While secretly waging war against Greg during office hours, Julian had a little side project after dark. An experiment that applied pure MBA frameworks to his private life.
From CRM logs to PDCA loops, to red-flag risk protocols, he ran his dating life like a product pipeline, complete with emotional ROI scores, retention metrics, and Excel sheets built to auto-grade encounters.
What follows is Julian Watanabe's internal report on Structured Intimacy and Behavioral Conversion: A Financial Bro's Research on Personal Relations.
Independent Research Project File
Project Title: Structured Relationship & Retention Process Optimization (SRRPO)
Project ID: Side Project #04 | Julian Watanabe | Pubclays Internal | Confidential
Project Period: March – October 2011
I. Methodology Framework
1.1 Data Collection and Record Management: CRM Modeling
Primary tools: Excel (main), Word, and PowerPoint (for visualization)
Core data fields:
Name / Alias (for anonymity)
Professional background (industry, income, education)
Contact channel (Tinder, Bumble, business events, emergencies)
Frequency of interaction & latest status
Trigger keywords (interests, taboos, emotional red zones)
Risk level marking (Red / Yellow / Green)
Lifecycle stages:
Lead: Contact information obtained, no direct interaction yet
Engaged: Initial chat or first meeting completed
Converted: Physical interaction achieved
Retained: Repeated interaction, established "regular" contact
Lost: Disconnected, terminated, or conflict-based exit
Reactivated: Reconnected after a pause, moved to reassessment
1.2 Key Performance Metric:
Measured not by the number of people, but by total successful encounters (including both first-time and repeated).
1.3 Operational Optimization: PDCA Cycle System
Plan (P): Set weekly goals including energy allocation (new vs returning), resource budget (time, money), and pre-arranged settings (location, topics, avoidance list).
Do (D): Execute meetings and interactions, record timestamps, situational control, real-time reactions, and success rates.
Check (C): Complete a next-day review card with emotional feedback, ROI assessment (emotional return per investment of time and money), and retention potential score.
Act (A): Archive results as either "Follow-up Required" or "On Hold," establish regular review cycles, delete high-risk entries, or set a 3‑month cooling reminder
1.4. Product Design and Persona Testing: Spiral Model for Rapid Iteration
Initial Persona Versions:
Version A: Analyst at UBS, Asia Strategy Division. Loves jazz, doesn't smoke.
Version B: UK returnee, freelancer, cooks well. (Later proven most effective.)
Version C: Minimalist, enjoys night running, regular at libraries.
Each iteration included:
A/B testing of photos and bios
Cross-platform comparison across Tinder, Bumble, CoffeeMeetsBagel
Data points collected: match rate, response rate, first-meet success rate, conversion to physical intimacy
Optimization frequency: minor edits every two weeks, major revisions monthly
Average iteration cycle: 2.5 weeks
1.5. Risk Management Strategy: "Risk Flag" Labeling System
The Red flag refers to high-risk overlaps, such as analysts from competitor firms, HR contacts, or anyone claiming to know his boss. These cases are immediately frozen: chat logs are archived, contacts deleted, and a 3-month lockout is set in the system.
The yellow flag is more ambiguous. It includes emotionally volatile individuals, vague relationship expectations, or those with prior PUA experiences. Interaction is limited to safe topics, meetups are spaced out, and firm boundaries are set.
The Green flag clients are the ones worth retaining. They tend to have stable jobs, mature communication, and transparent information. These are added to a "maintenance group," with gentle, consistent pacing and low-friction follow-ups.
II. Experimental Log: Selected Case Records
Case ID: SRRPO–0324
Date: March 24, 2011 (Thursday, post-market hours)
Channel: Tinder (matched via keywords: "jazz bar", "expat", "nobu")
Initial Persona: Version A (Investment banking analyst, non-smoker, jazz enthusiast)
Meeting Location: Low-lit cocktail bar in Soho (7:30–9:00 PM reservation)
Outcome: First meeting led to physical engagement
Behavior Summary:
Conversation flowed smoothly with no keyword triggers
Persona was perceived as "relaxed but sharp," not overly financial
Counterparty initiated follow-up plan (flagged as potential repeat client)
Risk Rating: Green
User Feedback: "Cultured and safe. More dependable than my ex."
Case ID: SRRPO–0409
Date: April 9, 2011 (Saturday, early morning)
Channel: Informal dinner after a corporate birthday event
Initial Persona: Version B (Freelancer, UK-Japan mixed heritage, good at cooking)
Meeting Location: Airbnb in Holborn (location suggested by counterparty)
Outcome: First meeting and confirmed follow-up within a week
Behavior Summary:
Counterparty added WhatsApp and sent breakfast photos
Cooperation improved after the second meeting
New dialogue tested "Japanese domestic values" framing
Risk Rating: Yellow (early signs of emotional projection)
Response Strategy: Limit interaction frequency; restrict to offline only
Case ID: SRRPO–0522
Date: May 22, 2011 (Sunday)
Channel: Bumble (matched via keywords: "running", "minimalism", "silence")
Initial Persona: Version C (Minimalist, night runner, library regular)
Meeting Location: Post-run casual meal at Pret, Regent's Park
Outcome: No conversion (first and only meeting)
Behavior Summary:
Counterparty strongly agreed with "phone-free lifestyle" but avoided all physical contact
No clear conversion signal despite smooth conversation
The account was deleted the same night
Risk Rating: Red (suspected competitor HR)
Action Taken: Archived chat logs, deleted contact, 90-day freeze initiated
Case ID: SRRPO–0726
Date: July 26, 2011 (Tuesday, lunch break)
Channel: CoffeeMeetsBagel (matched via keywords: "calm voice", "bento")
Initial Persona: Version B (Freelancer, enjoys cooking)
Meeting Location: Julian's residence (meal offered by counterparty)
Outcome: Immediate repeat engagement; moved into "regular client zone"
Behavior Summary:
High interaction frequency with a steady, low-intensity rhythm
No emotional volatility; scheduling well-coordinated
Categorized as "low-maintenance long-term client"
Risk Rating: Green (added to maintenance roster)
CRM Note: "Prefers blue shirts; shows strong affinity for structured lifestyles."
Key Insights from Field Operations Behavior structure proven repeatable: Pre-date preparation, initial scripts, and engagement outcomes followed a predictable path
Exit protocols validated: Red and yellow flag responses completed within 72 hours
Repeat clients drove the majority of outcomes: 71.4% of all physical interactions came from returning individuals, supporting the core model of "stable quality > wider pool"
III. Project Results and Data Review
Duration: March to October 2011 (7 months)
Total individuals engaged: 68 (including inactive or disqualified)
Effective conversions: 8
Returning clients: 3
Repeat rate: 37.5%
Total interactions (initial + repeat):33
Share from repeat clients: 71.4%
Red flag identification success rate: 89% (three potential social incidents avoided)
Persona iteration cycles: 9 rounds
Version B confirmed as optimal
Subjective satisfaction score: 8.3 / 10
Based on the semantic analysis of chats and user mood logs
V. Conclusion: Implications of Structured Relationship Management
Though originally framed as an "independent research" initiative, this project functioned as an extension of structural arbitrage into private social domains.
Through persona testing, risk-tagging, and behavioral modeling, the project achieved a replicable process, predictable interaction flow, and manageable risk in informal relationships.
Findings suggest that relationship density outperforms relationship breadth in value generation.
The methodology is transferable to future operations in informal network capital management.