Results and methodology

Why does this results page show denominators?

Because a rate without a denominator cannot be compared to anything, and a number that cannot be compared cannot be checked. Most results pages in this category publish a rate with no denominator, a client logo with no campaign, and a lift multiple with no baseline. That is what happens when marketing writes a page from a sales deck, and it leaves the reader nothing to work with.

This page is built to the opposite standard. Every figure states what it is a ratio of, what period it covers, how big the sample was, and what could be wrong with it. Where I want a number I cannot source, the page says what is missing instead of filling the gap.

The reason is self interested and not noble. This site's claim is that it knows how to schedule two channels against one prospect. If the arithmetic behind that claim does not survive being examined, there is no site.

What did the 2026-07-06 fleet snapshot measure?

What positive rate means here. Positive replies divided by emails sent, cumulative to 2026-07-06, across every client sending workspace active at that date. A positive reply means the prospect expressed interest. It does not mean a meeting was booked, it does not mean a meeting was attended, and it does not mean revenue closed.

What multichannel motion means. Segments are derived from sequence names, because sequence names are the only segment signal present in the underlying data. A sequence is counted as multichannel because it was named as one. Multichannel sequences named something else are invisible to this analysis and misnamed sequences are misclassified. This is a real limitation of the instrument and it is the reason this is published as an observation and not as a finding.

What fleet baseline means. The cumulative positive rate across every sequence in the fleet at that date, including every angle test we ran and killed. That baseline is not a figure we publish directly. It is one you can derive: dividing 0.37% by 7.36 and 0.14% by 2.85 both land near 0.05% positive on sends, which is a check you can run on this table without our data and which any published table should survive. Treat 0.05% as derived arithmetic. It is not a measurement we are reporting, and the full fleet denominator for that snapshot is not published here yet, so the check is against two multiples rather than against a count.

The number that cuts against the headline. The best performing single sequence in the fleet ran at 0.45% positive on 6,674 sends, which is a higher rate than the multichannel segment average on this page. It is a single sequence and not a segment, so it does not belong in the table above, and it belongs on the page because leaving it out would be the kind of edit this page exists to argue against. Whether that sequence ran as a multichannel motion is not something the snapshot answers, and saying so is better than either claim.

What is wrong with the headline number?

Its denominator flatters it, and I would rather tell you than have you work it out.

The denominator is emails sent. The numerator includes positive replies from both channels. A multichannel sequence can therefore produce a positive reply on LinkedIn that is counted against a denominator LinkedIn never contributed to. An email only sequence cannot. That structurally flatters every multichannel segment against every single channel segment in the same table.

• The artefact is real and it is not the whole gap. The multichannel segment ran at roughly 2.6 times the rate of the other motion in the table. LinkedIn volume inside these sequences is small relative to email volume, which bounds how much of the gap the artefact can explain, but it does not eliminate it.
• I cannot decompose it from this data. Doing so would require positives split by arriving channel against prospects entered instead of emails sent, which the snapshot does not carry.
• The fix is a controlled split, and we have not run one. Same copy, same window, email only against email plus LinkedIn, measured on positives per prospect entered. Publishing that, including a null result, would be the most valuable original dataset this site could own.

Why is the headline rate below your own kill threshold?

Because the threshold and the segment figure are measuring different objects, and saying so is cheaper than hoping nobody notices. 0.37% positive on sends sits below the 0.5% mark where we kill a sequence rather than iterate on it.

The threshold applies to a live sequence being judged in the moment. The segment figures on this page are cumulative fleet aggregates that include everything ever run under that label, including the tests killed for exactly that reason. Comparing them directly would be the same denominator error the whole page is written against. Where the thresholds come from and what a workable positive rate on sends actually is belong to our sibling property allboundpros.io, which is the right place for a rate definition to live and has not published yet.

What this means for you as a reader: use the multiple to judge the relative claim, which is that a multichannel motion measured better than the other motion published from the same snapshot. Do not use the absolute figure as a target. And when an agency shows you an aggregate lifetime positive rate substantially higher than these, ask what is in the denominator before you ask anything else. That question separates almost everyone in this category.

Which number here belongs to another site?

It sits here because it is the load bearing fact under everything else: LinkedIn replied at roughly six times email's rate on identical accounts, while LinkedIn capacity is a small fraction of email capacity. A channel that returns far more per touch and delivers far less volume is an escalation channel and not an opener, and that is a structural conclusion and not a preference.

What is the group behind this site?

Outbound Pros, a B2B managed outbound agency operating since 2024. The facts below are group entity facts, stated identically across group properties, and this is the one page on this site where they appear in full. Elsewhere they get referenced and linked, never restated.

616 positive replies is a cumulative count, not a rate, and it is on record as of 2026-07-17. It is the number I would want to see from an agency, because a count with a date attached cannot be inflated by choosing a flattering denominator.

What results do you refuse to publish?

Five things, and each one is refused for a reason I can state.

No client names. Descriptors only, until a client signs off in writing. One client programme in professional services is less impressive than a logo and it is the version I am allowed to publish.

No meeting counts or pipeline figures. We have standing marketing claims about pipeline generated and monthly volume. They are not sourced to a report I can point at, so they are not on this page. When they are, they will be.

No inbox placement claim. A placement figure in the high eighties to mid nineties is a target we work towards, not an achieved result, and our own monitoring records a much wider range than that. Publishing the target as an outcome is one of the most common claims in this category and it does not survive contact with a monitoring dashboard.

No positive reply ratio placed next to a per send rate. A positive reply ratio is positives divided by replies. A positive rate is positives divided by sends. They differ by roughly two orders of magnitude, and putting them side by side to imply a lift is the single most common piece of arithmetic dishonesty in outbound marketing. Our sibling property allboundpros.io takes that distinction apart properly once it publishes.

What to do with this

If the number that matters to you is whether adding LinkedIn to your sequence is worth it, the honest answer is that our fleet says probably yes and cannot say how much, and that the arithmetic of whether your LinkedIn capacity can serve your list is a question you can settle in two minutes.