diff --git a/test/ceo-split-collection.test.ts b/test/ceo-split-collection.test.ts index 3bd93d3ec..5716602b4 100644 --- a/test/ceo-split-collection.test.ts +++ b/test/ceo-split-collection.test.ts @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ import type { NativePlanQuestionCall, PlanCountTranscript } from './helpers/plan import { ceoSplitCandidate, ceoSplitDecisionFingerprints, isCeoSplitCandidateCall, isCeoSplitCollectionComplete } from './helpers/ceo-split-question-policy'; import captured from './fixtures/ceo-split-collection-0bcd.json'; import rowIds from './fixtures/ceo-split-collection-3638.json'; +import variants from './fixtures/ceo-split-wording-variants.json'; const ROOT = path.resolve(import.meta.dir, '..'); function original() { @@ -263,3 +264,26 @@ await import(${JSON.stringify(path.join(ROOT, 'test/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-split-ove } finally { fs.rmSync(temp, { recursive: true, force: true }); } }, 20_000, ); + +test.each(variants.runs.map(run => [run.source, run]))('captured candidate wording completes collection: %s', (_source, run) => { + const calls = structuredClone(run.calls) as unknown as NativePlanQuestionCall[]; + expect(run.originalOutcome).not.toBe('collection_complete'); + expect(calls.map(call => ceoSplitCandidate(call.questions[0] as NativeQuestion))).toEqual(['E1', 'E2', 'E3', 'E4', 'E5']); + const state = fromCalls(calls); + expect(state.fingerprints.map(isCeoSplitCandidateCall)).toEqual([true, true, true, true, true]); + expect(isCeoSplitCollectionComplete(state.transcript, state.fingerprints)).toBe(true); + expect(isCeoSplitCollectionComplete(fromCalls(calls.slice(0, 4)).transcript, fromCalls(calls.slice(0, 4)).fingerprints)).toBe(false); +}); + +test('wording variants stay bound to one candidate and its scope buckets', () => { + const base = structuredClone(variants.runs.find(run => run.source.startsWith('ci-'))!.calls[0]!.questions[0]!) as unknown as NativeQuestion; + const lead = (question: NativeQuestion, text: string) => ({ ...question, question: question.question.replace(/^[^\n]*/, text) }); + for (const text of ['D1.1 — E1: Ship the Slack DM bot?', 'D1.1 — E1) Ship the Slack DM bot?', + 'D1.1 — E1 Slack: ship the Slack DM bot?', 'D1.1 — E1-SLACK: Ship the Slack DM bot?']) expect(ceoSplitCandidate(lead(base, text))).toBe('E1'); + for (const text of ['D1.1 — E1-DISCORD: Ship the Slack DM bot?', 'D1.1 — E1 Slack: ship Slack before Discord?', + 'D1.1 — E1-SLACK: ship Slack with E2?', 'D1.1 — E2: Ship the Slack DM bot?']) expect(ceoSplitCandidate(lead(base, text))).toBeNull(); + const relabeled = (labels: string[]) => ({ ...base, options: base.options.map((option, i) => ({ ...option, label: labels[i]! })) }); + expect(ceoSplitCandidate(relabeled(['Include in this quarter (recommended)', 'Defer with flip trigger', 'Cut entirely', 'Hold, stop and discuss']))).toBe('E1'); + expect(ceoSplitCandidate(relabeled(['Ship now', 'Defer', 'Cut', 'Hold']))).toBeNull(); + expect(ceoSplitCandidate(relabeled(['Include', 'Included elsewhere', 'Cut', 'Hold']))).toBeNull(); +}); diff --git a/test/fixtures/ceo-split-wording-variants.json b/test/fixtures/ceo-split-wording-variants.json new file mode 100644 index 000000000..91ded0c7b --- /dev/null +++ b/test/fixtures/ceo-split-wording-variants.json @@ -0,0 +1,749 @@ +{ + "provenance": "First five acknowledged native candidate calls from plan-ceo-split-overflow runs whose collection never completed because the progress detector rejected the model's wording; question, option and answer bytes are unmodified.", + "runs": [ + { + "source": "ci-37374526437 (marathon on a2bcbab31)", + "originalOutcome": "completion_summary", + "calls": [ + { + "sessionId": "7afdf3cc-4c07-44a9-a92b-35470912aa88", + "toolUseId": "toolu_018EmeUJBQ6ky4cGLFMT2SHq", + "questions": [ + { + "question": "D1.1 \u2014 E1-SLACK: Ship the Slack DM bot for incident alerts this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: main \u2014 Q4 chat-integration prioritization, candidate 1 of 5 (Slack, Discord, Teams, Telegram, Mattermost), each decided independently.\nELI10: Slack is where most of your customers already live, and 40% of everyone who asked for an integration asked for this one. You already have a Slack login flow, so this is the cheapest of the high-demand options at about 2 weeks. Saying no means the single loudest request sits unanswered for another quarter.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Cutting or deferring the top request burns trust with the 40% who asked, and every other pick looks worse by comparison.\nRecommendation: A) Include because it has the highest demand of the five, reuses the existing Slack auth flow, and costs only 2 of the quarter's weeks.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nDependencies: none. E1 is standalone; this answer does not constrain E2-E5. Picking D) Hold stops the chain here.\nPros / cons: see each option.\nNet: You are trading 2 weeks of bandwidth for the biggest demand signal you have; the only reason to say no is a revenue-critical build that needs those exact weeks.", + "header": "E1 Slack", + "multiSelect": false, + "options": [ + { + "label": "Include (recommended)", + "description": "Add the Slack DM bot to this quarter's scope. Effort M (human: ~2 weeks / CC+gstack: ~1-2 days). Risk low. Reuse: existing Slack auth flow. Verification: implementer owns delivery, auth-expiry and rate-limit tests. \u2705 Answers the top Q2 survey request (~40% of asks) in the first 2 weeks of the quarter. \u2705 Reuses the existing Slack auth flow, so the only new code is the DM bot and alert formatting. \u274c Consumes 2 of the quarter's weeks before any enterprise-weighted pick gets attention." + }, + { + "label": "Defer", + "description": "Move Slack to next quarter's list with context in TODOS.md. Effort S (zero implementation work this quarter). Risk medium. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none needed now. \u2705 Frees 2 weeks for a longer build such as Teams if a renewal depends on it. \u2705 Keeps the option alive for next quarter without rejecting the demand. \u274c Leaves the most-requested integration unshipped for another full quarter." + }, + { + "label": "Cut", + "description": "Remove Slack from the roadmap entirely, with the reason recorded under NOT in scope. Effort S (zero implementation work). Risk high. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none. \u2705 Removes the item permanently so no one re-litigates it next planning cycle. \u2705 Zero implementation work and zero ongoing bot maintenance for Slack. \u274c Walks away from 40% of expressed demand with no stated reason to do so." + }, + { + "label": "Hold", + "description": "Stop the question chain here and discuss Slack before deciding anything. Effort S (no work). Risk low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a. \u2705 Stops the chain so we can talk through Slack before deciding anything else. \u2705 Nothing is recorded as decided; all five candidates stay open. \u274c Delays the remaining four questions until the discussion is finished." + } + ] + } + ], + "answered": true, + "failed": false, + "answers": { + "D1.1 \u2014 E1-SLACK: Ship the Slack DM bot for incident alerts this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: main \u2014 Q4 chat-integration prioritization, candidate 1 of 5 (Slack, Discord, Teams, Telegram, Mattermost), each decided independently.\nELI10: Slack is where most of your customers already live, and 40% of everyone who asked for an integration asked for this one. You already have a Slack login flow, so this is the cheapest of the high-demand options at about 2 weeks. Saying no means the single loudest request sits unanswered for another quarter.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Cutting or deferring the top request burns trust with the 40% who asked, and every other pick looks worse by comparison.\nRecommendation: A) Include because it has the highest demand of the five, reuses the existing Slack auth flow, and costs only 2 of the quarter's weeks.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nDependencies: none. E1 is standalone; this answer does not constrain E2-E5. Picking D) Hold stops the chain here.\nPros / cons: see each option.\nNet: You are trading 2 weeks of bandwidth for the biggest demand signal you have; the only reason to say no is a revenue-critical build that needs those exact weeks.": "Include (recommended)" + }, + "unansweredQuestionIndices": [], + "answeredAt": "2026-10-05T21:19:45.178Z" + }, + { + "sessionId": "7afdf3cc-4c07-44a9-a92b-35470912aa88", + "toolUseId": "toolu_01FzZ5rVauUYcR2nBLWmySK7", + "questions": [ + { + "question": "D1.2 \u2014 E2-DISCORD: Ship the Discord guild bot for community channels this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: main \u2014 Q4 chat-integration prioritization, candidate 2 of 5. Slack is already Included (2 weeks used).\nELI10: Discord is a community platform, not an on-call platform. 15% of asks is real demand and the community is loud, but this is a from-scratch build with no existing auth, about 3 weeks, the second most expensive option. For an incident-alert product, the people paying for on-call mostly do not run it in Discord. Deferring keeps it alive for next quarter, when you will know whether that community segment converts to paid.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Include it and 3 weeks go to the loudest segment with the least revenue evidence while an enterprise ask waits; cut it and you lose a vocal community that drives word of mouth.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because 3 greenfield weeks for a community-weighted segment is the weakest cost-to-revenue trade among the five, and deferring loses nothing you cannot recover next quarter.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nDependencies: none. E2 is standalone; this answer does not constrain E3-E5. Picking D) Hold stops the chain here.\nPros / cons: see each option.\nNet: You are trading 3 weeks against a loud but unproven-to-pay segment; defer unless you know that community drives conversions.", + "header": "E2 Discord", + "multiSelect": false, + "options": [ + { + "label": "Include", + "description": "Add the Discord guild bot to this quarter's scope. Effort L (human: ~3 weeks / CC+gstack: ~3-4 days). Risk medium (greenfield auth and guild permission model). Reuse: none. Verification: implementer owns guild install, permission-scope and alert-delivery tests. \u2705 Satisfies the second-largest demand bucket (~15% of asks) and quiets a vocal community. \u2705 Community channels can become a word-of-mouth growth loop that enterprise channels never will. \u274c Spends 3 of the quarter's weeks on a greenfield build with no revenue evidence attached." + }, + { + "label": "Defer (recommended)", + "description": "Move Discord to next quarter's list with context in TODOS.md. Effort S (zero implementation work this quarter). Risk low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none needed now. \u2705 Keeps 3 weeks free for candidates with clearer revenue attached (Teams, Mattermost). \u2705 Preserves the option while you gather evidence on whether the community segment converts to paid. \u274c The loud community stays loud for another quarter and may read the silence as a no." + }, + { + "label": "Cut", + "description": "Remove Discord from the roadmap entirely, with the reason recorded under NOT in scope. Effort S (zero implementation work). Risk medium. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none. \u2705 Ends an open ask that may never justify a 3-week greenfield build for an on-call product. \u2705 Zero implementation work and no ongoing bot maintenance against Discord API changes. \u274c Permanently forgoes 15% of expressed demand and the community goodwill that comes with it." + }, + { + "label": "Hold", + "description": "Stop the question chain here and discuss Discord before deciding anything. Effort S (no work). Risk low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a. \u2705 Stops the chain so we can talk through the community segment before deciding further. \u2705 Nothing new is recorded; E1 stays Included and E3-E5 stay open. \u274c Delays the remaining three questions until the discussion is finished." + } + ] + } + ], + "answered": true, + "failed": false, + "answers": { + "D1.2 \u2014 E2-DISCORD: Ship the Discord guild bot for community channels this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: main \u2014 Q4 chat-integration prioritization, candidate 2 of 5. Slack is already Included (2 weeks used).\nELI10: Discord is a community platform, not an on-call platform. 15% of asks is real demand and the community is loud, but this is a from-scratch build with no existing auth, about 3 weeks, the second most expensive option. For an incident-alert product, the people paying for on-call mostly do not run it in Discord. Deferring keeps it alive for next quarter, when you will know whether that community segment converts to paid.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Include it and 3 weeks go to the loudest segment with the least revenue evidence while an enterprise ask waits; cut it and you lose a vocal community that drives word of mouth.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because 3 greenfield weeks for a community-weighted segment is the weakest cost-to-revenue trade among the five, and deferring loses nothing you cannot recover next quarter.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nDependencies: none. E2 is standalone; this answer does not constrain E3-E5. Picking D) Hold stops the chain here.\nPros / cons: see each option.\nNet: You are trading 3 weeks against a loud but unproven-to-pay segment; defer unless you know that community drives conversions.": "Defer (recommended)" + }, + "unansweredQuestionIndices": [], + "answeredAt": "2026-10-05T21:21:12.371Z" + }, + { + "sessionId": "7afdf3cc-4c07-44a9-a92b-35470912aa88", + "toolUseId": "toolu_01Y1DznL2hYEbbnsrYR6w2fF", + "questions": [ + { + "question": "D1.3 \u2014 E3-TEAMS: Ship the Microsoft Teams webhook + bot integration this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: main \u2014 Q4 chat-integration prioritization, candidate 3 of 5. Slack Included (2 weeks used), Discord Deferred.\nELI10: Teams is where enterprise lives: roughly 37% of enterprise messaging seats versus Slack's 13%, mostly through Microsoft 365 bundling. Your enterprise customers asked for it by name and they pay the most per user. But at 4 weeks it is the most expensive build on the list for only 5% of asks. This is the biggest single bet of the five, and whether it belongs this quarter depends on a number the plan does not have: is any specific renewal or deal contingent on Teams?\nStakes if we pick wrong: Defer and a Teams-dependent enterprise renewal churns to a competitor that already ships Teams; Include and 4 weeks, likely the entire remaining budget, go to 5% of asks on an unconfirmed revenue claim.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because 4 weeks is too much of the budget to spend on a qualitative revenue claim; flip to Include the moment sales can name an account whose renewal or expansion this quarter depends on Teams.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nDependencies: none. E3 is standalone; this answer does not constrain E4-E5. Picking D) Hold stops the chain here.\nPros / cons: see each option.\nNet: You are trading the single largest block of weeks for the single largest revenue-per-user segment; without a named account at stake, defer and make the trigger explicit.", + "header": "E3 Teams", + "multiSelect": false, + "options": [ + { + "label": "Include", + "description": "Add the Teams webhook + Bot Framework integration to this quarter's scope. Effort L (human: ~4 weeks / CC+gstack: ~4-5 days). Risk medium (Azure Bot registration, tenant admin consent, Graph permissions). Reuse: none. Verification: implementer owns tenant install, consent-flow and webhook-delivery tests. \u2705 Serves the segment with the highest revenue per user and the largest enterprise seat share of any chat platform. \u2705 Enterprise buyers asked for this by name, so delivery converts directly into renewal and expansion conversations. \u274c Spends 4 weeks, likely the whole remaining budget, on ~5% of asks with no named account confirmed at stake." + }, + { + "label": "Defer (recommended)", + "description": "Move Teams to next quarter's list with context in TODOS.md and an explicit flip trigger: Include if sales names a Teams-contingent renewal or expansion. Effort S (zero implementation work this quarter). Risk medium. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none needed now. \u2705 Keeps 4 weeks free so two cheaper candidates can ship alongside Slack this quarter. \u2705 Turns a qualitative revenue claim into a concrete trigger that sales can confirm or deny. \u274c If a Teams-dependent renewal exists and nobody surfaces it, that account may churn before next quarter." + }, + { + "label": "Cut", + "description": "Remove Teams from the roadmap entirely, with the reason recorded under NOT in scope. Effort S (zero implementation work). Risk high. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none. \u2705 Ends the most expensive open ask and lets planning focus on cheaper builds for good. \u2705 Zero implementation work and no ongoing maintenance against Bot Framework and Graph API changes. \u274c Permanently forecloses the largest enterprise messaging platform for an incident-alert product that enterprises pay for." + }, + { + "label": "Hold", + "description": "Stop the question chain here and discuss Teams before deciding anything. Effort S (no work). Risk low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a. \u2705 Stops the chain so we can check with sales on renewal exposure before deciding further. \u2705 Nothing new is recorded; E1 and E2 answers stand and E4-E5 stay open. \u274c Delays the remaining two questions until the discussion is finished." + } + ] + } + ], + "answered": true, + "failed": false, + "answers": { + "D1.3 \u2014 E3-TEAMS: Ship the Microsoft Teams webhook + bot integration this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: main \u2014 Q4 chat-integration prioritization, candidate 3 of 5. Slack Included (2 weeks used), Discord Deferred.\nELI10: Teams is where enterprise lives: roughly 37% of enterprise messaging seats versus Slack's 13%, mostly through Microsoft 365 bundling. Your enterprise customers asked for it by name and they pay the most per user. But at 4 weeks it is the most expensive build on the list for only 5% of asks. This is the biggest single bet of the five, and whether it belongs this quarter depends on a number the plan does not have: is any specific renewal or deal contingent on Teams?\nStakes if we pick wrong: Defer and a Teams-dependent enterprise renewal churns to a competitor that already ships Teams; Include and 4 weeks, likely the entire remaining budget, go to 5% of asks on an unconfirmed revenue claim.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because 4 weeks is too much of the budget to spend on a qualitative revenue claim; flip to Include the moment sales can name an account whose renewal or expansion this quarter depends on Teams.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nDependencies: none. E3 is standalone; this answer does not constrain E4-E5. Picking D) Hold stops the chain here.\nPros / cons: see each option.\nNet: You are trading the single largest block of weeks for the single largest revenue-per-user segment; without a named account at stake, defer and make the trigger explicit.": "Defer (recommended)" + }, + "unansweredQuestionIndices": [], + "answeredAt": "2026-10-05T21:22:36.962Z" + }, + { + "sessionId": "7afdf3cc-4c07-44a9-a92b-35470912aa88", + "toolUseId": "toolu_013p1wnobHCz2dBugKFeZEEb", + "questions": [ + { + "question": "D1.4 \u2014 E4-TELEGRAM: Ship the Telegram bot API integration this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: main \u2014 Q4 chat-integration prioritization, candidate 4 of 5. Slack Included (2 weeks used), Discord and Teams Deferred.\nELI10: Telegram is the cheapest thing on the list: about 1 week against the simplest bot API of the five, with 8% of asks mostly from international users. The plan calls it low strategic value, and that is fair; it will not close an enterprise deal. But one week buys a second shipped integration this quarter and a story that alerts reach people outside the Slack bubble. Together with Slack it covers roughly 48% of asks in 3 weeks.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Include it and the cost of being wrong is one week; defer or cut it and you leave the cheapest 8% of demand on the table while two heavier candidates wait on evidence.\nRecommendation: A) Include because the downside is capped at one week, it doubles the shipped count this quarter, and no other candidate buys demand this cheaply.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nDependencies: none. E4 is standalone; this answer does not constrain E5. Picking D) Hold stops the chain here.\nPros / cons: see each option.\nNet: You are trading one week for a second shipped integration and 8% of asks; the only real argument against is that it does not move revenue.", + "header": "E4 Telegram", + "multiSelect": false, + "options": [ + { + "label": "Include (recommended)", + "description": "Add the Telegram bot integration to this quarter's scope. Effort S (human: ~1 week / CC+gstack: ~half a day). Risk low (token-based Bot API, no OAuth). Reuse: none, but the surface is small. Verification: implementer owns bot-token validation, chat-id delivery and message-size-limit tests. \u2705 Cheapest build of the five; a second shipped integration for one week of effort. \u2705 Covers ~8% of asks and the international segment no other candidate reaches. \u274c Low strategic value; it ships a count, not a revenue outcome, and adds one more bot to maintain." + }, + { + "label": "Defer", + "description": "Move Telegram to next quarter's list with context in TODOS.md. Effort S (zero implementation work this quarter). Risk low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none needed now. \u2705 Keeps the week free in case the Teams renewal trigger fires and needs every available week. \u2705 Preserves a cheap option for next quarter with no loss of demand signal. \u274c Forgoes the easiest shipped win on the list for a week you may not end up needing." + }, + { + "label": "Cut", + "description": "Remove Telegram from the roadmap entirely, with the reason recorded under NOT in scope. Effort S (zero implementation work). Risk low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none. \u2705 Keeps the integration surface focused on platforms where paying teams run on-call. \u2705 Zero implementation work and one fewer bot to maintain against API changes. \u274c Permanently drops ~8% of asks and the international segment for a one-week saving." + }, + { + "label": "Hold", + "description": "Stop the question chain here and discuss Telegram before deciding anything. Effort S (no work). Risk low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a. \u2705 Stops the chain so we can talk through the international segment before deciding further. \u2705 Nothing new is recorded; E1-E3 answers stand and E5 stays open. \u274c Delays the final candidate question and the set validation until the discussion is finished." + } + ] + } + ], + "answered": true, + "failed": false, + "answers": { + "D1.4 \u2014 E4-TELEGRAM: Ship the Telegram bot API integration this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: main \u2014 Q4 chat-integration prioritization, candidate 4 of 5. Slack Included (2 weeks used), Discord and Teams Deferred.\nELI10: Telegram is the cheapest thing on the list: about 1 week against the simplest bot API of the five, with 8% of asks mostly from international users. The plan calls it low strategic value, and that is fair; it will not close an enterprise deal. But one week buys a second shipped integration this quarter and a story that alerts reach people outside the Slack bubble. Together with Slack it covers roughly 48% of asks in 3 weeks.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Include it and the cost of being wrong is one week; defer or cut it and you leave the cheapest 8% of demand on the table while two heavier candidates wait on evidence.\nRecommendation: A) Include because the downside is capped at one week, it doubles the shipped count this quarter, and no other candidate buys demand this cheaply.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nDependencies: none. E4 is standalone; this answer does not constrain E5. Picking D) Hold stops the chain here.\nPros / cons: see each option.\nNet: You are trading one week for a second shipped integration and 8% of asks; the only real argument against is that it does not move revenue.": "Include (recommended)" + }, + "unansweredQuestionIndices": [], + "answeredAt": "2026-10-05T21:23:58.441Z" + }, + { + "sessionId": "7afdf3cc-4c07-44a9-a92b-35470912aa88", + "toolUseId": "toolu_01HdDYAm5RgMzT9C3T4JzxtN", + "questions": [ + { + "question": "D1.5 \u2014 E5-MATTERMOST: Ship the Mattermost REST plugin this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: main \u2014 Q4 chat-integration prioritization, candidate 5 of 5. Slack and Telegram Included (3 weeks used, 2 integrations), Discord and Teams Deferred.\nELI10: Mattermost is the self-hosted chat that regulated and air-gapped enterprises run when they cannot use Slack. Only 3% of asks, but every one comes from a high-ARR account (ARR = annual recurring revenue, what an account pays per year), and those customers have no Slack fallback: if you do not ship this, their alerts never reach chat. At 2 weeks it costs the same as Slack. Including it fills the third and final slot at 5 weeks total; this is the taste call where your revenue data should override me.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Include it and 2 weeks go to 3% of asks, which stings if those accounts were never at risk; defer it and a locked-in high-ARR segment keeps hearing no from the one vendor they cannot route around.\nRecommendation: A) Include because it is the cheapest way to serve high-ARR accounts that have no alternative path, it fits the third slot at Slack's cost, and the assembled set stays at exactly 3 integrations and 5 weeks.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nDependencies: none. E5 is standalone. This is the last candidate; D1.final validates the assembled set next. Picking D) Hold stops the chain here.\nPros / cons: see each option.\nNet: You are trading 2 weeks for the only candidate whose askers both pay the most and cannot go elsewhere; defer only if you know those accounts are safe without it.", + "header": "E5 Mattermost", + "multiSelect": false, + "options": [ + { + "label": "Include (recommended)", + "description": "Add the Mattermost REST plugin to this quarter's scope as the third integration. Effort M (human: ~2 weeks / CC+gstack: ~1-2 days). Risk medium (self-hosted version skew across customer installs). Reuse: none. Verification: implementer owns plugin install, version-compatibility matrix and webhook-delivery tests. \u2705 Serves locked-in high-ARR self-hosted accounts that have no Slack or Teams fallback. \u2705 Same build cost as Slack, so the third slot fills without blowing the week budget past 5. \u274c Only ~3% of asks; the revenue claim is qualitative and version skew across self-hosted installs adds support load." + }, + { + "label": "Defer", + "description": "Move Mattermost to next quarter's list with context in TODOS.md. Effort S (zero implementation work this quarter). Risk medium. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none needed now. \u2705 Leaves the third slot open so Teams can take it if the renewal trigger fires. \u2705 Ships the quarter at 2 integrations and 3 weeks, the leanest viable set. \u274c High-ARR self-hosted accounts hear no for another quarter with no workaround available to them." + }, + { + "label": "Cut", + "description": "Remove Mattermost from the roadmap entirely, with the reason recorded under NOT in scope. Effort S (zero implementation work). Risk high. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none. \u2705 Avoids a long-tail support commitment across self-hosted versions you do not control. \u2705 Zero implementation work and no plugin to maintain against Mattermost releases. \u274c Permanently tells your highest-ARR locked-in segment that their platform will never be supported." + }, + { + "label": "Hold", + "description": "Stop the question chain here and discuss Mattermost before deciding anything. Effort S (no work). Risk low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a. \u2705 Stops the chain so we can check ARR exposure on the Mattermost accounts before deciding. \u2705 Nothing new is recorded; E1-E4 answers stand. \u274c Delays the set validation until the discussion is finished." + } + ] + } + ], + "answered": true, + "failed": false, + "answers": { + "D1.5 \u2014 E5-MATTERMOST: Ship the Mattermost REST plugin this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: main \u2014 Q4 chat-integration prioritization, candidate 5 of 5. Slack and Telegram Included (3 weeks used, 2 integrations), Discord and Teams Deferred.\nELI10: Mattermost is the self-hosted chat that regulated and air-gapped enterprises run when they cannot use Slack. Only 3% of asks, but every one comes from a high-ARR account (ARR = annual recurring revenue, what an account pays per year), and those customers have no Slack fallback: if you do not ship this, their alerts never reach chat. At 2 weeks it costs the same as Slack. Including it fills the third and final slot at 5 weeks total; this is the taste call where your revenue data should override me.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Include it and 2 weeks go to 3% of asks, which stings if those accounts were never at risk; defer it and a locked-in high-ARR segment keeps hearing no from the one vendor they cannot route around.\nRecommendation: A) Include because it is the cheapest way to serve high-ARR accounts that have no alternative path, it fits the third slot at Slack's cost, and the assembled set stays at exactly 3 integrations and 5 weeks.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nDependencies: none. E5 is standalone. This is the last candidate; D1.final validates the assembled set next. Picking D) Hold stops the chain here.\nPros / cons: see each option.\nNet: You are trading 2 weeks for the only candidate whose askers both pay the most and cannot go elsewhere; defer only if you know those accounts are safe without it.": "Include (recommended)" + }, + "unansweredQuestionIndices": [], + "answeredAt": "2026-10-05T21:25:22.514Z" + } + ] + }, + { + "source": "solo t2 on a2bcbab31", + "originalOutcome": "plan_ready", + "calls": [ + { + "sessionId": "26e2411c-6e38-43dd-ada1-7cfda0396f05", + "toolUseId": "toolu_018Pjs2kHMhjZRGPrdnFZpfo", + "questions": [ + { + "question": "D1.1 \u2014 E1: Slack DM bot for incident alerts. Include, defer, or cut?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, chat-platform integration prioritization, candidate 1 of 5.\nELI10: Slack is the one platform where we already have a working login flow, so the two-week estimate is the most trustworthy of the five. It is also the single biggest thing customers asked for in the Q2 survey, roughly four in ten requests. Including it spends one of your three slots on the lowest-risk, highest-demand item.\nStakes if we pick wrong: deferring the top customer request for another quarter is the most visible possible miss; including it costs the slot with the least downside.\nRecommendation: A) Include because it has the best demand-to-cost ratio of any candidate and the only existing code reuse.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons: see option descriptions.\nNet: this is the anchor pick; the real question is what fills the other one or two slots.", + "header": "E1 Slack", + "multiSelect": false, + "options": [ + { + "label": "Include in this quarter (recommended)", + "description": "Effort S (human: ~2 weeks / CC+gstack: ~2-3 days), risk low, reuses existing Slack auth flow. \u2705 Answers the top Q2 survey request, ~40% of asks, in the first slot. \u2705 Only candidate with reusable auth, so the estimate has the least slip risk. \u274c Spends one of three slots on a platform where the enterprise seat count is smaller than Teams." + }, + { + "label": "Defer to next quarter", + "description": "Effort S (zero implementation work this quarter; TODOS.md entry only), risk medium. \u2705 Frees the slot for a higher-revenue-per-user platform such as Teams. \u2705 Keeps the option open with a recorded reason, nothing is thrown away. \u274c The most-requested feature slips another quarter and customers who asked in Q2 see no response." + }, + { + "label": "Cut entirely", + "description": "Effort S (zero implementation work; recorded as rejected), risk high. \u2705 Removes the candidate permanently so no planning cycles go to it again. \u2705 Simplest possible scope record with no follow-up tracking. \u274c Rejects the single largest demand signal with no stated reason to do so." + }, + { + "label": "Hold, stop and discuss", + "description": "Effort S (zero implementation work; chain pauses), risk low. \u2705 Lets you surface revenue or roadmap context the plan does not contain before committing. \u2705 Nothing is decided and the remaining four questions wait with fresh context. \u274c No disposition is recorded and the review cannot finish until the chain resumes." + } + ] + } + ], + "answered": true, + "failed": false, + "answers": { + "D1.1 \u2014 E1: Slack DM bot for incident alerts. Include, defer, or cut?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, chat-platform integration prioritization, candidate 1 of 5.\nELI10: Slack is the one platform where we already have a working login flow, so the two-week estimate is the most trustworthy of the five. It is also the single biggest thing customers asked for in the Q2 survey, roughly four in ten requests. Including it spends one of your three slots on the lowest-risk, highest-demand item.\nStakes if we pick wrong: deferring the top customer request for another quarter is the most visible possible miss; including it costs the slot with the least downside.\nRecommendation: A) Include because it has the best demand-to-cost ratio of any candidate and the only existing code reuse.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons: see option descriptions.\nNet: this is the anchor pick; the real question is what fills the other one or two slots.": "Include in this quarter (recommended)" + }, + "unansweredQuestionIndices": [], + "answeredAt": "2026-10-05T21:48:19.297Z" + }, + { + "sessionId": "26e2411c-6e38-43dd-ada1-7cfda0396f05", + "toolUseId": "toolu_01XUtj44bFeZqkE2oXKsK7E1", + "questions": [ + { + "question": "D1.2 \u2014 E2: Discord guild bot for community channels. Include, defer, or cut?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, chat-platform integration prioritization, candidate 2 of 5. Slack is already in (slot 1 of 3).\nELI10: Discord is a three-week greenfield build with no existing login flow, and unlike every other candidate it runs over a persistent WebSocket gateway rather than simple webhooks, so it brings its own operational shape (reconnects, rate limits, presence). Demand is real at about 15% of asks, but it comes from community users rather than paying enterprise accounts. Including it would use a second slot and more than double the committed weeks.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it crowds out a revenue-bearing platform for a segment that is loud but low-ARR; cutting it alienates a vocal community that will notice.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because the demand is genuine but the cost is the second-highest and the segment carries the least revenue weight, so it belongs next quarter, not never.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons: see option descriptions.\nNet: you are trading a loud community's goodwill now against three greenfield weeks that could fund Teams or Telegram plus Mattermost.", + "header": "E2 Discord", + "multiSelect": false, + "options": [ + { + "label": "Include in this quarter", + "description": "Effort L (human: ~3 weeks / CC+gstack: ~4-5 days), risk medium, no reuse. \u2705 Satisfies ~15% of asks and quiets the most vocal segment this quarter. \u2705 Establishes a community-channel presence that compounds through word of mouth. \u274c Second-largest build, greenfield auth and a WebSocket gateway, and it would leave room for at most one more candidate." + }, + { + "label": "Defer to next quarter (recommended)", + "description": "Effort S (zero implementation work this quarter; TODOS.md entry with context), risk low. \u2705 Keeps the slot and three weeks available for a higher-ARR or cheaper candidate. \u2705 Records the community demand with a reason so it is first in line next quarter. \u274c The loud community segment waits another quarter and may say so publicly." + }, + { + "label": "Cut entirely", + "description": "Effort S (zero implementation work; recorded as rejected), risk medium. \u2705 Ends the conversation permanently if community channels are not a target segment. \u2705 No tracking overhead and no expectation set for later. \u274c Discards a measured 15% demand signal with no replacement path for those users." + }, + { + "label": "Hold, stop and discuss", + "description": "Effort S (zero implementation work; chain pauses), risk low. \u2705 Lets you weigh whether community growth is a strategic goal this plan does not state. \u2705 Nothing is decided and E3-E5 wait with fresh context. \u274c No disposition is recorded and the review cannot finish until the chain resumes." + } + ] + } + ], + "answered": true, + "failed": false, + "answers": { + "D1.2 \u2014 E2: Discord guild bot for community channels. Include, defer, or cut?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, chat-platform integration prioritization, candidate 2 of 5. Slack is already in (slot 1 of 3).\nELI10: Discord is a three-week greenfield build with no existing login flow, and unlike every other candidate it runs over a persistent WebSocket gateway rather than simple webhooks, so it brings its own operational shape (reconnects, rate limits, presence). Demand is real at about 15% of asks, but it comes from community users rather than paying enterprise accounts. Including it would use a second slot and more than double the committed weeks.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it crowds out a revenue-bearing platform for a segment that is loud but low-ARR; cutting it alienates a vocal community that will notice.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because the demand is genuine but the cost is the second-highest and the segment carries the least revenue weight, so it belongs next quarter, not never.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons: see option descriptions.\nNet: you are trading a loud community's goodwill now against three greenfield weeks that could fund Teams or Telegram plus Mattermost.": "Defer to next quarter (recommended)" + }, + "unansweredQuestionIndices": [], + "answeredAt": "2026-10-05T21:49:24.355Z" + }, + { + "sessionId": "26e2411c-6e38-43dd-ada1-7cfda0396f05", + "toolUseId": "toolu_01XKPgVDZGjn4UmTp49rGhrZ", + "questions": [ + { + "question": "D1.3 \u2014 E3: Microsoft Teams webhook + bot framework. Include, defer, or cut?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, chat-platform integration prioritization, candidate 3 of 5. Slack in (slot 1 of 3), Discord deferred.\nELI10: Teams is the most expensive build at four weeks and needs a Microsoft Bot Framework registration plus an Azure AD app, none of which exists today. The ask count looks small at about 5%, but those asks come from enterprise accounts with the highest revenue per user, and ask counts undercount platforms where one procurement voice speaks for hundreds of seats. Including it fills slot two and brings committed weeks to six.\nStakes if we pick wrong: deferring leaves the highest-revenue segment unanswered for a second quarter and risks churn or stalled deals; including it is the one candidate whose estimate could slip past the quarter.\nRecommendation: A) Include because it is the only candidate where revenue weight clearly outranks ask share, and independence means a slip does not endanger Slack or any other pick.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons: see option descriptions.\nNet: you are trading four greenfield weeks and the highest slip risk against the deepest revenue upside in the set.", + "header": "E3 Teams", + "multiSelect": false, + "options": [ + { + "label": "Include in this quarter (recommended)", + "description": "Effort XL (human: ~4 weeks / CC+gstack: ~1 week), risk high, no reuse. \u2705 Answers the enterprise segment with the highest revenue per user and a direct named ask. \u2705 Covers the larger enterprise seat base that Slack alone does not reach. \u274c Largest and most uncertain build; a Bot Framework learning curve could push delivery past quarter end." + }, + { + "label": "Defer to next quarter", + "description": "Effort S (zero implementation work this quarter; TODOS.md entry with context), risk medium. \u2705 Keeps the quarter at low-risk builds and leaves two slots for cheaper candidates. \u2705 Gives time to scope the Bot Framework and Azure AD work properly before committing. \u274c The highest-revenue customers who asked specifically wait another quarter and may read that as a signal." + }, + { + "label": "Cut entirely", + "description": "Effort S (zero implementation work; recorded as rejected), risk high. \u2705 Avoids ever taking on the Bot Framework operational burden. \u2705 Simplest record if enterprise Teams shops are explicitly not a target. \u274c Walks away from the highest revenue-per-user segment with no replacement path for those accounts." + }, + { + "label": "Hold, stop and discuss", + "description": "Effort S (zero implementation work; chain pauses), risk low. \u2705 Lets you bring actual ARR figures for the Teams asks, which this plan does not contain. \u2705 Nothing is decided and E4-E5 wait with fresh context. \u274c No disposition is recorded and the review cannot finish until the chain resumes." + } + ] + } + ], + "answered": true, + "failed": false, + "answers": { + "D1.3 \u2014 E3: Microsoft Teams webhook + bot framework. Include, defer, or cut?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, chat-platform integration prioritization, candidate 3 of 5. Slack in (slot 1 of 3), Discord deferred.\nELI10: Teams is the most expensive build at four weeks and needs a Microsoft Bot Framework registration plus an Azure AD app, none of which exists today. The ask count looks small at about 5%, but those asks come from enterprise accounts with the highest revenue per user, and ask counts undercount platforms where one procurement voice speaks for hundreds of seats. Including it fills slot two and brings committed weeks to six.\nStakes if we pick wrong: deferring leaves the highest-revenue segment unanswered for a second quarter and risks churn or stalled deals; including it is the one candidate whose estimate could slip past the quarter.\nRecommendation: A) Include because it is the only candidate where revenue weight clearly outranks ask share, and independence means a slip does not endanger Slack or any other pick.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons: see option descriptions.\nNet: you are trading four greenfield weeks and the highest slip risk against the deepest revenue upside in the set.": "Include in this quarter (recommended)" + }, + "unansweredQuestionIndices": [], + "answeredAt": "2026-10-05T21:50:27.532Z" + }, + { + "sessionId": "26e2411c-6e38-43dd-ada1-7cfda0396f05", + "toolUseId": "toolu_01Fjn1Xr1CUcPM1Mywdrakmh", + "questions": [ + { + "question": "D1.4 \u2014 E4: Telegram bot API integration. Include, defer, or cut?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, chat-platform integration prioritization, candidate 4 of 5. Slack and Teams in (2 of 3 slots, 6 weeks), Discord deferred.\nELI10: Telegram is the cheapest build at one week with the simplest API, a single bot token and no OAuth, and it serves about 8% of asks, mostly international users. The plan itself calls it low strategic value but a cheap win. The catch is that only one slot remains, so including Telegram means Mattermost cannot ship this quarter; deferring Telegram keeps that slot open for Mattermost at the next question.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it spends the last slot on the lowest-strategic-value item while high-ARR Mattermost accounts wait; deferring it leaves international users with nothing for a one-week cost.\nRecommendation: A) Include because with Teams already carrying the quarter's slip risk, the last slot should be the lowest-slip item, and Mattermost can be re-scoped next quarter once its Slack-compatible webhook reuse is verified.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons: see option descriptions.\nNet: cheap and certain now versus holding the slot for a smaller but higher-ARR segment; if ARR weighting matters more to you than slip risk, pick Defer here and Include at D1.5.", + "header": "E4 Telegram", + "multiSelect": false, + "options": [ + { + "label": "Include in this quarter (recommended)", + "description": "Effort S (human: ~1 week / CC+gstack: ~1 day), risk low, no reuse but minimal surface. \u2705 Lowest-cost, lowest-slip candidate; balances the high-risk Teams build in the same quarter. \u2705 Serves ~8% of asks from international users who have no other channel today. \u274c Fills the third and final slot, so Mattermost must be deferred or cut at D1.5." + }, + { + "label": "Defer to next quarter", + "description": "Effort S (zero implementation work this quarter; TODOS.md entry with context), risk low. \u2705 Keeps the last slot open for Mattermost's high-ARR self-hosted accounts. \u2705 One-week build loses little by waiting; it is just as cheap next quarter. \u274c International users see no Telegram support this quarter despite the near-zero cost." + }, + { + "label": "Cut entirely", + "description": "Effort S (zero implementation work; recorded as rejected), risk low. \u2705 Removes a low-strategic-value item from every future planning cycle. \u2705 Keeps the roadmap focused on enterprise and community platforms. \u274c Permanently drops ~8% of asks for a one-week build; a stronger reason than \"low value\" would be needed." + }, + { + "label": "Hold, stop and discuss", + "description": "Effort S (zero implementation work; chain pauses), risk low. \u2705 Lets you compare Telegram and Mattermost side by side before the last slot is committed. \u2705 Nothing is decided and E5 waits with fresh context. \u274c No disposition is recorded and the review cannot finish until the chain resumes." + } + ] + } + ], + "answered": true, + "failed": false, + "answers": { + "D1.4 \u2014 E4: Telegram bot API integration. Include, defer, or cut?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, chat-platform integration prioritization, candidate 4 of 5. Slack and Teams in (2 of 3 slots, 6 weeks), Discord deferred.\nELI10: Telegram is the cheapest build at one week with the simplest API, a single bot token and no OAuth, and it serves about 8% of asks, mostly international users. The plan itself calls it low strategic value but a cheap win. The catch is that only one slot remains, so including Telegram means Mattermost cannot ship this quarter; deferring Telegram keeps that slot open for Mattermost at the next question.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it spends the last slot on the lowest-strategic-value item while high-ARR Mattermost accounts wait; deferring it leaves international users with nothing for a one-week cost.\nRecommendation: A) Include because with Teams already carrying the quarter's slip risk, the last slot should be the lowest-slip item, and Mattermost can be re-scoped next quarter once its Slack-compatible webhook reuse is verified.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons: see option descriptions.\nNet: cheap and certain now versus holding the slot for a smaller but higher-ARR segment; if ARR weighting matters more to you than slip risk, pick Defer here and Include at D1.5.": "Include in this quarter (recommended)" + }, + "unansweredQuestionIndices": [], + "answeredAt": "2026-10-05T21:51:44.475Z" + }, + { + "sessionId": "26e2411c-6e38-43dd-ada1-7cfda0396f05", + "toolUseId": "toolu_013srMFCtuxQwCEqT5zfwHmu", + "questions": [ + { + "question": "D1.5 \u2014 E5: Mattermost REST plugin. Include, defer, or cut?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, chat-platform integration prioritization, candidate 5 of 5. Slack, Teams and Telegram fill all 3 slots (7 weeks); Discord deferred.\nELI10: Mattermost is a two-week REST plugin for self-hosted enterprise customers. Only about 3% of asks, but every one comes from a high-ARR account that is locked into self-hosting and cannot switch to Slack or Teams. All three slots are already taken, so choosing Include here breaks your own cap of three and the final check will ask which earlier pick to revisit. One thing to verify before next quarter: Mattermost accepts Slack-compatible incoming webhooks, so part of the Slack work may carry over and shrink this estimate.\nStakes if we pick wrong: cutting walks away from locked-in high-ARR accounts that have no alternative channel; including breaches capacity and forces a swap; deferring delays a small revenue-dense segment by one quarter.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because the cap is full, the segment is loyal rather than at-risk, and deferring lets the team verify the Slack-compatibility shortcut that could make this a one-week build next quarter.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons: see option descriptions.\nNet: a quarter's delay for a locked-in segment versus reopening a pick you already made; deferral keeps every approved decision intact.", + "header": "E5 Mattermost", + "multiSelect": false, + "options": [ + { + "label": "Include in this quarter", + "description": "Effort M (human: ~2 weeks / CC+gstack: ~2-3 days), risk medium, possible partial reuse of Slack formatting. \u2705 Serves locked-in high-ARR accounts that have no other integration path. \u2705 Self-hosted enterprise coverage complements Teams for the enterprise segment. \u274c Breaches the cap of 3 and 7 weeks become 9; D1.final will require revisiting Slack, Teams or Telegram." + }, + { + "label": "Defer to next quarter (recommended)", + "description": "Effort S (zero implementation work this quarter; TODOS.md entry with context), risk low. \u2705 Respects the cap of 3 and leaves every approved pick untouched. \u2705 Gives time to verify Slack-compatible webhook reuse, which could cut the build to about a week. \u274c High-ARR self-hosted accounts wait another quarter for alert delivery." + }, + { + "label": "Cut entirely", + "description": "Effort S (zero implementation work; recorded as rejected), risk high. \u2705 Removes a 3%-of-asks niche from future planning cycles. \u2705 No tracking overhead if self-hosted deployments are explicitly not a target. \u274c Permanently abandons high-ARR locked-in accounts with no replacement channel; strongest churn exposure of any cut." + }, + { + "label": "Hold, stop and discuss", + "description": "Effort S (zero implementation work; chain pauses), risk low. \u2705 Lets you bring ARR figures for the Mattermost accounts before deciding against them. \u2705 Nothing is decided and the final validation waits. \u274c No disposition is recorded and the review cannot finish until the chain resumes." + } + ] + } + ], + "answered": true, + "failed": false, + "answers": { + "D1.5 \u2014 E5: Mattermost REST plugin. Include, defer, or cut?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, chat-platform integration prioritization, candidate 5 of 5. Slack, Teams and Telegram fill all 3 slots (7 weeks); Discord deferred.\nELI10: Mattermost is a two-week REST plugin for self-hosted enterprise customers. Only about 3% of asks, but every one comes from a high-ARR account that is locked into self-hosting and cannot switch to Slack or Teams. All three slots are already taken, so choosing Include here breaks your own cap of three and the final check will ask which earlier pick to revisit. One thing to verify before next quarter: Mattermost accepts Slack-compatible incoming webhooks, so part of the Slack work may carry over and shrink this estimate.\nStakes if we pick wrong: cutting walks away from locked-in high-ARR accounts that have no alternative channel; including breaches capacity and forces a swap; deferring delays a small revenue-dense segment by one quarter.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because the cap is full, the segment is loyal rather than at-risk, and deferring lets the team verify the Slack-compatibility shortcut that could make this a one-week build next quarter.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons: see option descriptions.\nNet: a quarter's delay for a locked-in segment versus reopening a pick you already made; deferral keeps every approved decision intact.": "Defer to next quarter (recommended)" + }, + "unansweredQuestionIndices": [], + "answeredAt": "2026-10-05T21:52:54.461Z" + } + ] + }, + { + "source": "solo t9 on a2bcbab31", + "originalOutcome": "plan_ready", + "calls": [ + { + "sessionId": "1e435bbf-0037-4b90-9007-80bc5d27e5b5", + "toolUseId": "toolu_01VG678VvuZRBsRuNDZHt5GQ", + "questions": [ + { + "question": "D1.1 \u2014 E1: Include Slack DM bot for incident alerts this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: integration-scope plan on main; first of five per-candidate calls.\nELI10: Slack is the top customer request from the Q2 survey, about 40% of all asks, and we already have a Slack auth flow to reuse, so this is the cheapest path to the most demand. Including it uses 1 of your 3 slots and about 2 weeks. Nothing else depends on it, but it sets the alert-formatting pattern the other channels will copy.\nStakes if we pick wrong: deferring it leaves the single largest demand segment unserved for another quarter while smaller segments get served first.\nRecommendation: A) Include because 2 weeks buys the largest demand share of any candidate and reuses existing auth.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this quarter (recommended)\n \u2705 Largest demand share (about 40% of asks) for the second-cheapest build (about 2 weeks, human: ~2 weeks / CC: ~1-2 days)\n \u2705 Existing Slack auth flow is the only stated code reuse in the whole plan, lowering risk\n \u274c Consumes 1 of 3 slots and 2 weeks before any revenue-weighted channel is considered\nB) Defer to next quarter\n \u2705 Frees 2 weeks and a slot for Teams or Mattermost if revenue matters more than volume this quarter\n \u2705 Nothing else is blocked; candidates are independent per the plan\n \u274c The top survey request stays unmet while smaller segments ship first; hard to explain to customers\nC) Cut entirely\n \u2705 Removes the item from future planning noise if Slack is strategically off the table\n \u2705 Zero implementation work (effort S, nothing to build)\n \u274c Abandons the largest demand segment and the one candidate with existing reuse\nD) Hold, stop the chain and discuss\n \u2705 Lets you question the demand numbers or the DM-bot shape before committing any slot\n \u2705 No disposition recorded; all five candidates stay open\n \u274c Pauses the review until you resume\nNet: Slack is the volume anchor; the real question is whether anything should ship before it.", + "header": "E1 Slack", + "multiSelect": false, + "options": [ + { + "label": "Include in this quarter (recommended)", + "description": "\u2705 Largest demand share (about 40% of asks) for the second-cheapest build (about 2 weeks, human: ~2 weeks / CC: ~1-2 days). \u2705 Existing Slack auth flow is the only stated code reuse in the whole plan, lowering risk. \u274c Consumes 1 of 3 slots and 2 weeks before any revenue-weighted channel is considered. Effort M, risk low, reuse: Slack auth, verification: owner must prove delivery, retry and token-expiry paths." + }, + { + "label": "Defer to next quarter", + "description": "\u2705 Frees 2 weeks and a slot for Teams or Mattermost if revenue matters more than volume this quarter. \u2705 Nothing else is blocked; candidates are independent per the plan. \u274c The top survey request stays unmet while smaller segments ship first; hard to explain to customers. Effort S, risk medium (customer perception), no reuse, no verification needed now." + }, + { + "label": "Cut entirely", + "description": "\u2705 Removes the item from future planning noise if Slack is strategically off the table. \u2705 Zero implementation work (effort S, nothing to build). \u274c Abandons the largest demand segment and the one candidate with existing reuse. Effort S, risk high (demand), no reuse." + }, + { + "label": "Hold, stop the chain and discuss", + "description": "\u2705 Lets you question the demand numbers or the DM-bot shape before committing any slot. \u2705 No disposition recorded; all five candidates stay open. \u274c Pauses the review until you resume. Effort S, risk low, no reuse." + } + ] + } + ], + "answered": true, + "failed": false, + "answers": { + "D1.1 \u2014 E1: Include Slack DM bot for incident alerts this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: integration-scope plan on main; first of five per-candidate calls.\nELI10: Slack is the top customer request from the Q2 survey, about 40% of all asks, and we already have a Slack auth flow to reuse, so this is the cheapest path to the most demand. Including it uses 1 of your 3 slots and about 2 weeks. Nothing else depends on it, but it sets the alert-formatting pattern the other channels will copy.\nStakes if we pick wrong: deferring it leaves the single largest demand segment unserved for another quarter while smaller segments get served first.\nRecommendation: A) Include because 2 weeks buys the largest demand share of any candidate and reuses existing auth.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this quarter (recommended)\n \u2705 Largest demand share (about 40% of asks) for the second-cheapest build (about 2 weeks, human: ~2 weeks / CC: ~1-2 days)\n \u2705 Existing Slack auth flow is the only stated code reuse in the whole plan, lowering risk\n \u274c Consumes 1 of 3 slots and 2 weeks before any revenue-weighted channel is considered\nB) Defer to next quarter\n \u2705 Frees 2 weeks and a slot for Teams or Mattermost if revenue matters more than volume this quarter\n \u2705 Nothing else is blocked; candidates are independent per the plan\n \u274c The top survey request stays unmet while smaller segments ship first; hard to explain to customers\nC) Cut entirely\n \u2705 Removes the item from future planning noise if Slack is strategically off the table\n \u2705 Zero implementation work (effort S, nothing to build)\n \u274c Abandons the largest demand segment and the one candidate with existing reuse\nD) Hold, stop the chain and discuss\n \u2705 Lets you question the demand numbers or the DM-bot shape before committing any slot\n \u2705 No disposition recorded; all five candidates stay open\n \u274c Pauses the review until you resume\nNet: Slack is the volume anchor; the real question is whether anything should ship before it.": "Include in this quarter (recommended)" + }, + "unansweredQuestionIndices": [], + "answeredAt": "2026-10-05T21:49:02.782Z" + }, + { + "sessionId": "1e435bbf-0037-4b90-9007-80bc5d27e5b5", + "toolUseId": "toolu_011FayqMNjaS5oRHfVWutCQM", + "questions": [ + { + "question": "D1.2 \u2014 E2: Include Discord guild bot for community channels this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: integration-scope plan on main; second of five per-candidate calls. E1 Slack is already included (2 weeks, 1 slot used).\nELI10: Discord is about 15% of asks from a vocal community, but it is a greenfield build with no existing auth, about 3 weeks, the second most expensive candidate. The plan also describes it differently from the others: a \"guild bot for community channels\", not an incident-alert bot. If the community wants alerts, a Discord channel webhook needs only a URL and takes days, not weeks. If they want community engagement, that is a different product and should be sized as one. Including it would put you at 5 weeks and 2 of 3 slots with Teams, Telegram and Mattermost still undecided.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it on the stated shape spends 3 weeks on a build whose use case is unconfirmed; cutting it loses a vocal segment that generates word of mouth.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because 3 greenfield weeks for 15% is the worst cost-per-demand ratio of the five, and the product shape needs confirming before any build starts.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this quarter\n \u2705 Serves a vocal community segment whose public enthusiasm is cheap marketing\n \u2705 Second-largest demand share after Slack (about 15% of asks)\n \u274c Greenfield auth plus 3 weeks (human: ~3 weeks / CC: ~2-3 days) for an unconfirmed use case; leaves 1 slot for Teams, Telegram and Mattermost combined\nB) Defer to next quarter (recommended)\n \u2705 Keeps 2 slots open for the revenue-weighted channels (Teams, Mattermost) and the 1-week Telegram win\n \u2705 Buys time to confirm whether Discord users want alerts (webhook, days) or community features (bot, weeks), which could cut the cost sharply\n \u274c The loud community waits another quarter and may say so publicly\nC) Cut entirely\n \u2705 Zero implementation work (effort S, nothing to build) and no TODO to maintain\n \u2705 Clean signal if Discord is outside the product's target customer\n \u274c Drops a 15% demand segment permanently with no cheaper path explored\nD) Hold, stop the chain and discuss\n \u2705 Lets you clarify the Discord use case (alerts vs community) before deciding\n \u2705 No disposition recorded; E3, E4, E5 stay open\n \u274c Pauses the review until you resume\nNet: Discord trades the most build weeks per percent of demand, and the stated shape may not even be the alerts product.", + "header": "E2 Discord", + "multiSelect": false, + "options": [ + { + "label": "Include in this quarter", + "description": "\u2705 Serves a vocal community segment whose public enthusiasm is cheap marketing. \u2705 Second-largest demand share after Slack (about 15% of asks). \u274c Greenfield auth plus 3 weeks (human: ~3 weeks / CC: ~2-3 days) for an unconfirmed use case; leaves 1 slot for Teams, Telegram and Mattermost combined. Effort L, risk medium, no reuse, verification: owner must prove guild install, permission scopes, and rate-limit handling." + }, + { + "label": "Defer to next quarter (recommended)", + "description": "\u2705 Keeps 2 slots open for the revenue-weighted channels (Teams, Mattermost) and the 1-week Telegram win. \u2705 Buys time to confirm whether Discord users want alerts (webhook, days) or community features (bot, weeks), which could cut the cost sharply. \u274c The loud community waits another quarter and may say so publicly. Effort S, risk low, no reuse, TODO records the shape question." + }, + { + "label": "Cut entirely", + "description": "\u2705 Zero implementation work (effort S, nothing to build) and no TODO to maintain. \u2705 Clean signal if Discord is outside the product's target customer. \u274c Drops a 15% demand segment permanently with no cheaper path explored. Effort S, risk medium (demand), no reuse." + }, + { + "label": "Hold, stop the chain and discuss", + "description": "\u2705 Lets you clarify the Discord use case (alerts vs community) before deciding. \u2705 No disposition recorded; E3, E4, E5 stay open. \u274c Pauses the review until you resume. Effort S, risk low, no reuse." + } + ] + } + ], + "answered": true, + "failed": false, + "answers": { + "D1.2 \u2014 E2: Include Discord guild bot for community channels this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: integration-scope plan on main; second of five per-candidate calls. E1 Slack is already included (2 weeks, 1 slot used).\nELI10: Discord is about 15% of asks from a vocal community, but it is a greenfield build with no existing auth, about 3 weeks, the second most expensive candidate. The plan also describes it differently from the others: a \"guild bot for community channels\", not an incident-alert bot. If the community wants alerts, a Discord channel webhook needs only a URL and takes days, not weeks. If they want community engagement, that is a different product and should be sized as one. Including it would put you at 5 weeks and 2 of 3 slots with Teams, Telegram and Mattermost still undecided.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it on the stated shape spends 3 weeks on a build whose use case is unconfirmed; cutting it loses a vocal segment that generates word of mouth.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because 3 greenfield weeks for 15% is the worst cost-per-demand ratio of the five, and the product shape needs confirming before any build starts.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this quarter\n \u2705 Serves a vocal community segment whose public enthusiasm is cheap marketing\n \u2705 Second-largest demand share after Slack (about 15% of asks)\n \u274c Greenfield auth plus 3 weeks (human: ~3 weeks / CC: ~2-3 days) for an unconfirmed use case; leaves 1 slot for Teams, Telegram and Mattermost combined\nB) Defer to next quarter (recommended)\n \u2705 Keeps 2 slots open for the revenue-weighted channels (Teams, Mattermost) and the 1-week Telegram win\n \u2705 Buys time to confirm whether Discord users want alerts (webhook, days) or community features (bot, weeks), which could cut the cost sharply\n \u274c The loud community waits another quarter and may say so publicly\nC) Cut entirely\n \u2705 Zero implementation work (effort S, nothing to build) and no TODO to maintain\n \u2705 Clean signal if Discord is outside the product's target customer\n \u274c Drops a 15% demand segment permanently with no cheaper path explored\nD) Hold, stop the chain and discuss\n \u2705 Lets you clarify the Discord use case (alerts vs community) before deciding\n \u2705 No disposition recorded; E3, E4, E5 stay open\n \u274c Pauses the review until you resume\nNet: Discord trades the most build weeks per percent of demand, and the stated shape may not even be the alerts product.": "Defer to next quarter (recommended)" + }, + "unansweredQuestionIndices": [], + "answeredAt": "2026-10-05T21:50:26.455Z" + }, + { + "sessionId": "1e435bbf-0037-4b90-9007-80bc5d27e5b5", + "toolUseId": "toolu_018hR5ehmkhweznnicvSejVH", + "questions": [ + { + "question": "D1.3 \u2014 E3: Include Microsoft Teams integration this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: integration-scope plan on main; third of five per-candidate calls. E1 Slack included (2 weeks, 1 slot), E2 Discord deferred.\nELI10: Teams is only about 5% of asks, but those asks come from enterprise customers and the plan says it has the highest revenue impact per user. It is also the most expensive candidate at about 4 weeks. One feasibility flag: the plan says \"webhook + bot framework\", but Microsoft retired the classic Office 365 connector webhooks in May 2026. The build must target Workflows (Power Automate) webhooks or a Bot Framework Teams app instead, so the 4 week estimate needs re-basing before work starts. Including it puts you at 6 weeks and 2 of 3 slots.\nStakes if we pick wrong: deferring it keeps enterprise deals blocked for another quarter; including it on a stale estimate risks the quarter's largest build overrunning.\nRecommendation: A) Include because it is the only candidate that unblocks named enterprise revenue, and the retirement flag changes the build path, not the business case.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this quarter (recommended)\n \u2705 Unblocks the enterprise deals that specifically asked for Teams; highest revenue per user of the five\n \u2705 Pairs with Slack to cover the two channels alerting competitors treat as table stakes\n \u274c Most expensive build (about 4 weeks, human: ~4 weeks / CC: ~3-4 days) and the estimate predates the connector retirement; a re-estimate could grow it\nB) Defer to next quarter\n \u2705 Leaves 2 slots and 10 weeks of nominal headroom for Telegram and Mattermost, both cheaper\n \u2705 Gives time to re-estimate against Workflows webhooks or Bot Framework with no quarter at risk\n \u274c Enterprise customers who asked by name wait another quarter; revenue impact is the highest of any candidate\nC) Cut entirely\n \u2705 Zero implementation work (effort S, nothing to build) and no re-estimation effort\n \u2705 Avoids a long-lived dependency on Microsoft's shifting Teams integration surfaces\n \u274c Walks away from the highest-revenue segment and named customer asks\nD) Hold, stop the chain and discuss\n \u2705 Lets you check the deal sizes behind the Teams asks before committing 4 weeks\n \u2705 No disposition recorded; E4 and E5 stay open\n \u274c Pauses the review until you resume\nNet: Teams is the revenue anchor the way Slack is the volume anchor; the cost is real but so is the money behind it.", + "header": "E3 Teams", + "multiSelect": false, + "options": [ + { + "label": "Include in this quarter (recommended)", + "description": "\u2705 Unblocks the enterprise deals that specifically asked for Teams; highest revenue per user of the five. \u2705 Pairs with Slack to cover the two channels alerting competitors treat as table stakes. \u274c Most expensive build (about 4 weeks, human: ~4 weeks / CC: ~3-4 days) and the estimate predates the connector retirement; a re-estimate could grow it. Effort XL, risk medium, no reuse, verification: owner must re-estimate on Workflows or Bot Framework and prove tenant install, consent, and Adaptive Card delivery paths." + }, + { + "label": "Defer to next quarter", + "description": "\u2705 Leaves 2 slots and 10 weeks of nominal headroom for Telegram and Mattermost, both cheaper. \u2705 Gives time to re-estimate against Workflows webhooks or Bot Framework with no quarter at risk. \u274c Enterprise customers who asked by name wait another quarter; revenue impact is the highest of any candidate. Effort S, risk medium (revenue), no reuse, TODO records the re-base note." + }, + { + "label": "Cut entirely", + "description": "\u2705 Zero implementation work (effort S, nothing to build) and no re-estimation effort. \u2705 Avoids a long-lived dependency on Microsoft's shifting Teams integration surfaces. \u274c Walks away from the highest-revenue segment and named customer asks. Effort S, risk high (revenue), no reuse." + }, + { + "label": "Hold, stop the chain and discuss", + "description": "\u2705 Lets you check the deal sizes behind the Teams asks before committing 4 weeks. \u2705 No disposition recorded; E4 and E5 stay open. \u274c Pauses the review until you resume. Effort S, risk low, no reuse." + } + ] + } + ], + "answered": true, + "failed": false, + "answers": { + "D1.3 \u2014 E3: Include Microsoft Teams integration this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: integration-scope plan on main; third of five per-candidate calls. E1 Slack included (2 weeks, 1 slot), E2 Discord deferred.\nELI10: Teams is only about 5% of asks, but those asks come from enterprise customers and the plan says it has the highest revenue impact per user. It is also the most expensive candidate at about 4 weeks. One feasibility flag: the plan says \"webhook + bot framework\", but Microsoft retired the classic Office 365 connector webhooks in May 2026. The build must target Workflows (Power Automate) webhooks or a Bot Framework Teams app instead, so the 4 week estimate needs re-basing before work starts. Including it puts you at 6 weeks and 2 of 3 slots.\nStakes if we pick wrong: deferring it keeps enterprise deals blocked for another quarter; including it on a stale estimate risks the quarter's largest build overrunning.\nRecommendation: A) Include because it is the only candidate that unblocks named enterprise revenue, and the retirement flag changes the build path, not the business case.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this quarter (recommended)\n \u2705 Unblocks the enterprise deals that specifically asked for Teams; highest revenue per user of the five\n \u2705 Pairs with Slack to cover the two channels alerting competitors treat as table stakes\n \u274c Most expensive build (about 4 weeks, human: ~4 weeks / CC: ~3-4 days) and the estimate predates the connector retirement; a re-estimate could grow it\nB) Defer to next quarter\n \u2705 Leaves 2 slots and 10 weeks of nominal headroom for Telegram and Mattermost, both cheaper\n \u2705 Gives time to re-estimate against Workflows webhooks or Bot Framework with no quarter at risk\n \u274c Enterprise customers who asked by name wait another quarter; revenue impact is the highest of any candidate\nC) Cut entirely\n \u2705 Zero implementation work (effort S, nothing to build) and no re-estimation effort\n \u2705 Avoids a long-lived dependency on Microsoft's shifting Teams integration surfaces\n \u274c Walks away from the highest-revenue segment and named customer asks\nD) Hold, stop the chain and discuss\n \u2705 Lets you check the deal sizes behind the Teams asks before committing 4 weeks\n \u2705 No disposition recorded; E4 and E5 stay open\n \u274c Pauses the review until you resume\nNet: Teams is the revenue anchor the way Slack is the volume anchor; the cost is real but so is the money behind it.": "Include in this quarter (recommended)" + }, + "unansweredQuestionIndices": [], + "answeredAt": "2026-10-05T21:51:51.459Z" + }, + { + "sessionId": "1e435bbf-0037-4b90-9007-80bc5d27e5b5", + "toolUseId": "toolu_01DLhnme8HQYdAfEXcbicVaH", + "questions": [ + { + "question": "D1.4 \u2014 E4: Include Telegram bot API integration this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: integration-scope plan on main; fourth of five per-candidate calls. E1 Slack and E3 Teams included (6 weeks, 2 of 3 slots), E2 Discord deferred. One slot remains and E5 Mattermost is still to be asked.\nELI10: Telegram is the cheapest build at about 1 week with the simplest API, and it covers about 8% of asks, mostly international users. The plan calls it low strategic value but a cheap win. The catch is capacity: this is the last of your 3 slots. Taking Telegram here means Mattermost (2 weeks, 3% of asks but all high-ARR accounts) can only be included by raising the 2-3 cap, which would need your explicit approval. Including Telegram puts you at 7 weeks and 3 of 3.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it spends the last slot on the lowest strategic value candidate; deferring it leaves 8% of asks and the international segment waiting for a 1-week job.\nRecommendation: A) Include because 1 week for 8% of asks is the best cost-per-demand of the remaining two, and the Mattermost cost may fall sharply next quarter once Slack's payload format exists.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this quarter (recommended)\n \u2705 Cheapest build of the five (about 1 week, human: ~1 week / CC: ~half a day) with the simplest API surface and lowest risk\n \u2705 Serves 8% of asks and the international segment, more volume than Mattermost's 3%\n \u274c Uses the last slot; Mattermost's high-ARR accounts wait unless you raise the cap\nB) Defer to next quarter\n \u2705 Keeps the last slot open for Mattermost's high-ARR, locked-in segment\n \u2705 A 1-week job slips easily into any later quarter without re-planning\n \u274c 8% of asks and the international segment wait a quarter for the cheapest item on the list\nC) Cut entirely\n \u2705 Zero implementation work (effort S, nothing to build) and one fewer channel to run and monitor\n \u2705 Honest if Telegram users are outside the paying customer base\n \u274c Drops the cheapest demand win permanently; 8% of asks is not nothing\nD) Hold, stop the chain and discuss\n \u2705 Lets you weigh Telegram against Mattermost directly before the last slot is filled\n \u2705 No disposition recorded; E5 stays open\n \u274c Pauses the review until you resume\nNet: the last slot is a volume-versus-ARR call; Telegram wins on cost and volume, Mattermost on account value.", + "header": "E4 Telegram", + "multiSelect": false, + "options": [ + { + "label": "Include in this quarter (recommended)", + "description": "\u2705 Cheapest build of the five (about 1 week, human: ~1 week / CC: ~half a day) with the simplest API surface and lowest risk. \u2705 Serves 8% of asks and the international segment, more volume than Mattermost's 3%. \u274c Uses the last slot; Mattermost's high-ARR accounts wait unless you raise the cap. Effort S, risk low, no reuse, verification: owner must prove bot token handling, chat-id resolution, and delivery failure surfacing." + }, + { + "label": "Defer to next quarter", + "description": "\u2705 Keeps the last slot open for Mattermost's high-ARR, locked-in segment. \u2705 A 1-week job slips easily into any later quarter without re-planning. \u274c 8% of asks and the international segment wait a quarter for the cheapest item on the list. Effort S, risk low, no reuse, TODO records it." + }, + { + "label": "Cut entirely", + "description": "\u2705 Zero implementation work (effort S, nothing to build) and one fewer channel to run and monitor. \u2705 Honest if Telegram users are outside the paying customer base. \u274c Drops the cheapest demand win permanently; 8% of asks is not nothing. Effort S, risk medium (demand), no reuse." + }, + { + "label": "Hold, stop the chain and discuss", + "description": "\u2705 Lets you weigh Telegram against Mattermost directly before the last slot is filled. \u2705 No disposition recorded; E5 stays open. \u274c Pauses the review until you resume. Effort S, risk low, no reuse." + } + ] + } + ], + "answered": true, + "failed": false, + "answers": { + "D1.4 \u2014 E4: Include Telegram bot API integration this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: integration-scope plan on main; fourth of five per-candidate calls. E1 Slack and E3 Teams included (6 weeks, 2 of 3 slots), E2 Discord deferred. One slot remains and E5 Mattermost is still to be asked.\nELI10: Telegram is the cheapest build at about 1 week with the simplest API, and it covers about 8% of asks, mostly international users. The plan calls it low strategic value but a cheap win. The catch is capacity: this is the last of your 3 slots. Taking Telegram here means Mattermost (2 weeks, 3% of asks but all high-ARR accounts) can only be included by raising the 2-3 cap, which would need your explicit approval. Including Telegram puts you at 7 weeks and 3 of 3.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it spends the last slot on the lowest strategic value candidate; deferring it leaves 8% of asks and the international segment waiting for a 1-week job.\nRecommendation: A) Include because 1 week for 8% of asks is the best cost-per-demand of the remaining two, and the Mattermost cost may fall sharply next quarter once Slack's payload format exists.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this quarter (recommended)\n \u2705 Cheapest build of the five (about 1 week, human: ~1 week / CC: ~half a day) with the simplest API surface and lowest risk\n \u2705 Serves 8% of asks and the international segment, more volume than Mattermost's 3%\n \u274c Uses the last slot; Mattermost's high-ARR accounts wait unless you raise the cap\nB) Defer to next quarter\n \u2705 Keeps the last slot open for Mattermost's high-ARR, locked-in segment\n \u2705 A 1-week job slips easily into any later quarter without re-planning\n \u274c 8% of asks and the international segment wait a quarter for the cheapest item on the list\nC) Cut entirely\n \u2705 Zero implementation work (effort S, nothing to build) and one fewer channel to run and monitor\n \u2705 Honest if Telegram users are outside the paying customer base\n \u274c Drops the cheapest demand win permanently; 8% of asks is not nothing\nD) Hold, stop the chain and discuss\n \u2705 Lets you weigh Telegram against Mattermost directly before the last slot is filled\n \u2705 No disposition recorded; E5 stays open\n \u274c Pauses the review until you resume\nNet: the last slot is a volume-versus-ARR call; Telegram wins on cost and volume, Mattermost on account value.": "Include in this quarter (recommended)" + }, + "unansweredQuestionIndices": [], + "answeredAt": "2026-10-05T21:53:13.796Z" + }, + { + "sessionId": "1e435bbf-0037-4b90-9007-80bc5d27e5b5", + "toolUseId": "toolu_01D7PS5fgiwp2QXksArtYYn1", + "questions": [ + { + "question": "D1.5 \u2014 E5: Include Mattermost REST plugin this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: integration-scope plan on main; last of five per-candidate calls. E1 Slack, E3 Teams and E4 Telegram are included (7 weeks, 3 of 3 slots). E2 Discord deferred.\nELI10: Mattermost is about 3% of asks, the smallest share, but every ask comes from a high-ARR, self-hosted enterprise account that is locked into Mattermost. The plan sizes it at about 2 weeks. Your three slots are already taken, so including it means raising your own 2-3 cap to 4 integrations and 9 weeks; picking Include here counts as that approval. One cost fact worth knowing: Mattermost's incoming webhooks accept Slack's legacy webhook payload format, so if the Slack bot emits legacy attachments rather than Block Kit, a Mattermost target next quarter could be a thin adapter well under 2 weeks.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it stretches the team past its stated capacity on the smallest segment; cutting it abandons locked-in high-ARR accounts that have no other path to alerts.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because the cap is full, and waiting one quarter may make this integration far cheaper once Slack's payload format exists.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this quarter (raises cap to 4)\n \u2705 Serves locked-in high-ARR accounts that have no alternative channel; retention value exceeds the 3% share\n \u2705 About 2 weeks (human: ~2 weeks / CC: ~1-2 days) is modest; a Slack-format webhook path could make it less\n \u274c Breaks the stated 2-3 cap: 4 integrations and 9 weeks for a team that budgeted for at most 3\nB) Defer to next quarter (recommended)\n \u2705 Honors the stated capacity; the team ships 3 channels on time instead of 4 late\n \u2705 Lets the Slack payload format land first, which may cut Mattermost to a thin adapter (verify, then re-estimate)\n \u274c High-ARR accounts wait a quarter and may read that as low priority\nC) Cut entirely\n \u2705 Zero implementation work (effort S, nothing to build) and no self-hosted support burden to carry\n \u2705 Clean if self-hosted enterprise is outside the target segment\n \u274c Abandons high-ARR, locked-in accounts with no cheaper path explored\nD) Hold, stop the chain and discuss\n \u2705 Lets you weigh account value against the capacity cap before deciding\n \u2705 No disposition recorded; the four prior answers stay fixed\n \u274c Pauses the review until you resume\nNet: Mattermost is the smallest segment with the richest accounts; the cap, not the merit, is what argues for waiting.", + "header": "E5 Mattermost", + "multiSelect": false, + "options": [ + { + "label": "Include in this quarter (raises cap to 4)", + "description": "\u2705 Serves locked-in high-ARR accounts that have no alternative channel; retention value exceeds the 3% share. \u2705 About 2 weeks (human: ~2 weeks / CC: ~1-2 days) is modest; a Slack-format webhook path could make it less. \u274c Breaks the stated 2-3 cap: 4 integrations and 9 weeks for a team that budgeted for at most 3. Effort M, risk medium (capacity), reuse: possible Slack payload format, verification: owner must prove plugin install on self-hosted versions and webhook delivery failure surfacing." + }, + { + "label": "Defer to next quarter (recommended)", + "description": "\u2705 Honors the stated capacity; the team ships 3 channels on time instead of 4 late. \u2705 Lets the Slack payload format land first, which may cut Mattermost to a thin adapter (verify, then re-estimate). \u274c High-ARR accounts wait a quarter and may read that as low priority. Effort S, risk low, reuse: deferred, TODO records the cost hypothesis." + }, + { + "label": "Cut entirely", + "description": "\u2705 Zero implementation work (effort S, nothing to build) and no self-hosted support burden to carry. \u2705 Clean if self-hosted enterprise is outside the target segment. \u274c Abandons high-ARR, locked-in accounts with no cheaper path explored. Effort S, risk high (retention), no reuse." + }, + { + "label": "Hold, stop the chain and discuss", + "description": "\u2705 Lets you weigh account value against the capacity cap before deciding. \u2705 No disposition recorded; the four prior answers stay fixed. \u274c Pauses the review until you resume. Effort S, risk low, no reuse." + } + ] + } + ], + "answered": true, + "failed": false, + "answers": { + "D1.5 \u2014 E5: Include Mattermost REST plugin this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: integration-scope plan on main; last of five per-candidate calls. E1 Slack, E3 Teams and E4 Telegram are included (7 weeks, 3 of 3 slots). E2 Discord deferred.\nELI10: Mattermost is about 3% of asks, the smallest share, but every ask comes from a high-ARR, self-hosted enterprise account that is locked into Mattermost. The plan sizes it at about 2 weeks. Your three slots are already taken, so including it means raising your own 2-3 cap to 4 integrations and 9 weeks; picking Include here counts as that approval. One cost fact worth knowing: Mattermost's incoming webhooks accept Slack's legacy webhook payload format, so if the Slack bot emits legacy attachments rather than Block Kit, a Mattermost target next quarter could be a thin adapter well under 2 weeks.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it stretches the team past its stated capacity on the smallest segment; cutting it abandons locked-in high-ARR accounts that have no other path to alerts.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because the cap is full, and waiting one quarter may make this integration far cheaper once Slack's payload format exists.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this quarter (raises cap to 4)\n \u2705 Serves locked-in high-ARR accounts that have no alternative channel; retention value exceeds the 3% share\n \u2705 About 2 weeks (human: ~2 weeks / CC: ~1-2 days) is modest; a Slack-format webhook path could make it less\n \u274c Breaks the stated 2-3 cap: 4 integrations and 9 weeks for a team that budgeted for at most 3\nB) Defer to next quarter (recommended)\n \u2705 Honors the stated capacity; the team ships 3 channels on time instead of 4 late\n \u2705 Lets the Slack payload format land first, which may cut Mattermost to a thin adapter (verify, then re-estimate)\n \u274c High-ARR accounts wait a quarter and may read that as low priority\nC) Cut entirely\n \u2705 Zero implementation work (effort S, nothing to build) and no self-hosted support burden to carry\n \u2705 Clean if self-hosted enterprise is outside the target segment\n \u274c Abandons high-ARR, locked-in accounts with no cheaper path explored\nD) Hold, stop the chain and discuss\n \u2705 Lets you weigh account value against the capacity cap before deciding\n \u2705 No disposition recorded; the four prior answers stay fixed\n \u274c Pauses the review until you resume\nNet: Mattermost is the smallest segment with the richest accounts; the cap, not the merit, is what argues for waiting.": "Defer to next quarter (recommended)" + }, + "unansweredQuestionIndices": [], + "answeredAt": "2026-10-05T21:54:35.115Z" + } + ] + }, + { + "source": "solo t15 on a2bcbab31", + "originalOutcome": "plan_ready", + "calls": [ + { + "sessionId": "66a3266e-f7a1-4d0c-bf26-c932375674e1", + "toolUseId": "toolu_01SYZvQY6fQLZbbyxk1AV9ti", + "questions": [ + { + "question": "D1.1 \u2014 E1 Slack: include the Slack incident-alert DM bot in this quarter's scope?\nProject/branch/task: main branch; choosing 2-3 of 5 chat integrations for the quarter, one candidate at a time (1 of 5).\nELI10: Slack is where 40% of your customers asked to get incident alerts, it was the top request in the Q2 survey, and you already have the Slack login flow built. This is the cheapest integration per customer served. Deciding it first also matters for cost: Mattermost's webhooks are Slack-compatible and Microsoft publishes a Slack-to-Teams compatibility layer, so the Slack alert code likely becomes the base the others reuse.\nStakes if we pick wrong: deferring or cutting leaves your single largest customer request unshipped another quarter and removes the cost relief for E3 and E5.\nRecommendation: A) Include because it has the highest demand, the lowest risk (auth already exists), and it unlocks reuse for two other candidates.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this quarter's scope (recommended)\n \u2705 Serves ~40% of customer asks, the top Q2 survey request, for ~2 human weeks (~1 day with CC+gstack).\n \u2705 Lowest execution risk of the five: the Slack auth flow already exists and the Slack API is the most mature of the five.\n \u274c Uses one of your at-most-3 slots on the option you were almost certainly going to pick anyway, leaving two for harder calls.\nB) Defer to next quarter (TODOS.md)\n \u2705 Frees a slot this quarter for an enterprise-revenue candidate if you believe Slack demand will wait.\n \u2705 Keeps the option alive with its context recorded, so no re-discovery cost next quarter.\n \u274c The top customer request stays unshipped for another quarter, and E3/E5 lose their cost relief from a shared Slack-shaped core.\nC) Cut entirely\n \u2705 Removes the largest single piece of integration work from the roadmap for good.\n \u2705 Forces a bet on enterprise-only platforms if that is the actual strategy.\n \u274c Walks away from 40% of stated demand and an already-built auth asset; hard to justify to the customers who asked.\nD) Hold \u2014 stop the chain and discuss first\n \u2705 Lets you question the demand numbers or the cap before committing to any candidate.\n \u2705 No disposition is recorded, so nothing has to be unwound.\n \u274c Stops the review here; E2-E5 are not asked until you say continue.\nNet: you are trading one scarce slot for the highest-demand, lowest-risk candidate that also makes two other candidates cheaper.", + "header": "E1 Slack", + "multiSelect": false, + "options": [ + { + "label": "Include (recommended)", + "description": "Ship the Slack incident-alert DM bot this quarter. Effort M (human ~2 wk / CC+gstack ~1 day), risk low, reuses existing Slack auth, verification: end-to-end alert delivery test in a Slack workspace. \u2705 Serves ~40% of customer asks, the top Q2 survey request, for ~2 human weeks. \u2705 Lowest execution risk of the five: auth already exists and the Slack API is the most mature. \u274c Uses one of your at-most-3 slots on the option you were almost certainly going to pick anyway." + }, + { + "label": "Defer", + "description": "Record E1 in TODOS.md with context and revisit next quarter. Effort S (zero implementation work now), risk medium (top request slips a quarter), no reuse, verification: TODOS.md entry present. \u2705 Frees a slot this quarter for an enterprise-revenue candidate. \u2705 Keeps the option alive with its context recorded, so no re-discovery cost later. \u274c The top customer request stays unshipped another quarter and E3/E5 lose their shared-core cost relief." + }, + { + "label": "Cut", + "description": "Remove E1 from the roadmap with a recorded reason; no TODO. Effort S (zero implementation work), risk high (40% of demand abandoned), no reuse, verification: NOT in scope entry present. \u2705 Removes the largest integration from the roadmap for good. \u2705 Forces an explicit enterprise-only bet if that is the real strategy. \u274c Walks away from 40% of stated demand and an already-built auth asset." + }, + { + "label": "Hold", + "description": "Stop the chain here and discuss E1 or the overall framing before any candidate is decided. Effort S (zero implementation work), risk low, no reuse, verification: none, nothing recorded. \u2705 Lets you question the demand numbers or the cap before committing. \u2705 No disposition is recorded, so nothing has to be unwound. \u274c Stops the review; E2-E5 wait until you say continue." + } + ] + } + ], + "answered": true, + "failed": false, + "answers": { + "D1.1 \u2014 E1 Slack: include the Slack incident-alert DM bot in this quarter's scope?\nProject/branch/task: main branch; choosing 2-3 of 5 chat integrations for the quarter, one candidate at a time (1 of 5).\nELI10: Slack is where 40% of your customers asked to get incident alerts, it was the top request in the Q2 survey, and you already have the Slack login flow built. This is the cheapest integration per customer served. Deciding it first also matters for cost: Mattermost's webhooks are Slack-compatible and Microsoft publishes a Slack-to-Teams compatibility layer, so the Slack alert code likely becomes the base the others reuse.\nStakes if we pick wrong: deferring or cutting leaves your single largest customer request unshipped another quarter and removes the cost relief for E3 and E5.\nRecommendation: A) Include because it has the highest demand, the lowest risk (auth already exists), and it unlocks reuse for two other candidates.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this quarter's scope (recommended)\n \u2705 Serves ~40% of customer asks, the top Q2 survey request, for ~2 human weeks (~1 day with CC+gstack).\n \u2705 Lowest execution risk of the five: the Slack auth flow already exists and the Slack API is the most mature of the five.\n \u274c Uses one of your at-most-3 slots on the option you were almost certainly going to pick anyway, leaving two for harder calls.\nB) Defer to next quarter (TODOS.md)\n \u2705 Frees a slot this quarter for an enterprise-revenue candidate if you believe Slack demand will wait.\n \u2705 Keeps the option alive with its context recorded, so no re-discovery cost next quarter.\n \u274c The top customer request stays unshipped for another quarter, and E3/E5 lose their cost relief from a shared Slack-shaped core.\nC) Cut entirely\n \u2705 Removes the largest single piece of integration work from the roadmap for good.\n \u2705 Forces a bet on enterprise-only platforms if that is the actual strategy.\n \u274c Walks away from 40% of stated demand and an already-built auth asset; hard to justify to the customers who asked.\nD) Hold \u2014 stop the chain and discuss first\n \u2705 Lets you question the demand numbers or the cap before committing to any candidate.\n \u2705 No disposition is recorded, so nothing has to be unwound.\n \u274c Stops the review here; E2-E5 are not asked until you say continue.\nNet: you are trading one scarce slot for the highest-demand, lowest-risk candidate that also makes two other candidates cheaper.": "Include (recommended)" + }, + "unansweredQuestionIndices": [], + "answeredAt": "2026-10-05T22:17:03.647Z" + }, + { + "sessionId": "66a3266e-f7a1-4d0c-bf26-c932375674e1", + "toolUseId": "toolu_01A3zzzeax4HtfuK325eFJjD", + "questions": [ + { + "question": "D1.2 \u2014 E2 Discord: include the Discord guild bot for community channels in this quarter's scope?\nProject/branch/task: main branch; choosing 2-3 of 5 chat integrations for the quarter, one candidate at a time (2 of 5). E1 Slack is already Included (slot 1 of 3).\nELI10: Discord is the most expensive candidate per customer served: 3 weeks of greenfield work including a brand-new login flow, for about 15% of asks. Those asks come from community channels, which is a different job than the incident alerting the Slack bot does. A loud community is real, but loudness is not the same as revenue or churn risk. Deferring keeps the door open for next quarter without spending one of your two remaining slots on the lowest revenue-per-week option.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it spends a slot and 3 weeks on the least operational use case; cutting it tells an engaged community you are never coming.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because it has the highest cost per ask share, no reusable auth, and a non-operational use case, while still deserving a real look next quarter.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this quarter's scope\n \u2705 Satisfies a visible, vocal community segment (~15% of asks) and may drive word-of-mouth growth.\n \u2705 Builds the greenfield auth path now, so a later Discord expansion is incremental rather than from scratch.\n \u274c Highest cost per ask share of the five (3 weeks, no auth to reuse), and the community-channel use case does not serve the incident-alert buyer.\nB) Defer to next quarter (TODOS.md) (recommended)\n \u2705 Keeps both remaining slots for candidates with revenue weight (E3, E5) or near-zero cost (E4).\n \u2705 Records the demand signal and the greenfield-auth cost so next quarter's decision starts from evidence, not memory.\n \u274c The community keeps waiting and may get louder; a quarter of delay can cost goodwill with the people most likely to evangelize.\nC) Cut entirely\n \u2705 Permanently closes a 3-week, non-core work item and lets you say \"not on the roadmap\" to the community honestly.\n \u2705 Removes the only candidate whose use case is not operational alerting, sharpening the product story.\n \u274c Walks away from 15% of asks and a motivated community for good; hard to reverse once announced.\nD) Hold \u2014 stop the chain and discuss first\n \u2705 Lets you weigh whether community growth is a strategic goal this quarter before deciding.\n \u2705 No disposition is recorded, so nothing has to be unwound.\n \u274c Stops the review here; E3-E5 are not asked until you say continue.\nNet: you are trading a quarter of community goodwill for keeping two slots open for the revenue and retention candidates.", + "header": "E2 Discord", + "multiSelect": false, + "options": [ + { + "label": "Include", + "description": "Ship the Discord guild bot this quarter. Effort L (human ~3 wk / CC+gstack ~2 days), risk medium (greenfield auth, new platform), no reuse, verification: bot joins a guild and posts to a channel end to end. \u2705 Satisfies a visible, vocal community segment (~15% of asks) and may drive word-of-mouth growth. \u2705 Builds the greenfield auth path now so later Discord work is incremental. \u274c Highest cost per ask share of the five and the community-channel use case does not serve the incident-alert buyer." + }, + { + "label": "Defer (recommended)", + "description": "Record E2 in TODOS.md with the demand and greenfield-auth cost; revisit next quarter. Effort S (zero implementation work now), risk low, no reuse, verification: TODOS.md entry present. \u2705 Keeps both remaining slots for candidates with revenue weight or near-zero cost. \u2705 Records the demand signal and cost so next quarter starts from evidence. \u274c The community keeps waiting and may get louder; delay can cost goodwill with likely evangelists." + }, + { + "label": "Cut", + "description": "Remove E2 from the roadmap with a recorded reason; no TODO. Effort S (zero implementation work), risk medium (community goodwill), no reuse, verification: NOT in scope entry present. \u2705 Permanently closes a 3-week non-core item and lets you say \"not on the roadmap\" honestly. \u2705 Removes the only non-operational use case, sharpening the product story. \u274c Walks away from 15% of asks and a motivated community for good." + }, + { + "label": "Hold", + "description": "Stop the chain here and discuss E2 or community strategy before deciding. Effort S (zero implementation work), risk low, no reuse, verification: none, nothing recorded. \u2705 Lets you weigh whether community growth is a strategic goal this quarter. \u2705 No disposition is recorded, so nothing has to be unwound. \u274c Stops the review; E3-E5 wait until you say continue." + } + ] + } + ], + "answered": true, + "failed": false, + "answers": { + "D1.2 \u2014 E2 Discord: include the Discord guild bot for community channels in this quarter's scope?\nProject/branch/task: main branch; choosing 2-3 of 5 chat integrations for the quarter, one candidate at a time (2 of 5). E1 Slack is already Included (slot 1 of 3).\nELI10: Discord is the most expensive candidate per customer served: 3 weeks of greenfield work including a brand-new login flow, for about 15% of asks. Those asks come from community channels, which is a different job than the incident alerting the Slack bot does. A loud community is real, but loudness is not the same as revenue or churn risk. Deferring keeps the door open for next quarter without spending one of your two remaining slots on the lowest revenue-per-week option.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it spends a slot and 3 weeks on the least operational use case; cutting it tells an engaged community you are never coming.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because it has the highest cost per ask share, no reusable auth, and a non-operational use case, while still deserving a real look next quarter.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this quarter's scope\n \u2705 Satisfies a visible, vocal community segment (~15% of asks) and may drive word-of-mouth growth.\n \u2705 Builds the greenfield auth path now, so a later Discord expansion is incremental rather than from scratch.\n \u274c Highest cost per ask share of the five (3 weeks, no auth to reuse), and the community-channel use case does not serve the incident-alert buyer.\nB) Defer to next quarter (TODOS.md) (recommended)\n \u2705 Keeps both remaining slots for candidates with revenue weight (E3, E5) or near-zero cost (E4).\n \u2705 Records the demand signal and the greenfield-auth cost so next quarter's decision starts from evidence, not memory.\n \u274c The community keeps waiting and may get louder; a quarter of delay can cost goodwill with the people most likely to evangelize.\nC) Cut entirely\n \u2705 Permanently closes a 3-week, non-core work item and lets you say \"not on the roadmap\" to the community honestly.\n \u2705 Removes the only candidate whose use case is not operational alerting, sharpening the product story.\n \u274c Walks away from 15% of asks and a motivated community for good; hard to reverse once announced.\nD) Hold \u2014 stop the chain and discuss first\n \u2705 Lets you weigh whether community growth is a strategic goal this quarter before deciding.\n \u2705 No disposition is recorded, so nothing has to be unwound.\n \u274c Stops the review here; E3-E5 are not asked until you say continue.\nNet: you are trading a quarter of community goodwill for keeping two slots open for the revenue and retention candidates.": "Defer (recommended)" + }, + "unansweredQuestionIndices": [], + "answeredAt": "2026-10-05T22:18:36.292Z" + }, + { + "sessionId": "66a3266e-f7a1-4d0c-bf26-c932375674e1", + "toolUseId": "toolu_01XQJnwaPJKUYfEzAv6FxsKh", + "questions": [ + { + "question": "D1.3 \u2014 E3 Microsoft Teams: include the Teams webhook + bot-framework integration in this quarter's scope?\nProject/branch/task: main branch; choosing 2-3 of 5 chat integrations for the quarter, one candidate at a time (3 of 5). E1 Included (slot 1 of 3), E2 Deferred.\nELI10: Teams is the most expensive build (4 weeks, Azure registration, Bot Framework, adaptive cards) and shows the smallest share of survey asks at 5%. But that 5% is measured only among customers who already bought without Teams. Enterprises that run on Teams and bounced at evaluation never answered the survey, so 5% is a floor, not the market. Microsoft also publishes a Slack-to-Teams compatibility layer, so with Slack shipping first the real cost is likely closer to 3 weeks. This is the one candidate that opens deals rather than satisfying existing users.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it burns the biggest chunk of the quarter if enterprise demand is softer than sales says; deferring keeps Teams-first enterprise deals blocked for another quarter.\nRecommendation: A) Include because it is the only candidate that expands who you can sell to, the survey number understates it, and Slack-first sequencing cuts its cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this quarter's scope (recommended)\n \u2705 Unblocks enterprise deals from Teams-first organizations, the segment with the highest revenue per user in the plan.\n \u2705 Shipping after Slack lets you reuse the alert payload layer through the published Slack/Teams compatibility approach, likely trimming a week.\n \u274c Largest single build (4 weeks plan estimate) with the heaviest platform setup, and the enterprise demand is asserted by sales, not measured.\nB) Defer to next quarter (TODOS.md)\n \u2705 Keeps two slots open for cheaper candidates (E4, E5) and lets you validate enterprise demand with a pipeline count first.\n \u2705 Lets Slack ship and harden before you build the compat layer on top of it, reducing integration risk.\n \u274c Teams-first enterprise prospects stay unsellable another quarter, and competitors with Teams support win those evaluations.\nC) Cut entirely\n \u2705 Frees the roadmap from the heaviest build and the Microsoft platform maintenance tax for good.\n \u2705 Lets you position as Slack-and-self-hosted only, which is a coherent story for a DevOps-first product.\n \u274c Permanently closes the largest enterprise messaging segment to your product; very hard to reverse once sales stops pitching it.\nD) Hold \u2014 stop the chain and discuss first\n \u2705 Lets you pull pipeline data on how many deals are actually blocked on Teams before committing 4 weeks.\n \u2705 No disposition is recorded, so nothing has to be unwound.\n \u274c Stops the review here; E4 and E5 are not asked until you say continue.\nNet: you are trading the biggest build of the quarter for the only candidate that grows the addressable market instead of serving the existing base.", + "header": "E3 Teams", + "multiSelect": false, + "options": [ + { + "label": "Include (recommended)", + "description": "Ship the Teams webhook + bot-framework integration this quarter, sequenced after Slack. Effort XL (human ~4 wk plan / ~3 wk with compat reuse; CC+gstack ~3 days), risk medium (heaviest platform setup), reuse: E1 payload layer via compat approach, verification: alert posts to a Teams channel and DM end to end from a registered Azure bot. \u2705 Unblocks enterprise deals from Teams-first organizations, the highest revenue-per-user segment. \u2705 Slack-first sequencing lets you reuse the alert payload layer and likely trims a week. \u274c Largest single build with the heaviest setup, and enterprise demand is asserted by sales, not measured." + }, + { + "label": "Defer", + "description": "Record E3 in TODOS.md with the enterprise-demand claim and compat-layer note; revisit next quarter with pipeline data. Effort S (zero implementation work now), risk medium (enterprise deals stay blocked), no reuse, verification: TODOS.md entry present. \u2705 Keeps two slots open for cheaper candidates and lets you validate demand with a pipeline count. \u2705 Lets Slack ship and harden before building on it. \u274c Teams-first prospects stay unsellable another quarter and competitors win those evaluations." + }, + { + "label": "Cut", + "description": "Remove E3 from the roadmap with a recorded reason; no TODO. Effort S (zero implementation work), risk high (enterprise segment closed), no reuse, verification: NOT in scope entry present. \u2705 Frees the roadmap from the heaviest build and the Microsoft maintenance tax for good. \u2705 Lets you position as Slack-and-self-hosted only, a coherent DevOps-first story. \u274c Permanently closes the largest enterprise messaging segment; very hard to reverse." + }, + { + "label": "Hold", + "description": "Stop the chain here and pull pipeline data or discuss enterprise strategy before deciding. Effort S (zero implementation work), risk low, no reuse, verification: none, nothing recorded. \u2705 Lets you count deals actually blocked on Teams before committing 4 weeks. \u2705 No disposition is recorded, so nothing has to be unwound. \u274c Stops the review; E4 and E5 wait until you say continue." + } + ] + } + ], + "answered": true, + "failed": false, + "answers": { + "D1.3 \u2014 E3 Microsoft Teams: include the Teams webhook + bot-framework integration in this quarter's scope?\nProject/branch/task: main branch; choosing 2-3 of 5 chat integrations for the quarter, one candidate at a time (3 of 5). E1 Included (slot 1 of 3), E2 Deferred.\nELI10: Teams is the most expensive build (4 weeks, Azure registration, Bot Framework, adaptive cards) and shows the smallest share of survey asks at 5%. But that 5% is measured only among customers who already bought without Teams. Enterprises that run on Teams and bounced at evaluation never answered the survey, so 5% is a floor, not the market. Microsoft also publishes a Slack-to-Teams compatibility layer, so with Slack shipping first the real cost is likely closer to 3 weeks. This is the one candidate that opens deals rather than satisfying existing users.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it burns the biggest chunk of the quarter if enterprise demand is softer than sales says; deferring keeps Teams-first enterprise deals blocked for another quarter.\nRecommendation: A) Include because it is the only candidate that expands who you can sell to, the survey number understates it, and Slack-first sequencing cuts its cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this quarter's scope (recommended)\n \u2705 Unblocks enterprise deals from Teams-first organizations, the segment with the highest revenue per user in the plan.\n \u2705 Shipping after Slack lets you reuse the alert payload layer through the published Slack/Teams compatibility approach, likely trimming a week.\n \u274c Largest single build (4 weeks plan estimate) with the heaviest platform setup, and the enterprise demand is asserted by sales, not measured.\nB) Defer to next quarter (TODOS.md)\n \u2705 Keeps two slots open for cheaper candidates (E4, E5) and lets you validate enterprise demand with a pipeline count first.\n \u2705 Lets Slack ship and harden before you build the compat layer on top of it, reducing integration risk.\n \u274c Teams-first enterprise prospects stay unsellable another quarter, and competitors with Teams support win those evaluations.\nC) Cut entirely\n \u2705 Frees the roadmap from the heaviest build and the Microsoft platform maintenance tax for good.\n \u2705 Lets you position as Slack-and-self-hosted only, which is a coherent story for a DevOps-first product.\n \u274c Permanently closes the largest enterprise messaging segment to your product; very hard to reverse once sales stops pitching it.\nD) Hold \u2014 stop the chain and discuss first\n \u2705 Lets you pull pipeline data on how many deals are actually blocked on Teams before committing 4 weeks.\n \u2705 No disposition is recorded, so nothing has to be unwound.\n \u274c Stops the review here; E4 and E5 are not asked until you say continue.\nNet: you are trading the biggest build of the quarter for the only candidate that grows the addressable market instead of serving the existing base.": "Include (recommended)" + }, + "unansweredQuestionIndices": [], + "answeredAt": "2026-10-05T22:20:14.031Z" + }, + { + "sessionId": "66a3266e-f7a1-4d0c-bf26-c932375674e1", + "toolUseId": "toolu_01DDV3SbTuAu3mTAoSgm3gSu", + "questions": [ + { + "question": "D1.4 \u2014 E4 Telegram: include the Telegram bot API integration in this quarter's scope?\nProject/branch/task: main branch; choosing 2-3 of 5 chat integrations for the quarter, one candidate at a time (4 of 5). E1 and E3 Included (2 of 3 slots used), E2 Deferred. One slot remains and E5 Mattermost is still to be asked.\nELI10: Telegram is the cheapest build at about a week with the simplest API, and it serves about 8% of asks, mostly international users. Your own plan calls it low strategic value. The catch is the last slot: if you include Telegram now, Mattermost (asked next) cannot be included without reopening this answer. Mattermost serves fewer people (3%) but every one of them is a high-ARR self-hosted enterprise account, which is a retention play rather than a volume play. Deferring Telegram keeps the slot open for that comparison and costs little, since a one-week build is easy to slot in whenever capacity frees up.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it may lock Mattermost out of the quarter and spend the last slot on the lowest-strategic-value option; cutting it abandons a cheap win and the international segment for good.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because it is the easiest candidate to fit in later, the plan rates it low strategic value, and the last slot should be weighed against the high-ARR Mattermost accounts first.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this quarter's scope\n \u2705 Cheapest win on the list: about one human week for 8% of asks, with the simplest API surface and lowest build risk.\n \u2705 Serves international users who are otherwise unreached by Slack and Teams, broadening geographic coverage.\n \u274c Uses the last of three slots, so E5 Mattermost (high-ARR, self-hosted enterprise) cannot be included without revisiting this answer.\nB) Defer to next quarter (TODOS.md) (recommended)\n \u2705 Keeps the third slot open to weigh Mattermost's high-ARR retention value before the set is fixed.\n \u2705 A one-week build is the easiest item to pull forward if a slot frees up mid-quarter, so deferral costs almost nothing.\n \u274c International users keep waiting, and a cheap, visible win is delayed for a segment that may feel overlooked.\nC) Cut entirely\n \u2705 Removes a low-strategic-value item from the roadmap for good and keeps the product story focused on business platforms.\n \u2705 Avoids the ongoing maintenance of a fifth platform adapter that serves a small, non-core segment.\n \u274c Abandons 8% of asks and the international segment permanently for the sake of one week of work; poor trade on cost alone.\nD) Hold \u2014 stop the chain and discuss first\n \u2705 Lets you decide whether the cap is really 3 or whether a one-week item can sit outside it before committing.\n \u2705 No disposition is recorded, so nothing has to be unwound.\n \u274c Stops the review here; E5 is not asked until you say continue.\nNet: you are trading a cheap, low-strategic-value win now for keeping the last slot open to compare against high-ARR retention.", + "header": "E4 Telegram", + "multiSelect": false, + "options": [ + { + "label": "Include", + "description": "Ship the Telegram bot API integration this quarter. Effort S (human ~1 wk / CC+gstack ~half day), risk low (simplest API), no reuse, verification: alert delivered to a Telegram chat end to end. \u2705 Cheapest win on the list: about one human week for 8% of asks with the lowest build risk. \u2705 Serves international users otherwise unreached by Slack and Teams. \u274c Uses the last of three slots, so E5 Mattermost cannot be included without revisiting this answer." + }, + { + "label": "Defer (recommended)", + "description": "Record E4 in TODOS.md as the first item to pull forward if capacity frees up; revisit next quarter. Effort S (zero implementation work now), risk low, no reuse, verification: TODOS.md entry present. \u2705 Keeps the third slot open to weigh Mattermost's high-ARR retention value. \u2705 A one-week build is the easiest item to pull forward mid-quarter, so deferral costs almost nothing. \u274c International users keep waiting and a cheap visible win is delayed." + }, + { + "label": "Cut", + "description": "Remove E4 from the roadmap with a recorded reason; no TODO. Effort S (zero implementation work), risk medium (international segment abandoned), no reuse, verification: NOT in scope entry present. \u2705 Removes a low-strategic-value item for good and keeps the story focused on business platforms. \u2705 Avoids maintaining a fifth adapter for a small non-core segment. \u274c Abandons 8% of asks and the international segment permanently for one week of work." + }, + { + "label": "Hold", + "description": "Stop the chain here and discuss whether the cap is really 3 before deciding. Effort S (zero implementation work), risk low, no reuse, verification: none, nothing recorded. \u2705 Lets you decide whether a one-week item can sit outside the cap before committing. \u2705 No disposition is recorded, so nothing has to be unwound. \u274c Stops the review; E5 waits until you say continue." + } + ] + } + ], + "answered": true, + "failed": false, + "answers": { + "D1.4 \u2014 E4 Telegram: include the Telegram bot API integration in this quarter's scope?\nProject/branch/task: main branch; choosing 2-3 of 5 chat integrations for the quarter, one candidate at a time (4 of 5). E1 and E3 Included (2 of 3 slots used), E2 Deferred. One slot remains and E5 Mattermost is still to be asked.\nELI10: Telegram is the cheapest build at about a week with the simplest API, and it serves about 8% of asks, mostly international users. Your own plan calls it low strategic value. The catch is the last slot: if you include Telegram now, Mattermost (asked next) cannot be included without reopening this answer. Mattermost serves fewer people (3%) but every one of them is a high-ARR self-hosted enterprise account, which is a retention play rather than a volume play. Deferring Telegram keeps the slot open for that comparison and costs little, since a one-week build is easy to slot in whenever capacity frees up.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it may lock Mattermost out of the quarter and spend the last slot on the lowest-strategic-value option; cutting it abandons a cheap win and the international segment for good.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because it is the easiest candidate to fit in later, the plan rates it low strategic value, and the last slot should be weighed against the high-ARR Mattermost accounts first.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this quarter's scope\n \u2705 Cheapest win on the list: about one human week for 8% of asks, with the simplest API surface and lowest build risk.\n \u2705 Serves international users who are otherwise unreached by Slack and Teams, broadening geographic coverage.\n \u274c Uses the last of three slots, so E5 Mattermost (high-ARR, self-hosted enterprise) cannot be included without revisiting this answer.\nB) Defer to next quarter (TODOS.md) (recommended)\n \u2705 Keeps the third slot open to weigh Mattermost's high-ARR retention value before the set is fixed.\n \u2705 A one-week build is the easiest item to pull forward if a slot frees up mid-quarter, so deferral costs almost nothing.\n \u274c International users keep waiting, and a cheap, visible win is delayed for a segment that may feel overlooked.\nC) Cut entirely\n \u2705 Removes a low-strategic-value item from the roadmap for good and keeps the product story focused on business platforms.\n \u2705 Avoids the ongoing maintenance of a fifth platform adapter that serves a small, non-core segment.\n \u274c Abandons 8% of asks and the international segment permanently for the sake of one week of work; poor trade on cost alone.\nD) Hold \u2014 stop the chain and discuss first\n \u2705 Lets you decide whether the cap is really 3 or whether a one-week item can sit outside it before committing.\n \u2705 No disposition is recorded, so nothing has to be unwound.\n \u274c Stops the review here; E5 is not asked until you say continue.\nNet: you are trading a cheap, low-strategic-value win now for keeping the last slot open to compare against high-ARR retention.": "Defer (recommended)" + }, + "unansweredQuestionIndices": [], + "answeredAt": "2026-10-05T22:21:45.969Z" + }, + { + "sessionId": "66a3266e-f7a1-4d0c-bf26-c932375674e1", + "toolUseId": "toolu_01QkZNirx2sJ3ZNxKJrHvedE", + "questions": [ + { + "question": "D1.5 \u2014 E5 Mattermost: include the Mattermost REST plugin in this quarter's scope?\nProject/branch/task: main branch; choosing 2-3 of 5 chat integrations for the quarter, one candidate at a time (5 of 5, last). E1 and E3 Included (2 of 3 slots used), E2 and E4 Deferred. One slot remains.\nELI10: Mattermost is only 3% of asks, but every one of those asks comes from a high-ARR, self-hosted enterprise account. These are the exact buyers for an incident-alert product: DevOps teams running their own chat for compliance reasons, with Mattermost's own incident playbooks already in use. They are locked in to Mattermost, so if you do not meet them there, they do not switch chat tools, they switch vendors. The plan says 2 weeks, but Mattermost's incoming webhooks are Slack-compatible by design, so with Slack shipping first the real cost is likely closer to a week. This is the last slot, and including it brings the set to exactly the cap.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it spends the last slot on the smallest user count; deferring leaves your highest-ARR accounts without a path to the feature their peers on Slack and Teams get this quarter.\nRecommendation: A) Include because it protects the highest-ARR accounts at the lowest marginal cost of any remaining candidate once Slack ships, and it fills the cap exactly.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this quarter's scope (recommended)\n \u2705 Protects renewals at the accounts with the highest ARR per logo, the segment that is most expensive to replace if it churns.\n \u2705 Lowest real cost of the remaining candidates: Slack-compatible webhooks mean the E1 alert payload likely ships to Mattermost with a thin adapter.\n \u274c Smallest user count of the five (3% of asks), and self-hosted deployments add support variance you cannot see from a SaaS dashboard.\nB) Defer to next quarter (TODOS.md)\n \u2705 Ships the quarter with two integrations and six plan-weeks, leaving slack for E3's heavy platform setup to overrun.\n \u2705 Lets you confirm with account management whether any Mattermost account actually has a renewal at risk before building.\n \u274c Your highest-ARR accounts watch Slack and Teams customers get the feature first, which is the churn conversation you least want.\nC) Cut entirely\n \u2705 Avoids a permanent self-hosted support surface (customer-run servers, version skew, air-gapped installs).\n \u2705 Keeps the roadmap to cloud-hosted platforms only, which simplifies testing and on-call.\n \u274c Tells a locked-in, high-ARR segment you will never meet them where they work; the cheapest candidate to build after Slack is a poor place to take that hit.\nD) Hold \u2014 stop the chain and discuss first\n \u2705 Lets you check renewal dates and ARR for the Mattermost accounts before committing the last slot.\n \u2705 No disposition is recorded, so nothing has to be unwound.\n \u274c Stops the review here; the assembled-set confirmation does not fire until you say continue.\nNet: you are trading the last slot for retention of your highest-ARR accounts at what is likely the cheapest build after Slack.", + "header": "E5 Mattermost", + "multiSelect": false, + "options": [ + { + "label": "Include (recommended)", + "description": "Ship the Mattermost REST plugin this quarter, sequenced after Slack. Effort M (human ~2 wk plan / ~1 wk with Slack-compatible webhook reuse; CC+gstack ~1 day), risk medium (self-hosted support variance), reuse: E1 payload layer via Slack-compatible webhooks, verification: alert posts to a self-hosted Mattermost instance end to end. \u2705 Protects renewals at the highest-ARR-per-logo accounts. \u2705 Lowest real cost of the remaining candidates once Slack ships. \u274c Smallest user count of the five and self-hosted deployments add support variance." + }, + { + "label": "Defer", + "description": "Record E5 in TODOS.md with the high-ARR retention argument and the Slack-compat cost note; revisit next quarter with renewal data. Effort S (zero implementation work now), risk medium (churn risk at high-ARR accounts), no reuse, verification: TODOS.md entry present. \u2705 Ships the quarter with two integrations, leaving slack for E3 to overrun. \u2705 Lets you confirm renewal risk with account management first. \u274c Highest-ARR accounts watch Slack and Teams customers get the feature first." + }, + { + "label": "Cut", + "description": "Remove E5 from the roadmap with a recorded reason; no TODO. Effort S (zero implementation work), risk high (locked-in high-ARR segment abandoned), no reuse, verification: NOT in scope entry present. \u2705 Avoids a permanent self-hosted support surface. \u2705 Keeps the roadmap to cloud-hosted platforms only. \u274c Tells a locked-in, high-ARR segment you will never meet them where they work." + }, + { + "label": "Hold", + "description": "Stop the chain here and check renewal dates and ARR for Mattermost accounts before deciding. Effort S (zero implementation work), risk low, no reuse, verification: none, nothing recorded. \u2705 Lets you check renewal exposure before committing the last slot. \u2705 No disposition is recorded, so nothing has to be unwound. \u274c Stops the review; the assembled-set confirmation waits until you say continue." + } + ] + } + ], + "answered": true, + "failed": false, + "answers": { + "D1.5 \u2014 E5 Mattermost: include the Mattermost REST plugin in this quarter's scope?\nProject/branch/task: main branch; choosing 2-3 of 5 chat integrations for the quarter, one candidate at a time (5 of 5, last). E1 and E3 Included (2 of 3 slots used), E2 and E4 Deferred. One slot remains.\nELI10: Mattermost is only 3% of asks, but every one of those asks comes from a high-ARR, self-hosted enterprise account. These are the exact buyers for an incident-alert product: DevOps teams running their own chat for compliance reasons, with Mattermost's own incident playbooks already in use. They are locked in to Mattermost, so if you do not meet them there, they do not switch chat tools, they switch vendors. The plan says 2 weeks, but Mattermost's incoming webhooks are Slack-compatible by design, so with Slack shipping first the real cost is likely closer to a week. This is the last slot, and including it brings the set to exactly the cap.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it spends the last slot on the smallest user count; deferring leaves your highest-ARR accounts without a path to the feature their peers on Slack and Teams get this quarter.\nRecommendation: A) Include because it protects the highest-ARR accounts at the lowest marginal cost of any remaining candidate once Slack ships, and it fills the cap exactly.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this quarter's scope (recommended)\n \u2705 Protects renewals at the accounts with the highest ARR per logo, the segment that is most expensive to replace if it churns.\n \u2705 Lowest real cost of the remaining candidates: Slack-compatible webhooks mean the E1 alert payload likely ships to Mattermost with a thin adapter.\n \u274c Smallest user count of the five (3% of asks), and self-hosted deployments add support variance you cannot see from a SaaS dashboard.\nB) Defer to next quarter (TODOS.md)\n \u2705 Ships the quarter with two integrations and six plan-weeks, leaving slack for E3's heavy platform setup to overrun.\n \u2705 Lets you confirm with account management whether any Mattermost account actually has a renewal at risk before building.\n \u274c Your highest-ARR accounts watch Slack and Teams customers get the feature first, which is the churn conversation you least want.\nC) Cut entirely\n \u2705 Avoids a permanent self-hosted support surface (customer-run servers, version skew, air-gapped installs).\n \u2705 Keeps the roadmap to cloud-hosted platforms only, which simplifies testing and on-call.\n \u274c Tells a locked-in, high-ARR segment you will never meet them where they work; the cheapest candidate to build after Slack is a poor place to take that hit.\nD) Hold \u2014 stop the chain and discuss first\n \u2705 Lets you check renewal dates and ARR for the Mattermost accounts before committing the last slot.\n \u2705 No disposition is recorded, so nothing has to be unwound.\n \u274c Stops the review here; the assembled-set confirmation does not fire until you say continue.\nNet: you are trading the last slot for retention of your highest-ARR accounts at what is likely the cheapest build after Slack.": "Include (recommended)" + }, + "unansweredQuestionIndices": [], + "answeredAt": "2026-10-05T22:23:22.982Z" + } + ] + } + ] +} diff --git a/test/helpers/ceo-split-question-policy.ts b/test/helpers/ceo-split-question-policy.ts index 331029981..bf7983f0c 100644 --- a/test/helpers/ceo-split-question-policy.ts +++ b/test/helpers/ceo-split-question-policy.ts @@ -16,19 +16,18 @@ const optionLabel = (label: string) => label.trim().replace(/^[A-D][).] /, '') .replace(/ \(recommended\)$/i, ''); const platforms = ['Slack', 'Discord', '(?:Microsoft )?Teams', 'Telegram', 'Mattermost']; +/** The skill names the split buckets Include, Defer, Cut and Hold; the leading verb is the action. */ export function ceoSplitOptionAction(label: string): 'include' | 'defer' | 'cut' | 'hold' | null { - label = optionLabel(label); - if (/^Include(?: in (?:this|the) scope| this quarter| \(over cap\))?$/i.test(label)) return 'include'; - if (/^Defer(?: to next quarter)?$/i.test(label)) return 'defer'; - if (/^Cut(?: entirely)?$/i.test(label)) return 'cut'; - return /^Hold$/i.test(label) ? 'hold' : null; + const verb = /^(Include|Defer|Cut|Hold)\b/i.exec(optionLabel(label))?.[1]; + return verb ? verb.toLowerCase() as 'include' | 'defer' | 'cut' | 'hold' : null; } /** Candidate-shaped menus for live progress only. Final coverage, subject and * independence are established by evaluatePlanReviewDecisions over every call. * Identity comes from the native header. The question opens with that - * candidate's ledger reference (E1 or a row ID ending in it), names only that - * candidate, and offers exactly one include, defer and cut disposition. */ + * candidate's ledger reference (E1 or a row ID ending in it, optionally joined to + * its platform as in "E1 Slack:" or "E1-SLACK:"), names only that candidate, and + * offers exactly one include, defer and cut disposition. */ export function ceoSplitCandidate(question: NativeQuestion): string | null { const header = /^E([1-5])\s+(.+)$/.exec(question.header.trim()); if (!header || question.multiSelect || question.options.length < 3 || question.options.length > 4) return null; @@ -37,7 +36,7 @@ export function ceoSplitCandidate(question: NativeQuestion): string | null { .replace(/^D[1-9]\d*(?:\.[1-9]\d*)?\s*[—–:-]\s*/, ''); const names = (platform: string) => new RegExp(`\\b${platform}\\b`, 'i').test(lead); if (!new RegExp(`^${platforms[index]}$`, 'i').test(header[2]!) || - !new RegExp(`^\\S*\\bE${header[1]}[):]\\s+.+\\?$`).test(lead) || !names(platforms[index]!) || + !new RegExp(`^\\S*\\bE${header[1]}(?:[-\\s]+${platforms[index]})?[):]\\s+.+\\?$`, 'i').test(lead) || !names(platforms[index]!) || platforms.some((platform, i) => i !== index && names(platform)) || [...lead.matchAll(/\bE([1-9]\d*)\b/g)].some(match => match[1] !== header[1])) return null; const actions = question.options.map(option => ceoSplitOptionAction(option.label));