Examples
Real decisions, real outputs.
Sanitized examples from actual Boardroom runs. Each shows the scenario, board composition, vote outcome, cost, and an excerpt from the final memo.
Engineering Path
Which engineering path compounds capability over time?
5 accept
1 defer
| $0.19 | 1m 54s
Revenue Product Strategist Technical Architect Contrarian Compounder Moonshot
The board reached near-unanimous alignment on a single thesis: AI-native engineering skill alone is a depreciating asset; paired with genuine domain depth, it becomes a compounding one. The Contrarian's deferral is the most important signal in this session - the objection that every engineer will claim a domain anchor within 18 months is not a rejection, it is a quality gate on execution.
Artifacts
briefs/engineering-path/brief.md deliberations/engineering-path-3nnsni/conversation.jsonl deliberations/engineering-path-3nnsni/state.json deliberations/engineering-path-3nnsni/board/*.md memos/engineering-path-3nnsni/memo.md Product Direction
Should we pursue a platform strategy or go vertical-first?
4 accept
2 defer
| $0.23 | 2m 31s
Revenue Product Strategist Technical Architect Contrarian Compounder Moonshot
Revenue and Product Strategist both anchored on vertical-first as the path to pricing power and retention. The Compounder flagged that vertical depth creates reusable primitives for later horizontal expansion. Two deferrals came from Contrarian (questioning market size ceiling) and Moonshot (arguing the vertical could become a trap if the adjacent platform opportunity moves faster).
Artifacts
briefs/product-direction/brief.md deliberations/product-direction-x8k2p1/conversation.jsonl deliberations/product-direction-x8k2p1/state.json memos/product-direction-x8k2p1/memo.md Acquisition Offer
Evaluate an inbound acquisition at 4x ARR from a strategic acquirer.
3 accept
2 reject
1 defer
| $0.28 | 3m 12s
Revenue Product Strategist Technical Architect Contrarian Compounder Moonshot
The most contentious deliberation in the set. Revenue accepted on valuation floor and cash certainty. Product Strategist rejected - acquiring entity's integration playbook historically kills acquired product velocity. Technical Architect deferred pending diligence on the acquirer's platform migration timeline. Contrarian rejected on the thesis that 4x ARR undervalues the optionality of the next 18 months.
Artifacts
briefs/acquisition-offer/brief.md deliberations/acquisition-offer-p9q4jn/conversation.jsonl deliberations/acquisition-offer-p9q4jn/state.json memos/acquisition-offer-p9q4jn/memo.md Launch Strategy
Go broad on launch or narrow with design partners first?
5 accept
1 other
| $0.21 | 2m 08s
Revenue Product Strategist Technical Architect Contrarian Compounder Moonshot
Strong consensus for narrow launch with design partners. Revenue accepted with the condition that design partners must convert to paid within 90 days. Moonshot voted 'other' - accepting narrow launch but insisting on a parallel public waitlist to capture demand signal. The CEO incorporated Moonshot's condition as an immediate next move.
Artifacts
briefs/launch-strategy/brief.md deliberations/launch-strategy-m7n3k2/conversation.jsonl memos/launch-strategy-m7n3k2/memo.md Solo Plugin Bet
Should we build the integration ourselves or partner with an established player?
4 accept
1 reject
1 defer
| $0.17 | 1m 42s
Revenue Product Strategist Technical Architect Contrarian Compounder Moonshot
Technical Architect made the strongest case for building in-house - partner APIs change without notice and create an uncontrolled dependency. Revenue rejected, citing the 6-month opportunity cost of building instead of selling. The Compounder accepted with the condition that the build produces a reusable integration framework, not a one-off connector.
Artifacts
briefs/solo-plugin-bet/brief.md deliberations/solo-plugin-bet-j5w2r8/conversation.jsonl memos/solo-plugin-bet-j5w2r8/memo.md