← all hypotheses

Steerco Action-Item Closure-Probability Grader for PMO Leads Running Cross-Functional Programs

ranked [TRIANGULATED] filter 8.0/15 spread ±2.0 signals: 2 independent
What is this?
A browser-based grading pack that PMO leads run before locking each weekly/biweekly steering-committee meeting's RAID log. Paste the proposed action items (owner, due-date, one-line context) and get back a closure-probability score per item, grounded in the program's own historical commitment-miss pattern: vague verbs ('align stakeholders', 'drive adoption'), missing definition-of-done, owner with a chronic slip-history on this program, items semantically identical to prior steerco commitments that rolled three meetings without closing. AE's adversarial multi-model debate stress-tests each commitment's language against the program's miss-pattern history; structured constraint language tracks lifecycle states (logged → in-flight → claimed-done → verified-at-next-steerco) with promotion/demotion/kill rules. PMO leads are already spreadsheet-and-RAID-log-native — they currently re-key action items from Teams/Zoom notes into Smartsheet/Asana/Excel by hand, so a paste-in browser form adds zero friction. Closure verified by PMO marking outcome at the next steerco; recurrence verified when the same blocked-objective reappears. No integration to enterprise PM tooling required.
Why did we consider it?
PMO leads already do manual commitment re-keying; AE's adversarial grading + lifecycle states slot into that workflow with zero integration and an objective per-meeting feedback loop.
What breaks?
  • DLP & InfoSec Violation: Pasting confidential executive SteerCo data into a non-integrated, third-party browser tool is a fireable Shadow IT offense.
  • AE Constraint Mismatch: SteerCos run weekly/bi-weekly, fundamentally breaking the AE's strict requirement for a sub-24-hour feedback loop.
  • Political vs. Linguistic Problem: PMOs already know when items are vague; a probability score doesn't grant them the political authority to hold VPs accountable.
What did we learn?
Still in evaluation (phase: ranked). No verdict yet.

Filter scores

Five axes, each scored 0-3. Three independent runs by different model perspectives. Median shown.

AxisWhat it measures
data moatDoes this product accumulate proprietary data that compounds?
10x model testDoes a better model make this more valuable, or redundant?
fast feedback loopsCan outputs be graded against reality in <30 days?
solo founder feasibleCan a solo operator build and run this without a team?
AI providers cant eat itDo hyperscalers have structural reasons NOT to build this?
Composite median: 8.0 / 15. Graduation threshold: 9.0. IQR across runs: 2.0.

Evidence

Signal B — Competitor with documented gap

Diligent tracks steering-committee action-item closure as a retrospective aggregate threshold ('If less than 80% of action items are closed between meetings, the committee's cadence or workload may need adjustment') but does not offer per-item predictive closure-probability scoring, miss-pattern analysis against historical commitment language, or adversarial stress-testing of vague verbs and missing definitions-of-done before the meeting locks.

Signal D — Demand proxy

{"found":true,"summary":"A projectmanagement.com forum thread shows a practitioner actively seeking lead/lag indicators for steerco meetings to measure governance value — directly validating demand for predictive steerco metrics. Additional results show content clusters around steerco best practices and AI-augmented PM tooling, indicating active practitioner interest in the space.","sources":["https://www.projectmanagement.com/discussion-topic/33835/Lead---Lag-Indicators-for-Steerco-Meetings---Whats-your-thought-","https://www.airsaas.io/en/project-management/project-steering-committee","https…

Evaluation history

WhenStagePhase
2026-05-17 15:18filter_scorescored
2026-05-17 15:12filter_scorescored
2026-05-17 15:06filter_scorescored
2026-05-17 15:01evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 14:36evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 14:06evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 13:36evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 13:06evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 12:42evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 12:12evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 11:48evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 11:24evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 11:00evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 10:36evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 08:18evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 08:12evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 08:06evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 07:54evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 07:48evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 07:42evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 07:36evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 07:24evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 07:18evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 07:12evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 07:06evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 07:00evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 06:54evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 06:48evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 06:36evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 06:30evidence_searchargument
2026-05-17 06:24audience_simulationargument
2026-05-17 06:18red_team_killargument
2026-05-17 06:12steelmanargument
2026-05-17 06:09genesisargument