Client meeting coach

Rehearse the client meeting by voice

The voice coach helps you explain the weak period without blame, defend a staged budget, choose the campaigns to propose, select the strongest client-facing assets, and rehearse difficult questions. It is grounded in the refreshed Google Ads evidence, the rebuilt client deck, the strategy council, the persona work, and the competitor research.

Ask it to run a seven-minute rehearsal, role-play the client, challenge the proposed 40/35/15/10 allocation, or help decide what belongs in the main presentation versus the appendix. Voice feedback is read-only and cannot approve or execute work.

The private room uses one Sonnet engine for the whole conversation. If the connection drops, it retries the same engine twice and reloads the persisted conversation. It never changes models during a conversation.

Sonnet 5 · no fallback

Open the fresh private Sonnet meeting-coach link sent to your Telegram, then allow microphone access. The reusable grant is deliberately absent from this public review page.

Voice answers are review evidence. Approval, sending, spending, and production changes stay in the originating chat. Do not forward the private Telegram link.

0 of 21 decided

Review: Analit measurable funnel proof of concept

Plan: /Users/agency/Documents/Agty/Analit/action-plans/2026-08-09-analit-priority-funnel-orchestration.md

How to review this

Latest voice feedback

What the Sonnet meeting coach knows

The private voice room is grounded in a fixed capsule containing 19 selected source files. It can explain and challenge the material below, but it cannot read live ad accounts or make changes during the call.

Useful ways to start the conversation

  1. Run a seven-minute rehearsal of the meeting and stop me when my explanation becomes defensive or too technical.
  2. Role-play a skeptical client and challenge the proposed budget allocation and campaign sequence.
  3. Choose the eight to ten most important slides and tell me what belongs in the appendix.
  4. Help me explain the weak period, what we learned, and why the next period will be controlled differently.
  5. Stress-test the Google Search, Meta persona campaign, retargeting, measurement, and follow-up recommendations.

Priority sequence

Start with T-018. Its commercial decision controls the measurement and campaign work that follows.

  1. Choose the sellable unit first: verify capacity, fulfilment, economics, the factual offer, proof rights, primary CTA, and response owner.
  2. Make outcomes trustworthy: define quote and paid-booking ownership, compare the Sheet with QlickCRM, repair report weaknesses, and prove the measurement loop.
  3. Test one path: use one persona, one offer, one primary CTA, and one pre-registered experiment after every gate passes.
  4. Execute through checkpoints: Meta changes, website work, phone routing, and production wiring remain separately reviewed.
  5. Keep side quests contained: the custom CRM offer is already marked as an idea.

Morning review materials

Use Google Slides for historical performance and the HTML pages for strategy choices. The competitor pages below are the preferred comment surfaces.

T-001 - Design the acquisition-to-paid-booking measurement proposal

Undecided
Task

Design a proposal-first before-and-after measurement story from campaign source through paid booking, showing both the Google Sheet and QlickCRM variants plus a future remarketing-list design.

Problem solved

The team needs one visible measurement story before it can decide how the Google Sheet and QlickCRM should share outcome feedback.

Cost of inaction

Attribution stays ambiguous, implementation can follow the wrong architecture, and Matt loses the overview he needs.

Benefit

A client-safe before-and-after proposal makes the tradeoff, identifiers, and remarketing use visible before any system is changed.

Done

A client-safe proposal shows current and proposed measurement, both source-of-truth variants, persona identifiers, remarketing design, admin effort, privacy, failure recovery, and a recommendation. No live wiring. 80/20. One before-and-after Mermaid pair and one decision table.

Process views

flowchart LR
  ADS[Campaign source] --> LEAD[Enquiry record]
  LEAD --> SHEET[Google Sheet feedback]
  SHEET --> OUTCOME[Quote and paid booking]
  OUTCOME --> VIEW[Human readable funnel]
flowchart TD
  S1[Inspect both systems] --> S2[Map fields and owners]
  S2 --> S3[Draw both architectures]
  S3 --> S4[Compare risks and effort]
  S4 --> D{Decision evidence complete}
  D -- yes --> READY[Ready for human choice]
  D -- no --> S1
Open questions
Decision

T-002 - Repair the 30-day report analytics and attribution weaknesses

Undecided
Task

Turn every material weakness from the 30-day report into a verified repair proposal, evidence-backed access gate, or historical limitation while keeping this round read-only.

Problem solved

Missing campaign fields, proxy engagement, unclear events, incomplete funnel coverage, and access gaps can make the funnel misleading.

Cost of inaction

The agency may optimize against incomplete or wrongly interpreted evidence and cannot prove where enquiries came from.

Benefit

Every measurement stage receives a business definition, source, test, owner, and freshness boundary.

Done

A dated vulnerability matrix shows a repair proposal, isolated test, or clear block for each weakness. 80/20. Campaign-source capture, exact 30-second engagement, and guide-download conversion are ranked without a live write.

Process views

flowchart LR
  GAPS[Report weaknesses] --> TEST[Current evidence checks]
  TEST --> FIX[Approved measurement repairs]
  FIX --> PROOF[Verified funnel evidence]
flowchart TD
  S1[Reproduce every limitation] --> S2[Define event meaning]
  S2 --> S3[Back up and repair]
  S3 --> S4[Run positive and negative controls]
  S4 --> D{Read back matches intent}
  D -- yes --> READY[Document visual proof]
  D -- no --> S3
Open questions
Decision

T-003 - Select and prove the call-tracking architecture

Undecided
Task

Compare GFN with suitable third-party call-tracking approaches and prove the recommended path on staging.

Problem solved

A phone-link click is not a connected or qualified call, and a forwarding-number visual alone does not prove attribution.

Cost of inaction

Calls remain unattributed or overcounted, while an unsuitable provider can introduce routing, privacy, or cost risk.

Benefit

A reversible proof connects campaign, session, call duration, quote, and paid booking without risking the live number.

Done

A current-source matrix covers Hungarian availability, dynamic insertion, number ownership, duration, consent, integrations, reliability, rollback, and cost, followed by a staged proof. 80/20. Two call-tracking architectures, one provider matrix, and one verified staged call-event chain.

Process views

flowchart LR
  VISIT[Campaign visit] --> NUMBER[Dynamic phone number]
  NUMBER --> CALL[Connected call]
  CALL --> QUALIFY[Qualified duration]
  QUALIFY --> OUTCOME[Quote and paid booking]
flowchart TD
  S1[Inspect current phone path] --> S2[Research GFN and providers]
  S2 --> S3[Compare privacy cost and reliability]
  S3 --> S4[Build staging proof]
  S4 --> D{Qualified call chain proven}
  D -- yes --> READY[Recommend architecture]
  D -- no --> S2
Open questions
Decision

T-004 - Stage the approved measurement loop and client visual

Undecided
Task

Stage the approved measurement, attribution, and call-tracking paths through quote, deposit, and paid booking. No production wiring in this round.

Problem solved

The business currently lacks a verified chain showing which campaigns create quotes and paid customers.

Cost of inaction

Budget decisions remain based on upstream activity, and the agency cannot demonstrate commercial outcomes.

Benefit

A live feedback loop and professional before-and-after page make both performance and agency value visible.

Done

An isolated consent-safe test journey proves the proposed source capture through paid-booking transitions with stable persona identifiers and responsive before-and-after evidence. Production wiring remains a later approval. 80/20. One deterministic test record crosses the isolated chain.

Process views

flowchart LR
  ADS[Campaign] --> ENGAGE[Page engagement]
  ENGAGE --> ENQUIRY[Form or qualified call]
  ENQUIRY --> QUOTE[Quote]
  QUOTE --> PAID[Paid booking]
flowchart TD
  S1[Confirm approved architecture] --> S2[Back up and implement joins]
  S2 --> S3[Prove enquiry and quote]
  S3 --> S4[Extend to paid booking]
  S4 --> D{Read back and retries pass}
  D -- yes --> READY[Publish client visual]
  D -- no --> S2
Open questions
Decision

T-005 - Create one proof-of-concept persona-led funnel

Undecided
Task

Create one complete persona-led funnel example with a stable identifier, plus six clearly labelled candidate personas for the ongoing pipeline. Reuse the existing read-only Sonnet voice reviewer.

Problem solved

Campaigns cannot be designed coherently by choosing creatives without connecting persona, message, page, capture, and follow-up.

Cost of inaction

One generic funnel continues to serve different motivations, and the team risks overbuilding the first idea it sees.

Benefit

Matt can inspect one complete example, see the repeatable process, and discuss it by voice before deeper work.

Done

One complete persona hypothesis and six labelled candidates include stable IDs, a funnel, CTA, up to three safe lead-magnet directions, form, email, and outcome join. The page has comments and the existing Sonnet voice review. 80/20. One end-to-end example and a future-work roadmap.

Process views

flowchart LR
  EVIDENCE[Calls and enquiries] --> IDEAS[Seven persona candidates]
  IDEAS --> REVIEW[Comments and voice review]
  REVIEW --> SELECT[Selected funnels]
flowchart TD
  S1[Ground in source evidence] --> S2[Create seven candidate hypotheses]
  S2 --> S3[Map one complete funnel]
  S3 --> S4[Publish commentable HTML and voice]
  S4 --> D{Human review complete}
  D -- yes --> READY[Pass feedback to next stage]
  D -- no --> S4
Open questions
Decision

T-006 - Turn comments and voice feedback into selected persona funnels

Undecided
Task

Transform submitted comments, selections, and the voice transcript into the next iteration of the chosen funnels.

Problem solved

A broad idea review only creates value when feedback becomes traceable design decisions.

Cost of inaction

The team can lose why ideas were accepted or rejected and may overbuild concepts Matt did not choose.

Benefit

Selected funnels become coherent with an explicit receipt for every binding choice, suggestion, rejection, and uncertainty.

Done

A feedback receipt maps comments and voice decisions to revised end-to-end funnels, and the republished HTML supports one more review round if needed. 80/20. One selected persona refined end to end with a complete feedback trace.

Process views

flowchart LR
  INPUT[Comments and voice] --> RECEIPT[Decision receipt]
  RECEIPT --> REFINE[Selected funnel refinement]
  REFINE --> REVIEW[Next human review]
flowchart TD
  S1[Save comments and transcript] --> S2[Classify decisions]
  S2 --> S3[Refine selected funnels]
  S3 --> S4[Regenerate review HTML]
  S4 --> D{Feedback trace complete}
  D -- yes --> READY[Open next review]
  D -- no --> S2
Open questions
Decision

T-007 - Produce the client-facing campaign and funnel strategy

Undecided
Task

Turn the measurement proposal, one persona example, one Hungarian competitor example, one US competitor example, and the 30-day findings into one professional HTML presentation that separates evidenced work from proposed approval-gated work.

Problem solved

Analit needs a connected business story, not a collection of internal tasks and isolated creative ideas.

Cost of inaction

Good work remains invisible, while campaign components are approved without understanding the whole path to paid booking.

Benefit

The client can see what was observed, what will change, how the funnels work, how success will be measured, and which values are mock examples.

Done

A responsive client HTML connects dated evidence to the one persona and two competitor examples, with creative, targeting, pages, lead magnets, forms, emails, measurement, mock dashboard, timeline, next-meeting agenda, and approval gates. 80/20. One complete persona funnel plus the overall strategy proposal.

Process views

flowchart LR
  FINDINGS[Dated findings] --> STRATEGY[Selected funnel strategy]
  STRATEGY --> CLIENT[Client presentation]
  CLIENT --> APPROVAL[Approved execution scope]
flowchart TD
  S1[Combine approved evidence] --> S2[Draft complete campaign paths]
  S2 --> S3[Build before and after visual]
  S3 --> S4[Verify claims and breakpoints]
  S4 --> D{Client presentation ready}
  D -- yes --> READY[Request approvals]
  D -- no --> S2
Open questions
Decision

T-008 - Prepare only the explicitly approved Meta campaign changes

Undecided
Task

Build Meta drafts, pause for human review, and leave publication as a later separately approved phase. No live Meta mutation in this review round.

Problem solved

The strategy needs a safe route to execution without autonomous creative, targeting, budget, or launch decisions.

Cost of inaction

The plan remains theoretical while weak or disconnected campaigns continue unchanged.

Benefit

Approved funnels become live through controlled checkpoints, evidence receipts, rollback information, and post-launch verification.

Done

Draft previews and an exact change manifest are shown before approval. 80/20. One persona campaign exists as a complete draft and is not published in this round.

Process views

flowchart LR
  PLAN[Approved strategy] --> DRAFT[Meta drafts]
  DRAFT --> HUMAN[Human approval]
  HUMAN --> LIVE[Limited live release]
  LIVE --> PROOF[Post launch proof]
flowchart TD
  S1[Create exact change manifest] --> S2[Build drafts and previews]
  S2 --> S3[Request human approval]
  S3 --> D{Exact items approved}
  D -- yes --> S4[Publish and read back]
  D -- no --> S2
  S4 --> READY[Record proof and rollback]
Open questions
Decision

T-009 - Design and stage the general homepage lead questionnaire

Undecided
Task

Create a general questionnaire-style lead path for SEO and referral visitors who do not enter through a persona campaign.

Problem solved

Organic and referral visitors lack a structured way to express their needs, which weakens segmentation and follow-up.

Cost of inaction

Existing traffic remains harder to qualify and easier to lose before a useful conversation begins.

Benefit

Analit gets a low-friction enquiry experience that improves context while preserving clear call and quote paths.

Done

A consent-safe staging flow maps minimum useful answers to segments, verifies positive and negative submissions, and includes a responsive before-and-after handoff. 80/20. A clickable staged questionnaire with one verified segment output.

Process views

flowchart LR
  VISITOR[SEO or referral visitor] --> QUESTIONS[Short questionnaire]
  QUESTIONS --> SEGMENT[Useful segment]
  SEGMENT --> ACTION[Call or quote request]
flowchart TD
  S1[Inspect current homepage] --> S2[Map minimum questions]
  S2 --> S3[Build staging flow]
  S3 --> S4[Test positive and negative paths]
  S4 --> D{Segment output verified}
  D -- yes --> READY[Publish visual handoff]
  D -- no --> S3
Open questions
Decision

T-010 - Review the contributor prototype and prepare its gated release

Undecided
Task

Present the existing collapsible-biography prototype, capture the interaction decision, and release only after approval.

Problem solved

The client request has a prototype but no personal review, interaction decision, approval receipt, or live implementation.

Cost of inaction

Long biographies remain difficult to scan while completed prototype work stays disconnected from the request.

Benefit

Matt gets a quick visual decision and a narrow reversible route to the live site.

Done

The prototype review records single-open or multiple-open behavior, and only an approved release proceeds through backup, staging, responsive QA, live verification, and rollback notes. 80/20. A working prototype link with both interaction options and no production write.

Process views

flowchart LR
  PROTOTYPE[Existing prototype] --> REVIEW[Matt review]
  REVIEW --> CHOICE[Interaction choice]
  CHOICE --> RELEASE[Approval gated release]
flowchart TD
  S1[Locate and verify prototype] --> S2[Present both behaviors]
  S2 --> S3[Record decision and approval]
  S3 --> D{Live release approved}
  D -- yes --> S4[Back up stage and verify]
  D -- no --> READY[Keep prototype only]
  S4 --> READY
Open questions
Decision

T-011 - Locate the Cloud Code rebuild and prepare an adoption proposal

Undecided
Task

Find the earlier rebuild, verify what exists on staging, and prepare an evidence-bound adoption proposal.

Problem solved

A potentially valuable rebuild sits outside the current evidence set, so its scope and commercial value cannot be judged.

Cost of inaction

Work may remain unused, or a proposal may be made from memory for something that cannot be reproduced or supported.

Benefit

Matt gets provenance, responsive evidence, reusable scope, migration risks, and a professional proposal without deploying anything.

Done

The historical session, files, repository, staging URL, ownership, and reproducibility are proven, followed by a visual comparison and proposal or an honest bounded not-found receipt. 80/20. Locate the staging URL and produce a screenshot-based inventory of what exists.

Process views

flowchart LR
  HISTORY[Claude history] --> ARTIFACT[Proven rebuild]
  ARTIFACT --> QA[Staging review]
  QA --> PROPOSAL[Adoption proposal]
flowchart TD
  S1[Search history and artifacts] --> S2[Verify ownership and staging]
  S2 --> S3[Inspect three responsive widths]
  S3 --> S4[Compare current and rebuilt states]
  S4 --> D{Evidence supports proposal}
  D -- yes --> READY[Produce client proposal]
  D -- no --> STOPPED[Return not found receipt]
Open questions
Decision

T-012 - Productize a custom CRM and funnel-automation offer later

Undecided Needs input
Task

Park a future comparison and commercial concept for a reusable custom CRM and automation product.

Problem solved

The agency may eventually need more control, but building now risks substantial unpaid work before demand and results are proven.

Cost of inaction

Without an idea record, the product opportunity will be repeatedly rediscovered and distract current priorities.

Benefit

The commercial idea is preserved with dependencies and a clear trigger for revisiting it later.

Not expanded: this is a deliberately parked commercial idea, not current delivery.

Open questions
Decision

T-013 - Produce one Hungarian and one US competitor funnel teardown

Undecided
Task

Create one complete Hungarian and one complete US or international Bali-travel competitor teardown with visible ad, destination page, sitemap cues, SEO evidence where available, lead-capture surfaces, and clearly labelled inferred funnel steps.

Problem solved

Creative and persona choices need grounded market examples without a shallow or risky competitor dump.

Cost of inaction

The strategy may repeat weak patterns or rely on unsupported assumptions about credible competitors.

Benefit

Two high-quality examples prove a repeatable, paced research method for the client presentation.

Done

Two evidence bundles include ad creative and copy where available, destination URL, page and lead-capture screenshots, sitemap or page notes, source dates, and an inference boundary. No form is submitted and no personal inbox is used. 80/20. One Hungarian and one US example with a short comparison.

Process views

flowchart LR
  H[Hungarian example] --> EVIDENCE[Visible evidence]
  U[US example] --> EVIDENCE
  EVIDENCE --> FUNNEL[Inferred funnel]
  FUNNEL --> STRATEGY[Strategy input]
flowchart TD
  S1[Select two bounded sources] --> S2[Capture ads and landing pages]
  S2 --> S3[Record sitemap and search evidence]
  S3 --> S4[Label inference and unknowns]
  S4 --> READY[Publish comparison]
Open questions
Decision

T-014 - Build the mock performance dashboard proof of concept

Undecided
Task

Create a static dashboard prototype for campaign, SEO, engagement, enquiry, quote, deposit, and paid-booking views without implying that mock values are real.

Problem solved

The client needs to see what improved measurement will look like before the full data path exists.

Cost of inaction

The proposed measurement system remains abstract and the next wiring step is harder to discuss.

Benefit

Matt can show a professional visual target, explain knowns and unknowns, and set the next-meeting agenda.

Done

A responsive static HTML contains the future funnel, campaign and SEO views, mock-data labels on illustrative values, evidence dates, unknowns, notes, and a wiring agenda. It passes 1280, 768, and 390 pixel QA. 80/20. One clean before-and-after dashboard view.

Process views

flowchart LR
  FACTS[Dated evidence] --> MOCK[Mock dashboard]
  MOCK --> REVIEW[Client review]
  REVIEW --> WIRING[Future real data wiring]
flowchart TD
  S1[Define stages and meanings] --> S2[Build static views]
  S2 --> S3[Label mock values]
  S3 --> S4[Add notes and agenda]
  S4 --> READY[Responsive QA pass]
Open questions
Decision

T-015 - Create one proof-of-concept persona creative pack

Undecided
Task

Create a small creative pack for the one fully mapped persona using grounded psychology, competitor evidence, and the agreed funnel.

Problem solved

The strategy needs a concrete example of how persona psychology becomes an ad hook, copy, creative, page, and lead-capture offer.

Cost of inaction

The presentation stays abstract and client approval cannot focus on a real example.

Benefit

Matt gets a strong example to review and a repeatable template for later creative batches.

Done

One persona pack includes a grounded psychology map, hooks, ad copy, a small set of creative concepts, CTAs, up to three safe lead-magnet directions, and a stable persona identifier. Hypotheses are labelled. 80/20. One complete persona-to-creative example.

Process views

flowchart LR
  PERSONA[Persona evidence] --> PSYCH[Psychology map]
  PSYCH --> COPY[Hooks and copy]
  COPY --> CREATIVE[Creative concepts]
  CREATIVE --> FUNNEL[Funnel example]
flowchart TD
  S1[Read grounded sources] --> S2[Assign stable persona ID]
  S2 --> S3[Draft hooks and concepts]
  S3 --> S4[Connect CTAs and lead magnets]
  S4 --> READY[Package for presentation]
Open questions
Decision

T-016 - Define commercial outcomes and owners

Undecided
Task

Define the exact meaning, evidence, owner, timestamp, and duplicate rule for enquiry, quote, deposit, paid booking, travellers, and revenue.

Problem solved

Advertising activity is not joined to clearly owned commercial outcomes.

Cost of inaction

Campaign decisions remain based on proxies and late or ambiguous updates.

Benefit

One accepted outcome contract controls every later measurement and experiment.

Done

A client-safe ownership map defines every stage and its accepted evidence. 80/20. One accepted quote definition and one accepted paid-booking definition with accountable owners.

Process views

flowchart LR
  A[Platform action] --> E[Recorded enquiry] --> Q[Quote sent] --> D[Deposit] --> B[Paid booking] --> R[Revenue]
flowchart TD
  S[Stage] --> DEF[Definition] --> EV[Evidence] --> OWN[Owner] --> SLA[Update timing] --> DUP[Duplicate rule]
Open questions
Decision

T-017 - Compare Google Sheet and QlickCRM in a shadow reconciliation

Undecided
Task

Represent the same test journeys in a Google Sheet oversight ledger and QlickCRM, then choose one future canonical authority using explicit winner rules.

Problem solved

Matt needs a transparent overview without creating two competing sources of truth.

Cost of inaction

Records can drift while architecture is chosen from preference instead of evidence.

Benefit

One system wins operational authority and the other becomes a one-way view.

Done

A visual comparison tests completeness, latency, duplicates, owner adherence, exportability, and effort without changing real records. 80/20. One identical test journey in both views and a five-criterion winner rule.

Process views

flowchart LR
  J[Test journey] --> S[Google Sheet view]
  J --> C[QlickCRM view]
  S --> X[Compare evidence]
  C --> X
flowchart TD
  X[Shadow period] --> C{Winner rule passed}
  C -- Sheet --> S[Sheet authority]
  C -- QlickCRM --> Q[QlickCRM authority]
  S --> V[Other system is one-way view]
  Q --> V
Open questions
Decision

T-018 - Select the first sellable unit and validate its offer

Undecided
Task

Select one departure, package, or service using capacity, fulfilment, price, margin, and cancellation evidence, then validate its offer, proof, CTA, and response owner.

Problem solved

The creative concepts exist, but the underlying sellable unit, economics, promises, and proof are not yet accepted.

Cost of inaction

Advertising could overpromise or create demand that Analit cannot serve.

Benefit

The first sellable unit and offer become credible, supportable, and safe to present.

Done

The unit, capacity, fulfilment, economics, every promise, proof item, CTA, and response owner are marked verified, approval needed, or unavailable. 80/20. Select one sellable unit, one promise, one CTA, and one response owner.

Process views

flowchart LR
      U[Sellable unit] --> C[Capacity and economics] --> P[Persona promise] --> R[Rights check] --> A[Admissible offer]
flowchart TD
  I[Claim or asset] --> E{Evidence exists}
  E -- yes --> V[Verified]
  E -- unclear --> H[Human approval]
  E -- no --> X[Unavailable]
Open questions
Decision

T-019 - Pre-register one controlled acquisition experiment

Undecided
Task

Define one hypothesis, one changed variable, the eligible denominator, a deduplicated business numerator, lag, guardrails, information target, and final decision rules before launch.

Problem solved

A fixed duration alone does not create a valid experiment.

Cost of inaction

Small samples and proxy metrics can manufacture a false winner.

Benefit

The team knows whether the test is eligible before spending.

Done

The pre-registration returns ELIGIBLE, INELIGIBLE, or NEEDS MORE BASELINE. 80/20. One variable, one denominator, and one deduplicated quote-qualified or paid-booking outcome.

Process views

flowchart LR
  H[Hypothesis] --> V[One variable] --> D[Denominator] --> N[Business numerator] --> R[Decision rule]
flowchart TD
  P[Preflight] --> E{Enough information}
  E -- yes --> GO[Eligible]
  E -- no --> BASE[Needs more baseline]
  E -- unsafe --> STOP[Ineligible]
Open questions
Decision

T-020 - Prove one isolated campaign-to-paid-booking journey

Undecided
Task

Use non-customer test data and a stable journey identifier to prove source capture, enquiry, quote, deposit, paid booking, retries, duplicates, and missing states.

Problem solved

The proposed measurement chain is not credible until one complete journey survives tests.

Cost of inaction

Production work risks silent breaks at the most valuable stages.

Benefit

Analit gets proof before any live rollout or campaign decision.

Done

One isolated test journey reaches every agreed stage with visible negative controls. 80/20. One deterministic test record reaches quote and paid booking with a stable journey ID.

Process views

flowchart LR
  A[Test source] --> E[Enquiry] --> Q[Quote] --> D[Deposit] --> B[Paid booking]
flowchart TD
  T[Test record] --> P[Positive path]
  T --> R[Retry]
  T --> U[Duplicate]
  T --> M[Missing state]
  P --> V[Evidence receipt]
  R --> V
  U --> V
  M --> V
Open questions
Decision

T-021 - Build the strategy decision room and archive rule

Undecided
Task

Keep dated performance in Google Slides and current strategy choices in a focused HTML decision room, with completed evidence and future ideas moved to labelled appendices.

Problem solved

The current review mixes facts, completed milestones, future ideas, and current gates.

Cost of inaction

The client can confuse historical evidence with live proposals.

Benefit

Each review surface has one clear job and one next decision.

Done

Historical and strategy roles are explicit, completed materials are linked, and comments plus voice context work at three viewports. 80/20. One decision room for outcomes, system authority, offer, and experiment eligibility.

Process views

flowchart LR
  S[Google Slides] --> F[Dated facts]
  H[Strategy HTML] --> D[Current decisions]
  A[Appendices] --> E[Completed evidence and future ideas]
flowchart TD
  R[Morning review] --> S[Slides]
  S --> H[Strategy HTML]
  H --> C[Comments and voice]
  C --> O[Next orchestrator plan]
Open questions
Decision