Supporter Inquiry Triage
Reads each enquiry in a shared inbox, classifies intent and urgency, routes it to the right team, and drafts a values-aligned reply for staff to approve — so urgent requests surface first instead of waiting days behind routine ones.
The live demo, running on fabricated data. Open it to step through the full flow — every output is shown for a person to approve before anything happens.
Reads each supporter enquiry, classifies its intent and urgency, matches the supporter to your CRM, and drafts a values-aligned reply — then routes anything sensitive to a named person to approve before it sends.
It reads every message the moment it lands and puts the urgent one at the top of the queue.
- Done by hand, an enquiry waits until someone has time to read it — and the urgent one looks identical to the routine one until it's opened.
- Best for a small team on a high-volume public inbox covering several audiences at once: donors, service users, media, volunteers.
- At hundreds of enquiries a week, the recaptured hours go back into the supporter conversation, not into sorting the inbox.
It is confidently wrong on the message that reads routine but isn't — and a clean draft hides the misread.
- Weak on tone and subtext — sarcasm, distress under politeness, a complaint dressed as a question. It should flag for a person, not guess the feeling.
- If most of your inbox is genuinely one-off, judgement-heavy correspondence, the classifier gives you less than your own reading already does.
If you cannot say which categories in your inbox carry real consequence when misread — hardship, complaints, safeguarding, bequests — this tool will route them faster, not more safely.
It drafts and routes. A person approves and sends. That boundary is deliberate.
A supporter inbox holds personal information about donors and beneficiaries, which an Australian charity handles under the Privacy Act and the Australian Privacy Principles. A wrong reply to a hardship, complaint or bequest enquiry is a trust and reputational risk a charity carries directly. The accountable person stays on the decision because the consequence lands on them — not the tool.
One inbox the tool can read, a supporter record to match against, and your own FAQs and reply policies in writing.
The reply policies are usually the weak point — held in one person's head, or as a stale FAQ doc nobody maintains. Writing down what a good reply to each enquiry type actually says, and which categories must go to a human, is usually the real first job — larger and more valuable than the triage layer on top. Once that is clear, every routed message after it is faster and right by default.
The worried-buyer questions, answered straight
Fixed scope, fixed price, fixed dates.
Considering this for your org?
The honest place to start is a bite-sized first piece — one contained change, low risk. Tell us where your inbox hurts; we'll play it back, scope it, and show you what's possible.