Twelve questions.
Answered directly.

Your EAP reaches the people willing to self-refer into a clinical pathway. EAPA UK reports average utilisation moving from around 4% to more than 10%. Your own provider reports your figure, and yours is the one that matters. Whatever it is, everybody else is the gap PRC is built for. Specifically the senior professionals and mid-tier leaders who have calculated what a clinical record costs them and decided against it. The two populations barely overlap.

If you do not know your own figure, that is what a Workforce Reach Audit produces, before any decision about PRC is on the table. It is £3,450 plus VAT for one site of up to 500 staff. See question twelve.

Procuring PRC requires no change to your existing EAP or Occupational Health contract. It runs alongside both. PRC addresses the gap your EAP was never designed to reach. Not because the EAP is inadequate, but because the format makes it structurally inaccessible to that population.

The PRC Index is self-rated across seven operational measures at Days 1, 30, 60, and 90. The employer receives aggregate cohort movement, the average shift across all participants on each measure. That is the correct unit of measurement for a site-wide performance protocol: did the cohort move, and by how much.

Individual data is structurally absent. Not withheld by policy, not recorded. This is the same reason PRC reaches the people it reaches. The aggregate is the reporting. It is sufficient for commercial review, board reporting, and any internal audit of provision effectiveness.

What the data cannot tell you is which individual moved. It can tell you, for example, that 24 seats completed the protocol and the average PRC Index moved by 2.4 points across seven measures. Those figures are illustrative; no cohort has yet completed the protocol. For a performance protocol purchased at per-employee level, that is the right number to look at.

PRC is not a clinical service and does not position itself as one. If a clinical concern surfaces during the protocol, the participant is directed explicitly to their GP or NHS 111. Their seat is held. No fee is applied. No restart penalty. The protocol resumes when they are ready.

If a participant self-rates below an operational safety threshold, the automated system appends standard UK clinical and helpline signposting (NHS 111 / Samaritans) directly to their next email. The system does not notify HR, does not break anonymity, and creates no clinical record.

The disclosures are written in plain language and appear in every email the participant receives. PRC does not diagnose, treat, or refer. It does not create a clinical record. Participation has no bearing on any clinical pathway the participant is currently using or may use in future. The two are structurally separate.

Your existing EAP and Occupational Health provision handles clinical and case-managed need exactly as it does now. If a participant needs that route, they are directed there. PRC is not a substitute. It is the layer for the people who will not engage with either route.

This is the framing question and it is the right one. PRC is not sent by HR as a support offer. It is a general all-staff communication, from the HR Director, in the same register as any operational announcement. Every employee at the organisation receives identical communication. No individual is singled out.

The subject lines are performance-framed: "Most of a working day runs on autopilot", "Available to everyone here, private to you", "Ninety days, in your inbox, off the record." The all-staff email template, the participant recognition page, and the enrolment page are all written in that register. No clinical language. No wellness framing.

The message is: this is available. What you do with it is private. We cannot see who takes it up. Jon briefs the HR Director on this positioning before deployment and is available for any internal communications review. The framing is not optional. It is what makes the product reach the population it is built for.

This answer is about the 90-day protocol. It is £9,750 plus VAT for the year, and the audit fee comes off it in full. Three places are currently funded, so for those three there is nothing to pay at that stage. The Workforce Reach Audit is a separate, paid product at £3,450 plus VAT. It is one annual licence, site-wide, with no seat cap. £9,750 plus VAT for one site of up to 500 employees, and above 500 priced on headcount, from £9,750.

When you do compare it, cost per employee is the wrong unit, and for many employers there is no cost to compare. The EAP came bundled with income protection, life cover or health insurance and has no separate price. The comparison that holds either way is reach. At the 3% to 5% take-up employers report from their own scheme, 95 to 97 in every 100 employees are not reached by it. PRC is delivered to those people, so the right comparison is how many people each one actually gets to, not headline cost per employee.

The second comparison is against the cost of the problem, and that does not wait for pricing. One £70k senior at 70% capacity for six months is around £10,500 in lost output. That figure is running today, whether or not anything is bought.

You do not have to take the sector figure on trust either. A Workforce Reach Audit measures reach on your own workforce rather than a sector average: how many of your people your current provision actually reached. You never tell us what you pay. If you pay for your EAP separately, you can put that price against the reach number yourself, in your own office. See question twelve.

That is the right response to most procurement decisions. This one is worth thinking about quickly because the cost of the status quo accrues daily and the downside of trying PRC is small and fixed.

What thinking about it usually protects against is internal risk, taking something to a board or budget holder that does not land. The risk profile here is smaller than it looks. The three funded places exist precisely for this situation: a defined entry point, one full 90-day run, and no protocol fee. The only cost is the Workforce Reach Audit at £3,450 plus VAT, which comes first and sets the order places are given out. After the three funded places, the protocol is £9,750 plus VAT a year, with the audit fee credited in full.

The thinking that needs to happen can happen in a 30-minute call with Jon. If PRC is not the right fit, you will be told on that call.

The protocol is £9,750 plus VAT a year and the Reach Audit fee comes off it in full. Three pilot places are still funded, so for those three there is no protocol fee at all. Set either figure against the cost of doing nothing. Compared to that, doing nothing is not a neutral position. The pattern does not plateau. It compounds.

Every quarter it runs unchecked, the gap between what that person is capable of and what they are currently producing widens. The people around them absorb the drag. The decisions they are not making, the conversations they are not having, the work sitting in their queue. That cost is already on your books. It is just not on a line item you can see yet.

The cost of not acting is not zero. It is the daily rate of the pattern running, multiplied by every person in your workforce carrying one. That cost is already being paid. PRC puts it on a line item and addresses it.

That is a process question, not an objection to PRC. The materials to make that case internally already exist. Jon can prepare a board-ready briefing note, one page and commercial framing only, for any organisation where the sign-off sits above the HR Director.

The board argument is not a soft argument. It is a liability argument. Since April 2026, SSP applies from day one of any absence. A senior professional carrying an unaddressed pattern is a compounding payroll liability, not a line item in a benefits budget. That is a finance conversation, not an HR conversation, and it lands differently in a boardroom.

The funded place also removes the approval barrier at source. With the audit fee credited in full against the protocol, and a funded 90-day cohort for a site of up to 500 staff still available, the first commitment is £3,450 rather than £9,750. The board case is made on the results, not on the proposal.

PRC Workforce holds participant data as data controller. The organisation is not in the data chain for individual participant records at any point. The employer receives aggregate cohort reporting only. No personal data about any individual is transferred to the organisation at any stage.

Participants enrol using a personal email on a personal device. A seat number is assigned. The email is held only to deliver the protocol and is never shared with the employer; it is deleted on request at any time, and on a defined retention schedule set out in the data processing agreement. No name is recorded at any point, and to the employer each participant is a seat number and nothing more.

The organisation does not process personal health data through PRC, which is the usual trigger for a Data Protection Impact Assessment. Employers should confirm the position with their own DPO. PRC is not a health monitoring tool. It is a structured email protocol. The data it processes is completion and self-report index data, held by PRC Workforce under UK GDPR.

Low uptake on existing provision is almost always a format problem, not a demand problem. The people who most need support are not using what you already have because every route requires them to identify themselves. That is not apathy. That is a calculated decision about career risk, insurance implications, and how they are perceived.

PRC removes the identification requirement from the first step. No self-referral. No name on anything. The all-staff communication goes to everyone simultaneously, which means enrolling carries no signal to anyone. There is no list to be on. There is no pattern to identify from a click.

The funded place is the answer to this concern before it becomes a concern. Run it across the whole site, with no cap on numbers. The uptake data from a real cohort gives you the answer, and gives you the board case if the numbers land. A protocol that reaches the people your EAP does not will produce different uptake numbers than a platform nobody opens.

Platform fatigue is real and it is a legitimate concern. It is also a different problem to the one PRC addresses. Platform fatigue happens when content-on-demand platforms accumulate without producing outcomes. An app nobody opens, a content library that gets browsed once, a portal that HR logs into and employees do not. These add to the noise. PRC adds nothing to that noise.

PRC is not a platform. It is an email sequence. There is nothing to log into, nothing to download, no library to browse. It arrives in the participant's inbox on a fixed schedule and asks for a specific response. The format is the same one the participant already uses for everything else they actually do. There is no new behaviour required to access it. That is precisely why it reaches the people everything else does not.

Adding PRC does not add to your programme stack. It adds one email sequence per enrolled participant, delivered to a personal device, with no HR system involvement and no interface for anyone to manage or maintain.