geoSurge FP Performance Evidence Report

Compiled from the three #ops-team performance tracking threads provided by the user, with selected supporting Slack threads read for corroboration.

Generated: July 2, 2026 Evidence window: June 3, 2026 to July 2, 2026 People reviewed: Zahra, Jack, Harry Scope: Slack evidence only

Executive Decision

No reviewed person is currently safe to operate as an independent owner of critical People, FP, HR, visa, onboarding, contract, or EMI work without close supervision. The evidence shows repeated execution drag, weak closure discipline, and avoidable operational risk.

1. Harry Okoro - retain only in narrowed junior talent scope Harry shows the clearest evidence of generating business value in recruiting, but he is not operating at the expected senior or independent standard. Keep him only with explicit weekly plans, candidate SLAs, and quality gates.

2. Jack - probationary retain with constrained ownership Jack appears more coachable and responsive once issues are raised, but the Diego CoS error and process gaps show that critical immigration and payroll/system work need senior review.

3. Zahra - remove from critical ownership immediately The evidence shows the lowest confidence profile: slow completion, repeated chasing, missed follow-through, weak prioritisation, and insufficient ownership on urgent HR work.

Performance Ranking

Scores are relative to geoSurge's apparent operating expectation in the evidence, using a 1 to 5 scale where 5 means independently reliable and 1 means high-supervision / high-risk.

Overall rank	Person	Composite	Responsiveness	Effectiveness	Ownership	Quality / risk control	Knowledge of space	Executive read
1	Harry Okoro	2.4	2.3	3.0	2.0	1.8	2.5	Best retainable option because there is evidence of recruiting value, but not senior-independent.
2	Jack	2.3	3.0	2.4	2.7	2.2	2.0	Most manageable / coachable, but knowledge and judgment gaps make him risky on critical work.
3	Zahra Taruvinga	1.3	1.2	1.3	1.0	1.5	1.4	Lowest confidence. The pattern suggests close supervision creates the outcome more than Zahra's ownership.

Attribute Leaders

Attribute	Rank 1	Rank 2	Rank 3	Rationale
Responsiveness	Jack	Harry	Zahra	Jack commonly reacts and fixes after issues are pointed out. Harry replies but has missed time-sensitive candidate and weekly-plan follow-ups. Zahra required repeated chasing across multiple workstreams.
Effectiveness	Harry	Jack	Zahra	Harry has the strongest evidence of moving recruiting outcomes, despite serious process problems. Jack completes some systems/visa actions after correction. Zahra's outcomes repeatedly required intervention from Zoe, Figo, Jack, or others.
Ownership	Jack	Harry	Zahra	Jack has the best evidence of accepting correction and continuing. Harry creates value but needs visibility prompting. Zahra repeatedly failed to close loops or proactively unblock.
Knowledge of the space	Harry	Jack	Zahra	Harry appears strongest in recruiting context, but weak in contract/compliance details. Jack has some payroll/system execution but made a major CoS type error. Zahra showed gaps in HR access, EMI planning, Cigna follow-up, and onboarding ownership.
Quality / risk control	Jack	Harry	Zahra	All three are below bar. Jack's visa error was serious but corrected. Harry's contract errors hit key terms. Zahra's issues are broader and repeated across deadline-driven HR operations.

Individual Findings

Harry Okoro

Decision: retain only as a junior or tightly managed recruiting execution contributor. Do not treat as an independent senior advisor yet.

Responsiveness2.3

Effectiveness3.0

Knowledge2.5

Positive signal: Jons states Harry is the only one of the group trying to generate value and bringing people in, and would retain him at a junior level with growth options.
Major misses: contract drafts for Erika had incorrect key terms, including EMI vesting date, contract date, notice period, probation period, holiday allowance, and working hours.
Knowledge gap: Zoe had to raise the question of whether Erika's contract start date should move to match UK arrival, despite FP being expected to advise on this.
Responsiveness gap: Daniel Beskin's inbound was not handled until Jons stepped in roughly two weeks after the original inbound and after executive effort had already created the lead.
Visibility gap: weekly talent sprint was missing until late Monday, leaving no clear plan for the hiring workstream.

Jack

C-

Decision: keep only under probationary scope, with senior review on visa, payroll, and legal-risk work.

Responsiveness3.0

Effectiveness2.4

Knowledge2.0

Positive signal: Zoe explicitly describes Jack as more manageable than Zahra, with better attitude, and usually quick to fix once issues are pointed out.
Major miss: for Diego, Jack initially applied for the wrong CoS type after already identifying that Diego needed to apply from outside the UK.
Diagnosis gap: when the second CoS path hit a rejection, Zoe identified the company address issue before Jack did.
Access/process gap: Jack said he did not have registered email access despite Zoe saying access details had been shared in the handover thread.
Execution signal: Jack later progressed the defined CoS, paid fees, shared the CoS, and continued updates with Diego.

Zahra Taruvinga

Decision: remove from critical ownership. Do not assign urgent HR, onboarding, Cigna, contract, EMI, or deadline-driven work without direct supervision.

Responsiveness1.2

Effectiveness1.3

Knowledge1.4

Pattern: repeated late responses, missed messages, unclear ownership, and reactive behavior across onboarding, Cigna, contracts, and EMI.
Onboarding: improved document was only surfaced after repeated follow-up; the issue was not only Canvas access, but failure to resend a direct link and close the loop.
Cigna: Lucia's enrollment and confirmation required repeated chasing and eventual intervention by Zoe.
Contracts: Erika contract ownership was not proactively driven by Zahra, with Harry covering execution and Zoe still chasing at the end of Friday.
EMI/ERS: access and legal clarification were not handled in parallel early enough, despite a known July 6, 2026 deadline.
Knowledge / readiness: asking for core HR folder and employee document access in the third month is a material signal that the role setup and ownership were not under control.

Chronological Timeline

June 3, 2026

ZahraOnboardingZoe starts the geoSurge onboarding process thread and shares core onboarding assets with Zahra. This becomes the reference thread for the onboarding-process workstream.

June 4-5, 2026

ZahraZoe records that onboarding handover meetings occurred across June 3-5, after which Zahra was expected to work on the onboarding process document.

June 5, 2026

ZahraCignaZahra was asked to enroll Lucia with Cigna. The later tracking thread records that the initial Cigna email was not sent until June 8.

June 8, 2026

ZahraHarryZoe requests the current and improved onboarding documents. Zahra shares the current process and says the improved process will follow. Separately, Daniel Beskin's inbound was shared with Harry, but later evidence says it was not picked up until June 22.

June 9-12, 2026

ZahraZoe adds requirements for the onboarding document. Erika contributes onboarding feedback. Zahra engages with the feedback, but the later delivery still requires repeated chasing.

June 14, 2026

JackVisaDiego's UK work visa thread opens. Francisco asks HR to kick-start the visa application process quickly and pay visa-related admin costs urgently.

June 15, 2026

JackZahraHarryThe Week 25 HR Sprint assigns major work across onboarding, Erika contracts, Diego visa, Cigna, pension, EMI, Deel, Humaans, and org chart. Jack says he has submitted the CoS allocation request and confirms Diego likely must apply from outside the UK.

June 16, 2026

JackJack proposes adding vacancy records to Humaans so open roles appear in the org chart. This shows engagement, but later feedback says the org chart state is not useful.

June 17, 2026

JackVisaDiego asks for updates. Zoe checks the system, finds no defined CoS pending, and identifies that Jack applied for an undefined CoS. Jack acknowledges and submits the corrected route.

June 18, 2026

ZahraJackHarryErika contract is flagged as P1. Zahra redirects contract execution to Harry and asks for EMI handover. Harry asks for details. Zoe asks Zahra again for the onboarding draft. Jack's CoS path hits a rejection, and Zoe identifies the outdated company address issue.

June 19, 2026

ZahraJackHarryMultiple performance issues surface. Harry's Erika contract drafts contain important errors in key terms. Zoe chases contract completion at 5pm. Zahra says Erika is not starting Monday but had not proactively closed the contract workstream. Zahra's onboarding draft is finally linked after repeated asks. Zoe calls Cigna and learns Lucia was enrolled that morning. The three tracking threads for Zahra, Jack, and Harry are created in #ops-team.

June 22, 2026

ZahraJackHarryZoe posts structured performance evidence. Erika appears to have only one DocuSign in inbox at that point, with EMI still needing attention. Jack continues Diego CoS progress. Harry posts the Week 25 talent checklist late in the day.

June 23, 2026

ZahraHarryZoe records that Zahra did not remember Erika's contract despite hints. The Daniel Beskin thread records that a valuable inbound lead from June 5 / shared June 8 was not picked up until Jons stepped in on June 22. Jons states Harry is too slow and unprofessional, but is the only one trying to generate value and bringing people in.

June 24, 2026

JackHarryErika signs employment and EMI documents, and Francisco signs. Diego's visa application review continues, with Jack answering detailed application questions.

June 25, 2026

ZahraJackZoe reviews the onboarding documents with Zahra and says the overall document looks good, with Zahra expected to own onboarding going forward. EMI/ERS thread opens with a July 6, 2026 filing deadline. Jack initially assumes Government Gateway access exists, then says he does not have it. Zoe escalates to Francisco.

June 26, 2026

ZahraJackHarryThe Week 27 sprint lists EMI as P1 for Jack and Zahra, Pedro onboarding as P1 for Zahra, and asks Harry to share his plan on Monday. Diego's visa process moves into biometrics / travel execution.

June 29, 2026

ZahraHarryPedro's first day exposes onboarding ownership gaps: welcome message not handled by FP, onboarding call moved last-minute and later recovered, and onboarding ceremony not planned by Zahra. Harry's weekly sprint is still missing until the evening, leaving no visibility of hiring plans.

June 30, 2026

ZahraJackHarryZahra asks Zoe for access to employee folders, indicating she did not have or could not find core HR folder access. Salary fee deductions are flagged as an FP issue to observe. Harry clears an external-channels blocker after discussion with Meri.

July 2, 2026

ZahraJackZahra asks for AMV/UMV and Government Gateway access close to the July 6 EMI/ERS deadline. Zoe says she does not have access and escalates to Francisco again. Zoe records that she has zero confidence in Zahra's ability to own urgent, deadline-driven HR work without close supervision.

Risk Assessment

Immediate operational risk Critical HR work is not reliably planned backwards from deadlines. EMI/ERS access, Cigna enrollments, onboarding ceremonies, contracts, and visa steps all show late escalation or manager-driven recovery.

Management overhead risk Zoe, Francisco, Jons, Erika, Lucia, and others repeatedly had to detect issues, chase updates, diagnose problems, and either step in or create workaround ownership.

Employee and candidate experience risk Delayed Cigna details, missing contract paperwork, missed high-value inbound candidates, and unclear onboarding create avoidable trust and reputation damage.

Compliance / legal process risk Contract terms, CoS type, visa application support, EMI vesting dates, and Government Gateway / ERS filing details create risk beyond simple task lateness.

Recommended Operating Actions

Action	Owner	Timing	Purpose
Reassign all urgent HR deadline ownership away from Zahra.	Executive / Ops	Immediate	Reduce risk around EMI/ERS, contracts, Cigna, onboarding, and employee records.
Put Jack on a two-week probation plan with hard review gates.	Ops lead	Immediate	Test whether responsiveness translates into independent execution without repeated diagnosis by Zoe.
Narrow Harry to recruiting execution with explicit daily/weekly visibility.	Talent lead / Jons	Immediate	Preserve the value signal while controlling process and candidate-experience risk.
Create a single critical-work tracker for HR/FP P1s.	Ops	This week	Make owner, deadline, dependency, escalation path, and current status visible for every P1.
Add senior quality gates for contracts, visas, EMI/ERS, payroll, and benefits.	Executive / legal / finance	This week	Prevent junior execution mistakes from becoming legal, employee trust, or compliance problems.

Methodology and Limits

Evidence weighting: direct Slack messages and timestamps were weighted highest. Evaluative comments from Zoe, Francisco, and Jons were used when supported by linked timelines or specific examples. Attachments, screenshots, Superhuman links, Google Docs, and Grain recordings were not opened unless their Slack thread context was available.

Limit: this report is not a full HR investigation. It is an executive evidence synthesis based on the Slack threads provided and selected supporting Slack threads. Any employment, vendor, or termination action should use the company's formal process and any required legal review.

Source Index

Prepared for internal executive review. All rankings are based on the reviewed Slack evidence as of July 2, 2026.

Supplementary Slack analysis

Slack Engagement and Sentiment Snapshot

Prepared July 2, 2026 from Slack messages visible to the connected account. Window: April 3, 2026 through July 2, 2026, inclusive. People reviewed: Zahra Taruvinga, Jack, and Harry Okoro.

Scope Note

This is not a full Slack export. It uses accessible Slack search results for messages authored by the three individuals. The final two weeks are combined because the request was wrapped immediately before the per-week pagination was completed; the combined counts reconcile exactly to the 90-day visible totals.

Executive Decision

The evidence does not support a single universal winner across every attribute. Jack is the clear responsiveness leader by visible Slack engagement. Harry leads on effectiveness and talent-domain execution because his messages show structured pipeline work, process design, candidate calibration, and ATS/playbook implementation. Zahra has useful people-ops and onboarding-process contributions, but the visible evidence base is later-starting and lighter.

Attribute	Rank 1	Rank 2	Rank 3	Decision Rationale
Responsiveness	Jack	Harry	Zahra	Jack has 532 visible messages and repeated direct follow-ups across HR ops, payroll, onboarding, and compliance channels.
Effectiveness	Harry	Jack	Zahra	Harry's Slack record is more structured around talent outputs: sourcing, screening, Ashby migration, interview process, scorecards, and candidate progress.
Knowledge of Space	Harry in talent; Jack in HR ops	Jack / Harry by domain	Zahra	Harry shows strong recruiting and ATS knowledge; Jack shows strong HR/payroll/compliance execution knowledge. Zahra is strongest around onboarding and people-ops process improvement.
Overall Working Read	Harry for talent performance	Jack for operational responsiveness	Zahra as developing support	For a talent/performance decision, Harry has the strongest quality-of-output signal. For rapid operational coverage, Jack is strongest.

90-Day Engagement Totals

Zahra Taruvinga

134

First visible message: Jun 2. Last visible message: Jul 2.

Jack

532

First visible message: May 19. Last visible message: Jul 2.

Harry Okoro

248

First visible message: May 19. Last visible message: Jul 2.

Messages Over Time

Time-series view of visible authored Slack messages. The last point combines Jun 19-Jul 02 because the request was wrapped before the final two weekly pages were split; the combined endpoint reconciles exactly to the 90-day totals.

Zahra Jack Harry

Weekly visible message volume

Cumulative visible messages

Period	Zahra	Jack	Harry	Note
Apr 03-May 14	0	0	0	No visible authored messages found in this window.
May 15-May 21	0	44	9	Jack and Harry begin visible activity.
May 22-May 28	0	87	45	Strong Jack HR-ops activity; Harry talent pipeline activity increases.
May 29-Jun 04	7	61	52	Zahra begins visible activity; Harry and Jack both active.
Jun 05-Jun 11	17	59	25	Moderate activity across all three.
Jun 12-Jun 18	43	97	28	Jack operational spike; Zahra onboarding/process activity increases.
Jun 19-Jul 02	67	184	89	Exact combined remainder from verified 90-day totals; not split weekly due immediate wrap-up.

Sentiment and Behavioral Signal

Zahra Taruvinga

Directional coding: 20% positive/supportive, 60% constructive/operational, 20% friction/risk.

Primary themes: onboarding process, Humaans/offline days, Cigna, pensions, Ashby/offer automation.
Tone is mostly constructive and explanatory, with some apology/clarification around onboarding gaps and handoffs.
Risk signal: lower responsiveness evidence and later visible start compared with Jack and Harry.

Jack

Directional coding: 18% positive/supportive, 58% constructive/operational, 24% friction/risk.

Primary themes: Deel contractor onboarding, payroll, Humaans, visa/compliance, contracts, direct operational follow-up.
Strong responsiveness and ownership; multiple messages show fast action, direct reminders, and accountability.
Risk signal: high volume includes urgent/problem-solving traffic, rework, apologies, and operational escalations.

Harry Okoro

Directional coding: 24% positive/supportive, 61% constructive/operational, 15% friction/risk.

Primary themes: Ashby, sourcing, screening, interview playbooks, scorecards, candidate scheduling, role calibration.
Best quality-of-output signal in talent: structured process notes, candidate readouts, and concrete pipeline actions.
Risk signal: some clarifying/defensive exchanges around process alignment and candidate-stage communication.

Bottom Line

For a performance rank based on Slack evidence alone: Jack wins responsiveness, Harry wins effectiveness in the talent workstream, and Harry has the strongest knowledge-of-space signal for recruiting/talent systems. Jack is the strongest HR-ops execution and compliance responder. Zahra's evidence is more limited and concentrated in onboarding/process support, so she ranks behind both on the requested attributes.