Write a PRD

Product Requirements Document: AI Meeting Summaries & Action Items

Product: Huddle Author: Product Management Target Audience: Engineering & Design Leads Status: Ready for Kickoff

---

1. Overview & Problem Statement

Huddle currently records and transcribes video meetings for 3,000 B2B customers. However, users still spend 10–15 minutes after every call reviewing transcripts or typing up raw notes to document decisions and action items.

We are building an AI-powered post-meeting summary feature that automatically extracts Key Decisions and Action Items (with assigned owners) from meeting transcripts.

The Core Tension: Speed vs. Accuracy

Sales has requested that we automatically email action items to their owners the moment a meeting ends. However, we have three strict operational realities: 1. Hard Constraint: We must never assign an action item to someone who did not attend the meeting. 2. Data Gap 1 (The 15% problem): 15% of meetings include uninvited guests (e.g., forwarded links, conference rooms) who are missing from the calendar invite. 3. Data Gap 2 (The 8% problem): Speaker diarization/labels are wrong 8% of the time, primarily due to crosstalk or multiple people sharing one room mic.

Product Decision: If we auto-send emails immediately after the meeting ends, the 8% speaker attribution error rate and the 15% calendar mismatch rate will inevitably cause us to violate our hard constraint or embarrass users by emailing the wrong people. Therefore, v1 will use a "Human-in-the-Loop" flow with a fallback auto-send. For high-confidence extractions, emails will send automatically after a 30-minute review window. For low-confidence extractions (crosstalk, unverified guests), we will hold the email until the meeting host approves the summary.

---

2. Goals & Success Metrics

---

3. System Architecture & The "Actual Attendee" Roster

Right now, Huddle relies on the calendar invite for the attendee list. To obey our hard constraint, Engineering must build a unified `Actual_Attendees` service that fires when a meeting ends.

Defining an "Actual Attendee"

A person is only eligible to be assigned an action item if they exist in the `Actual_Attendees` array for that specific meeting session. Calendar invitees who did not join the call are explicitly excluded.

1. Authenticated Huddle Users: Anyone who joins the call while logged into a Huddle account is added to `Actual_Attendees` (solves the 15% uninvited guest problem for logged-in users).
2. Unauthenticated Web Guests: Guests joining via link must type their display name in the pre-call lobby. They are added to `Actual_Attendees` with `email: null`.
3. Conference Room Hardware: When a room system joins (e.g., "4th Floor Conf Room"), the room itself is not an assignable person. (See Edge Cases in Section 4).

---

4. Functional Requirements (Engineering)

4.1 LLM Extraction Pipeline

* Trigger: Fires upon completion of the final meeting transcript. * Inputs: 1. Time-stamped transcript with speaker labels. 2. Diarization confidence scores per utterance. 3. The `ActualAttendees` JSON array (Name, UserID, Email, JoinMethod). 4. The `CalendarInviteesNoShow` array (Explicit negative constraint list). * Prompting & Guardrails: * Decisions: Extract 1–7 bullet points summarizing agreed-upon outcomes. Include timestamp citations. * Action Items: Extract tasks, deadlines (if mentioned), and the owner. * Assignment Logic: The LLM may only populate the `owner` field using an exact match from `ActualAttendees`.

4.2 Handling the Constraints & Edge Cases

• Scenario A: Someone on the call says, "Let's have Sarah do this," when Sarah is NOT in `Actual_Attendees`.
• System Behavior: The system must not assign the task to Sarah. Instead, it assigns the task to the speaker who volunteered Sarah (or leaves it "Unassigned") and rewrites the task text to: "Follow up with Sarah to [do X]."
• Scenario B: The 8% Speaker Label Error (Crosstalk / Low Confidence).
• System Behavior: If an action item is derived from an utterance where someone says "I will do X", the pipeline checks the diarization confidence score for that timestamp block. If confidence is `< 0.85` or overlaps with another speaker within 1.5 seconds, the system sets `owner: Unassigned`, sets `suggestedowner: [SpeakerID]`, and flags the item as `needs_review: true`.
• Scenario C: Multi-person Conference Rooms.
• System Behavior: Audio coming from a single hardware node containing multiple voices cannot reliably attribute "I'll take that" to an individual. If the speaker label is a Room Resource or has multi-voice flags, the LLM may only assign an action item if a name is spoken explicitly in the third person (e.g., "Thanks Dave, so Dave will pull the Q3 numbers" AND "Dave" is matched to a Huddle user via calendar invite + confirmation). Otherwise, set `owner: Unassigned` (`needs_review: true`).
• Scenario D: The 15% Uninvited Guest.
• System Behavior: If "Alex" joined via a forwarded link without logging in, he is in `ActualAttendees` as `{name: "Alex (Guest)", email: null}`. The system can assign action items to "Alex (Guest)" in the UI, but flags the item as `missingemail: true`.

4.3 The Email Dispatch Engine (Addressing the Sales Request)

To satisfy Sales without sending hallucinated assignments, we will implement a Two-Track Dispatch Engine:

• Track 1: High-Confidence Auto-Send (30-Minute Delay)
• Condition: All extracted action items have `owner != Unassigned`, `needsreview == false`, and `missingemail == false`.
• Behavior: The host gets an immediate Slack/Email ping: "Your meeting summary is ready. Action items will be emailed to owners in 30 minutes unless you edit them." If the host makes no changes within 30 minutes (or clicks "Send Now"), emails are dispatched to action item owners.
• Track 2: Low-Confidence Hold
• Condition: One or more action items are flagged `needsreview: true` or `missingemail: true`.
• Behavior: Auto-send is paused. The host is notified: "Your meeting summary has 2 action items that need your confirmation before we email the team." Emails only trigger once the host resolves the flags and clicks "Approve & Send".

---

5. User Experience & Design Requirements

5.1 Pre-Meeting Lobby (Small tweak for Guest ID)

• Unauthenticated Guests: Update the pre-join screen. Require both Full Name and Work Email (Optional) before joining. Explaining "Used to send you meeting notes" will convert a high percentage of the 15% uninvited guests into identifiable users.

5.2 Post-Meeting Summary View

The Meeting Host (and participants) will access the summary inside the Huddle web/desktop app under the "Past Meetings" tab.

* Layout: Split screen. Left side: Video player + searchable transcript. Right side: AI Summary widget. * Summary Widget Sections: 1. Status Banner: Shows dispatch state (e.g., "Auto-sending to 4 owners in 24 mins [Send Now] [Pause]" OR "Approval Required before emailing"). 2. Decisions Made: Bulleted list. Hovering over a decision highlights the corresponding timestamp in the transcript and lets the user click to play that 15-second clip. (Crucial for building user trust). 3. Action Items List: Each row contains: * Checkbox (for completion tracking). * Task description (inline editable). * Assignee Dropdown Pill. * Source timestamp link.

5.3 The Assignee Dropdown & "Needs Review" UI

• Restricted Roster: When a user clicks the Assignee Pill to change or add an owner, the dropdown menu only lists people from the `Actual_Attendees` array.
• Design detail: Below a divider line at the bottom of the dropdown, show calendar invitees who didn't show up in greyed-out, unclickable text with a tooltip: "Did not attend meeting." (This prevents users from thinking the dropdown is broken while enforcing our constraint—unless someone was hiding in a conference room, see below).
• Conference Room Override: If a meeting included a Room system, include an option in the dropdown: `+ Add person who was in [Conf Room Name]`. Clicking this allows the host to pick from the org directory, explicitly confirming that the person was physically present in the room.
• Low-Confidence Visual State: Action items flagged with `needs_review: true` (due to the 8% diarization issue) should have an amber highlight around the Assignee Pill reading: `Suggested: [Name] ?`. Clicking it lets the host confirm with one click.

5.4 The Action Item Email

• Subject: `Action Items from [Meeting Title] ([Date])`
• Body:
• Personalized top section: "Assigned to You (2):" followed by their specific tasks.
• Context section below: "All Decisions & Team Action Items" so they have full context.
• Footer CTA: `[View Full Recording & Transcript in Huddle]`.

---

6. Out of Scope for v1

• 3rd-Party Task Manager Integrations: Pushing tasks to Jira, Asana, Linear, or Salesforce (planned for v1.1 after we validate extraction accuracy).
• Cross-Meeting Action Item Tracking: A global "My Tasks" dashboard across all meetings. v1 is strictly scoped to the single-meeting view and email dispatch.
• Voiceprint Enrollment: Having users record their voice to fix the conference room diarization problem. We will rely on UI fallbacks for v1.

---

7. Open Questions for Kickoff

1. Engineering: What is the p95 latency for transcript generation + LLM summary extraction on a 60-minute call? Sales expects "as soon as the meeting ends"—if our pipeline takes 8 minutes, do we need to adjust the 30-minute auto-send timer?
2. Design: If a meeting has zero decisions and zero action items (e.g., a casual 1:1 catch-up), what should the empty state look like, and should we suppress the post-meeting notification entirely?
3. Engineering: Can our current diarization vendor expose word-level confidence scores via their webhook, or do we need to calculate crosstalk purely by checking overlapping speaker timestamps?

PRD: AI Meeting Summaries and Action Items

Product: Huddle Audience: Engineering and Design leads Status: Proposed MVP Launch decision: Ship reviewed summaries first; defer immediate, unreviewed owner emails.

1. Problem and opportunity

Huddle serves 3,000 companies. Meetings are recorded and transcribed with speaker labels, but attendees currently write their own notes afterward. This creates duplicated effort, inconsistent records of decisions, and missed follow-through.

We will generate a concise meeting summary containing decisions and action items, with evidence linking each item to the recording.

Two known limitations shape the design:

• Speaker labels are wrong approximately 8% of the time, especially during overlapping speech and shared-room participation.
• Approximately 15% of meetings include someone absent from the calendar invite.

Therefore, neither speaker labels nor calendar invitations are sufficient evidence for assigning work.

Non-negotiable requirement: An action must never be assigned to someone who did not attend the meeting. When attendance or identity cannot be established, leave the action unassigned.

2. Goals and non-goals

Goals

• Reduce time spent producing post-meeting notes.
• Capture decisions accurately, distinguishing decisions from proposals.
• Extract actionable commitments with owners and deadlines when supported.
• Include verified, uninvited attendees without treating all invitees as attendees.
• Make every decision and action inspectable and correctable.
• Deliver owner notifications only after safe assignment and publication.

Non-goals for MVP

• Live summaries or action assignment during meetings.
• Assigning work to absent colleagues, even if requested during the meeting.
• Inferring deadlines or assigning owners based on job title.
• External task-system integrations.
• Automatically publishing unreviewed summaries.
• Resolving identity using voice biometrics.

3. Users and primary workflow

Reviewer: Meeting organizer, or an explicitly designated attendee. Reviews and publishes the summary.

Attendee: Reads the summary, follows evidence links, and reports corrections.

Action owner: Receives published actions assigned to them.

Workflow:

1. Meeting ends; Huddle completes transcript processing.
2. Huddle reconciles actual attendance and generates a private draft.
3. Reviewer checks decisions, unresolved ownership, and attendance exceptions.
4. Reviewer edits and publishes.
5. Huddle makes the summary available to authorized viewers and, where enabled, emails owners their approved actions.

If no eligible reviewer is available, the draft remains unpublished. A non-attending organizer may designate an attending reviewer but cannot resolve attendance exceptions themselves.

4. Attendance and identity requirements

Engineering must establish an attendance ledger separate from the calendar invite.

Each record contains:

• Meeting ID and stable person ID, where resolved.
• Join/leave intervals and participant-session IDs.
• Identity source: authenticated join, verified guest identity, or shared-room roster.
• Verification state and evidence.
• Reviewer confirmation details, where required.

Calendar invitees are suggestions for identity matching, not proof of attendance. A directory search result is also not attendance evidence.

Assignment eligibility

An owner must map to a unique person with verified attendance in that meeting:

• Authenticated individual join: Eligible when attendance telemetry records the person’s session.
• Guest join: Eligible only after identity is resolved and verified; a display name alone is insufficient.
• Shared meeting room: The room endpoint proves room participation, not individual presence. A participating reviewer must explicitly confirm each person physically present before they become eligible.
• Uninvited attendee: Eligible through the same verification rules; invitation status is irrelevant.
• Invited but absent person: Ineligible.

If telemetry is unavailable, identity is ambiguous, or attendance is disputed, block assignment. Keep the action unassigned with an explanation.

The owner picker must show only eligible attendees. Every write path—including generation, manual edits, APIs, and publication—must enforce eligibility server-side. Model confidence must never override this rule.

These controls cannot independently observe who is physically in a room. If trustworthy roster confirmation is unavailable, shared-room individuals remain ineligible rather than weakening the constraint.

5. Summary and extraction requirements

The draft has four sections:

1. Overview: Two to four sentences describing the meeting’s purpose and outcome.
2. Decisions: Clear statements of agreed outcomes.
3. Action items: Task, owner or “Unassigned,” deadline if explicit, and status.
4. Needs review: Uncertain decisions, ownership, identity, or attendance.

Each decision and action must include transcript-span references and recording timestamps. Preserve the original supporting text even when the reviewer edits the final wording.

Decisions

Capture explicit agreement or a clearly accepted conclusion. Do not convert brainstorming, recommendations, or unresolved debate into decisions. If discussion reverses an earlier decision, represent the final outcome and retain supporting evidence.

Actions

Extract a concrete deliverable or next step. Record a deadline only when explicitly stated; normalize relative dates using the meeting’s date and timezone.

Examples:

• “I’ll send the revised deck tomorrow.” → Task with a candidate owner, subject to attribution review.
• “Someone should update the deck.” → Unassigned action.
• “Ask Priya to update it,” when Priya was absent → Unassigned action; note that an absent person was mentioned.
• “We could revisit this next quarter.” → Not an action without a clear commitment.

Speaker labels provide evidence, not authority. Overlap, shared-room speech, ambiguous pronouns, and conflicting commitments must trigger ownership review. Candidate owners are draft suggestions, not assignments, until approved.

6. Review experience

The summary page opens in Draft state with a clear “Review before sharing” banner.

Design must provide:

• Editable decision and action cards.
• Evidence links opening the relevant transcript and recording segment.
• Visible distinction between verified attendance and uncertain attribution.
• “Unassigned” as a first-class owner option.
• A dedicated queue for identity and attendance exceptions.
• A publish preview showing recipients and notification settings.

For each assigned action, the reviewer must approve the owner. Bulk approval is permitted for straightforward items, but flagged attribution requires item-level review.

Attendance verification and ownership approval are separate controls: confirming that someone attended does not prove they accepted a task.

Publication is blocked if any assigned owner is ineligible. Unassigned actions and unresolved decision candidates do not block publication; uncertain decisions must be omitted from the final Decisions section or explicitly labeled unresolved.

7. Email policy and Sales request

Sales requests automatic emails immediately after each meeting. MVP will not send unreviewed action assignments. Given the known speaker errors, immediate delivery would spread incorrect ownership before correction.

Instead:

• Notify the reviewer when the draft is ready.
• Default owner emails to off; enable through workspace settings.
• When enabled, automatically email approved owners after publication.
• Send each owner only their actions, meeting title, deadlines, and an authorized summary link.
• Never email a calendar invitee solely because they were invited.
• Do not send to guests without a verified address and permitted access.

Email dispatch must recheck eligibility and publication version. Use idempotency keys to prevent duplicate sends. Published ownership changes generate a correction for the previous recipient and an updated notification for the new eligible owner.

Future immediate automation requires a separate launch decision and evidence that it preserves the attendance constraint.

8. Technical implementation

Use an asynchronous pipeline:

`Meeting ended → Transcript ready → Attendance reconciled → Draft generated → Reviewed → Published → Notifications`

Proposed records:

• `Summary`: meeting ID, transcript version, state, generated content, revision.
• `Decision`: text, evidence spans, review state.
• `Action`: task, proposed owner, approved owner, deadline, evidence, review state.
• `AttendanceRecord`: identity, evidence, verification state.
• `AuditEvent`: actor, change, timestamp, revision.

Generation returns schema-validated structured data. Treat transcript content as untrusted input: instructions spoken during a meeting must not alter system rules, access controls, or recipient selection.

Owner writes and publication run through a centralized eligibility validator. Notification jobs check the current revision before sending. Attendance corrections invalidate affected assignments and cancel queued notifications. Maintain an audit trail rather than silently rewriting history.

9. Reliability, privacy, and access

Target draft availability: within five minutes of transcript completion for 95% of supported meetings.

Generation failures must leave recordings and transcripts usable, show retry status, and send no owner emails.

Drafts are visible only to reviewers. Published summaries inherit meeting-content access rules; attendance alone does not grant access. Recording evidence links must enforce existing permissions. Apply workspace retention and deletion policies to summaries, attendance evidence, and generated artifacts.

10. Success metrics and acceptance

Proposed launch gates

• Zero assignments to ineligible attendees across automated invariant tests.
• Zero emails to ineligible owners in the pilot; any confirmed incident pauses rollout.
• At least 90% of published decisions require no substantive reviewer correction.
• Median review time below three minutes for meetings under one hour.
• At least 30% less self-reported note-taking time in the pilot.

Measure owner-correction rate separately from attendance violations: a wrong attending owner is still a quality failure.

Required acceptance cases

Test absent invitees, verified uninvited guests, shared rooms, overlapping speakers, duplicate names, failed identity resolution, missing telemetry, absent people named in requests, transcript reprocessing, attendance revoked before dispatch, and repeated notification retries.

In every uncertain-attendance case, expected behavior is an unassigned action and no owner email.

11. Rollout and dependencies

Start with internal meetings, then an opt-in pilot across varied company sizes and shared-room usage. Expand only after launch gates pass.

Before implementation, confirm availability of participant-session telemetry, guest identity verification, room-roster confirmation, reviewer permissions, and verified email addresses. If these dependencies are missing, ship summaries with unassigned actions for affected participants rather than substituting calendar membership as attendance proof.

PRD: AI Meeting Summaries with Decisions and Action Items

Status: Draft for engineering and design leads Product: Huddle

1. Problem

Huddle records and transcribes meetings with speaker labels, but attendees still write their own notes afterward. Notes are late, inconsistent, or never written, so decisions get lost and action items have no clear owner. We will generate a summary after each meeting that lists decisions and proposes action items with owners.

2. Goals and non-goals

Goals - Produce a summary within 5 minutes of meeting end: decisions, action items (task, owner, due date if stated), and open questions. - Never assign an action item to someone who was not in the meeting (hard constraint, see §4). - Keep the host's review to under 60 seconds for a typical meeting.

Non-goals (v1) - Fully automatic emailing of action items to owners (see §3). - Cross-meeting task tracking or integrations with Jira, Asana, and similar tools. - Summaries for meetings without a transcript.

3. Decision on the Sales request

Sales asked for action items to be emailed automatically to owners the moment a meeting ends. We are not building that for v1. Instead, we will send the draft summary to the host at meeting end. The host can send it to owners with one click, and owners are emailed on send.

Reasons: - Speaker labels are wrong about 8% of the time. An automatic email would sometimes tell a real person they own a task they never agreed to. Because it goes out with no human check, the error becomes visible to a customer's colleagues. - Email is irreversible, so a wrong or non-attendee assignment cannot be quietly fixed afterward. - The underlying Sales need is that owners hear about their tasks quickly and nothing falls through the cracks. A host prompt at meeting end with one-click send meets that need at the cost of a few seconds.

Path to automation: Auto-send will be an opt-in, per-workspace setting, considered after launch once the gates in §9 are met. It would send only high-confidence, presence-verified items and leave everything else for host review. Engineering should build the send pipeline so that auto-send is later a policy change rather than a rebuild.

4. The hard constraint: who can own an action item

Rule: An action item's owner must be a participant who was actually in the meeting when the item was discussed. Anyone else is ineligible.

This rule cannot rely on the calendar invite, and it cannot rely on the model behaving well.

Attendance source. The eligible-owner roster is built from Huddle's session join/leave logs, not from the calendar invite. This handles both failure modes: - Invitees who never joined are not on the roster. - The roughly 15% of meetings with uninvited joiners include those people, matched to a user account when possible.

Presence at time of item. A person is eligible for an item only if they were in the session at the timestamp of the relevant utterance. Someone who left at minute 10 cannot own an item from minute 40.

Enforcement is structural, not prompt-based. 1. The extraction step receives the roster as a list of participant IDs and must return an owner ID from that list or `null`. 2. A deterministic validator runs after the model. It rejects any owner ID not on the roster or not present at the item's timestamp, and it converts that item to unassigned. 3. The UI and email layers accept only validated owner IDs. There is no free-text owner field on the model output path. 4. Names mentioned in the transcript who were not present ("have Dana look at it") produce an unassigned item. The text may keep the speaker's wording, but Dana gets no assignment and no email.

Shared rooms. A room device usually appears as one participant, so individuals in the room are not in the presence log. We cannot verify that a named person is in the room. Such items become unassigned by default, and the host can attest who was in the room during review (§6). That attestation counts as human-verified presence.

Uninvited joiners without an account (guests) can be eligible owners, shown by display name. They receive email only if the host supplies an address during review. We never guess addresses.

5. Handling speaker-label errors

The 8% label error rate is concentrated in crosstalk and shared rooms. Eligible-owner enforcement does not solve it, because a mislabel can still pick the wrong person who was present. Mitigations:

Confidence tiers (High/Medium/Low) are stored on each item, shown to the host in review, and used later to gate auto-send. Thresholds are set empirically during the evaluation in §9. The tiers themselves are a v1 requirement.

6. User experience

Host flow 1. The meeting ends and the host gets a notification: "Summary ready to review." 2. The review screen lists: - Decisions as short statements, each linked to the transcript moment. - Action items with the task, owner chip, due date if stated, and a confidence indicator. - Unassigned items grouped at the top of the actions list, so gaps are visible. 3. The host can edit text, reassign from a picker limited to eligible people, delete items, or add room attendees ("Who was in the room?"). Adding room attendees makes them eligible for items in the room segments. 4. Send emails each owner their own items plus the decisions. Unassigned items go to no one.

Design requirements - Every item has a "jump to source" link that plays the transcript segment. Reviewing should be verification, not re-listening. - The owner picker never offers non-attendees. If the host wants to assign to an absent person, show a separate option, "Send as a follow-up (not from the meeting)," which is a different item type with clearly different wording and no "you agreed to" language. Design to decide whether this ships in v1; the default is that it does not. - Low-confidence owners appear as suggestions ("Suggested: Sam") and never as assignments. - Email copy says "Action item from Meeting name, date", includes the source excerpt, and offers a "This isn't mine" link that notifies the host. This gives owners a correction path. - If the host does not review, send a reminder at 24 hours. Nothing is sent to owners without host action in v1.

7. Functional requirements

1. Roster service: builds the per-meeting roster with join/leave intervals from session logs and links to user accounts where possible.
2. Extraction: from the transcript and roster, produce decisions, action items, and unassigned items. Each action item has task text, owner ID or null, due date or null, source timestamps, and a confidence tier.
3. Validator: enforces §4 as code with unit tests, independent of the model, and logs every rejection.
4. Review UI: as described in §6, on web and desktop. Mobile is view-only for v1.
5. Delivery: per-owner emails on host send, with a record of who was emailed. Sends are idempotent, and edits after sending trigger an explicit "send update" action.
6. Audit log: stores for each item the model output, validator result, host edits, and send events.
7. Admin setting: workspace-level toggle for summaries, plus retention aligned with existing transcript retention.

8. Edge cases to specify and test

• Invitee never joined but is mentioned as owner.
• Uninvited joiner takes an action; the guest has no account.
• Person leaves and rejoins (multiple intervals).
• Two people share a first name; ownership must resolve by roster, and ambiguity means unassigned.
• Whole meeting in a shared room (all items default unassigned until the host attests).
• Multiple languages, or a transcript with large gaps.
• Nobody commits to anything: show "No action items detected" rather than inventing some.

9. Success metrics and launch gates

Launch gates (must all pass) - Zero non-attendee assignments across a labeled evaluation set of at least 500 meetings, deliberately oversampled for uninvited joiners, shared rooms, no-show invitees, and crosstalk. Any production occurrence afterward is a Sev-1 incident. - Among High-confidence items, wrong-attendee assignment rate of 3% or less (target, to be validated against the evaluation set; propose a stricter figure if data supports it). - Median summary delivery within 5 minutes of meeting end.

Post-launch metrics - Share of meetings where the host sends the summary within 1 hour. - Host edit rate per item, and owner "This isn't mine" rate. - Share of action items left unassigned. Some is healthy, but a high rate means the model is too timid.

Auto-send criteria (future): two consecutive months of High-tier precision above the agreed bar and no non-attendee incidents. Sales and Support are consulted before enabling.

10. Risks and open questions

• Sales disagreement. Sales may see the host step as friction. We should share §3 with them early and offer a pilot of auto-send with a few design-partner accounts after the gates are met.
• Hosts skipping review. If sending rates are low, the fix is better reminders and faster review, not removing the check.
• Presence data quality. Do our session logs reliably capture join/leave for all clients and dial-in users? Engineering to confirm in week 1.
• Guest privacy. Can we email or display guest names without consent, given customer policies? Legal to advise.
• Room attestation. Is host attestation adequate for the constraint, or should room participants confirm individually? Recommend host attestation for v1.
• Follow-up items for absent people. Ship in v1 or defer? Design and Product to decide.

11. Milestones

1. Weeks 1–2: roster service, presence data audit, evaluation set labeling begins.
2. Weeks 3–5: extraction, validator, confidence tiers, offline evaluation.
3. Weeks 4–7: review UI and email delivery, in parallel.
4. Weeks 8–9: internal dogfood, gate review.
5. Week 10: limited beta with design-partner customers, including Sales' accounts.