The Client Gave Us Four Out Of Five. We Have Questions About The Missing Point.
ORC DISPATCH · MISSION REPORT · ORC-2025-143 · SUPPLEMENTARY: POST-MISSION SURVEY ANALYSIS · THE 4 IS DOCUMENTED · WE HAVE NOT MOVED ON
MISSION REF / ORC-2025-143 · FILED 22 JUL 2025 · PUBLISHED 23 MAY 2026
The Client Gave Us Four Out Of Five. We Have Questions About The Missing Point.
LEO Standard Retrieval · S-01 · ORC-V4 “Patience” · Jun–Jul 2025
APPROVED: M. HARGREAVES · LEGAL: L. SANDHU · NOTE: THIS REPORT IS PRIMARILY ABOUT THE SURVEY. THE MISSION WAS FINE. CLICK EACH QUESTION TO SEE THE SCORE AND ORC’S INTERNAL ANNOTATION. QUESTION 6 IS AT THE BOTTOM.
POST-MISSION SATISFACTION SURVEY · ORC-2025-143 · CLICK EACH QUESTION
OVERALL: 4.88 / 5 · WEIGHTED AVERAGE · THE WEIGHTING IS IRRELEVANT
The ORC post-mission satisfaction survey is sent to all clients upon receipt of the final mission report. It contains eight questions rated on a scale of 1–5. Completion is voluntary. This client completed it the same day. In full.
Q1. How would you rate ORC’s initial response time and quote process?
★★★★★
5 / 5
►
The client rated the quote process 5/5. The quote was issued within two working days of the initial enquiry. The client noted in the free-text field that the quote was “clear, detailed, and did not contain any surprises.” We have noted this. We consider “no surprises” to be the correct outcome. L. Sandhu drafted the quote. L. Sandhu has been informed of the 5/5.
ORC internal note: L. Sandhu acknowledged this with a single nod. We consider this the appropriate response.
Q2. How would you rate the pre-mission characterisation and planning process?
★★★★★
5 / 5
►
5/5. The client noted that Dr. Chen’s pre-mission briefing was “comprehensive and genuinely useful” and that the characterisation call had “answered questions we hadn’t thought to ask.” Dr. Chen has been informed of the 5/5. Dr. Chen said “good.”
ORC internal note: “Good” is the highest form of positive acknowledgement Dr. Chen routinely issues. This is understood internally.
Q3. How would you rate the quality and frequency of mission updates during operations?
★★★★★
5 / 5
►
5/5. The client noted that updates were “on schedule, appropriately detailed, and did not contain unnecessary information.” A. Kowalski handled all seven scheduled updates. The client did not call between updates. This is noted here in a spirit of appreciation.
ORC internal note: A. Kowalski has been shown this score. A. Kowalski said “that’s how it’s supposed to work.” We agree with A. Kowalski.
Q4. How would you rate ORC’s technical competence and mission execution?
★★★★★
5 / 5
►
5/5. The client wrote in the free-text field: “Flawless. The object was retrieved exactly as described. Re-entry confirmed on schedule. We have nothing to add.” The mission was, in fact, flawless. The object was where the client said it would be. Patience performed nominally throughout. Re-entry confirmed 11 July 2025.
ORC internal note: “We have nothing to add” is the correct free-text response to a Q4 of this nature. We appreciate the concision.
Q5. How would you rate the post-mission documentation and chain-of-custody materials?
★★★★★
5 / 5
►
5/5. The client noted the documentation was “complete, well-structured, and received within the stated 14-working-day window.” The documentation was delivered on working day 11. L. Sandhu filed the regulatory confirmation the morning of working day 8. This is consistent with L. Sandhu’s standard approach.
ORC internal note: L. Sandhu received the second 5/5 of this survey. L. Sandhu’s response was similar to the first. We are building a picture.
Q6. How would you rate ORC’s value for money relative to the service received?
★★★★☆
4 / 5
►
The client rated value for money 4/5. The client did not leave a free-text comment on this question. We have noticed the absence of the free-text comment. We have reflected on what might have been said in a free-text comment that warranted its omission. We have not reached a conclusion. The mission cost was consistent with the quoted price, which was consistent with the standard S-01 rate, which is published on our services page. The quote contained no surprises (see Q1). The final invoice contained no surprises. The rating is 4/5.
ORC internal note: M. Hargreaves has called a meeting about Q6. The meeting is scheduled for Thursday. L. Sandhu has said she does not think a meeting is necessary. M. Hargreaves has said the meeting is happening. The meeting is happening.
Q7. How likely are you to engage ORC for future missions?
★★★★★
5 / 5
►
5/5. The client noted “very likely — we have already had initial conversations about a second mission.” The second mission is ORC-2025-204. ORC-2025-204 is currently classified as internal. ORC-2025-204 is going well. We note that the client who gave us 4/5 for value for money has nonetheless already commissioned a second mission. We are processing this information.
ORC internal note: We consider this the most useful data point in the survey. The client found us expensive and hired us again immediately. This is the correct outcome.
Q8. Is there anything else you would like ORC to know about your experience?
— — —
free text
►
The client wrote: “Excellent service overall. Professional at every stage. Would recommend without hesitation. The only thing I’d say is that the S-01 rate is on the higher end of what we’d budgeted for, though given the outcome I understand the pricing. Five stars for everything except the invoice, which we will get used to.” This is the free-text comment. We have read it several times. M. Hargreaves has read it. M. Hargreaves has said this explains Q6. The meeting is still happening.
ORC internal note: “Which we will get used to.” We are choosing to find this encouraging. The client has commissioned a second mission. We have got there.
OVERALL SCORE
4.88
/ 5.00 · weighted average · the weighting does not help Q6
01 / THE ACTUAL MISSIONSUCCESSFUL
ORC-V4 “Patience” completed a standard S-01 LEO retrieval at 612 km. The object was at the stated position. The characterisation data was accurate. Capture was completed on day 19. Re-entry was confirmed on 11 July 2025. The mission was, by every operational metric, a complete success. The survey confirms this across seven of its eight questions.
The mission report was filed on 22 July 2025. The survey was received on 22 July 2025, approximately four hours after the mission report. The client completed the survey promptly, thoroughly, and with what M. Hargreaves described as [REDACTED].
The meeting about Q6 took place on Thursday 24 July 2025. Attendees: M. Hargreaves, L. Sandhu, A. Kowalski, Dr. Chen. The meeting lasted 22 minutes. The meeting concluded that the S-01 rate is correctly priced, that the quote was accurate, that the invoice was accurate, and that the client’s free-text comment in Q8 explained Q6 sufficiently.
L. Sandhu had been correct that the meeting was not necessary. L. Sandhu did not say this at the meeting. L. Sandhu said it in a message to A. Kowalski the following morning. A. Kowalski has not responded to that message. A. Kowalski considers the matter closed.
Dr. Chen did not speak during the meeting. Dr. Chen attended the meeting. Dr. Chen read the Q6 response, the Q8 free-text, and the overall survey results. Dr. Chen then said [REDACTED].
- The post-mission satisfaction survey has been amended to add a free-text prompt to Q6 reading: “If you have rated this question below 5, please feel free to share any additional context.” The prompt is optional. We are hoping it will be used.
- The client’s second mission, ORC-2025-204, commenced in September 2025. The client did not query the rate on ORC-2025-204. We note this. We are not reading into it. We are noting it.
- ORC-2025-204 has not yet been published. It will be published when cleared. ORC-2025-204 does not involve the Hendersons’ hedge, orbital signal events, or wrong documents. It is a routine GEO disposal. C. Morrison has been warned that it may be difficult to write about.
- The Q6 average across all post-mission surveys submitted to ORC since 2019 is 4.3/5. This is, statistically, the lowest-rated category across all eight questions. M. Hargreaves has requested a separate report on Q6. That report is internal and will remain so.
PRICING
ORC’s service rates are available on the services page. Rates reflect the operational costs of orbital retrieval at scale. The rates have not changed since 2023. Q6 averages 4.3/5 across all surveys. We are working on it.
END OF REPORT · ORC-2025-143 · OVERALL: 4.88/5 · Q6: 4/5 · THE MEETING: CONCLUDED · CLIENT: RETURNED FOR SECOND MISSION