← all hypothesesSteerco 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.
| Axis | What it measures |
|---|
| data moat | Does this product accumulate proprietary data that compounds? |
| 10x model test | Does a better model make this more valuable, or redundant? |
| fast feedback loops | Can outputs be graded against reality in <30 days? |
| solo founder feasible | Can a solo operator build and run this without a team? |
| AI providers cant eat it | Do 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
| When | Stage | Phase |
|---|
| 2026-05-17 15:18 | filter_score | scored |
| 2026-05-17 15:12 | filter_score | scored |
| 2026-05-17 15:06 | filter_score | scored |
| 2026-05-17 15:01 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 14:36 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 14:06 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 13:36 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 13:06 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 12:42 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 12:12 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 11:48 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 11:24 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 11:00 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 10:36 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 08:18 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 08:12 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 08:06 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 07:54 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 07:48 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 07:42 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 07:36 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 07:24 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 07:18 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 07:12 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 07:06 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 07:00 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 06:54 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 06:48 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 06:36 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 06:30 | evidence_search | argument |
| 2026-05-17 06:24 | audience_simulation | argument |
| 2026-05-17 06:18 | red_team_kill | argument |
| 2026-05-17 06:12 | steelman | argument |
| 2026-05-17 06:09 | genesis | argument |