How many leads did Sales accept?
Marketing reports 124 rows. Sales reports 30 accepted leads. Explain the correct denominator and what the two reports measure.
The question
Alder Relay is a fictional B2B subscription-software company with Boston and London teams. This is an interview case, using an authored packet rather than a real CRM export.
| Count | |
|---|---|
| Raw export rows | 124 |
| Repeated lead/event rows | 12 |
| Internal/test leads | 4 |
| Outside the cohort | 8 |
| Eligible unique leads | 100 |
| Qualified leads | 40 |
| Receiver-accepted leads | 30 |
| Pending acceptance | 6 |
| Rejected | 4 |
| Booked meetings | 24 |
| Held meetings | 18 |
| Opportunities | 12 |
| Wins | 3 |
Created November 2–6, 2026; outcomes frozen November 10 at 18:00 UTC. Exclusions are disjoint in the shown order. Each eligible lead enters each stage once; counts are nested. Acceptance is an explicit receiver event.
“State the measure, the evidence and the next owner.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Define the entity
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Agree the lead ID and acceptance event
The strong move. A shared stage label needs a shared entity and entry event.
Count each row as a lead
Tempting, but it misses something. Repeated events for one lead do not create more leads.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I am counting unique eligible lead IDs, not export rows. I will keep the raw view and record each exclusion.”
Why it works: A shared stage label needs a shared entity and entry event.
Step 2: Reconcile the exclusions
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Explain each exclusion
The strong move. Cleaning order and exclusion reasons make the bridge repeatable.
Delete every repeated company name
Tempting, but it misses something. One company can have several valid leads or opportunities.
See how a strong candidate says it
“124 − 12 − 4 − 8 leaves 100 eligible unique leads. The groups are disjoint after the stated cleaning order.”
Why it works: Cleaning order and exclusion reasons make the bridge repeatable.
Step 3: Use the stated denominator
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Report 30/40 for qualified-to-accepted
The strong move. Both rates are useful when their labels are explicit.
Report 30/124 as qualified-to-accepted
Tempting, but it misses something. 124 is the uncleaned export row count, not the qualified-lead cohort.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Sales accepted 30 of the 40 qualified leads: 75%. Accepted out of all eligible leads is a different measure: 30%.”
Why it works: Both rates are useful when their labels are explicit.
Step 4: Find the next operational question
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Investigate pending and rejected leads
The strong move. The report should lead to an actionable exception review.
Compare this young cohort with a fully mature year
Tempting, but it misses something. The cohorts have not had equal time to convert.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Six qualified leads are pending and four were rejected. I would inspect owners, ages and reasons before declaring a failure.”
Why it works: The report should lead to an actionable exception review.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Report 75% qualified-to-accepted.
- Because
- Thirty accepted leads belong to a forty-lead qualified cohort.
- What would change it
- A corrected entity key, cutoff or acceptance definition would change the count.
Common traps
- Repeated events for one lead do not create more leads.
Check your answer
- I named the entity and event.
- I reconciled the 24 excluded rows.
- I stated the denominator.
- I inspected pending and rejected leads.
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026