Worked example · all values fictional
One campaign through the full process: intake → nine memos → decision → trigger → production.
This is the repo's built-in fixture — Exemplar Software (product "ExFlow", workflow automation
for mid-market IT teams) reacting to fictional competitor Titanware raising renewal prices 20%
on Oct 1. Every company, figure, source, and date is invented and labeled; run the smoke test
replays exactly this in your copy.
The committee accepts one input format: the intake form. No form, no run. The interesting fields:
Thesis (one sentence)
Mid-market IT directors facing Titanware's 20% renewal increase will switch on a renewal-window "exit ramp" message — the renewal date, not the feature gap, is the trigger competitors ignore.
KPI · budget · segment
60 SQLs by Sep 30 · $80,000–$120,000 (modeled at $100k) · segment: Mid-market IT Ops
Data provided (paste block — this is all the committee gets)
cost/MQL $240 and $260 (last two campaigns, CRM) MQL→SQL 12% (CRM, n=2) SQL→opp 40% · opp→win 25% (CRM, 4 quarters) ACV $24,000 · cycle 90 days channel benchmark $210/MQL ("Q2 category report", pasted) win notes: 7 of last 20 wins cite renewal timing (CRM notes review)
Two details worth copying in your own briefs: every number carries its source, and the principal's constraints field is empty — the CMO agent is firewalled from the requester's preferred outcome.
you ▸ run the committee on campaigns/EXFL-Q3/brief.md orchestrator ▸ personalization ✓ · intake ✓ · snapshot as-of 12 days ✓ filing memos → campaigns/EXFL-Q3/memos-appendix.md M1 analyst conviction 3/5 — real trigger, thin sample M2 devil's advocate attack strength 4/5 — "12% came from warm audiences" M3 economics 4.6:1 vs 5:1 hurdle → FAIL (benchmark 119% → pass) M4 climate favorable, ~6-week window (Oct 1 trigger) M5 brand-risk NO VETO — 3 binding conditions M6 architect NO VETO — close MIRA-Q3 first · paid social ≤ $20k M7 compliance 4 confirm-with-counsel items M8 treasury fundable $15k as-is · $100k if MIRA-Q3 killed M12 chief skeptic 3 load-bearing assumptions · 1 unanswered dissent CMO checklist ▸ vetoes ✓ → hurdle ✗ 4.6:1 → GO off the table DECISION ▸ WAIT-WITH-TRIGGER — MQL→SQL ≥ 15% on ≥ 100 segment MQLs at any in-flight day-30 gate · expires in 90 days journal → journal/2026-09-04-EXFL-Q3.md decision → campaigns/EXFL-Q3/decision-memo.md (2 pages)
Note what bound. The portfolio snapshot (also a fixture) is engineered tight: paid social already at 38.7% of quarterly spend (cap 40% → $20k headroom), the target segment already carrying 3 concurrent campaigns (cap 3), reserve at 11% (comfort flag at 15%), one live campaign — MIRA-Q3 — tripping its kill criteria with $85k unspent. Both veto chairs passed, but with conditions that bind everything downstream.
The economics chair is story-blind: budget, KPI target, and pasted numbers only — it never reads the thesis. The math is straightforward:
Hurdle check
pipeline-to-spend $460,800 ÷ $100,000 = 4.6:1 → FAIL vs 5:1 (short $39,200, ~8%) cost benchmark $250 ÷ $210 = 119% → PASS vs the 120% line — by one point
Closing lines (mandatory on every memo)
Confidence: 70% – basis: arithmetic is exact; the inputs are n=2 pasted history. This view is wrong if: (1) ≥100 cold MQLs on this segment print MQL→SQL ≥ 12.6% by any day-30 gate; (2) two consecutive pilot weeks print cost/MQL ≤ $230.
"The 12% MQL→SQL rate comes from two campaigns on warm audiences; a renewal-window cold audience halving that rate kills the economics before the benchmark question even arises." devil's advocate — attack strength 4/5
"The analyst's conviction and the economics projection are the same two data points wearing different hats."chief skeptic — correlated error, M1 + M3 share one n=2 CRM paste
| Chair | Verdict | Binding output |
|---|---|---|
| brand-risk (M5) | no veto | Worst case $100k + one public rebuttal cycle (estimate, mechanism stated). Metric stop: >$2,500/SQL two weeks running → pause. Thesis stop: Titanware rolls back the increase → kill regardless of spend. Unvalidated spend ≤ $25k. Comparative price claims carry a dated public source in-asset. |
| portfolio-architect (M6) | no veto | Close MIRA-Q3 first (frees the fatigue slot and ~$60k of paid-social headroom). Paid social ≤ $20k until that release confirms. Campaign max $100k. |
| compliance (M7) | screen | 4 confirm-with-counsel items: substantiation file for the price claim, vendor consent records for EU syndication contacts, unsubscribe + sender ID on every email, per-market comparative rules. Never green-lights. |
| treasury (M8) | advisory | Reserve 11% — comfort flag flown. Fundable $15k as-is; $100k if MIRA-Q3 is closed per its own kill rules. VEGA-Q4E's $400k cash call lands in ~60 days. |
1 VETOES none — conditions carried verbatim 2 HURDLE 4.6:1 < 5:1 → FAIL → GO off the table 3 SIZE cap = min($225k, $100k, $100k) = $100k · conviction 3 → 50% → $50k max (computed for the record; unusable while the hurdle fails) 4 TIMING climate favorable, ~6-week window; skeptic's break signals dated inside it 5 DECIDE side each disagreement · answer the skeptic item by item
TRIGGER MQL→SQL ≥ 15% on ≥ 100 Mid-market IT Ops MQLs at any in-flight day-30 gate (NIMBUS-Q3 is the natural source), OR ≥ 2 inbound opportunities citing the Titanware increase — whichever first. EXPIRES 90 days → back to committee.
Skeptic answered (the CMO must answer every load-bearing item)
12% on n=2 → accept-and-monitor: the trigger itself is the monitor cold-audience cost → mitigate: pilot tranche capped at $10k on conversion renewal-window timing → refute-with-nothing: no data either way; stays an assumption; the trigger carries it
The journal entry records the prediction with numbers and dates ("if the trigger prints and entry is ≤ $50k: ≥ 30 SQLs by day 45 at ≤ $2,000/SQL"), quotes the dissent verbatim, and logs overrides — none here. That entry is what the quarterly audit replays.
Three weeks later (in the fiction), NIMBUS-Q3's day-30 gate prints MQL→SQL at 16% on 140 segment MQLs. The principal declares the trigger fired; the recorder notes it; the campaign proceeds as a GO at $50k. The launch plan tranches it — pilot $10k (gate at day 14: ≥ 40 MQLs at ≤ $250), then $15k, then $25k — splits channels inside the architect's $20k paid-social cap, and writes the asset brief: landing page, 4 ad variants, a 3-email sequence, 6 social posts, a one-pager.
Subject
Your Titanware renewal is a fork in the road
Body (excerpt)
On Oct 1, Titanware's renewal prices rise 20%. Before you sign for another year, it's worth an hour to price the other road: ExFlow moves mid-market IT teams off legacy suites in [NEEDS SOURCE: migration-time proof point], with automated ticket routing included. Book a migration assessment — bring your renewal quote, we'll bring the switch math.
Claims and sources (closes every asset)
| Claim | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Titanware renewal prices rise 20% on Oct 1 | pasted trade item (fictional), cited in-asset | sourced |
| ExFlow automates ticket routing | pasted product facts, line 4 | sourced |
| Migration time for mid-market teams | — | needs source |
gate log: brand-risk REVISE r1 ("cite the price source in-asset per M5 condition 1") → fixed → SHIP-READY both officers. The [NEEDS SOURCE] stays until the principal resolves it — the producer would rather flag than invent.