--0000000000008083bb062f25d38f Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008083ba062f25d38d" --0000000000008083ba062f25d38d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Tim, I would like to address my recent PIP status and provide some context regarding my performance, specifically related to the key metric (reviews/keys) that has been used to evaluate my performance. 1. Lack of Clear Communication on PIP Triggers: I was not made aware that achieving zero keys would automatically result in a PIP. At no point was there clear communication or a policy established outlining that a failu= re to meet certain key metrics would directly lead to a PIP. This lack of clarity around expectations has left me unsure about how my performance = was being measured in relation to these goals. 2. Transition from Bonus System to PIP Criteria: I also wanted to inquire about the rationale behind transitioning the bonus system=E2=80=99s key = metrics (reviews/keys) into a basis for a PIP evaluation. While I understand the importance of performance goals, I was not informed that failure to meet "Keys" would be treated as grounds for a PIP. It would be helpful to understand why this transition occurred and what guidelines were established for this change. 3. Proactive Efforts to Meet Targets: I have been proactive in managing my performance and sought help when I realized I was behind on Google revie= ws. For example, in our communication from January,(see attached) I reached out to the team and requested help when Calgary had only two Google revi= ews completed. You immediately responded by offering to get someone to leave a review to support the goal. This shows that I took the necessary steps= to address any shortfall and was committed to meeting expectations. Ultimately, the Google review was not gained and we were left scrambling with only days left. I assume if we had met this Google criteria, then t= he PIP would not have been triggered. This has to be taken into account. 4. Impact of Staffing Contract on Performance Metrics: Additionally, I=E2= =80=99d like to address the impact of our staffing contract on the metrics used = to evaluate performance. As you know, our metrics are based on a staffing contract that was expected to end at the beginning of 2025. The bonus structure, including targets for Tier 1 clients, billable hours, and caregiver margin EBITDA, was all tied to this staffing contract. Althoug= h the staffing contract was properly tagged in ClearCare, the data was not removed and was still used to evaluate our performance against these metrics. If corporate had excluded the data from the staffing contract, we would have met our Tier 1 client goals and billable hours for January= . This discrepancy further explains why we did not meet the "key" targets when, under normal circumstances, we would have. While the staffing contract generates revenue for the company, it is not a regular client=E2=8