00 / 10 · Case study
How I redesigned partner onboarding to qualify companies earlier, surface value before approval and make activation measurable.
Previous journey context. 70% of leads who started pre-registration did not complete document submission. This was the situation before the redesign, not a result of it.
Activation in this case. Moving from commercial interest to an enabled partner who can explore the platform and continue toward selling through Turn2C. This is the intended product outcome, not a claim of measured uplift.
Central thesis. The journey needed to earn trust before asking for its heaviest proof, while keeping qualification and controls visible to the business.
Real interface · The home screen that greets the partner right after pre-registration. It evidences the shipped demonstration state; it does not quantify use. Fig. 00
The onboarding sequence asked for effort and trust before it made the platform's value clear.
In the previous journey, 70% of leads who started pre-registration did not complete document submission. The figure describes the historical context that motivated the redesign. It is not a post-launch result.
Professional responsible for initiating the accreditation of a company interested in selling consortiums through Turn2C. This person may be an owner, salesperson, manager or operational lead and may differ from the company's legal representative.
Arrives mainly through acquisition initiatives, usually on mobile, with varying levels of knowledge about consortiums, commercial structure and operational maturity.
Understand the platform's value, verify whether the model fits their operation and gain access to simulation and sales tools.
Limited attention on mobile, value proposition still being built, business documents not always at hand, and the need to balance fast onboarding with qualification and legal compliance.
The journey maps the transition from commercial prospect to enabled partner. Consumer registration follows a different journey.
The previous experience was visually organized, but front-loaded too much effort. Before understanding the platform's value, the prospect had to provide company data, contact details, address, digital presence and prepare to submit documents.
For eligible companies, this raised the cost of entry. Individuals also started a journey designed for companies, so the mismatch surfaced too late.
The order of eligibility, effort and value made the number of fields more costly.
The new journey separated three moments that were previously mixed: business eligibility, profile qualification and company formalization.
Marketing and Commercial. Acquisition created volume before the journey established fit. Commercial teams requalified prospects later and lacked a shared progression view.
Legal and operations. Required company data, documents and controls remained essential, while fragmented states made review and follow-up harder to coordinate.
Support, Product and Engineering. Questions about login, pending items, contracts and status exposed gaps across interface states, business rules and integrations.
Business eligibility identified too late.
Too much effort front-loaded before value perception.
States and next steps were unclear.
“The user moves forward with uncertainty and the human team becomes the glue holding the process together.”
Multi-method discovery, combining behavioral evidence, experience analysis and operational knowledge from each team.
Four internal fronts: Marketing, Commercial, Legal and Support.
January to March 2026.
Semi-structured interviews of 30–40 minutes, behavioral analysis with Hotjar, benchmarking, journey analysis and collaborative synthesis in a UX Wall.
Internal interviews, behavioral records, journey documentation, discovery materials and business rules.
The total number of participants, interviews per area and Hotjar sessions analyzed were not consolidated in this case. The investigation relied heavily on internal stakeholders and should not be presented as a representative sample of end users.
The research cross-referenced what teams reported, what operations required and what behavior suggested.
The historical configuration followed six URLs — login, screening, personal data, company onboarding, proposal data and finalization — observed over the last 12 months. It documents the configured path; its recorded metrics are not reliable conversion results.
The repository contained 378 highlights; they are observations, not 378 representative users. A 16-response onboarding survey conducted between 20/05/2025 and 20/05/2026 added qualitative signals about clarity and continuity; it does not support population-level frequency claims.
The CNPJ CTA received 478 clicks, the CNPJ field 288 and the Home menu 1,951. Repeated NPS modal open-and-close behavior appeared at finalization. Clicks alone do not show task success or explain intent.
HTTP 401 and 409 records in the simulator indicated possible authentication or conflict paths. They are investigation signals and do not establish a cause of onboarding abandonment.
The interface was one part of the diagnosis. The operating system around it shaped the journey.
I combined behavioral signals, stakeholder knowledge and journey evidence to expose conflicting rules, risks and definitions of success.
I scoped the investigation, led the interviews and Hotjar review, then synthesized cross-team conflicts in the UX Wall. The evidence informed direction without being presented as representative user research or causal proof.
Expectation, acquisition and drop-off at the start of the journey.
Qualification, potential and rework in lead assessment.
Risk, compliance, documents and approval criteria.
Questions, loops, pending items and lack of clarity about states.
Business rules, technical states, integrations and the events needed to observe progression.
“Where am I in this process?”
“What's still missing?”
“What happens after I submit?”
Approved leads that did not activate. The effort ended at approval, not at usage.
Users stuck due to friction throughout the form.
High volume of support tickets. Login, pending items and contract issues dominated support.
Qualification and rework happening too late.
The project started as a review of registration.
The evidence connected five issues: eligibility, effort, value, state and continuity.
I reframed the journey to qualify companies earlier, defer necessary complexity, unlock demonstration access before approval and make each state and next step visible.
This comparison represents the change in experience and operations logic. Initial quantitative results are presented in chapter 08.
Less friction to start, without removing qualification.
Exploration and demonstration before full approval.
Documents and validations at the appropriate moment.
Track, correct and move forward without relying on ad-hoc messages.
The strategy was translated into eight internal steps, from pre-registration to full access.
Internally, the product coordinates eight steps to support business rules, integrations, measurement and exception handling.
For the partner, this complexity appears as four action-oriented milestones.
The simplification happened in how the journey is communicated, not in the operational architecture.
Value: account and demonstration before approval.
Risk: validations preserved through states and rules.
Continuity: pending items and signature resolved within the flow.
I connected experience, business rules and CRM into a single architecture.
Five changes connected evidence to journey logic. Each decision states the trade-off, what the data shows, what remains unmeasured and the part I led.
Individuals were starting a journey designed for companies. The Commercial team identified the mismatch only after entry and had to requalify leads late, creating unnecessary effort on both sides.
Use the company tax ID (CNPJ) as the sole initial data point to confirm business eligibility before screening — keeping entry short and avoiding effort on a journey incompatible with individuals.
Making the tax ID (CNPJ) the gateway could introduce a barrier: comprehension issues, typos, lookup errors or data unavailability could interrupt the journey before value perception — also blocking eligible companies through avoidable friction.
Observed: pre-registration entry, CNPJ validation and progression to screening. Typing start and failure reasons are not yet measured.
I connected the Commercial team's qualification criteria to the entry flow, defined the eligibility gateway and framed instrumentation needed to separate correct filtering from avoidable friction.
The screening turned criteria that the Commercial team previously investigated manually into structured signals from the very start of the journey.
How much context and guidance the partner needs to get started.
Calibrate the onboarding level and introductory content.
How the company's current activity relates to consortium sales.
Interpret the profile without relying on prior experience as the sole indicator.
The current scale of the operation and its capacity to generate opportunities.
Size the potential and the need for commercial follow-up.
Whether consortium already represents a significant revenue stream or is still in the exploration phase.
Distinguish mature operations from partners who need more guidance.
The remaining questions complement the prospect's commercial and operational profile, preventing qualification from depending on a single indicator.
Complete the operational profile without reducing qualification to a single indicator.
Post-launch data did not indicate that the screening structure was the main internal barrier.
The Results chapter defines the cohort, period and denominators behind this reading.
The goal was not just to approve or reject. It was to understand maturity, fit and potential to tailor follow-up without requiring a full registration before that reading.
Account created. Partner exploring. Approval still in progress.
The partner had to complete most of the process before understanding the product.
Create the account and unlock modules in demonstration mode while approval continues.
Early access could generate expectations of full activation or expose restricted features.
Observed: 24 unique demonstration starts between 01 and 25 July. Return to registration, completion and activation after approval are not yet measured.
I proposed early account creation, defined the boundary between demonstration and active access, and aligned the experience with Product, Legal and Engineering constraints.
Documents and validations were required, but front-loaded before value perception.
Distribute document collection and use OCR and pre-fill to reduce manual typing.
Incorrect extractions could generate false confidence, discrepancies and rework.
Observed: the OCR and pre-fill path was delivered. Fill time, corrections, resubmissions, pending items and manual effort are not yet measured.
I sequenced document collection around journey context, directed the use of OCR and pre-fill, and defined error and correction states with the detailed UI and Engineering teams.
Partners did not know where they stood, what was missing or what would happen next.
Display macro-steps, state, deadline, pending items and next step in the interface.
The visual simplification could diverge from internal states or create deadline expectations.
Observed: status states and pending items were deployed. Tickets, resolution time, drop-off and comprehension are not yet measured.
I translated internal states into four partner-facing milestones and defined the information hierarchy for deadlines, pending items and next actions.
Teams tracked different parts of the same lead, with no clear continuity between origin, status and history.
Integrate the journey into the CRM and create a shared internal view.
Synchronization failures could produce divergent versions of the partner's state.
Observed: record coverage and six CRM milestones were instrumented. Synchronization errors, SLA, lookup time, team adoption and productivity are not yet measured.
I mapped the shared state model, connected experience milestones to CRM operations and aligned ownership across Product, Engineering, Commercial, Legal and Support.
The challenge was preserving the coherence of the vision across discovery, design, CRM, Engineering and deployment.
Discovery shared with Marketing, Commercial, Legal and Product.
Experience principles, business rules and CRM in a single architecture.
Maintain coherence across discovery, design, CRM, QA and deployment.
Beta, acceptance criteria, training and contingency alternatives.
Launching a significantly better journey without waiting for the entire organization to be ready for the new governance model.
Six shared events gave the team a baseline for where progression changes across the journey.
pre_cadastro_iniciado
→
triagem_iniciada
→
cadastro_empresa_iniciado
→
cadastro_enviado_para_analise
→
cadastro_aprovado
→
contrato_assinado
The redesign changed the journey and its instrumentation. The first reliable data locates progression and loss, while the causes remain open for investigation.
Read the cohorts separately. The screening cohort covers 355 people who started the seven questions from 01 to 25 July. The entry cohort covers 804 first entries from 01 to 18 July with a seven-day window. Their observation rules differ, so the numbers must not be combined. Main event tracking went live around 18 June. June is not a baseline, temporal correlation is not causality and final-step samples remain too small for definitive conclusions.
Within this cohort, the seven questions did not show a meaningful internal drop-off.
The data does not currently support the hypothesis that the number of questions is the main cause of drop-off. Conversion between questions consistently stayed above 98.9% — no individual question generated a loss greater than 1.13 percentage points. The relevant bottleneck lies outside the screening, not within it.
271 of 804 prospects reached screening — 33.7%. The largest drop-off appears in the interval between entry and the first question. The data locates where the drop-off occurs, but does not yet explain why.
The largest observed drop-off occurs before screening. CNPJ validation is the leading investigation point together with eligibility filtering, lookup errors, data availability and technical friction. Part of the loss may represent correct filtering of incompatible profiles. The current evidence does not separate that effect from avoidable friction.
533 of 804 cohort prospects.
The cohort includes prospects whose first pre-registration occurred between 01 and 18/07/2026. Each user's behavior was tracked in the 7 days following their entry — since the cohort closes on 18/07, data is complete through 25/07. June was not used as a baseline — instrumentation went into production around 18/06/2026.
Low sample in the approval and contract steps. In the overall July funnel: 6 approved and 2 contracts. Not detailed in the 7-day cohort.
Top-of-funnel growth cannot be attributed solely to the redesign — seasonality, acquisition and commercial volume were not isolated.
The exact trigger for pre_cadastro_iniciado was not directly verified in the code. Intermediate events between entry and screening still need to be validated with the same cohort and window before explaining where the drop-off occurs.
Reached submission within seven days. 89 of 804 cohort prospects reached submission for analysis. Limitation: no comparable historical baseline · Entry 01–18/07, 7-day window per user
Unique partners started a demonstration · 01–25/07. Event demo_iniciada · outside the main funnel · rate not calculated over pre-registration
The project now distinguishes observed entry, screening progression and demonstration starts from measures that remain unreported. The list below describes future tracking; it does not claim measured typing or failure reasons, fill time, rework, tickets, comprehension, SLA or productivity.
Since the launch is recent, the case separates what was delivered, what already shows up in the data and what remains as a hypothesis. Temporal correlation is not treated as causality.
Instrumentation did not close the project. It turned a generic drop-off into an investigable problem.
The data does not support reducing the seven questions. Once started, screening shows conversion above 98.9% between questions.
Part of the drop-off represents individuals without business eligibility; another part may represent eligible companies blocked by error, data unavailability, a lookup failure or friction in the CNPJ field.
Instrument failure reason, document type provided, lookup error and drop-off; cross the data with Hotjar recordings, device, channel and campaign.
Estimate the ratio between correct filtering and avoidable friction and identify a specific intervention for eligible companies.
Some users may not understand that a quick screening exists or what benefit will be unlocked upon completing it.
Test a communication that previews the number of questions, duration and demonstration access.
Increase in progression to screening without a drop in internal completion.
CNPJ validation, performance, device or traffic quality may concentrate the drop-off.
Instrument errors and loading; cross progression by channel, campaign, browser and device; review Hotjar recordings.
Identification of a specific segment or event that explains a relevant part of the drop-off.
The next step is not to simplify screening — it converts. It is to separate correct filtering from avoidable friction for eligible companies.
Design leadership continued after go-live through governance and learning.
Delivery exposed tensions around participation, communication, ownership and rollout. I used the 4Ls retrospective to turn individual accounts into shared patterns, responsibilities and actions for the next cycle.
I led the retrospective after the launch, connecting individual perceptions, patterns and responsibilities.
Perceptions recorded without attributing blame.
Individual reports converted into shared patterns.
Immediate response separated from what goes into the next cycles.
Who decides, validates, executes, approves and communicates.
Learning converted into a model for future projects.
Post-launch leadership meant making tensions discussable, decisions explicit and follow-up work owned.
The stance adopted in the projectMultidisciplinary team around a common goal.
Decision, validation, sign-off and deployment.
Explicit responsibilities to decide, execute and communicate.
Beta, acceptance criteria, training and contingency.
Data, heat maps and continuous improvement.
The work changed the journey and made its remaining questions measurable.
Turn2C shipped earlier qualification, demonstration access, visible states and a shared operational model. July data established an initial baseline. It did not prove activation uplift or explain the loss before screening, so those questions remain part of the next product cycle.