Rookhaven Asset Management

Scheduling: On 3 Jun 2026 Tom Ashdown proposed a first discovery conversation and Eleanor Whitlock accepted an hour. She asked for Tuesday morning after 09:30, said she would restate the evaluation criteria first and would bring a client-service colleague.

Discovery: On 9 Jun 2026 Eleanor and Julian Ferrers described client data spread across Salesforce, Zendesk, mailboxes and hand-reconciled finance data. Eleanor wants lineage for every answer and a security and risk review before commitment.

Commercial: Tom said about £155k all in for a first deal, including one-off implementation, is an internal pencil figure and not the annual price. Julian asked for a written breakdown and said cost discipline matters.

Follow-up: In the 9 Jun 2026 thread Julian, the COO, asked about the operational risk of a failed nightly refresh or stale data, and who else in the sector uses BG-Demo. He wants the security review before any commercial discussion.

Open at the end: Tom committed to a security pack, a note on refresh failures and Enterprise service credits, and a check on references. The thread does not show these being sent. The 18 Dec 2026 close is only a plan and may slip with their review.

Results and review: on 4 Aug 2025 Rookhaven Asset Management published results. It is understood to be evaluating a more joined-up view of client information for its client-service and distribution teams.

Position stated: a spokesperson said no decision had been taken. The firm would only change systems where there was a clear benefit to clients, and the read describes its approach as measured.

Opportunity and risk: the read sees a possible new engagement around a single client view, perhaps a new team or wider use of the brain. It also notes the firm prefers to build on what already works and may choose another route.

Open at the end: the review was undecided. The read suggests asking the client-service contact how it is progressing and what benefit to clients it needs to show. The period holds no calls, emails or tickets, so the evidence does not show any customer voice or any reaction from the firm to BG-Demo.

Period content: this digest rests on one read, the email thread dated 30 Apr 2025, titled as a webinar invitation for Henry and his client service team.

Outreach: Sofia Marchetti invited Henry Calloway, Head of Client Service, and a colleague to the 15 May 2025 webinar. She linked it to Rookhaven's evaluation of Enterprise and offered a joining link on reply.

Customer view: Henry did not reply. The thread shows the evaluation was still live in April 2025 and that client service was involved alongside data engineering.

Open at the end: client service engagement is unconfirmed. The only next step recorded is Sofia sending the joining link if Henry replies. The evidence does not show whether he attended the webinar or what happened to the evaluation later in the quarter.

Webinar invitation: the period holds one read, an email thread dated 28 Sep 2024. Sofia Marchetti offered Neha Kapoor a place at the 17 Oct 2024 webinar on day-to-day use, connector behaviour and what data engineers look after.

Customer view: Neha did not reply in the thread. It records that Rookhaven was still weighing up Enterprise in September 2024 and that Tom Ashdown remained the commercial contact.

Open at the end: the Enterprise evaluation was unresolved and there was no customer response. The only recorded next step is for Sofia to send joining details if Neha replies. The evidence does not show any price discussion, usage data, tickets or calls in this period.

Outreach: this period holds one read, an email thread dated 13 Jan 2024. Nell Ashcombe invited Neha Kapoor to a BG-Demo webinar on 18 Jan 2024 about running the brain inside a customer's Snowflake account.

Ask: Nell offered a place for Neha, or a pass-on to someone on Neha's team, and asked for a reply if she wanted the link.

Customer view: none shown. Neha did not reply in the thread, so interest is unknown.

Stage: the note says a BG-Demo colleague will follow up separately on the evaluation, which suggests the account was in an evaluation stage. The read makes no other claim about the relationship.

Open at the end: whether Neha wanted the webinar link, and whether the evaluation moved forward. The evidence does not show either.