Churn is a lagging indicator—and by the time I see it in a dashboard, the moment to change a customer’s mind has usually passed. At HighLevel, I’ve learned that durable retention starts long before a cancellation ticket, with product-led growth habits, customer success partnerships, and a clear view of user behavior that flags risk early and often.
Stop chasing SaaS churn after it happens. Learn how proactive product and service experiences, powered by behavioral analytics, help reduce churn before users leave.
My operating model is simple: treat retention as a design problem, not a rescue mission. I anchor our strategy in behavioral analytics and retention analysis, translating leading indicators—activation milestones, time-to-first-value, depth of feature adoption, and expansion intent—into outcomes like Net Recurring Revenue (NRR) and cohort-based retention. When these inputs move in the right direction, churn becomes the exception, not the trend.
To get there, I start with rigorous journey mapping and continuous discovery. We define the exact “aha” moments that signal value realization, instrument events across the funnel, and segment cohorts by persona, plan, and use case. Tools in a unified analytics platform (e.g., Amplitude analytics or Pendo) help us pinpoint where engagement decays, which features predict stickiness, and which friction points block activation. This evidence replaces hunches and lets us prioritize the highest-leverage work.
From those signals, I build a transparent risk score that anyone can use. It blends usage momentum (DAU/WAU), core feature frequency, anomaly detection on key behaviors, billing and payment health, and support sentiment. When the score crosses a threshold, we trigger plays—inside the product and through customer success—so we’re helping users before they drift, not pleading after they’ve left.
On the product side, I favor lightweight, contextual interventions: in-app guides tailored to stalled tasks, checklists that shorten time-to-value, adaptive product tours, and tooltip design that clarifies the next best action. We A/B test these experiences with a clear minimum detectable effect (MDE), watching both local metrics (feature completion, error rate) and global metrics (activation, retention). The goal is precision—right nudge, right user, right moment—without adding cognitive load.
On the service side, we run consultative support and customer success plays keyed to the same behavioral triggers. A sudden drop in core usage may prompt a quick diagnostic call; repeated failed integrations can route to solutions engineering; stalled accounts get value reviews or QBRs focused on outcomes, not feature checklists. Because product and service draw from the same data, customers experience a single, coherent journey.
Proactive retention also depends on smart packaging and pricing. When value metrics mirror how customers win, plan boundaries reinforce the right behaviors and reduce “silent churn” caused by misaligned tiers. Outcome-based pricing and clear upgrade paths can turn potential risk into expansion rather than attrition.
Operationally, I keep a weekly retention review with product trios and customer success leaders. We walk driver trees from inputs (activation, engagement depth, support friction) to outputs (NRR, churn), review session replay where confusion spikes, and commit to small, measurable experiments. This cadence compounds learning and keeps us honest about what’s moving the needle.
If you’re starting fresh, begin with four moves: define an activation milestone tied to value; instrument the few events that prove users are on track; build a basic risk score from those events; and craft three plays—one in-product, one lifecycle message, one success outreach—triggered by that score. You’ll create a flywheel where insights power interventions, and interventions feed better insights.
Churn will always exist, but it doesn’t have to be a cliff. With behavioral analytics guiding both product and service experiences, we can make retention the natural outcome of how we build, communicate, and support—long before a customer ever thinks about leaving.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Perspectives.
I focus every day on turning raw customer signals into meaningful product experiences that create measurable outcomes. Human37 is a Brussels-based customer data strategy agency helping organizations turn data into real customer experiences. That statement sets a useful standard for the kind of partner I look for: one that helps us move beyond reports and into shipped value customers can feel.
What matters most to me is the bridge between discovery and delivery—how insights inform product strategy and roadmaps without slowing execution. The strongest partners operationalize behavioral analytics within a unified analytics platform, connect qualitative learning with quantitative evidence, and make journey mapping a living artifact rather than a slide. Tools like Amplitude analytics can accelerate this work, but the real differentiator is the operating model that converts data into decisions and decisions into outcomes.
When I evaluate a customer data strategy partner, I look for five things: rigorous data governance and privacy-by-design; clean event taxonomy and robust identity resolution; clear experimentation workflows that tie to activation and retention analysis; practical enablement for product teams (not just analysts); and a bias for product-led growth rooted in real user behavior. If a partner can’t articulate how insights ladder to user activation and long-term value, they’re not ready to guide the roadmap.
Here’s how I sequence the work to turn signals into experiences: first, define the outcomes that matter and the driver trees behind them; second, instrument events and unify identities to power trustworthy behavioral analytics; third, map critical paths with journey mapping to expose friction and moments of delight; fourth, run focused experiments linked to product strategy, not vanity metrics; finally, scale what works with in-product experiences and lifecycle messaging that compounds retention.
The payoff is speed and clarity: faster time-to-insight, more confident bets, and fewer handoffs between data teams and product builders. If you’re exploring European partners, a Brussels-based agency with a sharp customer data strategy capability can help you move from analysis to action. The litmus test is simple—can they help your team ship experiences that customers notice and your metrics confirm?
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Perspectives.
There’s a question that runs underneath every AI Agent evaluation: what can it do?
Two years ago, that was the right question to ask because Agents were limited and capability was a genuine constraint. The gap between what organizations needed and what the technology could deliver was wide. I felt that gap acutely in early pilots—plenty of ambition, not enough dependable execution.
That gap has since narrowed considerably, and yet most organizations are running their Agents well below what’s technically possible. I see teams lean on answering and routing, but stop short of looking things up, taking actions, or resolving complex, multi-step problems—especially where data, process variance, or risk come into play.
The standard explanation is that AI isn’t good enough yet—models must improve, or vendors must ship more features. But after studying organizations across industries actively expanding their AI automation, I’ve found that this explanation holds up less often than people assume. The blockers tend to be elsewhere.
The teams I’ve observed weren’t primarily constrained by what their AI could do; they were constrained by what their organization was structured to let it do. In other words, the ceiling wasn’t the Agent’s capability—it was organizational readiness, governance, and risk tolerance.
“Readiness” for AI breaks into five distinct types, and most organizations have some but not all of them. Below is how I assess them with product, operations, and engineering leaders.
Content readiness is whether you can explain your product and policies clearly and consistently. Most companies can. In practice, that means up-to-date knowledge bases, unified policy language, and clear versions that Agents can cite and apply.
Scope readiness is whether you’ve defined the edges: when should AI engage, and when should it step aside? Edge cases multiply, intent varies by customer segment, sensitive topics surface mid-conversation, but most teams can work through this with effort. Clear guardrails reduce ambiguity and shrink risk.
Procedural readiness is where things start to get harder. This is about whether you can articulate your processes clearly enough for something other than a human with years of tacit knowledge to follow. The happy path is rarely the problem. It’s the failure paths, decision branches, variations that have never been written down because they’ve always lived in someone’s head.
Data readiness is the first real cliff. Can you reliably identify the right user, account, or object at the moment a decision needs to be made? Is the data trustworthy in real time? Are the APIs stable, accessible, and actually connected? For most organizations, the honest answer is “partially, but we’re not always sure when it breaks.”
Execution readiness is the highest bar. Not just technically (can the Agent make the change?) but organizationally. Who owns it when the wrong refund gets processed? Who detects it? Who recovers? Does someone with authority actually accept the risk?
Most companies have the first two, some have the third, fewer have the fourth and fifth. When I map this with teams, we often discover that their Agent’s ceiling is really a reflection of operational maturity and data plumbing, not model quality.
We studied companies across six industries – energy, healthcare, ecommerce, gaming, financial services, property management – all trying to expand what their Agents could do. The pattern was consistent: teams set out to automate real actions—looking up account status, processing changes, handling transactions. In most cases, the AI could technically do it, but at a certain point (somewhere between guiding a user through a process and looking something up on their behalf) they hit a wall.
One team tried to automate application changes but couldn’t reliably identify which application to modify across their internal systems. Another explored billing automation but couldn’t access live account data due to regulatory constraints. A third needed to verify status across third-party vendor systems their Agent couldn’t reliably reach. I’ve seen similar constraints surface around CRM integration, data governance, and vendor SLAs—none of which are model issues.
In most cases, the team redesigned around what their infrastructure could support. They moved toward guiding—walking users through processes step by step, rather than executing changes on their behalf. It worked, it resolved conversations and delivered real value, just differently than anyone planned. In customer support, this often looks like consultative flows that shorten time-to-resolution even without direct writes.
Most Agent evaluations are built around capability. Can it handle complex queries? Does it support multiple channels? Can it integrate with our systems? These are reasonable things to evaluate for, but they produce a capability score, and that doesn’t tell you whether your organization can actually use what you’re buying.
The teams that got to deeper automation, the ones executing actions early, didn’t have “better AI,” they had more standardized operations. Actions that were already well-defined, consistently applied, and exposed through stable systems with clear rules. Automation wasn’t inventing new behavior, it was triggering actions that were already tightly controlled elsewhere.
Readiness enables capability, not the other way around. Which reframes the evaluation question from “can the AI do this?” to “are we actually ready for it to?”
Something that gets lost in most conversations about AI readiness is that organizations are often further along than they assume, just not for the kind of work they were planning for. A team that set out to automate refunds but can reliably guide users through complex troubleshooting has genuine capability deployed. They’re operating at the level their readiness supports, which is a starting point, not a deficit.
The more useful frame isn’t “are we ready?” – it’s “what are we ready for, and what specifically stands between here and the next level?” The gaps tend to be concrete: a missing API, data that lives in three systems that don’t agree, a process that’s never been documented, or an ownership question nobody has answered. These are solvable problems. They just require a different kind of investment than buying a more capable Agent.
What nobody has worked through seriously yet is how organizations actually build readiness. Does it develop naturally through using AI at shallower levels first? Or is it mostly a function of prior decisions, like system architecture choices made years ago, operational maturity that accumulated over time, engineering investments that have nothing to do with AI? When readiness does increase, what actually changes? Does the support team develop it? Does engineering grant it? Does it require executive sponsorship and investment in infrastructure with no obvious AI label on it?
In my experience, progress comes from a joint effort: product to define scope and guardrails, operations to codify procedures and edge cases, engineering to harden APIs and observability, and leadership to underwrite risk with clear ownership. When those pieces align, agentic AI moves from guided assistance to safe, auditable execution.
Until there are clearer answers, the pattern is likely to continue. Companies will buy capable Agents, plan ambitious rollouts, and find that the harder work is building the organizational infrastructure. The Agents can do the work. The question is what it takes to let them.
AI agents are only as valuable as the measurable outcomes they deliver. In my role leading product strategy at HighLevel, I’ve learned that the fastest way to earn executive trust is to translate agent performance into clear revenue impact, cost savings, and risk reduction. The challenge isn’t enthusiasm for AI; it’s creating a disciplined, repeatable way to prove business value.
Here’s the three-step playbook my teams and I use to quantify the value of agentic AI, align stakeholders, and scale what works.
Step 1 — Define value outcomes and success criteria. Start with a driver tree that ties agent outcomes to company-level goals. For revenue, target conversion lift, average order value, and expansion (e.g., trial-to-paid, self-serve upsell). For cost, focus on containment/deflection rate, reduced handle time, and lower cost to serve. For risk, measure error rates, hallucinations, security/policy violations, and customer complaint rate. Convert these into outcomes vs output OKRs, set baselines, and pre-commit to thresholds for launch, scale, or rollback. This ensures the team is accountable to business KPIs, not vanity metrics.
Step 2 — Instrument comprehensively and establish baselines. Instrument the full journey: prompts, responses, human-in-the-loop events, escalations, feedback, and downstream conversions. Capture both leading indicators (time-to-first-value, containment rate, self-serve completion) and lagging outcomes (NRR, churn, LTV/CAC). Use behavioral analytics, session replay, product tours, and in-app guides to contextualize what users do before and after agent interactions. Baselines matter—freeze a control period so improvements are truly incremental.
Increase revenue, cut costs, and reduce risk with Pendo’s Software Experience Management platform. Optimize the entire software experience to drive adoption and improve engagement.
Step 3 — Experiment, attribute, and risk-adjust. Treat every agent capability like a hypothesis. Run A/B tests or holdouts with a precomputed minimum detectable effect so you can ship confidently. Attribute outcomes to the agent by linking events to conversions and support deflection, and calculate ROI as (incremental revenue + cost avoided – total operating cost, including model/API, labeling, and oversight). Apply AI risk management by tracking false positives/negatives, escalation rate, and policy breaches; adjust ROI with a risk score so the “cheapest” agent isn’t inadvertently the riskiest. This is eval-driven development in practice: define success, measure, iterate.
Operationalizing the playbook requires crisp reporting. Stand up Agent Analytics dashboards in your unified analytics platform that roll up per-agent KPIs, funnel performance, cohort trends, and experiment results. Review them in QBRs and with frontline teams to connect numbers to lived customer experience. When metrics improve, amplify with product-led growth motions—targeted in-app guides and lifecycle nudges to get more users into high-value agent flows.
What does this look like in the real world? Early on, we celebrated “tickets deflected” and missed that some conversations quietly increased churn risk. After we adopted this three-step approach, we saw the full picture: a modest dip in deflection quality was offset by a larger lift in expansion revenue and a meaningful drop in time-to-resolution. The risk-adjusted ROI was unambiguous, and the CFO greenlit broader rollout.
If you’re building or scaling AI agents, anchor on outcomes, instrument ruthlessly, and insist on experimentation. With the right measurement discipline, you’ll know exactly which agents deserve more investment, which need redesign, and which should be retired. The result is a portfolio of agents that reliably drive adoption, engagement, and durable business value.
When a platform as foundational as Amplitude refreshes a core feature, I pay close attention. Heatmaps are where qualitative intuition meets quantitative scale, and reliability and precision determine whether teams trust what they see. The latest update meaningfully raises the bar for product analytics teams who depend on crisp visual evidence to guide experiments, diagnose friction, and accelerate product-led growth.
Here’s the essence of the change, in Amplitude’s own terms: “more reliable screenshot capture, selector-based placement, automatic device detection, and a redesigned scrollmap.” That combination tackles the two biggest historical pain points with heatmaps—stability in dynamic interfaces and confidence that clicks are attributed to the right UI elements across devices and layouts.
First, more reliable screenshot capture improves the fidelity of what I’m analyzing. When screenshots consistently mirror the live UI state, I can compare sessions across releases without worrying about rendering quirks or timing artifacts. That boosts trust in behavioral analytics, shortens feedback loops with engineering, and makes heatmaps a dependable companion to A/B testing and session replay.
Second, selector-based placement is a pragmatic step toward precision. In modern, componentized front ends where elements shift with personalization, localization, or responsive design, stable selectors dramatically reduce misattributed interactions. In practice, this means cleaner insights for funnel drop-off analysis, clearer readouts for micro-conversions (e.g., CTA vs. secondary actions), and more confident iteration on UX copy and layout—without constant re-instrumentation.
Third, automatic device detection aligns insights with the actual context of use. Patterns on mobile often diverge from desktop, and blending them can mask critical signals. Accurate device-specific readouts help me tailor experiments, refine activation paths, and decide when to prioritize mobile-first optimizations versus desktop refinements.
Finally, the redesigned scrollmap matters because attention is a finite resource. Knowing how far users scroll—and where they pause—helps me position value propositions, trust elements, and calls to action where they’ll be seen. Combining scroll insights with session replay and event data gives me a sharper picture of what’s above the fold, what’s ignored, and where copy or layout needs a rethink.
How I’d operationalize this update: validate key selectors with engineering and design for critical templates; compare pre- and post-update heatmaps to establish new baselines; segment by device to isolate diverging behaviors; map scroll depth to conversion micro-moments; and feed prioritized findings into backlog grooming and product roadmapping. This keeps heatmaps directly connected to outcomes rather than just interesting visuals.
Bottom line: these improvements make heatmaps a more trustworthy lens for discovery and optimization. With sturdier screenshot capture, precise selector-based placement, automatic device detection, and a redesigned scrollmap, I can move faster from observation to decision—reducing analysis ambiguity, tightening experiment cycles, and turning behavioral analytics into measurable product strategy.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Best Practices.
I spend a lot of time helping financial services teams adopt AI analytics without compromising on risk, compliance, or customer trust. The stakes are high: regulations are evolving, data sensitivity is non‑negotiable, and a single misstep can erode confidence. That’s why my approach centers on governed AI, rigorous data governance, and measurable business value—not flashy demos.
Learn how Amplitude delivers safe, governed AI analytics for financial services—aligned to compliance, built for trust, and ready for real workflows.
In practice, “safe and governed” means clear lines of accountability and controls that hold up under audit. I look for privacy-by-design principles, role-based access controls, robust audit trails, and granular data permissions that keep sensitive data segregated. Strong AI risk management also requires model oversight—documented policies, human-in-the-loop review where needed, and explainability for high-impact decisions. Above all, the platform must meet regulatory compliance expectations and support the organization’s risk posture without slowing teams down.
Real workflows are where the value shows up. In financial services, that can mean using behavioral analytics to understand user intent, applying anomaly detection to surface suspicious patterns earlier, and empowering product managers and analysts to iterate safely within a unified analytics platform. When these capabilities are built into the core analytics motion, I see faster detection of issues, clearer attribution of outcomes, and more confident decision-making—all while staying within governance guardrails.
When I evaluate a solution, my checklist is simple and strict: does it enforce strong data governance by default; does it provide transparent, auditable AI behaviors; can it scale securely to meet enterprise requirements; does it tie insights directly to product and growth outcomes; and will it help risk, compliance, and product teams work together instead of at cross purposes? If the answer is yes across that list, the platform earns a place in the enterprise toolbelt.
Done right, governed AI analytics give financial services teams the confidence to move faster with less risk. You gain sharper insights from behavioral data, earlier warning from anomalies, and the trust that comes from controls that are aligned to compliance and resilient under scrutiny. That’s the path to durable advantage: responsible AI that accelerates learning, protects customers, and translates directly into better products and performance.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Best Practices.
Customer experience is now a core product strategy lever, not a downstream support function. In my work leading product teams, I’ve seen that the fastest path to durable growth is aligning CX strategy with product, data, and go-to-market—especially when we’re building AI-powered solutions that must scale responsibly.
Amanda Sime is the Customer Experience Strategy Lead at Amplitude. She shapes CX strategy and partners across orgs to design and scale AI-powered solutions.
That mandate captures what high-performing organizations are doing well: connecting behavioral analytics, product discovery, and customer success into a unified operating system. When CX leaders partner tightly with product and data teams, we turn insights into action—using Amplitude analytics to identify friction, journey mapping to prioritize moments that matter, and a unified analytics platform to close the loop from hypothesis to measurable outcomes.
Practically, the playbook looks like this in my teams: start with rigorous journey mapping and retention analysis to pinpoint where value realization lags; run targeted A/B testing to validate interventions; and deploy in-app guides and product tours to accelerate user activation. Layer in session replay and behavioral analytics to understand intent, then operationalize learnings into repeatable workflows that improve time-to-value and customer success. This is how we make product-led growth concrete rather than aspirational.
AI Strategy adds both leverage and responsibility. We design AI-powered experiences with privacy-by-design, clear value propositions, and eval-driven development so we can measure lift, not just ship features. Cross-functional partners—from support to solutions engineering—become critical here, ensuring we scale responsibly while improving the signal-to-noise ratio of feedback flowing back to product roadmapping.
The outcome I aim for is simple: faster cycles from insight to impact. With tight cross-org alignment, a shared metrics framework, and disciplined experimentation, we can transform CX from reactive problem-solving into a proactive growth engine. If your team is ready to operationalize this approach, start with one high-friction journey, build a sharp driver tree, and let data, not opinions, guide the next iteration.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Best Practices.
Today I’m introducing Operator, an Agent that works across both Fin and the Intercom helpdesk to help you manage your customer operations.
In practical terms, Operator manages help content, builds automation, does the ongoing work that determines how well Fin performs, and runs the operational work your human team doesn’t have time for. That combination is precisely what modern support teams need to move from reactive firefighting to proactive, consultative support.
Why does this matter? Running a customer operation means managing AI and humans simultaneously, and doing this well requires more capacity than most teams realistically have. I’ve felt that strain firsthand—competing priorities, constant context switching, and a never-ending queue that blurs strategic focus.
On the AI side, Fin’s performance is largely influenced by what surrounds it: the accuracy of your help content, the quality of your Fin configuration, and how well you understand what’s working and why. When product teams ship daily, keeping your help center current means finding every affected article before customers notice the gaps. When Fin gets a conversation wrong, diagnosing it requires reading through what happened, identifying the root cause at the configuration level, making the fix, and verifying it worked. Analyzing why your resolution rate dropped means pulling conversations, finding patterns, and tracing the cause back to something actionable. And beyond individual fixes, there’s the ongoing question of what to automate next – what your human reps are still handling repetitively, whether it’s worth building a Procedure for it, and how to test it before it goes live.
On the human side, the demands are just as continuous. When an incident hits, someone needs to identify every affected customer, draft the right response, and send it before the problem compounds. Team leads need visibility into rep performance across hundreds of conversations to coach effectively and prep for 1:1s. Reps need to know what to prioritize without spending the first part of their day figuring it out. In fast-moving environments, that operational overhead wastes energy you should be investing in better customer outcomes.
Meet Operator, the agent that explains your customer conversations. This Synthesia testimonial shows how simply asking Operator reveals what happened and makes refining Fin faster for support and enablement teams.
Too often, the work outpaces what teams can manage, so it happens reactively, or not at all. Operator was built to change that, giving teams a new way to understand, manage, and improve their customer operations. Here’s how I put Operator to work across AI workflows and human-led processes.
First, I use Operator to ask my data anything. Your support operation generates more useful data than most teams have time to process. Operator gives you direct access to it. You can ask it any question about what’s happening in your operation (why a metric changed, what’s driving escalations, how the team performed last week) and it returns structured answers with charts, breakdowns, and the ability to dig further. It analyzes samples of real conversations on the fly to surface patterns and identify root causes. If your head of product wants to know what customers are saying about a new release, you can ask Operator rather than spending half a day pulling a report together. It also works across your entire operation, analyzing Fin’s performance, your human reps’ performance, and customer sentiment.
Crucially, I don’t start from scratch every time. Give Operator ongoing work, like analyzing your automation rate every Monday, flagging anything that needs attention, and posting the report in your Fin workspace. It’ll run the analysis, write the report, and deliver it without you having to go looking for it. That’s the kind of agentic AI leverage that compounds week after week.
Second, I keep the knowledge base current without writing a single article. Your knowledge base is only as useful as it is accurate. When product teams ship fast, keeping pace with content updates is a substantial, ongoing job. Give Operator a brief about anything, from a new feature or policy change to release notes, and it finds every article in your help center that needs updating, drafts the edits in your tone of voice and style, identifies content gaps, and drafts new articles to fill them. It even handles localized versions. Every change is formatted as a proposal (Operator’s version of a pull request) for you to review, edit, and approve before anything goes live. It feels like adding several knowledge managers to the team overnight, without the ramp time.
See why teams choose Fin Operator for customer operations: accurate analysis, trend insights, and conversation debugging—going beyond basic LLM connectors. A Raylo testimonial spotlights daily, real-world impact.
Third, I build, test, and ship improvements to Fin directly through Operator. When Fin gets a conversation wrong because of a content gap or misconfigured rule, Operator can debug it by reading through the conversation, identifying what caused the problem, proposing a fix, and running simulation tests to verify it before you approve. You see what changed and why before anything goes live. Beyond debugging, Operator has deep knowledge of every Fin feature and capability, so you can ask it directly to help you configure whatever you need. If you need a Procedure for a specific query type, describe the outcome you want and Operator builds it, including triggers, multi-step instructions, edge case handling, and a simulation test, all from a single prompt. The same applies to configuring Guidance rules, data connectors, monitors, and workflows. You don’t need to know which feature solves your problem or how to configure it; you just describe what you want.
For teams looking to increase their overall automation rate, Operator can handle that strategically too. Ask it to analyze where your biggest automation opportunities are and it surfaces them by volume, along with an estimate of the weekly team time each one is consuming. Pick one, and it builds the solution for you to approve. That’s consultative support, productized.
Finally, I use Operator to effortlessly manage the human side of support. When an incident hits, Operator identifies every affected conversation, drafts targeted responses, and sends them proactively, turning what would normally be hours of reactive triage into minutes of review and approval. For ongoing management, a team lead prepping for 1:1s can ask Operator to pull each rep’s metrics, flag outliers, and surface what’s worth digging into. A rep coming back from a meeting can ask what to focus on next and get a prioritized queue based on urgency, customer value, and wait time. And because Operator sees patterns across everything your human team is handling, it can surface the conversations they’re still resolving manually, flagging your next automation opportunity before you’ve had time to go looking for it.
Here’s why this works. Operator isn’t a general-purpose AI model given access to your data. It’s built on a library of purpose-built tools that encode expertise specific to support operations, like how to pick the right attributes for a given analysis, search a knowledge base semantically, debug Fin’s reasoning in a specific conversation, or write and test a Procedure that will actually work. That specialized toolkit is what makes its recommendations trustworthy and its execution reliable.
Elevate customer service with Operator. The bold headline and vivid knot logo introduce a modern AI platform that streamlines workflows, speeds resolutions, and scales support operations without extra headcount.
The proposal (pull request) system makes this possible. When Operator updates content, adjusts configuration, or modifies how Fin behaves, it creates a proposal – a structured diff of what’s changing and why. You review it, edit if needed, and approve before it takes effect. Operator does the cognitive work; the human stays in control of what goes live.
More than 200 early users are already trying Operator, and every one of them is finding new use cases. It’s a genuine step change in capability, and I expect it will change the way support teams run their operation. We’re working towards a vision of Operator being increasingly agentic, expanding across every new role Fin takes on.
Operator is available in early access now. If you’re ready to transform your customer operations across Fin and the Intercom helpdesk with agentic AI, start here: https://fin.ai/operator.
We just launched Operator, an Agent for your customer operations that helps you understand, manage, and improve your entire customer experience. I’ve spent years shipping AI-driven products at production scale, and this one reflects the lessons I’ve learned the hard way about what it really takes to go from a flashy demo to a dependable system your team trusts.
To give you a clear view of just how powerful this Agent is, I want to share the technical infrastructure and engineering choices that make Operator work reliably at production scale across thousands of customer workspaces. My goal is to demystify the gap between a well-prompted LLM and a true, production-grade Agent—so you can make an informed build vs. buy decision.
If you’re a technical leader evaluating whether to build something like this yourself, or trying to understand the difference between a well-prompted LLM and a production Agent system, this is for you.
Escaping the “it’s just an LLM” trap
Most engineering teams in this space start the same way: a prototype. You take a foundation model, give it API access to your support data, add a system prompt with some domain context, and you’ve got something that queries your database, summarizes tickets, and generates reports that look right. It demos convincingly—and I’ve been there, impressed in the moment, only to watch it buckle under real-world complexity.
The problem with that prototype is that it obscures the scope of what’s actually required. It demonstrates the 10% of the system that’s straightforward to build, and it’s easy to assume the rest is just as straightforward. It isn’t. The gap between a working demo and a production system your team depends on daily is where most of the engineering investment lives. That’s precisely the gap we focused on closing.
With Operator, we’ve invested deeply in every layer: tooling, reasoning, how the Agent takes action, and the infrastructure that makes it reliable at scale. Here’s a closer look at the architecture and why it matters for agentic AI, platform scalability, and observability.
The tooling layer
The first thing we had to confront was that the obvious approach (giving a model access to your APIs and letting it figure things out) doesn’t hold up in production. The model makes reasonable decisions for simple queries, but operating across thousands of customer workspaces with different configurations, data models, and usage patterns, a “figure it out” approach isn’t nearly precise enough.
What you need is purpose-built tooling: tools that encode decisions about what data to fetch, how to structure it, what context to include, and what to leave out. Operator has over 50 of these tools and 10 skills.
A tool is a single action that Operator takes (search content, run a query, look up a conversation). A skill chains multiple tools together to complete a whole job, like debugging a conversation end-to-end, rolling out a content update across an entire help center, and identifying the next automation opportunity. This is where AI workflows move from abstract prompts to dependable, repeatable outcomes.
The difference between using thin wrappers around API endpoints and purpose-built tooling shows up in something as seemingly simple as a performance question. When you ask “how did Fin perform last week?”, a naive implementation runs a query and hands back a table. Operator runs a reporting tool that determines which metrics are relevant for your specific workspace, which are meaningful for your particular question, and what the numbers actually mean in context, giving you a much richer answer that you can do something tangible with.
Developing that behavior took months of engineering. Not because any individual piece is conceptually hard, but because getting it right across the full range of customer workspaces, configurations, and edge cases is an iterative process. You build it, you test it against real conversations, you find the cases where it breaks, you fix those, and you repeat. There’s no shortcut—and in practice, this is where most DIY efforts stall.
The intelligence layer
The tooling layer solves what to do, but beneath it is a harder problem: understanding what’s worth doing, and why. This is the layer that makes Operator understand your business rather than just query it. Three components go into it, and in my experience they’re non-negotiable for a reliable Agent.
1. Semantic search
Unlike solutions that rely on keyword matching, Operator uses a system that understands what content is about, not just what words it contains. When it searches your help center, it’s using the same semantic search engine we’ve spent years optimizing for Fin itself. This is a retrieval system that’s been tuned against millions of real support conversations, with precision and recall characteristics we’ve measured and improved continuously. This retrieval-first pipeline is the backbone of grounding and dramatically reduces hallucinations.
2. Attribute awareness
Operator has access to your data and knows what is meaningful for different questions. It knows which metrics are actually in use in your workspace, which custom attributes carry signals, and which fields are populated versus effectively empty. We’ve built specific skills that give Operator this meta-knowledge, so when it’s investigating a performance question, it’s looking at the right things, not hallucinating insights from sparse data.
3. Intelligent reasoning
A well-built Agent can answer your question and anticipate what you should ask next. If you ask Operator about escalations spiking, it doesn’t just say, “escalations increased 23% week-over-week.” It’ll continue on to tell you why this happened by examining the escalated conversations and identifying that a disproportionate number involved a specific product area, before moving on to check whether the relevant help content is up to date, and, if it isn’t, proposing an update. That chain of reasoning isn’t prompt engineering. It’s encoded in the skills we’ve built, refined against the patterns we see across our entire customer base.
The action layer
This is where the engineering complexity increases by an order of magnitude because instead of just analyzing problems and recommending solutions, Operator takes action to solve them itself. It can update Guidance rules, draft and publish help articles, create Procedures, configure data connectors, and modify your Fin configuration. Moving from read-only insights to write-capable actions is a fundamentally different class of product and infrastructure problem—one that demands rigorous SRE practices and rock-solid safeguards.
Every one of these actions has to be safe, reversible, and auditable. An analytics tool that occasionally returns a wrong number is frustrating. but an Agent that occasionally applies a wrong configuration change to a live support system is a different category of problem. To prevent this, we built a robust proposal system, whereby every change Operator suggests is presented as a reviewable diff. You see exactly what will change before anything is applied, with the option to accept, reject, or refine. Nothing goes live without your explicit approval.
What else sets Operator apart
A UI that’s both conversational and graphical, not one or the other. Operator blends conversational interaction with purpose-built graphical components. Proposal diffs show exactly what will change in an article. Inline charts visualize performance trends. Dashboards render directly inside the conversation thread. In practice, that means a knowledge manager reviews a structured diff—not a wall of LLM-generated text—and a team lead asking about weekly performance gets an accurate chart with context, not a paragraph approximating data.
Building this hybrid experience is extremely difficult outside of a native platform integration. In a chat interface or CLI, you’re limited to text output; in a standalone dashboard, you lose conversational context. Operator does both in the same thread, so every interaction is detailed and context-rich—and importantly, actionable in the flow of work.
It lives where your team already works. Operator is built into the same platform your team uses every day. It’s not a separate tool with a separate login, nor is it a Slack bot your engineer set up that only three people know about. It operates exactly where you are, alongside the conversations, help center articles, workflows, and data you’re working with. That tight integration closes the gap between finding a problem and fixing it: spot an outdated article while reviewing a Fin conversation, and Operator can surface the fix in the same session. Notice an escalation spike in the morning, and you can ask Operator to investigate without switching tools, waiting for a data pull, or filing a ticket.
The compounding advantage
Every customer using Operator teaches us something. We see which debugging approaches work across different types of support operations, learn which content structures perform better, and identify automation strategies that consistently land. Those patterns get encoded back into Operator’s skills and tools. When we discover that a particular sequence of investigation steps reliably identifies the root cause of a spike in escalations, we build that into Operator’s diagnostic skill. When we find that a specific way of structuring help articles leads to higher Fin resolution rates, we encode that into the content creation skill. Our engineering team is continuously shipping improvements based on what we observe across the entire customer base.
A custom-built solution gives you exactly what you built, meaning it doesn’t get smarter unless you invest engineering resources into making it smarter. And that usually means taking time and talent away from your core product. I’ve watched teams underestimate the ongoing cost of eval-driven development, model upgrades, and API churn—costs that only grow as your footprint expands.
We’re not locking the door
Some teams want to build their own Agents. Some of our most technical customers do this. But when you do, you’re working with raw APIs and building your own tooling on top of them. When you use Operator, you’re working with a system that already knows what questions to ask, understands your data, and encodes the best practices we’ve learned from thousands of support teams. We recently launched the Fin CLI, which means you can use third-party agents like Claude Code or Cursor to interact with your Fin data and configuration. That door is open. What I hope this post has clarified is everything that goes into the build of Operator: Over 50 tools and 10 skills, purpose-built for support operations. Years of investment in semantic search. Deep integration with every layer of Fin’s stack. The proposal system. The intelligence layer. The reliability infrastructure.
If you’d still like to move ahead with building a custom solution, here’s an honest assessment. You can build a useful read-only tool in weeks. It’ll query your data, summarize tickets, and generate reports, but turning it into a production system will take quarters. Reliability, security, edge case handling, multi-tenant data isolation, and graceful degradation are all important architectural decisions that you’ll need to get right from the start. The action layer is also where you might risk stalling out. Going from “here’s what’s wrong” to safely making changes in a production system is a fundamentally different engineering problem than analysis. Most DIY projects never get there. Finally, you’ll be maintaining it forever. Every model upgrade, API change, and new capability in your support platform means updating your custom tooling. We have a team dedicated to this. You’ll need one too.
The economics still favor buying when a vendor has invested more in the problem than you can justify internally. What I hope this post adds is a clearer picture of what that investment actually looks like from an engineering perspective—and why it compounds into a durable advantage for your support organization.
The investment is ongoing. The problems we’re solving at the infrastructure level today are harder than the ones we solved a year ago, and that trajectory isn’t slowing down. If you’re ready to see the difference a production-grade Agent can make, explore Operator.
I’ve learned that customers don’t just buy features—they buy the way we discover, decide, build, ship, and support. In other words, the operating model is the product. That realization has shaped how my team and I at HighLevel translate product strategy into tangible, repeatable outcomes that show up in quality, reliability, onboarding, and consultative support every single day.
We created Product Partners to codify that operating model and scale it with discipline. It’s a blueprint and operating rhythm that unifies product strategy with go-to-market strategy, customer success, and solutions engineering—so empowered product teams can move faster without sacrificing clarity, governance, or customer trust.
First, we anchored on continuous discovery. Product trios work shoulder-to-shoulder with customer-facing teams to run customer interviews, journey mapping, and A/B testing, then validate insights with session replay and behavioral analytics. We use driver trees and opportunity solution trees to connect problems to outcomes, ensuring prioritization is evidence-based and aligned to product-market fit—not just output.
Second, we elevated delivery excellence. Our practices emphasize CI/CD, feature flags, observability, SRE-informed incident management, and DORA metrics to shorten feedback loops while raising the bar on stability. Privacy-by-design, data governance, and regulatory compliance are built into our workflows, and we make deliberate build vs buy decisions to protect platform scalability and long-term velocity.
Third, we integrated go-to-market alignment from day one. Solutions engineering and customer success shape requirements early, so launches include in-app guides, product tours, onboarding paths, and consultative support that accelerate user activation. We tie outcomes vs output OKRs to stakeholder management rituals, ensuring sales-led and product-led growth motions reinforce each other instead of competing for focus.
Finally, we closed the loop with a unified analytics platform. Activation, retention analysis, and Net Recurring Revenue (NRR) sit alongside qualitative signals from customer interviews and support. This single source of truth helps us refine product positioning, sharpen value propositions, and improve roadmapping and sprint planning with clear, testable hypotheses.
What does this mean for our partners and customers? Faster time-to-value, fewer handoffs, clearer expectations, and a shared lens on the metrics that matter. Product Partners isn’t a side program; it’s how we operationalize trust—through transparency, consistent rituals, and a bias toward learning that compounds.
If this resonates, you’ll feel it in how we discover, build, and support together. I’ll continue to share our playbooks—covering continuous discovery, onboarding, and outcome-based planning—so we can keep raising the standard for product management leadership and product-led growth, one operating rhythm at a time.
Only 10% of the plastic we manufacture gets recycled. For a century, we have relied on mechanical and chemical methods that were never designed to close the loop. As a product leader, I look for step-change technologies that break through entrenched ceilings, and biology—specifically engineered enzymes—has emerged as that missing piece.
Recently, I dug into the work of Rhea's Factory and spoke with their founders, Arzu Sandıkçı (co-founder and CEO) and Mert Topcu (co-founder). Arzu brings deep expertise in molecular biology and enzyme engineering. Mert brings 20 years in tech, including a decade at Google as a product manager. Their combined perspective—domain science plus product rigor—shows up in every design choice.
Rhea's Factory has built an AI platform that uses protein language models, multi-step agentic pipelines, and proprietary wet lab data to design novel enzymes that deconstruct plastic polymers into their original monomers—selectively, at low temperatures, and at industrial scale. That stack matters: it layers foundation models with domain-specific constraints and real-world data to systematically explore, evaluate, and scale candidates.
Here’s the crux: traditional recycling mostly just chops polymer chains into shorter fragments. Enzymatic recycling, by contrast, breaks plastic all the way back to its original monomers. Think of a necklace and pearls analogy—mechanical methods snip the chain; enzymes cleanly return the pearls. The result is true circularity: you can remake high-quality plastic without downcycling.
Selectivity is the superpower. Enzymes can target specific plastic types even in mixed waste streams, operating at low temperatures in a controlled, low energy reactor process. That combination of precision and energy efficiency is why this approach can be both greener and economically competitive.
The field accelerated after the discovery of a plastic-eating bacteria in Japan, which opened the door to enzymatic recycling. Advances in protein structure prediction—“AlphaFold” and the Nobel Prize in Chemistry—transformed what’s possible in enzyme engineering, and created space for AI-native design loops to flourish.
On the AI side, the team evolved from a human-orchestrated pipeline to an agentic AI scientist. Problem statements serve as inputs, multi-step protein generation builds on foundation models, and guardrails at each pipeline step keep the AI pointed in the right direction without limiting exploration. It’s a textbook example of agentic AI applied to a highly constrained, safety-critical domain.
Crucially, wet lab feedback closes the loop. Why wet lab data—even just hundreds of proprietary data points—can be enough to train a powerful domain-specific prediction model is a reminder that quality and relevance can trump sheer volume when you’re operating in a narrow, high-signal domain. The team measures success in the lab first, then scales what works.
I appreciated their take on exploration: there are moments when Mert sometimes wants the model to hallucinate. Running high temperature settings helps explore the full enzyme design space, and the guardrails ensure those forays remain productive rather than random. In other words, controlled creativity beats blind search.
The business constraint is unambiguous: enzymatic recycling must compete economically with cheap, oil-based plastic production. That framing forces disciplined choices around energy use, throughput, and yield—factors that directly determine unit economics and the path to industrial reality and cost parity.
What’s next is equally compelling: a process agent to optimize end-to-end system performance, a 5,000-ton demo plant in California to validate scale, and enzymes for new plastic types. I’m especially intrigued by enzyme blends for mixed plastics and the practical insight into why clamshells aren’t recyclable—precisely the messy corner cases that decide whether circularity works outside the lab.
From a product management lens, several patterns stand out: define clear problem statements as inputs to the agentic orchestration; use eval-driven development to enforce stage-by-stage quality; build a proprietary data moat with wet lab results; and tie milestones to industrial metrics (conversion, selectivity, energy per ton) rather than vanity outputs. This is AI Strategy in action—aligning model capability, data leverage, and operational design to deliver outcomes, not just demos.
Most of all, the ambition to explore an enzyme design space that “makes everything nature has ever evolved look like a tiny dot” captures the promise of this approach. Pairing agentic AI with rigorous lab validation doesn’t just make plastic circularity plausible—it makes it programmable.
Founders should bet on first-time executives. I’ve seen it pay off repeatedly, and a recent deep dive with Praveer Melwani, CFO at Figma, reinforced exactly why. Praveer joined Figma in 2017 as the company’s first business operations and finance hire—when the team was around 30 people and not yet charging for the product—and stepped into the CFO seat in 2022, helping to lead the company’s IPO in 2025. His journey from IC to CFO isn’t just a career arc; it’s a blueprint for scaling leadership capacity in high-velocity environments.
What struck me first was the clarity of the step functions that took him from operator to “whole-company” leader. Early on, he optimized for doing the work—building driver trees, stress-testing go-to-market assumptions, and putting the basics of board management in place. As the business matured, he shifted from answering questions to defining them, owning capital allocation, and shaping the operating cadence. That evolution—from execution to orchestration—is exactly the arc I look for when I’m hiring first-time VPs.
Another takeaway: Figma started acting like a public company three years before its IPO. That wasn’t optics; it was operating discipline. Quarterly rhythms, tight controls, an audit-proof close, and forward-looking narrative management helped the company move faster, not slower. In my experience, this kind of public-company readiness clarifies trade-offs, compresses decision cycles, and strengthens cross-functional trust—especially between product, finance, and go-to-market leadership.
We also unpacked what separates world-class finance leaders from a traffic-cop CFO. The latter enforces rules and guards budgets; the former uses first principles decision making to direct resources toward asymmetric upside. World-class CFOs help the company understand risk in a post-ChatGPT world, design SaaS pricing that matches product reality, and build reliable instrumentation for outcomes—not just outputs. They’re partners in product strategy as much as stewards of the balance sheet.
On pricing, I appreciated the courage behind selling the exec team on AI consumption pricing. Consumption SaaS pricing introduces variance, but it also aligns value with usage and accelerates time-to-value—especially for AI-driven features whose unit economics evolve rapidly. It requires tight stakeholder management, robust telemetry, and a crisp value proposition, but when executed well it can unlock both growth and discipline.
One of the boldest moves: Figma intentionally cut its 90% gross margin to invest in AI. That’s a masterclass in capital allocation. The reflex to protect margins is strong, but durable advantage often comes from compounding learning loops, not short-term optics. Framed correctly, AI Strategy isn’t a cost center—it’s an option on multiple future S-curves. The key is to define decision guardrails, instrument usage, and keep a living risk register for AI risk management.
I was also intrigued by how AI is changing the CFO craft itself. Tools like Claude Code are now part of the financial leader’s toolbox—useful for scenario modeling, policy drafting, and exploring new domains without slowing down the team. Paired with strong data governance and controls, this is where FinOps meets executive leverage: faster cycles, tighter experiments, and better communication with product and engineering.
Leadership transitions can catalyze phase shifts. When a COO leaves or a company re-architects its operating model, great executives don’t just fill gaps—they redesign the system. That’s when clarity about swimlanes, escalation paths, and decision rights matters most. The lesson for founders: hire for adaptability, not just pedigree, and look for people who can turn ambiguity into momentum.
Hiring leaders in functions you don’t deeply understand is a common founder challenge. The best antidote is a first-principles test for hiring VPs: can the candidate map the business model, define success metrics, and explain trade-offs in plain language? Do they show how they’d build the team, not just run it? Can they teach you something new in 30 minutes? I use this pattern across executive hiring because it scales better than relying on domain buzzwords.
Another practice I recommend: build an internal board of peer CFOs and operators. Regular, no-agenda check-ins create a community of practice that shortens feedback loops and surfaces non-obvious risks. It’s one of the most efficient ways to de-risk capital allocation and sharpen strategic narratives ahead of real board meetings.
We talked about scope versus depth: how deeply in the details should a CFO be? My view aligns with what I heard here—be in the details often enough to validate the model and coach the team, but not so deep that you become the bottleneck. The executive job is to raise the quality of decisions at scale, not to personally make every decision.
There were personal lessons, too—from the nine-year working relationship with Dylan Field to foundational team-building insights from time at Dropbox. Strong teams are built on crisp roles, tight feedback loops, and a bias for writing things down. That muscle—organizational development through clarity—is what separates resilient companies from merely lucky ones.
If you’re a founder weighing whether to back a rising operator or recruit a “proven” exec, this story tips the scale toward the former. Bet on slope, not just intercept. Create the scaffolding—public-company behaviors early, transparent metrics, and a culture that rewards learning—and your first-time executives will scale with the business. Done right, it’s the highest-LEVERAGE people decision you can make.
