May 18 agreement and scope evidence

This page consolidates the evidence surrounding the May 18 agreement transmission, the May 19 revised scope, and the May 20–21 contract discussion. It separates what was proposed, transmitted, acknowledged, discussed as aligned, and actually signed. It does not decide whether a contract was legally formed.

What the record shows

The strongest evidence supports a sales and go-to-market role that included prospecting and re-engaging cold or stalled opportunities, while also depending on company-provided lead lists, CRM access, materials and context. The May drafts expressly exclude marketing campaign execution. The records do not establish that Kate accepted sole responsibility for acquiring a quantified number of net-new contacts or for running the company marketing engine.

The May 18 agreement transmission is strongly corroborated by four independent pieces of evidence: the Google Workspace eSignature notice, Kate’s contemporaneous iMessage saying she sent the agreement, Jesse’s later iMessage saying he received the signature request, and a same-title Drive PDF created at the matching time with Jesse listed as a reader. The eSignature notice does not expose the underlying Drive file ID, and the recovered agreement has blank signature fields. Completion is therefore unestablished.

Timeline and proof

May 5–7: initial proposal context

Kate’s May 5 email (19dfba70e087c58a) links the Notion page 357559d3698680df9838fce2fc5135dc and describes a full-capacity scope beyond “just closing deals.” She describes the proposed compensation as her “literal income floor” and ties a non-recoverable draw and commission threshold to the revenue engine paying for itself as it grows. The linked Notion page is currently unavailable, so the email proves the proposal was sent and describes its stated rationale, while the exact page content and amount remain unreconstructed.

Jesse’s May 7 reply (19e0322d8a7e79c9) says full-time is not necessarily a deal breaker, that he will review with the team, and that they should work through details. This proves receipt and continued consideration. It does not prove acceptance of every proposed term.

May 18: original agreement transmission

The Matria Gmail account received a Google Workspace notice (19e3c1ea250a289d) at 12:25 PM CDT with the subject:

eSignature request for “ICA_Agreement_Champion_Jesse_Johnson - 5/18/26, 12:23 PM”

The notice says Kate requested an eSignature on the document. At 1:13 PM CDT, Kate’s iMessage #134692 says:

I just sent over the agreement and a response to your email from Friday.

At 9:24 PM CDT on May 19, Jesse’s iMessage #134923 says:

I just got the signature request.

A same-title Matria Drive PDF (1zAQawlfrt0dOJjJXzgr4ENzDZ7x2Ka3a) was created at 12:24:56 PM CDT. Its metadata lists Jesse (jesse@championempire.net) as a reader. The PDF is 27 pages, SHA-256 e52fb5537f982132a65e83567100e7831844509f6aad0f10067dd367497ab96b, and its text is 99.91% similar to the same-name local PDF rendering. The differences observed were layout and blank-field rendering. The agreement and SOW signature fields are blank. The notice does not map its request to the Drive ID at the message-record level, so this is a strongly corroborated match rather than an ID-level attachment proof.

May 18 scope: pages 19–22 of the recovered PDF

The May 18 Exhibit A is titled “Founding Account Executive & Head of Sales.” Its overview says:

The company has demand, the Founder is the primary driver of it.

The pipeline scope says:

End-to-end ownership of the priority GTM pipeline (prospecting, re-engaging stalled and cold leads, discovery calls, demos, follow-up, and prospect nurture) while marketing systems and demand generation are being established.

The exclusions state:

Marketing execution, including demand generation campaign execution, content creation, paid media, SEO, or social media management

is outside scope, while positioning, ideal-customer-profile and messaging input are included. This is broad pipeline and prospecting language paired with an express boundary around marketing campaign execution.

May 19: Jesse’s revised agreement

Jesse’s email (19e43310d9f704e6), sent to Kate and copied to James Nolle and Carrie Maldonado, links the updated DOCX (1MayVNz-SA3KFh8Gs3F9_tNaLPlCZ-6lV) in Suggesting mode. Jesse describes the discussed structure as a $20,000 non-recoverable draw, 10% commission, and a founding AE / GTM-build role.

The revised SOW is titled “Founding Account Executive and Go-to-Market Operator.” It says the company has:

existing relationships, leads, offers, clients, and revenue opportunities

Section 2.4 makes early sales activity:

subject to Company providing reasonable onboarding access, available materials, lead lists, CRM access, and context.

The same section lists re-engaging existing leads, reviewing and prioritizing lead lists, discovery calls, outbound-message testing and warm-opportunity follow-up. Section 2.5 assigns mutually agreed priority sales opportunities, including prospecting and re-engaging stalled or cold leads. Section 3 excludes paid media, SEO, long-form content, graphic design, social media management and full campaign execution, while allowing sales messaging, positioning feedback and enablement.

This revised proposal therefore includes prospecting. It also makes early work dependent on company inputs and does not assign Kate a quantified net-new-contact quota or full marketing-campaign ownership.

May 20–21: alignment discussed, contract still open

On May 20, Kate wrote (19e47edb62e9f2e0) that they had aligned on the major open contract items and could finalize the remaining “semantics” after her trip. She said she would refund Jesse’s initial payment if a contract issue proved unworkable.

On May 21, Jesse wrote (19e4b2307cfec705) that they had aligned on most points, would finalize the rest after Kate’s trip, and that he wired $10,000 as the first installment. These messages support substantial commercial alignment and an active working relationship. They also show that the contract remained unfinished.

The May 20 Matria Contract v2 (1mw8uU0txfZ69Ce7L7FfjqZKyWRyq8TwswCWRbD-229s) is the latest located Kate-side agreement-like draft. It has four active unresolved Kate comments, no Jesse-authored comments in the returned comment set, blank effective-date and signature fields, and no matched transmission to Jesse.

What this proves, and what it does not

Strongly supported:

Kate proposed a full-capacity sales and GTM engagement.
The May 18 agreement was sent through an eSignature workflow and Jesse received a signature request.
The May 18 and May 19 scope documents include prospecting and cold or stalled lead re-engagement.
The May 19 version expressly contemplates company-provided lead lists, CRM access, materials and context.
Both versions exclude marketing campaign execution.
By May 20–21, both parties described major or most points as aligned while leaving remaining contract work open.

Not established by the May records:

That Kate agreed to own the company’s entire net-new lead-generation or marketing engine.
That Jesse made a quantified May promise of thousands of qualified leads.
That the $20,000 Draw was specifically higher because marketing was missing.
That the agreement was fully signed or that every clause was accepted.

Public supporting records

The public package excludes payment instructions and banking details from six contract-source copies. No source systems were changed.