expanded delivery window negotiation and real-time tracking protocols.

**relationship_management:** Maintains constructive tone while setting firm accountability. Acknowledges driver turnover as legitimate operational challenge ('2 drivers resigned, 1 had a medical leave') without treating it as betrayal. Escalates to operations manager rather than just account manager, showing seriousness while remaining professional. Includes performance-based volume allocation rather than immediate termination, providing corrective action opportunity. Notes the plan 'balances immediate risk mitigation with long-term relationship preservation' - demonstrating understanding that this is a resource issue, not fundamental service failure, given historical 96% performance.

---

### CRM-011: Portfolio diversification analysis after single-carrier concentration risk

**Difficulty:** medium | **Category:** portfolio-strategy | **Score:** 100.0%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| diversification_strategy | 0.35 | pass | 1.0 |
| nhs_relationship_management | 0.3 | pass | 1.0 |
| alternative_carrier_plan | 0.2 | pass | 1.0 |
| risk_mitigation | 0.15 | pass | 1.0 |

**diversification_strategy:** The response provides a well-structured phased approach with 3 phases over 12 months, reducing NHS share by 7 points each in phases 1-2 and 6 points in phase 3. It correctly calculates the load redistribution impact (~29 weekly loads need redistribution from 85 to 56 weekly). The strategy prioritizes lowest-volume NHS lanes first in Phase 1, then implements dual sourcing (60/40 splits) in Phase 2, showing lane-level prioritization rather than treating all 15 lanes equally. The plan grows existing carriers (mentions elevating carriers currently at 14% and smaller shares) before adding new ones, which is operationally sound.

**nhs_relationship_management:** The response demonstrates strong relationship management by framing the diversification as 'strategic partnership evolution' rather than punishment. It specifically recommends transparent communication to 'frame as diversification, not dissatisfaction' and offers NHS a 32% minimum share with 'preferred partner status.' The plan positions the volume reduction as strategic risk management and explores value-added services like warehousing expansion. The final 32% share of $21.9M ($7M) is presented as a committed, premium relationship rather than a punitive reduction.

**alternative_carrier_plan:** The response takes a practical approach by elevating existing carriers (mentions growing 2-3 existing carriers currently at 14% and smaller shares) rather than fragmenting volume across all carriers. It plans to develop 1-2 new strategic partnerships while leveraging existing relationships. The plan sets clear performance standards (90% OTD target matching NHS, with performance gates requiring 90% OTD before additional volume). The approach balances portfolio growth with manageable carrier relationships, ending with 16 total carriers rather than excessive fragmentation.

**risk_mitigation:** The response identifies key service disruption risks and provides specific mitigation strategies. It includes gradual transition limits (no more than 2-3 lanes per month), performance gates for new carriers (must achieve 90% OTD before additional volume), and 'rapid NHS reactivation protocols for service failures.' The plan includes weekly scorecards for monitoring and establishes backup capacity agreements. The phased approach with performance monitoring ensures service quality is maintained throughout the transition, with contingency plans if new carriers underperform.

---

### CRM-012: Market intelligence interpretation and strategic positioning

**Difficulty:** medium | **Category:** market-intelligence | **Score:** 100.0%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| market_interpretation | 0.3 | pass | 1.0 |
| reefer_strategy | 0.35 | pass | 1.0 |
| dry_van_strategy | 0.2 | pass | 1.0 |
| financial_planning | 0.15 | pass | 1.0 |

**market_interpretation:** Agent correctly reads market signals as tightening into carrier-favorable phase: identifies OTRI at 9.5% and load-to-truck ratio of 4.8:1 as capacity constraints, connects declining tender acceptance (93% to 88%) to rate pressure, projects 15-25% rate increases through peak season, and specifically identifies produce season (April-June) as creating additional reefer capacity pressure. Demonstrates understanding of market cycle dynamics.

**reefer_strategy:** Agent recommends immediate action on reefer contracts: 'Accelerate Contract Renewals: Negotiate April 30 renewals immediately' with 10-15% increases, extend terms to 12-18 months, increase contracted percentage to 92-95%, establish dedicated capacity agreements, and build 'produce season war chest' of backup carriers. Correctly prioritizes reefer as critical priority and recommends pre-committing volume for capacity security.

**dry_van_strategy:** Agent addresses dry van strategy appropriately: recommends increasing contracted freight to 90-92%, prioritizes retention of carriers with >95% tender acceptance, implements performance-based rate adjustments, and maintains 8-10% spot exposure for flexibility. Recognizes the market pressure while treating dry van as less urgent than reefer.

**financial_planning:** Agent quantifies financial impact with specific projections: 15-25% rate increases through peak season, recommends establishing emergency spot market budget at 125% of current levels, includes proactive customer communication on rate pressures, and provides timeline for budget planning with quarterly rate review mechanisms. Demonstrates clear financial planning approach.

---

### CRM-013: Double-brokering investigation and carrier suspension decision

**Difficulty:** medium | **Category:** compliance-vetting | **Score:** 92.5%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| evidence_assessment | 0.25 | pass | 1.0 |
| immediate_actions | 0.35 | pass | 1.0 |
| long_term_response | 0.25 | pass | 1.0 |
| systemic_prevention | 0.15 | partial | 0.5 |

**evidence_assessment:** The response correctly identifies this as a 'clear pattern of unauthorized double-brokering' based on 3 confirmed instances, drivers unable to name dispatchers, and the critical compliance breach of an Unsatisfactory-rated carrier delivering freight. It recommends a comprehensive 90-day audit of Trident shipments and properly flags the severity of having non-compliant carriers in the supply chain.

**immediate_actions:** The response recommends immediately suspending all new loads to Trident, demanding written explanation with specific timeline (48 hours), implementing enhanced tracking of current shipments, and preserving evidence. It also mentions legal consultation regarding liability exposure and insurance implications, covering all key immediate protective actions.

**long_term_response:** The response provides a clear termination recommendation with solid rationale (30% of recent loads involved unauthorized carriers, systematic deception pattern). It references contract violations and includes operational continuity planning by activating backup carriers and redistributing the 10 weekly loads across existing network.

**systemic_prevention:** The response includes good prevention measures like enhanced carrier verification procedures, random verification at 15% of deliveries, and updated broker agreements with penalty clauses. However, it doesn't specifically recommend the 10-20% spot-check verification process for broker loads or clearly outline the carrier disclosure requirements in standard broker agreements as detailed as expected.

---

### CRM-014: Negotiating accessorial schedule during RFP

**Difficulty:** medium | **Category:** contract-management | **Score:** 82.5%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| rate_vs_operational | 0.35 | partial | 0.5 |
| negotiation_specifics | 0.35 | pass | 1.0 |
| savings_quantification | 0.3 | pass | 1.0 |

**rate_vs_operational:** The response correctly identifies detention as having both rate and operational components, proposing to reduce average detention time from 2.8 to 2.0 hours through operational improvements (appointment scheduling, pre-staging, dedicated dock doors). However, it misses the key insight that detention is primarily an operational issue - the response allocates only $225K of the $290K detention savings to operational improvements when detention events should be reduced by 40-50% operationally. For reweigh/reclass, it correctly identifies this as needing tolerance thresholds (±5% weight) but doesn't emphasize fixing the root cause classification process at origin. The response treats liftgate and residential appropriately as rate-negotiable items.

**negotiation_specifics:** The response provides specific negotiation targets: (1) Detention: increase free time from 2 to 3 hours and reduce rate from $85 to $75/hr; (2) Liftgate: tiered pricing at $100 standard/$75 high-volume vs current $125; (3) Residential: reduce from $95 to $80; (4) Reweigh: negotiate ±5% weight tolerance before fees apply. These are specific, benchmarked rates rather than blanket percentage reductions. The response includes structural terms like free time increases and tolerance thresholds, demonstrating understanding of accessorial negotiation mechanics.

**savings_quantification:** The response quantifies savings by category with specific calculations: Detention ($290K), Reweigh/reclass ($155K), Liftgate ($70K), Residential ($48K), totaling $563K which exceeds the $555K target. It clearly separates rate savings ($338K) from operational savings ($225K) and acknowledges that both negotiation wins and operational changes are required to achieve the target. The math is detailed with event counts, rates, and reduction percentages, showing a credible path to the savings goal.

---

### CRM-015: Carrier financial distress detection and graduated response

**Difficulty:** medium | **Category:** compliance-vetting | **Score:** 100.0%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| risk_assessment | 0.3 | pass | 1.0 |
| graduated_response | 0.35 | pass | 1.0 |
| communication_approach | 0.2 | pass | 1.0 |
| contingency_planning | 0.15 | pass | 1.0 |

**risk_assessment:** The response correctly identifies this as HIGH risk based on the convergence of multiple financial distress indicators. It specifically recognizes insurance deterioration (multiple underwriter changes + surplus lines carrier) as a major red flag indicating standard markets declined coverage, CFO departure without replacement as leadership instability suggesting deeper financial problems, and connects late invoice payments with driver settlement delays to cash flow stress. The response demonstrates understanding that these indicators together create a more serious risk than individually, estimating 30-90 days to potential failure.

**graduated_response:** The response provides a well-structured graduated response plan with three phases: Phase 1 (immediate 7 days) reduces risk through credit hold and backup activation, Phase 2 (days 8-21) cuts volume 50% from 20 to 10 loads while maintaining critical capacity, and Phase 3 (days 22+) manages complete exit. It specifically addresses the Omaha-Minneapolis sole-source vulnerability with 'Emergency RFQ to 3 new carriers.' The plan includes specific triggers for escalation and balances exposure reduction with operational continuity.

**communication_approach:** The response recommends a professional, fact-based initial conversation within 24 hours, seeking to understand the carrier's situation rather than being confrontational. It includes specific key messages like 'Want to understand your current situation and how we can work together' and outlines information gathering on CFO replacement timeline, cash flow improvement plan, etc. The tone is described as 'Direct but professional; fact-based' which appropriately balances concern with relationship preservation.

**contingency_planning:** The response includes comprehensive contingency planning with a detailed backup carrier matrix showing primary and secondary backups for all 6 lanes, identifies the critical Omaha-Minneapolis capacity gap, quantifies financial exposure ($53,000 AR at risk), and includes success metrics for transition management. It addresses sudden failure scenarios through the Phase 1 backup activation and pre-positioning of secondary carriers on 5 of 6 lanes.

---

### CRM-016: Strategic carrier partnership proposal for growth

**Difficulty:** medium | **Category:** relationship-management | **Score:** 100.0%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| candidate_evaluation | 0.3 | pass | 1.0 |
| recommendation_and_rationale | 0.4 | pass | 1.0 |
| partnership_terms | 0.3 | pass | 1.0 |

**candidate_evaluation:** The response evaluates both carriers across all relevant dimensions: fleet size (Carolina 310 trucks vs Suncoast 180), geographic coverage (notes Carolina's strength in NC/GA and weakness in FL/AL, Suncoast's opposite profile), service quality with specific metrics (Carolina 95.8% OTD vs Suncoast 97.2%), technology readiness (Carolina has full EDI/GPS vs Suncoast EDI only), relationship maturity (3-year vs 1-year), and pricing (DAT +4% vs +2%). The analysis explicitly acknowledges geographic coverage gaps and provides a structured comparative table.

**recommendation_and_rationale:** Makes a clear recommendation for Carolina Transport Group with strong rationale: larger fleet capacity to absorb 40-50 weekly loads, superior technology integration for scaling, stronger 3-year relationship foundation, and perfect alignment with Charlotte DC (Phase 2). The response acknowledges Carolina's FL/AL weakness and proposes mitigation strategies including maintaining Suncoast as secondary carrier for FL-heavy lanes. The rationale balances operational capabilities with geographic coverage needs.

**partnership_terms:** Proposes comprehensive structured partnership terms including: (1) specific capacity commitments (80% of tendered loads, 35 FTL minimum weekly), (2) detailed pricing structure (DAT +2% improvement with volume incentives), (3) measurable SLAs (96% OTD, 95% tender acceptance), (4) technology integration requirements (GPS within 90 days), (5) 3-year duration with renewal options, and (6) clear performance penalties. The terms define mutual obligations and include quarterly reviews, geographic expansion requirements, and structured exit clauses.

---

### CRM-017: Hurricane response — carrier portfolio activation during regional disruption

**Difficulty:** hard | **Category:** portfolio-strategy | **Score:** 100.0%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| freight_triage | 0.3 | pass | 1.0 |
| carrier_activation | 0.3 | pass | 1.0 |
| customer_management | 0.2 | pass | 1.0 |
| post_storm_planning | 0.2 | pass | 1.0 |

**freight_triage:** The response clearly prioritizes loads into tiers: Tier 1 critical loads (Home Depot Austin 8 loads with $40K penalty, Lowe's OKC 6 loads with $21K penalty, Ferguson Dallas 4 loads for relationship protection), followed by facility-specific triage (Houston DC evacuate 15 critical loads immediately, defer 20 non-critical; San Antonio evacuate 10 priority loads). The agent correctly identifies Houston DC evacuation as highest priority due to $4.2M inventory at risk and calculates specific load counts and penalty exposures, demonstrating proper risk-based prioritization rather than treating all 85 loads equally.

**carrier_activation:** The response recommends direct carrier engagement through 'emergency hotline' activation of all 12 Texas carriers simultaneously, offers specific incentives (guaranteed detention pay $75/hour, fuel advances, $500 completion bonuses), and activates out-of-region backup carriers from Arkansas, New Mexico, and Louisiana. The plan includes dedicated carrier rep coordination and accepts premium rates up to 100% (though mentions $3.50/mile cap later). The approach prioritizes direct relationships over spot market posting and distinguishes between in-region and backup carriers.

**customer_management:** The response includes proactive customer communication with specific template messages, immediate notifications for critical loads, and differentiated messaging by customer tier. It provides specific details for each key customer (Home Depot Austin, Lowe's OKC, Ferguson Dallas) with realistic timelines and penalty considerations. The plan includes 24/7 emergency contact, regular updates every 6 hours, and force majeure penalty waiver processing, demonstrating proactive rather than reactive customer management.

**post_storm_planning:** The response includes comprehensive post-storm recovery planning: facility damage assessment teams, carrier performance tracking for future preferred status, 72-hour delivery make-up schedule, and 120-hour target for 90% operational recovery. It includes relationship management components (performance bonuses for carriers who stayed operational, lessons learned sessions) and documents all costs for insurance claims. The plan extends well beyond the 48-hour window with specific recovery timelines and carrier retention strategies for future RFP considerations.

---

### CRM-018: Volume loss renegotiation — proactive carrier communication strategy

**Difficulty:** hard | **Category:** rate-negotiation | **Score:** 90.0%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| proactive_communication | 0.3 | pass | 1.0 |
| renegotiation_strategy | 0.35 | pass | 1.0 |
| portfolio_optimization | 0.2 | partial | 0.5 |
| contract_management | 0.15 | pass | 1.0 |

**proactive_communication:** The response demonstrates excellent proactive communication strategy. It sequences conversations appropriately starting with Heritage Freight and Gateway Express (who already asked) within 48 hours and this week respectively, then Frontier and Ridgeview (affected but haven't noticed) within 1-2 weeks, and finally Mountain Line (unaffected) for relationship maintenance. The response emphasizes transparency with phrases like 'acknowledge volume decline transparently' and provides carrier-specific volume impact analysis (35% loss for Heritage, 20% for Gateway, 30% for Frontier, 18% for Ridgeview, no impact for Mountain Line). The timeline is clearly structured with specific weekly actions rather than waiting for carriers to discover the shortfall.

**renegotiation_strategy:** The response provides differentiated, carrier-specific strategies that address each carrier's unique situation. Heritage (highest impact, below tier threshold) gets immediate attention with 8-12% rate adjustment and guaranteed minimums. Gateway (moderate impact) gets 5-7% increase and lane expansion opportunities. Frontier (high impact but still Tier 1) maintains current rates for 90 days. Ridgeview (smallest impact) gets 3-5% adjustment. Mountain Line (unaffected) gets no concessions but potential expansion. The response explicitly acknowledges the contractual reopener clause ('28% volume decline triggers the >20% shortfall clause, giving carriers the right to reopen rates') and addresses tier pricing exposure for Heritage specifically. The strategy is proactive rather than reactive to carrier demands.

**portfolio_optimization:** The response shows some portfolio optimization thinking by offering to expand certain carriers' roles in remaining lanes (Gateway gets expanded role in unaffected lanes, Mountain Line gets potential volume expansion, Frontier gets first right of refusal on replacement volume). However, it doesn't explicitly recommend consolidating from 5 to 3-4 primary carriers or meaningfully restructuring the portfolio to give remaining carriers larger, more concentrated volumes. While it mentions giving carriers larger shares, it maintains all 5 carriers rather than using this opportunity for strategic consolidation that would provide more meaningful volume to fewer carriers.

**contract_management:** The response directly addresses contractual exposure by acknowledging 'the >20% shortfall clause, giving carriers the right to reopen rates' and emphasizes getting 'ahead of their discovery' before 'all carriers invoke this clause simultaneously.' It proposes specific contract amendments including term extensions (adding 6-12 months to current contracts), amended volume commitments, and structured concession ranges. The response recommends negotiating 'temporary rate adjustment' and 'contract stability through Q2' rather than allowing full market repricing. It also includes legal review to ensure amendments are within authority, showing proper contract management discipline.

---

### CRM-019: Mega-carrier acquisition impact — protecting service on critical lanes

**Difficulty:** hard | **Category:** relationship-management | **Score:** 92.5%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| pharma_lane_protection | 0.35 | pass | 1.0 |
| pre_close_actions | 0.3 | pass | 1.0 |
| post_close_monitoring | 0.2 | pass | 1.0 |
| long_term_positioning | 0.15 | partial | 0.5 |

**pharma_lane_protection:** The response immediately identifies the pharmaceutical lane as 'CRITICAL PRIORITY' and recognizes the $35K penalty exposure. It recommends immediately issuing an RFQ for specialized pharmaceutical carriers within 14 days, targeting carriers with FDA-compliant temperature monitoring and pharmaceutical certifications. The response specifically addresses the Louisville-St. Louis pharma lane with dedicated backup planning and requires Continental to provide performance guarantees with penalty pass-through clauses. This demonstrates clear understanding that the pharma lane cannot wait for post-acquisition performance evaluation.

**pre_close_actions:** The response recommends all key pre-close actions: (1) Schedule formal transition meeting with Continental leadership within next 7 days to understand integration plans, (2) Negotiate service level agreements with 97% OTD requirements and penalty clauses before close, (3) Qualify backup carriers within 14 days, (4) Leverage Tom's remaining tenure to document procedures and establish transition communication, and (5) Propose joint transition plan with Continental including performance guarantees. The response appropriately focuses on securing commitments and protections before the acquisition closes.

**post_close_monitoring:** The response outlines a comprehensive 90-day monitoring plan with specific metrics and triggers: daily monitoring of pharmaceutical lane for first 30 days, weekly performance reviews for 90 days, real-time temperature and GPS tracking verification. It defines clear escalation triggers including immediate backup activation if any pharma delivery is late (>1 hour), temperature excursions occur, or OTD drops below 95%. The 90-day performance measurement period with exit clauses provides structured decision points for volume reallocation.

**long_term_positioning:** The response acknowledges transition risks and plans for a 120-day timeline, recognizing that acquisitions create service disruption. It considers the fundamental operational changes (centralized dispatch in Kansas City vs. regional knowledge) and proposes diversified carrier strategy. However, it doesn't fully address the strategic implications of the relationship change from a 65-truck regional carrier to a 6,000-truck national carrier, or consider whether to proactively reduce concentration risk given Continental's different service model and network priorities.

---

### CRM-020: Detention cost crisis — operational root cause vs. carrier billing dispute

**Difficulty:** hard | **Category:** contract-management | **Score:** 100.0%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| root_cause_analysis | 0.3 | pass | 1.0 |
| operational_fix | 0.3 | pass | 1.0 |
| carrier_relationship_repair | 0.25 | pass | 1.0 |
| financial_framing | 0.15 | pass | 1.0 |

**root_cause_analysis:** The response correctly identifies the root causes by facility: (1) Chicago DC - 30% dock staff reduction 6 months ago directly correlates with detention spike timeline, causing 42% of detention costs with 28 daily loads through understaffed operations; (2) Atlanta Plant - buggy scheduling system implemented 4 months ago causing 31% of detention costs through appointment confusion; (3) Dallas facility performing well with 2.9-hour dwell time used as best practice benchmark. Correctly concludes that 73% of the problem is operational and self-inflicted rather than carrier-caused.

**operational_fix:** Provides specific operational fixes: (1) Chicago DC - restore dock staffing to previous levels (hire 4-5 dock workers), add evening shift, optimize dock door assignments, deploy temporary labor during implementation; (2) Atlanta - emergency IT audit of scheduling system, deploy patches or revert to previous system, implement manual backup process and 2-hour appointment windows; (3) Cross-facility improvements including pre-arrival communication, digitized check-in, live visibility dashboards. Projects clear financial impact with $80K/month savings from operational fixes.

**carrier_relationship_repair:** Addresses carrier crisis directly with Week 1 face-to-face meetings with Midwest Express CEO and Southern Freight leadership. Acknowledges the problem with specific commitment to 50% detention reduction within 60 days. Offers goodwill gesture of $30K credit split between impacted carriers. Implements 3.0-hour dwell time SLAs with facility accountability. Maintains weekly communication during recovery period to prevent defections.

**financial_framing:** Presents comprehensive cost analysis showing detention increased from $264K to $1.13M annually (4.7% vs 1.5-2% industry average). Calculates ROI with $150K investment + $15K/month operational costs generating $80K/month savings with 2.5-month payback. Projects reduction from $94K/month to $40K/month (1.8% of freight spend) within 90 days. Includes detailed financial impact table and executive reporting framework to CFO.

---

### CRM-021: Complex multi-carrier RFP award with market cycle timing decision

**Difficulty:** hard | **Category:** rfp-process | **Score:** 92.5%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| market_cycle_analysis | 0.25 | pass | 1.0 |
| segmented_award_strategy | 0.4 | pass | 1.0 |
| stakeholder_management | 0.2 | pass | 1.0 |
| implementation_planning | 0.15 | partial | 0.5 |

**market_cycle_analysis:** The response demonstrates clear understanding of both stakeholders' positions, explicitly noting 'captures savings where sustainable while protecting against tender rejection risk.' It correctly identifies the market shift from OTRI 5% to 11% and segments lanes by risk level, specifically calling out the 9 lanes with bids >5% below DAT as highest rejection risk. The analysis acknowledges the 6-point swing in market conditions affects bid sustainability.

**segmented_award_strategy:** The response provides a sophisticated three-tier segmentation: Tier 1 (22 lanes within 3% of DAT) awarded immediately, Tier 2 (14 lanes 3-5% below DAT) with market adjustment clauses tied to OTRI, and Tier 3 (9 lanes >5% below DAT) requiring rebid. This directly addresses the risk levels and includes specific mechanisms like 'automatic quarterly rate adjustments tied to OTRI' and '6-month contracts with renewal options' for highest-risk lanes. The projected 5.0% savings is realistic vs. the original 7.2%.

**stakeholder_management:** The response directly addresses both concerns in the executive summary: 'captures savings where sustainable while protecting against tender rejection risk, addressing both the procurement director's and VP Operations' concerns.' The strategy gives procurement their rate savings (5.0% blended) while giving operations protection against tender rejection through market adjustment clauses and backup capacity retention.

**implementation_planning:** The response includes a clear 6-week implementation timeline and mentions 'Weekly tender acceptance tracking with 85% acceptance threshold' and backup capacity retention. However, it doesn't specifically address keeping losing bidders 'warm' as alternatives or plan a formal 90-day review with both executives as specified in the pass criteria.

---

### CRM-022: Multi-dimensional carrier exit decision with service, compliance, and relationship factors

**Difficulty:** hard | **Category:** relationship-management | **Score:** 22.5%

| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision_framework | 0.3 | fail | 0.0 |
| transition_plan | 0.25 | fail | 0.0 |
| communication_strategy | 0.3 | partial | 0.5 |
| systemic_improvements | 0.15 | partial | 0.5 |

**decision_framework:** The agent chooses 'conditional continuation with structured probation' rather than managed exit despite clear evidence of both service failure (CAP expired without improvement, OTD declined from 92% to 84%) and compliance violations (insurance lapses during active hauling). The agent treats these as isolated issues requiring more time rather than recognizing they indicate a broker lacking operational control. The response fails to connect the below-market pricing (6% below DAT) to the compliance gaps, missing the key insight that cheap rates often come from using substandard carriers.

**transition_plan:** The agent provides a probation plan rather than the required managed exit transition plan. While it mentions reducing Pacific Rim's volume by 25% and beginning qualification for backup carriers, it does not provide a phased 60-day exit timeline with specific weeks for carrier qualification, volume reduction, and complete transition. The response treats this as service improvement rather than exit planning.

**communication_strategy:** The agent demonstrates some relationship awareness by noting Dave Chen's industry standing and suggesting direct communication with professional tone. However, the communication strategy is designed for continuation/probation rather than exit. The sample communication emphasizes 'partnership preservation' and 'working together' when the scenario requires exit communication. The agent correctly identifies the need for professional handling but applies it to the wrong decision framework.

**systemic_improvements:** The agent proposes some process improvements including 'weekly insurance certificate verification for all Pacific Rim's underlying carriers' and 'real-time insurance monitoring system.' However, these improvements are specific to Pacific Rim rather than systemic changes to broker management. The response misses broader improvements like quarterly insurance verification for all brokers' underlying carriers or contract clause updates requiring disclosure of underlying carriers.

---
