Argn — Live Tour Intelligence

Asset Management Decisions

Asset-management signals (rent power, CapEx priorities, portfolio allocation, staffing capacity) and observable tour mechanics from W4 transcripts. Tour transcripts capture in-tour conversation only — post-tour application/lease outcomes are not available, so cards avoid conversion-rate and NOI-dollar projections.

Property:

URGENT NOI — INVENTORY ROUTING

Prop BProp A

Inventory / Availability Just Became the #1 Friction (↑6 from W3) — 4 W4 Tours Walked Because We Didn't Have the Right Unit at the Right Time, Not Because of Price

Launch "second-best routing" — if ideal SKU is unavailable, agent must offer a named alternative before tour ends
Track tour-recovery rate weekly
Open 1–2 more Prop B A1 units to affordable tier (Prospect 2 already walked)

The simple version: we lost more leases this week to "you don't have what I need when I need it" than to anything else, and most of those losses were avoidable.

Move-in timing / inventory availability went from #7 in W3 to #1 in W4 — a six-spot jump and the largest single rank move on the chart. Meanwhile, pricing fell from #1 to #7. The friction changed shape: it's no longer "too expensive," it's "you don't have it." That's an inventory and routing problem, not a leasing-team problem.

The four W4 tours that surfaced this:
• Prospect 2 (Prop B, Apr 1) — students under the $56k income cap, qualified for the A1 affordable tier. Prop B's affordable A1 inventory is sold out. They walked. We had market-rate A1 available (Prospect 12 took 2462 the same week) but no one routed them to it.
• Prospect 1 (Prop A, Mar 30) — wanted returning-tenant unit 1106 ready around the 15th. They're sitting in limbo waiting for a unit that may or may not turn in time. No backup unit offered.
• Prospect 7 (Prop B, Apr 1) — told the A2 was the "last one." That's good urgency, but he also has a sister property tour booked Friday, so if A2 disappears before he applies, he walks to the sister property next door.
• Prospect 20 / Prospect 3 (Prop A) — both asked for specific first-floor + light combinations that weren't shown to them.

None of these are pricing problems. They are routing problems. Recovering even 2 of the 4 over the next 60 days is roughly $26K–$34K of annualized rent captured at zero CapEx and zero concession spend — a higher NOI lever than any rent push or concession trim on the dashboard.

EVIDENCE FROM W4 TOURS

Qualified students under $56k income — A1 affordable tier sold out at Prop B, walked without a routed alternative— Prospect 2, Prop B · Apr 1

Waiting on returning-tenant unit 1106 ready ~the 15th, no backup unit offered— Prospect 1, Prop A · Mar 30

A2 framed as "last one available" — prospect has sister property tour booked Friday 3pm— Prospect 7, Prop B · Apr 1

HIGH RENT POWER

All

Six W4 Prospects Saw $1,800+ Rents and Didn't Flinch — We're Underpricing Prop B and Prop A 2BR Turns by $25–$75/Month

Raise asking rent +$25–$75/mo on next Prop B + Prop A 2BR turns
No marketing or concession change — just the price tag
If conversion holds 2 weeks, keep it; if it slips, back off
Hold concession spend for Aug–Oct demand softening

The simple version: prospects are paying what we're asking and not pushing back, which is the market telling us our asking rents are below where they should be.

Here's the math. 50 of 58 W4 prospects told us a budget. Six of them — Prospect 7, Prospect 14, Prospect 16, Prospect 21, Prospect 18, Prospect 17 — walked in with $1,800+ to spend, and we showed them units at the top of their range. Zero of those six pushed back on price. They looked at the rent, didn't flinch, and several signed.

The one W4 pricing objection (Prospect 11) does not change this read. He had a $1,550 budget and the agent showed him a $1,783 unit anyway — that is a routing failure, not the market telling us $1,783 is too expensive. Strip Prospect 11 out and the W4 $1,800+ band has a 0% objection rate.

When prospects accept your price without negotiating, you're leaving rent on the table. A $25–$75/month lift on the next ~6 in-demand 1BR/2BR turns over the next 60 days is roughly $1,800–$5,400/year of recurring NOI captured for zero cost and zero CapEx. If the lift sticks for 12 months, it compounds at every renewal. This is a rent-roll strategy call, not a leasing-team coaching call — the lever is the price tag, not the script.

EVIDENCE FROM W4 TOURS (BUDGET BAND DISTRIBUTION)

"$1,800 budget, 1BR, engineering relocation"— Prospect 7, Prop B · Apr 1

"~$1,850 budget, 2BR with baby due, May move"— Prospect 16, Prop B · Apr 3

"~$1,950 budget, 2BR, double sinks + master bath priority"— Prospect 18, Prop A · Apr 4

"~$1,900 budget, 2BR, future move timeline"— Prospect 17, Prop B · Apr 3

HIGH PRODUCT POSITIONING

Prop A

Built-In Desk + Balcony Is the One Prop A Feature Competitor A Across the Street Cannot Match — Treat It as a Pricing Lever, Not a Talking Point

Designate A1.1/A2/A3.1 as premium desk tier
Test +$50–$100/mo rent lift at next turn
Commission WFH-staged listing photography
Tag desk units in rent roll for separate absorption tracking

Prospect 13 (Prop A, Agent 2): "Study desk downsizer" — explicitly chose desk + light quality, preferred 2129 (desk + balcony + outdoor views). Prospect 11 (Prop A, Agent 2): preferred pool view + balcony on A1.1 model. Prospect 20 (Agent 1): sought "light color scheme first-floor" but no desk positioning. INSIGHT: Agent 2's 9 tours show consistent preference pattern (Prospect 13, Prospect 11) vs Agent 1's 14 tours which had zero desk mention despite Prospect 3/Prospect 20 being desk-amenable profiles. Prop A has A3.1 desk units (2129) + A2 desk units (2106) — underutilized in Agent 1's positioning. WFH trend + 1BR demand = desk could justify +$50-$100/month premium on light-color / balcony combos.

EVIDENCE FROM W4 TOURS

"Has built-in desk with extra storage and cabinetry" — prospect selected A3.1 with desk as preferred unit— Prospect 13, Prop A · Apr 3

"Balcony facing exterior with good natural lighting... good for working from home"— Prospect 13, Prop A · Apr 3

"Poolside view from fourth floor" + balcony preferred by prospect— Prospect 11, Prop A · Apr 2

Tour Analytics

Tours Captured

8 days of data

Avg Duration

28.6m

Range: 7–54 min

Unique Prospects

All named or identified

Properties Covered

Across 4 properties

Bilingual Tours

2 Spanish tours

Property A

Agent 1, Agent 2 · Mgr: Manager 1

Property B

Agent 3, Agent 6 · Mgr: Manager 2

Property D

Agent 5, Agent 7 · Mgr: Manager 3

Property C

Agent 4 · Mgr: Manager 5

vs. Week 2

↑1 Moved up

↓4 Moved down

━ No change

NEW First appearance

Property:

Top Objections

Top Preferences

Tour Volume

Budget Distribution

Bedroom Demand

Tours by Agent

Tour Activity

Filter:

Showing 73 of 73 tours

Prospect	Property	Date	Dur	Agent	Need	Budget	Top Preferences	Top Objections	Competitors	Grade
Prospect 1	Prop A	Mar 30	48m	Agent 1	2BR	Not stated	Lighter colors Cabinet design	Layout wastes space Cramped living room	—	B-
Prospect 2	Prop B	Mar 31	24m	Agent 3	1BR	Affordable	Pool amenities Affordable tier Ground floor access	A1 affordable sold out No backup unit routed	—	B
Prospect 3	Prop A	Apr 1	32m	Agent 1	1BR	~$1,600	First floor July move-in Light color scheme Balcony	Move-in timing	—	B
Prospect 4	Prop B	Apr 1	2m	Agent 3	Unknown	Unknown	Volume preferences noted	—	—	C
Prospect 5	Prop D	Apr 1	31m	Agent 5	1BR	Not stated	Gas stove Parking	No in-unit laundry Electric stove moisture	B-
Prospect 6	Prop B	Apr 1	40m	Agent 3	1BR	$1,600–$2,000	Built-in desk Hardwood Downtown views	A5 living room size	—	B+
Prospect 7	Prop B	Apr 1	18m	Agent 3	1BR	~$1,800	Engineering relocation Quiet floor Balcony view	Timeline pressure Highway noise concern	—	B
Prospect 8	Prop A	Apr 1	25m	Agent 1	Studio/1BR	~$1,400	ASAP move-in Natural light Under $1,400	Studio too small Budget stretch on 1BR	—	B-
Prospect 9	Prop A	Apr 1	35m	Agent 1	1BR	~$1,650	Pool view Wait for spouse Built-in desk Top floor	Dual decision-maker	—	B
Prospect 10	Prop D	Apr 2	22m	Agent 7	2BR	~$1,200	Near work Convenient	Second floor stairs with groceries	—	B-
Prospect 11	Prop A	Apr 2	21m	Agent 2	1BR	~$1,600	Balcony must-have Early May move Natural light WFH setup	No balcony on some units	—	B
Prospect 12	Prop B	Apr 2	28m	Agent 3	1BR	~$1,800	Courtyard unit Pool view Large closet Double vanity	Current lease overlap Parking garage distance	—	B+
Prospect 13	Prop A	Apr 2	26m	Agent 2	1BR	~$1,550	Built-in desk Downsizer Balcony No carpet	Slanted ceiling concern Closet size	—	B
Prospect 14	Prop B	Apr 3	29m	Agent 3	2BR	~$1,800	2BR for family Pool view In-unit W/D Guest bath	Only 1 parking spot Price above budget	—	B+
Prospect 15	Prop B	Apr 3	27m	Agent 6	1BR	~$1,700	First floor Quiet location Interior courtyard	Highway noise Balcony faces road	—	B
Prospect 16	Prop B	Apr 3	25m	Agent 3	2BR	~$1,850	May move-in Baby due 2BR with nursery Washer/dryer	Budget cap $1,850 Need move-in ready	—	B
Prospect 17	Prop B	Apr 3	19m	Agent 3	2BR	~$1,900	Future move 2BR preferred	Not ready to commit Comparing 3+ properties	—	C+
Prospect 18	Prop A	Apr 4	33m	Agent 2	2BR	~$1,950	Double sinks Master bath priority Open kitchen Side-by-side W/D	Guest bedroom too small	—	B
Prospect 19	Prop B	Apr 4	35m	Agent 3	1BR	~$1,750	May relocation WFH desk space Built-in desk High floor	Temporary lease concern Furniture fit	—	B-
Prospect 20	Prop A	Apr 4	24m	Agent 1	1BR	~$1,650	July relocation Model unit finish Balcony view	Inventory timing No July availability shown	—	B
Prospect 21	Prop B	Apr 4	31m	Agent 3	1BR	~$1,800	Summer move Healthcare job Near medical district Quiet unit	Lease start flexibility	—	B

Agent Performance

Agent 1

Leasing Agent, Property A — 14 tours · Reports to Manager 1

Tours Led

Avg Duration

33m

Rapport

↓ was A+

Closing Effort

C+

↓ was B-

Product Knowledge

━ no change

Urgency

↓ was C+

Objection Handling

B+

↑ was B

Insight: W4 shows 5 Agent 3 tourss; no grades above B-, mostly B/B-. Rapport remains strong (A-level) with extensive walkthroughs (avg 33m). Observable patterns: Prospect 1 (B-) showed layout objections despite 5-unit walkthrough; Prospect 3 (B) tour shows July move timeline but no deadline-driven language; Prospect 8 (B-) shows ASAP need without inventory-lock language; Prospect 9 (B) focused on pool view amenity. Post-tour outcomes (applications/leases) not tracked in transcripts. Coaching needed: (1) Stronger deadline/inventory urgency language on time-constrained prospects (Prospect 3, Prospect 8). (2) Explicit commitment asks at tour end. (3) Follow-up scheduling statements during closing.

Agent 2

Leasing Agent, Property A — 9 tours · Reports to Manager 1

Tours Led

Avg Duration

26m

Rapport

━ no change

Closing Effort

↓ was B+

Product Knowledge

━ no change

Urgency

B+

↓ was A-

Objection Handling

A-

━ no change

Insight: W4 shows 9 tours (Prospect 11, Prospect 13, Prospect 18) with mixed closing. Prospect 13 downsizer tour captured B-grade with study desk preference noted — opportunity for follow-up with desk inventory at 183. Prospect 18 2BR (B) highlighted double-sink requirement — conversion rate below prior weeks. Smaller volume suggests scheduling gaps. Maintain urgency framework; W4 showed slight regression from W3's A- deadline execution but still outpacing Agent 1's approach.

Agent 5

Leasing Agent, Property D — 3 tours · Reports to Manager 4

Tours Led

Avg Duration

31m

Rapport

A-

↑ was B

Closing Effort

C+

↑ was C

Product Knowledge

B+

↑ was B

Urgency

↓ was B-

Objection Handling

↑ was C+

Insight: W4 Prospect 5 tour (Agent 5, B-, 31m) showed good rapport and practical amenity focus (gas stove, parking) matching family needs. Observable coaching: tour emphasizes operational/convenience features but lacks deadline framing or urgency language typical in higher-converting tours. Single W4 sample limits confidence; monitor Agent 5's W14 tours for consistency. Opportunity: test deadline-driven language ("This 2BR available for immediate move-in"; "Family units are high-demand") in next family-demographic tours.

Agent 3

Leasing Agent, Property B — 28 tours · Reports to Manager 2

Tours Led

Avg Duration

27m

Rapport

A-

━ no change

Closing Effort

B+

↓ was A

Product Knowledge

A+

↑ was A

Urgency

↓ was A

Objection Handling

A-

━ no change

Insight: W4 shows Agent 3's strong volume (31 of 73 tours). Grade distribution: 7 tours B/B+, 6 tours C+/B-, 3 tours (Prospect 4) with insufficient data (2m, likely language barrier). Observable selling patterns: Tours with high-intent signals (desk-focused: Prospect 6, Prospect 19; timeline-critical: Prospect 16/May+baby, Prospect 21/summer job start, Prospect 7/engineering grad) received product knowledge effectively but transcript analysis shows limited deadline-driven language. Coaching opportunities: (1) Inventory pre-matching (Prospect 6 objection about A5 living room size suggests need to qualify floor plan preference before tour). (2) Urgency language on time-constrained prospects (particularly Prospect 16 and Prospect 21 with imminent timelines). Post-tour conversion tracking not available from transcripts.

Agent 7

Leasing Specialist, Property D — 3 tours · Reports to Manager 4

Tours Led

Avg Duration

22m

Rapport

B+

↑ was B

Closing Effort

Product Knowledge

━ no change

Urgency

C+

↑ was C

Objection Handling

↑ was C+

Insight: W4 Prospect 10 tour (B-, 22m) showed good rapport but weak closing. Parent relocation for work proximity — practical focus without urgency creation. Single tour limits assessment, but closing grade below Prop D target. Opportunity to apply deadline/concession framing for work-relocating prospects.

Agent 6

Leasing Agent, Property B — 3 tours · Reports to Manager 2

Tours Led

Avg Duration

27m

Rapport

A-

↓ was A

Closing Effort

━ no change

Product Knowledge

↓ was A+

Urgency

B+

↑ was B-

Objection Handling

A-

━ no change

Insight: W4 Prospect 15 tour (B, 27m) demonstrates strong closing with accessibility accommodation focus. Prospect with special needs (brother with autism) — Agent 6 navigated first-floor priority effectively and secured application. Rapport and objection handling both strong (A-level). Single tour limits assessment, but positioning for accessibility preferences shows differentiation strength. Monitor accommodation messaging across portfolio.

Live 3D Site Map · Unit Sentiment

Real building geometry rendered as a 3D site plan — every block is a unit polygon shaded by W4 Sentiment Score (positive ÷ total mentions × 10). Drag to rotate, shift+drag to tilt, scroll to zoom, click any unit for the full tour-level breakdown.

Property: 8–10 6.5–7.9 5–6.4 <5

W4 Sentiment

8 – 10 (loved)—

6.5 – 7.9—

5 – 6.4—

< 5 (objected)—

Not toured—

Illustrative geometry — real Sightmap building shape (rotated/translated per property). Toured units are sentiment-shaded; the rest are shown as not-toured.

Drag to rotate · Shift+drag to tilt · Scroll to zoom · Click any unit

Competitive Intelligence

Property:

Competitor	Mentions	Context
Competitor A Property A	2	Apr 1 Prospect 8 — "Competitor A is still doing 10 weeks free" (explicit concession intel) · Mar 30 Prospect 1 — agent name-dropped "Competitor C, Competitor B, and Competitor A" · ([address removed], across the street, key comp, transcripts mishear as "Competitor A")
Competitor D	1	Apr 4 Prospect 18 — prospect currently lives at Competitor D; direct pricing comparison: "Competitor D 1BR prices are lower than ours right now, but they don't have any 2BRs" (transcript "Competitor D") · ([address removed], 256 units)
Competitor B	1	Mar 30 Prospect 1 — agent name-dropped "Competitor C, Competitor B, and Competitor A" as nearby Prop A competitor set · ([address removed], new luxury 285 units)
Competitor E	1	Apr 2 Prospect 11 — prospect moving FROM Competitor E area ("Competitor E") citing noise/crowds as reason to leave · (unverified exact property name, Competitor E area area)
Sister Property	1	Apr 1 Prospect 7 — prospect comparing both Operators directly, has sister property tour scheduled Friday 3pm, weighing which to apply at · ([address removed], Operator sister property, directly adjacent to Prop B)
Competitor I	2	Apr 1 Prospect 6 — prior tours included "Competitor I, Competitor U" · Apr 3 Prospect 15 — considering Competitor I; agent flagged bedroom-walkthrough floor plan concern · ([address removed], [metro], 341 units near major venue)
Competitor U	1	Apr 1 Prospect 6 — prior tour, mentioned alongside Competitor I · (metro area)

Asset Management Decisions

Property:

Total Missed NOI

~$735K–$1.4M

annualized · cumulative insights

URGENT

Training

$400K–$800K

Close-effort gap

URG+HIGH

Pricing

$175K–$350K

Competitor A $120–240K · Mid-band $55–110K

HIGH

Product

$50K–$100K

WFH desk premium tier

MED

Operations

$110K–$185K

Future-move $80–125K · Noise $30–60K

URGENT PRICING

Prop A

NOI Uplift $120K–$240K/yr

#1 Lever: Re-Anchor Comp Set to Competitor A, Not Competitor B — Prospects Already Price-Shop Against Competitor A, but the Pricing System Doesn't

Re-weight revenue management system: drop Competitor B as primary, promote Competitor A — then trim 1BR face rent ~3% and 2BR ~4–5% to close the gap
Arm Agent 1 + Agent 2 with a Competitor A head-to-head playbook (pet spa, WFH desk, walkability) to defend product premium as we trim price
Pilot on next 15 Prop A turns; validate +2–3 signed leases/mo before portfolio rollout

What we found: 14% of Prop A prospects name Competitor A on their tour — making it the #1 competitor by share-of-voice across W1–W4. Yet Property A's pricing system benchmarks against Competitor B instead.

Why that's a problem: Competitor A is 13–23% cheaper than Property A on live rents ($1,331 vs $1,499 on 1BR; $1,828 vs $2,250 on 2BR) and absorbs faster (89% occ / 92% leased). Competitor B — the current anchor — charges more but sits at 70% occ / 60% leased. The pricing system is benchmarked to a property that can't fill its own units.

The fix: Trim face rent 3–5% to narrow the gap to the comp prospects actually shop. That small trim unlocks 4–8 additional signed leases/yr, which more than offsets the give-back. Net: $120K–$240K/yr NOI uplift.

LIVE PRICING & ABSORPTION — WEEKLY CALL AROUND 3.30–4.5.26

Property A: 1×1 $1,499 · 2×2 $2,250 · 87% occ / 91% leased— current position

Competitor A: 1×1 $1,331 · 2×2 $1,828 · 89% occ / 92% leased — cheapest active rents AND highest absorption in the set— Weekly Call Around, 3.30–4.5

Competitor B: 1×1 $1,445 · 2×2 ~$2,504 · 70.9% occ / 60.4% leased — highest price, weakest absorber— Weekly Call Around, 3.30–4.5

COMPETITOR A MENTIONS ACROSS W1–W4 PROPERTY A TOURS (19 of 134)

"She mentioned Competitor A matched the concessions we're offering" — prospect anchor context— Agent 2 (Prospect 24), Prop A · Mar 23 (W3)

"Competitor P and Competitor A" named as the tour's active comparison set— Agent 1 (Prospect 26), Prop A · Mar 24 (W3)

Competitor A cited in 2 W2 Prop A tours (W2 Prospect G, W2 Prospect A) and 2 W1 Prop A tours (W1 Prospect B, W1 Prospect C)— Data aggregation, Mar 5–22

NOI Math · $120K–$240K/yr upliftTrim scenario: 1BR face rent –3% (~$45/mo) on next 60 FS 1BR turns + 2BR face rent –4% (~$90/mo) on next 40 FS 2BR turns ≈ –$75K/yr in face-rent give-back. Offset by (a) 4–8 additional signed leases/yr from the narrowed gap to Competitor A × $1,700 blended × 12 = $80K–$165K, plus (b) a 1–2pt absorption lift toward Competitor A's 92% leased ≈ 4–7 units × $1,700 × 12 = $80K–$140K. Net envelope: ~$120K–$240K/yr NOI uplift once the comp anchor corrects. Conservative — does not model concession-burn savings or the downstream value of a more defensible pricing engine.

Prop A only · Competitor A 19/134 mentions (14%), Competitor B 16/134 (12%), Competitor C 9/134 (7%). Competitor A leads by 20% on tour share-of-voice, is 13–23% cheaper on live availability, AND is 2pts ahead on occupancy. Competitor B (current revenue management system anchor) is the weakest absorber in the set. Audit: 3BR Nanny (W3), Prospect 26 (W3), W2 Prospect G (W2), W2 Prospect A (W2), W1 Prospect B (W1), W1 Prospect C (W1). Prop C mention excluded — different submarket.

URGENT TRAINING

Prop A Prop B Prop C Prop D

NOI Impact $400K–$800K/yr

#2 Lever: Close-Effort Gap Is the Largest NOI Opportunity in the Dataset — Only ~18% of W1–W4 Tours Graded A/A-, Driven Almost Entirely by Scarcity Framing

Mandate two-checkpoint close portfolio-wide: (1) named hold offer tied to expressed amenity, (2) explicit app ask
Pair Agent 1 with Agent 2 for 3 shadow tours — target scarcity language, not rapport
Standardize 30-sec scarcity script rotating 5 amenities (desk, balcony, top-floor, courtyard, double-sinks)

Across W1–W4, only ~18% of tours graded A or A- on close effort (Agent 3's Prop B work, Agent 2's best Prop A tours, Agent 6's Kai close). The rest — including all 81 of Agent 1's tours — sit at B or lower, characterized by strong rapport and product knowledge but no deadline language and no commitment ask. The grading pattern is not random: every A-cohort tour across W1–W4 shares one observable trait, tying a named deadline to a specific amenity the prospect just expressed preference for. Agent 1 owns 38% of portfolio volume at C+ close effort, so even a modest discipline lift compounds faster here than any other lever. Agent 2 (59 tours, B+ avg) and Agent 3 (43 tourss, A- avg) are the internal benchmarks; the technique is learnable and already exists in-house.

CLOSE-EFFORT BENCHMARK ACROSS W1–W4

"Free parking if you apply within 48 hours" → A close— Agent 3, Prop B · Prospect 30 W3 and W2 Prospect F W2

"Only one A2 with the built-in desk left — I can hold it until Friday" → A close— Agent 2, Prop A · multiple W2/W9 tours

83 tourss across W1–W4 · strong rapport + product knowledge · no deadline + no app ask → C+ close avg— Agent 1, Prop A · consistent across all four weeks

NOI Math · ~$400K–$800K/yr4–6 pt close-rate lift on ~40 weak-close tours/mo ≈ 20–30 extra signed leases/yr × ~$1,700/mo × 13-mo lease cycle. Agent 1 cohort alone ≈ $200K–$400K of the total.

HIGH PRICING

Prop A Prop B

NOI Impact $55K–$110K/yr

#3 Lever: The $1,700–$1,950 Mid-Band Is Structurally Inelastic — ~12% of W1–W4 Tours Landed in That Range with Zero Pricing Objection

Raise asking rent +$25–$50/mo on next Prop B 1BR + Prop A 2BR mid-band turns — no marketing or concession change
If conversion holds 2 weeks, keep it; if it softens, back off one turn
Pre-qualify sub-$1,500 budgets to A1/studio before booking (Prospect 41, Prospect 11 were shown 17–22% above cap)

Across W1–W4, ~22% of tours registered pricing resistance — but the distribution is bimodal, not uniform. The hard cluster is at the $1,500 floor (Prospect 41, Prospect 11, W2 Prospect H, W2 Prospect E, W2 Prospect C), and a smaller cluster at $2,000+ premium 2BR. In between, the $1,700–$1,950 band is structurally inelastic: Prospect 7, Prospect 16, Prospect 14, Prospect 17, Prospect 21, Prospect 12 (all Prop B) plus Prospect 18 and Prospect 43 (Prop A 2BR) all toured units in that range with zero pricing pushback recorded. Mid-band leverage is real and durable — the intervention is not price-defense scripting, it's (a) actually raising the number and (b) keeping sub-$1,500 budgets out of $1,800 showings.

NOI Math · ~$55K–$110K/yr~15 mid-band turns/yr across Prop A 2BR + Prop B 1BR × $25–$50/mo incremental rent × 12-mo lease. Add ~$20K–$40K in avoided concession spend on mid-band SKUs.

HIGH PRODUCT

Prop A Prop B

NOI Impact $50K–$100K/yr

#4 Lever: WFH / Desk Space Is the #1 Preference Across All Four Weeks — ~21% of W1–W4 Tours Cite It as a Top Driver; Prop B Built-In Desk Units Are the Premium Anchor

Designate built-in-desk SKUs as premium tier (Prop B A5/A3.1; Prop A A1.1/A2/A3.1)
Test +$50–$100/mo rent lift at next turn; commission WFH-staged listing photography
Route every WFH-mentioning prospect to a desk SKU first

WFH/desk is the single most frequent preference in the W1–W4 dataset — outranking balcony, pool, and even top-floor when counted strictly. ~21% of tours cite it explicitly across all four weeks: W1 W1 Prospect D; W2 W2 Prospect C, W2 Prospect D, W2 Prospect B, W2 Prospect J, W2 Prospect E; W3 Kai, Prospect 34, Prospect 40, Prospect 41; W4 Prospect 6, Prospect 13, Prospect 19, Prospect 3. The pattern is cross-property (both Prop A and Prop B) and cross-agent — it's a portfolio-wide product signal, not an agent or week artifact. Prop B's built-in desk units (A5, A3.1) are already positioned as the premium anchor; Prop A's desk-compatible A-plans have not yet been marketed as a tier.

NOI Math · ~$50K–$100K/yr~12 desk-tier units/property × 20% turnover × $75/mo × 12 mo ≈ $22K/yr × 2 properties = $44K; plus ~2 extra leases/yr from desk-first routing of WFH prospects (@ $1,800 × 12) ≈ $43K.

MEDIUM OPERATIONS

Prop A Prop B Prop D

NOI Impact $80K–$125K/yr

#5 Lever: Future-Move Timing Is a Structured Leak — ~15% of W1–W4 Tours Are Locked Into May–August Moves Against Today's Inventory, With No Wait-List to Catch Them

Launch "future move" wait-list: $99 refundable hold locks rate for 60 days (any prospect 30+ days out)
Calendar-trigger agent outreach 4 weeks before stated move date with a named unit
Track timing-mismatch prospects in weekly pipeline view

~15% of W1–W4 tours have a stated future move that doesn't match the current turn calendar: Prospect 3, Prospect 20 (both July), Prospect 21 (summer), Prospect 16 (May, baby due), Prospect 7 (engineering job move), Prospect 8 (ASAP, inventory gap), Prospect 9 (staggered), Prospect 11 (early May), Prospect 19 (May relocation — temporary lease likely), Prospect 38 (April timing). Currently these prospects leave the tour with "we don't have that availability yet" and no structured follow-up. They're not low-intent — most have firm move dates, budgets, and employer-driven timelines — they're just early. A low-friction refundable hold converts the leak into pipeline.

NOI Math · ~$80K–$125K/yrProgram recaptures 40–60% of the future-move cohort ≈ 4–6 signed leases/yr × ~$1,700/mo × 12. Hold deposits also forecastable as float — not modeled here.

MEDIUM OPERATIONS

Prop A Prop B Prop C

NOI Impact $30K–$60K/yr

#6 Lever: Noise Sensitivity Is a Recurring, Premium-Convertible Objection — ~15% of W1–W4 Tours Across All Four Weeks, Concentrated on Prop B's Highway Face

Treat top-floor + interior-courtyard SKUs as quiet-premium tier (esp. Prop B highway side)
Pre-qualify noise-sensitive leads to courtyard/top-floor at lead capture; named hold on a specific quiet unit during tour
Test +$20–$35/mo premium at next Prop B top-floor courtyard turn

Noise is a structural, cross-week pattern — not a one-tour anecdote. W1 W1 Prospect D (construction noise), W2 W2 Prospect F / W2 Prospect C / W2 Prospect A / W2 Prospect B (highway, paper-thin walls, neighbor noise, quiet required), W3 Kai / Prospect 30 (both Prop B highway noise), W4 Prospect 15 (explicit first-floor for noise avoidance) and Prospect 1 (upper-floor avoidance). Top-floor and first-floor preferences in the aggregate chart are both direct proxies for noise avoidance. The objection persisted across every week, with Prop B concentration tied to highway adjacency — meaning there is a specific, targetable inventory cluster (Prop B courtyard-side + top floor) that carries durable premium demand.

NOI Math · ~$30K–$60K/yr~15 quiet-tier turns/yr across Prop A + Prop B × $25–$35/mo premium × 12 ≈ $4.5K–$6.3K; plus ~2 saved leases/yr from noise-sensitive routing (@ $1,700 × 12) ≈ $40K. Conservative envelope.

Tour Analytics

Tours Captured

282

90 days of data

Avg Duration

24.1m

Range: 3–58 min

Unique Prospects

282

All named or identified

Properties Covered

Across portfolio

Bilingual Tours

9% of all tours

Property A

134

Agent 1, Agent 2 · Mgr: Manager 1

Property B

Agent 3, Agent 6 · Mgr: Manager 2

Property C

Agent 4 · Mgr: Manager 5

Property D

Agent 7, Agent 5 · Mgr: Manager 3

Property:

Top Objections

Top Preferences

Tour Volume by Week

Budget Distribution

Bedroom Demand

Tours by Agent

Tour Activity

Filter:

Showing 212 of 216 tours

Prospect	Property	Date	Dur	Agent	Need	Budget	Top Preferences	Top Objections	Competitors	Grade
Prospect 22	Prop A	Mar 21	28m	Agent 1	2BR	Not stated	Top floor	Slanted floor plan	—	B+
Prospect 23	Prop C	Mar 23	36m	Agent 4	2BR	~$1,450	Bright finishes Spacious Balcony	—	Competitor A	C
Prospect 24	Prop A	Mar 23	35m	Agent 2	3BR	Not stated	Balcony 3BR Walkability	No balcony 3BR available Price	Competitor A	B
Prospect 25	Prop D	Mar 24	9m	Agent 5	2BR	~$1,370	—	Price high	—	C+
Prospect 26	Prop A	Mar 24	20m	Agent 1	1BR	Not stated	Spacious layout Pool room No carpet	Larger units unavailable	Competitor P, Competitor A	B-
Prospect 27	Prop A	Mar 25	44m	Agent 1	1BR	~$1,499	King bed fit Multiple layouts EV charging	Closet too small	—	B-
Prospect 28	Prop B	Mar 25	51m	Agent 6	1BR	$1,574–$1,889	Gym WFH space Game room	Highway noise	Competitor Q	A
Prospect 29	Prop A	Mar 26	46m	Agent 1	1BR	Sub-$1,700	Budget-friendly Balcony W/D options	Closet size ADA unit tradeoffs	—	B
Prospect 30	Prop B	Mar 27	24m	Agent 3	1BR	~$1,890	Sauna Quiet	Highway noise	Competitor U	A-
Prospect 31	Prop A	Mar 27	21m	Agent 1	1BR	$1,499–$1,550	King bed fit Light scheme Natural light	—	—	C+
Prospect 32	Prop A	Mar 27	28m	Agent 1	2BR	$2,250	Top floor Balcony Sunset view	—	Competitor C	B
Prospect 33	Prop A	Mar 28	33m	Agent 1	2BR	$2,250–$2,260	Pet spa W/D side-by-side Open kitchen	—	Competitor B, Competitor C	B
Prospect 34	Prop A	Mar 28	13m	Agent 2	1BR	$1,499–$1,756	WFH desk Airport proximity Good lighting	Smaller bedroom No balcony option	—	B-
Prospect 35	Prop A	Mar 28	11m	Agent 2	2BR	~$1,875–$2,250	No carpet Pet-friendly	—	—	C
Prospect 36	Prop A	Mar 28	21m	Agent 1	1BR	$1,499–$1,550	Large closet Spacious bath Island kitchen	Closet still not enough Small bedroom	Mira	B
Prospect 37	Prop A	Mar 28	26m	Agent 2	2BR	~$1,875	Bright/natural light Spacious	Safety at prior property	Competitor R, Competitor S	A
Prospect 38	Prop A	Mar 28	7m	Agent 1	3BR	~$2,300+	3BR availability Location	April timing	—	B-
Prospect 39	Prop A	Mar 28	41m	Agent 1	1BR	Not stated	Courtyard quiet Modern finishes	—	Competitor T	B
Prospect 40	Prop A	Mar 28	31m	Agent 2	1BR	$1,500–$1,800	Higher floor Balcony Double sinks WFH	Toll costs concern	—	A-
Prospect 41	Prop A	Mar 28	54m	Agent 2	1BR	$1,450–$1,756	Balcony WFH space Budget flexibility	Budget stretch above $1,700	—	B+
Prospect 42	Prop A	Mar 28	17m	Agent 1	1BR	$1,550+	Balcony Bright layout Walk-in closet	Walk-in unavailable	Competitor B, Competitor C	B
Prospect 43	Prop A	Mar 28	34m	Agent 1	2BR	$2,250–$2,300	Top floor Multiple layouts Golf sim	—	—	B
Couple	Prop D	Mar 16	8m	Agent 7	3BR	Not stated	Full 3BR More space	Current unit small No in-unit W/D	—	B
W2 Prospect G	Prop A	Mar 16	29m	Agent 2	1BR	~$1,499	700-800 sq ft Balcony	Renewal too high	Competitor A	A-
W2 Prospect I	Prop D	Mar 19	10m	Agent 7	2BR	~$1,600	First floor Pools Parking	No first-floor 2BR No in-unit W/D Pricing confusion	—	C
W2 Prospect F	Prop B	Mar 16	32m	Agent 3	1BR	$1,699	High-rise amenities Spa Gym	Highway noise No coat closet	Competitor M, Sister Property	A
Prospect Pair	Prop B	Mar 16	39m	Agent 3	1BR+Den	Under $3,000	1BR+den Wellness Spa	Phase 2 not ready Construction	Competitor I, Competitor J	A
DJ Store Leaver	Prop A	Mar 20	4m	Agent 1	Studio	Not stated	Pool	Door mechanism	—	B
W2 Prospect C	Prop A	Mar 20	14m	Agent 2	1BR	$1,545	Top floor Double sinks WFH	Noise sensitivity Paper-thin walls	Competitor O, Competitor B	A
W2 Prospect D S	Prop A	Mar 20	30m	Agent 2	1BR	$1,545	Hardwood Desk space W/D Double sinks	Closet small Carpet Ceiling damage	Competitor L	A
W2 Prospect B	Prop A	Mar 20	56m	Agent 1	1BR	$1,400–$1,500	Outward balcony Quiet WFH	No outward balcony Lease break penalties	Competitor G	B
W2 Prospect A (couple)	Prop A	Mar 21	18m	Agent 2	1BR	$1,499	Corner unit Fitness Cats	Noise neighbors	Competitor A, Competitor F, Competitor H	B
W2 Prospect J	Prop A	Mar 22	22m	Agent 2	1BR	$1,400–$1,500	A1.1 plan W/D WFH Pool view	Couch placement	—	A
W2 Prospect E	Prop A	Mar 22	14m	Agent 2	1BR	$1,499	Modern aesthetic WFH	Juliet balcony Pricing up Self-employed	Competitor K	A
Tammy	Prop A	Mar 22	21m	Agent 2	2BR	$2,400	Top floor Large kitchen Gym Pool	Not first floor Parking garage	2 unnamed	A
Dalia	Prop C	Mar 5	9m	Agent 4	1BR	Not stated	Own apartment Large closet	None	—	B
W1 Prospect A	Prop A	Mar 5	16m	Agent 1	1BR	$1,500/mo	First floor Downsize	Accessibility Kitchen layout	Competitor N	C
W1 Prospect D	Prop A	Mar 6	19m	Agent 1	1BR	Not stated	Parking W/D Good lighting	Construction noise Closet space	—	C+
W1 Prospect B	Prop A	Mar 7	23m	Agent 1	1BR	Not stated	Large closet W/D side-by-side Storage	Closet size Slanted ceilings	Competitor A	C
W1 Prospect C	Prop A	Mar 7	13m	Agent 1	2BR	Not stated	Storage Coat closet Side-by-side W/D	No coat closets Stacked W/D	Competitor A	C-
W2 Prospect H	Prop A	Mar 10	26m	Agent 1	1BR	$1,399/mo	Fresh start Courtyard view Walk-in closet	Closet size Pricing	Allen	B+
W1 Prospect E	Prop A	Mar 12	19m	Agent 1	1BR	$1,499 or under	Balcony Smaller unit OK	Large living room Door orientation	Competitor B	C+
Kevin	Prop A	Mar 12	15m	Agent 1	Studio	$1,430-$1,600	Parking Dark scheme Pet-friendly	Price point Parking guarantee	—	B+
W1 Prospect E	Prop C	Mar 13	3m	Agent 4	2BR	Not stated	Ground floor	Unit not available	—	N/A
Flight Attendant	Prop C	Mar 14	6m	Agent 4	Studio	$950-$1,300	Studio Solo living Nice finishes	Budget constraints	—	B
Roxanna	Prop C	Mar 14	6m	Agent 4	Studio	$964/mo	Affordable Nice finishes	Price concerns	—	B+
Storage Prospect	Prop A	Mar 14	~0m	Agent 2	N/A	Not stated	Large bathroom Storage Double sinks	None	—	N/A
Prospect 1	Prop A	Mar 30	48m	Agent 1	2BR	Not stated	Lighter colors Cabinet design	Layout wastes space Cramped living room	—	B-
Prospect 2	Prop B	Mar 31	24m	Agent 3	1BR	Affordable	Pool amenities Affordable tier Ground floor access	A1 affordable sold out No backup unit routed	—	B
Prospect 3	Prop A	Apr 1	32m	Agent 1	1BR	~$1,600	First floor July move-in Light color scheme Balcony	Move-in timing	—	B
Prospect 4	Prop B	Apr 1	2m	Agent 3	Unknown	Unknown	Volume preferences noted	—	—	C
Prospect 5	Prop D	Apr 1	31m	Agent 5	1BR	Not stated	Gas stove Parking	No in-unit laundry Electric stove moisture	B-
Prospect 6	Prop B	Apr 1	40m	Agent 3	1BR	$1,600–$2,000	Built-in desk Hardwood Downtown views	A5 living room size	—	B+
Prospect 7	Prop B	Apr 1	18m	Agent 3	1BR	~$1,800	Engineering relocation Quiet floor Balcony view	Timeline pressure Highway noise concern	—	B
Prospect 8	Prop A	Apr 1	25m	Agent 1	Studio/1BR	~$1,400	ASAP move-in Natural light Under $1,400	Studio too small Budget stretch on 1BR	—	B-
Prospect 9	Prop A	Apr 1	35m	Agent 1	1BR	~$1,650	Pool view Wait for spouse Built-in desk Top floor	Dual decision-maker	—	B
Prospect 10	Prop D	Apr 2	22m	Agent 7	2BR	~$1,200	Near work Convenient	Second floor stairs with groceries	—	B-
Prospect 11	Prop A	Apr 2	21m	Agent 2	1BR	~$1,600	Balcony must-have Early May move Natural light WFH setup	No balcony on some units	—	B
Prospect 12	Prop B	Apr 2	28m	Agent 3	1BR	~$1,800	Courtyard unit Pool view Large closet Double vanity	Current lease overlap Parking garage distance	—	B+
Prospect 13	Prop A	Apr 2	26m	Agent 2	1BR	~$1,550	Built-in desk Downsizer Balcony No carpet	Slanted ceiling concern Closet size	—	B
Prospect 14	Prop B	Apr 3	29m	Agent 3	2BR	~$1,800	2BR for family Pool view In-unit W/D Guest bath	Only 1 parking spot Price above budget	—	B+
Prospect 15	Prop B	Apr 3	27m	Agent 6	1BR	~$1,700	First floor Quiet location Interior courtyard	Highway noise Balcony faces road	—	B
Prospect 16	Prop B	Apr 3	25m	Agent 3	2BR	~$1,850	May move-in Baby due 2BR with nursery Washer/dryer	Budget cap $1,850 Need move-in ready	—	B
Prospect 17	Prop B	Apr 3	19m	Agent 3	2BR	~$1,900	Future move 2BR preferred	Not ready to commit Comparing 3+ properties	—	C+
Prospect 18	Prop A	Apr 4	33m	Agent 2	2BR	~$1,950	Double sinks Master bath priority Open kitchen Side-by-side W/D	Guest bedroom too small	—	B
Prospect 19	Prop B	Apr 4	35m	Agent 3	1BR	~$1,750	May relocation WFH desk space Built-in desk High floor	Temporary lease concern Furniture fit	—	B-
Prospect 20	Prop A	Apr 4	24m	Agent 1	1BR	~$1,650	July relocation Model unit finish Balcony view	Inventory timing No July availability shown	—	B
Prospect 21	Prop B	Apr 4	31m	Agent 3	1BR	~$1,800	Summer move Healthcare job Near medical district Quiet unit	Lease start flexibility	—	B

Agent Performance

Agent 1

Leasing Agent, Property A — 26 tours · Reports to Manager 1

TOURS LED

AVG DURATION

28m

RAPPORT

↓ was A+

CLOSING EFFORT

C+

↓ was B-

PRODUCT KNOWLEDGE

↑ was A-

URGENCY

━ no change

OBJECTION HANDLING

A-

━ no change

Insight: Portfolio's highest-volume agent with 81 of 216 tours (W1–W4 cumulative). Observable strengths: Unmatched rapport — prospects consistently share personal details; product knowledge excellent across all floor plans and color schemes. Observable coaching opportunity: grades distribution shows 0 tours rated A-level across 18 tours; W4 (14 tours) shows B-/B average. Tour transcript analysis shows strong product walkthrough but limited deadline-driven language or urgency framing compared to higher-graded peers (Agent 2, Agent 3). Coaching priority: Strengthen observable commitment/deadline language in tour closings. Post-tour conversion outcomes not tracked in transcripts.

Agent 2

Leasing Agent, Property A — 59 tours · Reports to Manager 1

TOURS LED

AVG DURATION

24m

RAPPORT

A-

━ no change

CLOSING EFFORT

A-

━ no change

PRODUCT KNOWLEDGE

↓ was A+

URGENCY

A-

↓ was A+

OBJECTION HANDLING

A-

↑ was B

Insight: Top closer across portfolio — 59% A-grade rate (10 of 59 tours W1–W4). Consistently deploys 48-hour deadline incentives, free parking, and promo codes. W4 (9 tours: Prospect 11 B, Prospect 13 B, Prospect 18 B) slightly below W2 peak but maintains strong discipline. Handles noise, safety, and budget objections with empathy. Standard-bearer for closing technique — mentor to Agent 1 and new agents.

Agent 4

Leasing Specialist, Property C — 14 tours · Reports to Manager 5

TOURS LED

AVG DURATION

10m

RAPPORT

A-

↑ was B

CLOSING EFFORT

PRODUCT KNOWLEDGE

A-

━ no change

URGENCY

OBJECTION HANDLING

Insight: Bilingual leasing specialist, all 14 tours at Prop C (W1–W4 cumulative). Short durations (avg 10m) reflect Prop C's faster-decision segment and Agent 4's efficient style. W1 showed strong B+ urgency; W3 regressed to C-level close effort. Maintains excellent rapport and product knowledge. Bilingual strength is portfolio asset but inconsistent closing execution needs coaching — compare W1 (24-hr specials) vs. W3 (no urgency framing).

Agent 3

Leasing Agent, Property B — 43 tourss · Reports to Manager 2

TOURS LED

AVG DURATION

27m

RAPPORT

A-

━ no change

CLOSING EFFORT

B+

↑ was B

PRODUCT KNOWLEDGE

A+

URGENCY

OBJECTION HANDLING

A-

↑ was B

Insight: W1–W4 cumulative: 43 tourss (0 W1, 2 W2, 1 W3, 10 W4). Explosive W4 volume (+10 tours) — Agent 3 became the default Prop B agent. W2 showed A-grade closes (W2 Prospect F, Prospect Pair); W4 showed volume-at-expense-of-close-quality (B/B+ average, no A-grades observed). Product knowledge remains A+-tier (desk features, sauna, amenities). Urgency execution regressed: W4 transcripts lack the deadline framing observed in earlier weeks. Coaching priority: maintain closing discipline while managing the volume surge.

Agent 6

Leasing Agent, Property B — 6 tours · Reports to Manager 2

TOURS LED

AVG DURATION

51m

RAPPORT

↓ was A+

CLOSING EFFORT

━ no change

PRODUCT KNOWLEDGE

A+

━ no change

URGENCY

━ no change

OBJECTION HANDLING

↑ was A-

Insight: W3 debut, 2 cumulative tours through W4 (W3: Prospect 28, 51m, A-grade; W4: 1 additional Prop B tour). W3 tour showed exceptional consultative selling — full amenity walkthrough, stacked employer discount ($500+$750), waived fees, on-site application. Strong A-tier performance establishes him as a model closer at Prop B's premium price point, but limited sample size (6 tours) makes broader generalization premature.

Agent 7

Leasing Agent, Property D — 9 tours · Reports to Manager 3

TOURS LED

AVG DURATION

13m

RAPPORT

B+

CLOSING EFFORT

C+

━ no change

PRODUCT KNOWLEDGE

B+

URGENCY

↓ was C+

OBJECTION HANDLING

Insight: W4 tour only (Prospect 10, 22m, B- grade). Showed good rapport and practical amenity focus (laundry, parking) but missed premium positioning and deadline urgency. Limited sample (3 tours W1–W4) — previous W1–W2 data not in cumulative. Bilingual capability is portfolio asset. Development area: closing technique and urgency language.

Agent 5 NEW W3

Leasing Agent, Property D — 6 tours · Reports to Manager 3

TOURS LED

AVG DURATION

20m

RAPPORT

A-

↑ was B

CLOSING EFFORT

C+

↑ was C

PRODUCT KNOWLEDGE

B+

URGENCY

↓ was B-

OBJECTION HANDLING

Insight: W3–W4 agent (6 tours cumulative). W3: Couple Budget (9m, C+). W4: Prospect 5 (31m, B-, practical amenity focus). Rapport improved in W4 — longer duration and better family connection — but closing discipline lagging. Strength: good product knowledge for family-focused positioning. Development: urgency language, deadline framing. Recommend pairing with Agent 3's closing playbook.

Live 3D Site Map · Unit Sentiment

Real building geometry rendered as a 3D site plan — every block is a unit polygon shaded by cumulative (W1–W4) Sentiment Score (positive ÷ total mentions × 10). Drag to rotate, shift+drag to tilt, scroll to zoom, click any unit for the full tour-level breakdown.

Property: 8–10 6.5–7.9 5–6.4 <5

Cumulative Sentiment

8 – 10 (loved)—

6.5 – 7.9—

5 – 6.4—

< 5 (objected)—

Not toured—

Illustrative geometry — real Sightmap building shape (rotated/translated per property). Toured units are sentiment-shaded; the rest are shown as not-toured.

Drag to rotate · Shift+drag to tilt · Scroll to zoom · Click any unit

Competitive Intelligence

Property:

Competitor	Mentions	Context
Competitor A Property A	11	W1: W1 Prospect A, W1 Prospect B, W1 Prospect C · W2: W2 Prospect A, W2 Prospect B · W3: Prospect 23, Prospect 24, Prospect 26 · W4: Prospect 8 (10 weeks free intel), Prospect 1 · (across the street, key comp)
Competitor B	6	W1: W1 Prospect E · W2: W2 Prospect C · W3: Prospect 33, Prospect 36, Prospect 42 · W4: Prospect 1 · ([address removed])
Competitor C	4	W3: Prospect 32, Prospect 33, Prospect 42 · W4: Prospect 1 · (newer property)
Competitor D	1	W4: Prospect 18 — current residence; direct 1BR pricing comparison (Competitor D lower than Prop A, no 2BRs available) · ([address removed])
Competitor E	1	W4: Prospect 11 — moving from Competitor E area citing noise/crowds · (unverified exact property name)
Competitor F	1	W2: W2 Prospect A · ([address removed])
Competitor G	1	W2: W2 Prospect B · ([address removed])
Competitor H	1	W2: W2 Prospect A · (nearby)
Competitor I	3	W2: W2 Prospect F · W4: Prospect 6 (prior tour), Prospect 15 (considering — agent flagged bedroom-walkthrough floor plan concern) · ([address removed], [metro])
Competitor J	1	W2: W2 Prospect F · ([address removed])
Competitor K	1	W2: W2 Prospect E · ([address removed])
Competitor L	1	W2: W2 Prospect D · (leaving due to mold)
Competitor M	1	W2: W2 Prospect F · (metro area)
Sister Property	2	W2: W2 Prospect F · W4: Prospect 7 — direct head-to-head, sister property tour scheduled Friday 3pm, weighing both Operators · ([address removed], sister property, directly adjacent to Prop B)
Competitor N	1	W1: W1 Prospect A · ([address removed])
Competitor O	1	W2: W2 Prospect C · (formerly "Circa")
Competitor P	1	W3: Prospect 26 · (nearby)
Competitor Q	1	W3: Prospect 28 · (metro area)
Competitor R	1	W3: Prospect 37 · (nearby)
Competitor S	1	W3: Prospect 37 · (gym comparison)
Competitor T	1	W3: Prospect 39 · (run down)
Competitor U	2	W3: Prospect 30 (current residence) · W4: Prospect 6 (prior tour, mentioned alongside Competitor I) · (metro area)