I've been on both sides of this, running hiring panels and, at the moment, sitting in an active search as a candidate, so here's both.

From the hiring side, the honest answer is that "on time" only happens if you design for it:

Pull feedback in the first hour, not at end of day. The scorecard is accurate while it's fresh, and people fill it in before they context-switch back to their real job.
Make the ask small and specific. "Fill out the scorecard" gets ignored. "Thumbs up or down, plus the one concern that would change your mind" gets answered from a phone.
Protect a fixed decision slot. If everyone knows the debrief is Thursday 4pm, feedback lands Thursday 3pm. Open-ended reminders slide forever.
Escalation is real, but it's the last tool, not the first. A stuck hire is a business cost, and a manager who won't release their interviewer's fifteen minutes should hear it framed that way once, cleanly.
From the candidate side, which recruiters tend to underweight: the silence during the gap is what does the damage. A strong candidate reads three days of nothing as disinterest and quietly re-warms their other options. You don't need the decision to keep someone engaged. One line, "the panel's still consolidating, you're very much in it, I'll have something concrete by Friday," costs nothing and stops your best people from drifting. The candidates you lose to slow feedback are almost always the ones with other offers, which is to say the ones you wanted.

So the working version: pull feedback fast, make it tiny to give, protect a fixed decision point, and communicate the process even when you can't yet communicate the outcome.

The trap is leading with breadth. A profile that lists executive coaching, org development, leadership training and strategic advisory across four sectors reads as a menu, and someone scanning Clarity can't tell what to actually book you for. People don't buy range. They buy a fix for the specific thing that's bothering them right now.

Two things that worked when I ran this exercise on my own profile:

One problem and one buyer per expertise card, not per career. Clarity lets you hold a few areas of expertise, so treat each as a separate front door for a different person. One card can be "the founder scaling into a new region who doesn't want to repeat the usual first-year mistakes," another "the senior leader whose team keeps stalling." Write the headline as their problem in their words, not as your title.
Let the pedigree be proof, not the pitch. Morgan Stanley, Intel, Deutsche Bank and the Japan/APAC depth are what make someone trust you once they already care about the specific problem. Keep them one layer down, in the body ("I've seen this play out at that scale"), not in the first line.

The test I use: read your headline and ask whether someone could type that exact sentence into the booking note. Nobody types "senior advisor, 20 years, global." Someone does type "help me stand up my APAC leadership team without the first-year mistakes." That one's a call.

You lose nothing by narrowing the front door. The generalist-shoppers filter themselves out anyway, and the people who book the specific thing discover the rest of your range in the first ten minutes.