Two producers, 55% of the revenue

In a small agency the book does not belong to the agency so much as to the people who write it. When one producer holds a third of the revenue, the question is not whether the book is good. It is whether that person will still be there in a year, and whether their agreement stops the clients following them if they are not.

This post follows the illustrative Prairie Lantern Insurance Group — a commercial P&C, construction and agriculture agency in Wichita, invented for the demo — where two producers hold 55.3% of revenue and a third keeps markedly fewer clients than the agency does. The concentration analyst finds it, prepares retention agreements, and the KEY_PRODUCER control makes them a condition of signing.

Use case card

Actors	Deal lead, practice leader, the seller's principal, the key producers
Trigger	Analyze at the analysis stage
Agency Illustrative	Prairie Lantern Insurance Group — 4,070 book rows, book revenue $2.8M
Agents involved	Concentration analyst, retention analyst, supervisor agent, integration planner
Controls that fire	`KEY_PRODUCER` (one producer over 25% of revenue — refer to the practice leader)
Decisions and authority	Proposing retention agreements (deal lead, capped at ask first), the sign-off (practice leader)
Outcome	Retention agreements proposed for the key producers, tracked on the Producers zone and carried into the day-0 tasks
What is measured	Revenue share per producer; key people at 15% or more; client retention per producer; agreement status

The workspace hero for an illustrative agency in analysis — Prairie Lantern Insurance Group (illustrative) in analysis: top producer 32.0% of revenue, top carrier 40.2% of premium.

How the engine defines a key person

A producer holding 15% of revenue or more is a key person. Shares are of revenue (commission and fees), not premium, over the twelve months to the export date — what leaves if they leave. The engine also computes each producer's client retention: the share of their clients due to renew in the last period who did.

flowchart TB B["Book rows,
12 months to the export date"] --> S["Revenue by producer"] S --> K{"Share at least 15%?"} K -->|"yes"| KP["Key person"] K -->|"no"| O["Other producers"] KP --> T{"Any over 25%?"} T -->|"yes"| C["KEY_PRODUCER control:
refer to the practice leader"] KP --> RA["Concentration analyst prepares
retention agreements"] B --> RP["Client retention
by producer"] RP --> W["Retention analyst: a producer
keeping fewer clients"] style C fill:#fdecec,stroke:#e57373 style RA fill:#e3f7ef,stroke:#10a37f

What the agents found

Two findings matter most here. The concentration analyst's critical finding: two producers hold 55.3% of revenue — Wes Calder 32.0% ($898.32K) and Nora Pike 23.3% ($655.54K), each cited to their rows. And the retention analyst's: Ty Brandt keeps fewer clients, 78.3%, against 90.1% for the agency, on 97 clients and $356.37K of revenue. One is a dependency; the other is a book that may already be leaking.

The Producers zone for an illustrative agency with two key producers — Producers on the illustrative Prairie Lantern: two key people, 32.0% and 23.3% of revenue.

Step by step

Key people, from finding to condition of signing Prairie Lantern Insurance Group, illustrative.

Producer shares computedconcentration_agentAnalyze

Revenue by producer from 4,070 rows; two key people above 15%, one above 25%.

Retention by producerretention_agentAnalyze

One producer at 78.3% client retention against 90.1% for the agency; cited to 191 rows of the prior period.

KEY_PRODUCER firessupervisor_agentAnalyze

The control refers to the practice leader: a retention agreement should be a condition of signing.

Retention agreements preparedconcentration_agentAnalyze

A prepared decision lists each key producer with share and revenue. Capped at ask first.

Accepted as a condition of signingDeal leadDay 1

Accepting marks each agreement proposed on the Producers zone. The deal lead's answer and note go to the decision record.

Producer agreements readDeal leadDay 4

The playbook asks whether the existing producer agreements protect the book — non-solicitation and ownership of expirations — and cites the data-room pages that speak to it.

Day-0 tasksintegration_planner_agentAt close

The 100-day plan puts each signature on day 0, flagged high risk.

The agreement's life

stateDiagram-v2 [*] --> None: key person found None --> Proposed: deal lead accepts the prepared decision Proposed --> Signed: producer signs (recorded by a person) Proposed --> Declined: producer declines Declined --> [*]: price or structure revisited Signed --> [*]: day-0 task done

The Producers zone shows each key person's agreement status — none yet, proposed, signed or declined — and the copilot's concentration lookup reads the same status, so “where are key producers unprotected?” has one answer.

The Producers zone for an illustrative agency — Producers: revenue, share, clients and client retention per producer, key people flagged and where each retention agreement stands.

What the agents prepared

Agent	What it prepared	What it cites	Who decides
Concentration analyst	Two producers hold 55.3% of revenue; retention agreements proposed for each	430 and 279 book rows written in the 12 months to the export date	Deal lead
Retention analyst	One producer keeps 78.3% of clients against 90.1% for the agency	191 book rows in the prior period for that producer	Deal lead
Supervisor agent	Practice leader sign-off: KEY_PRODUCER fired	The control and the share it read	Practice leader
Integration planner	Day-0 tasks to sign each agreement, flagged high risk	The approved findings	Integration lead

Section	Hit	Outcome
Key people	KEY_PRODUCER: top producer 32.0% of revenue	refer
Carriers	CARRIER_CONCENTRATION: one carrier 40.2% of premium	refer
Carriers	UNAPPOINTED_CARRIERS: 22.4% of premium not fully appointed	warn

For the deal team

The conversation with the seller about the key producers starts on day one of analysis, not in the last week before signing.

For IT

Agreement status is a column on the producer row, set only by a person's answer; the engine never infers it.

For corp-dev leadership

A key-person dependency becomes a condition of signing with a named owner, not a line in the memo's risks section.

Questions we get asked

Why 15% and 25%?

15% is the engine's key-person line (KEY_PERSON_SHARE); 25% is the shipped control's threshold. A practice leader can change the control in Rules Studio.