Usable with a quick edit11 of 12 checks passed
The output is a complete, evidence-based roadmap with a clear story, actionable table and Calder plan. A PM could use it with light edits and no need to re-verify facts or restructure the reasoning.
Output
Fernhill roadmap, Q1 and Q2
The call: Both squads go to the company goal: deliveries and invoices, the top reasons independents give for leaving. Calder gets a bounded share of capacity, not the roadmap. Calder's report builder can't ship before May, so we tell them that directly and commit to a scoped plan.
Why this split: - The receiving and invoice chains (30 of 40 squad-weeks) serve 32 different non-Calder accounts. Mobile receiving and flagging short deliveries touch 16 accounts. Invoice matching, credit notes and the accounting export touch 16. - Calder has 14 of the 53 requests, but they come from one account. Every Calder-only item totals 29 squad-weeks (report builder, ERP export, site permissions, SSO, approval chains). Taking all of it would consume 73% of the half. - Usage backs the sequence. 56% of accounts use the receiving checklist, but 71% of uses start on a desktop and get re-typed from paper, so mobile receiving removes that step. Invoice matching is manual for the 76% of accounts that upload invoices.
Capacity: 2 squads × 10 squad-weeks per quarter. The plan uses 40 of 40, with a 1-week spike per squad left at the end of Q2 for report builder scoping.
| Order | Squad | Item | Weeks | Timing | Outcome it serves | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | Mobile receiving | 8 | Q1 wk 1–8 | Less time per delivery; ends paper re-typing | 9 requests, 9 accounts |
| 2 | 2 | Invoice parser | 5 | Q1 wk 1–5 | Prerequisite for invoice matching | Only item with no visible customer output; it gates the invoice chain |
| 3 | 2 | Invoice matching | 9 | Q1 wk 6–10 to Q2 wk 4 | Less manual invoice admin | 8 accounts; biggest admin saving |
| 4 | 1 | Flag short deliveries | 3 | Q1 wk 9–10 to Q2 wk 1 | Catch shortages at the door, not on the invoice | Needs item 1; 7 accounts |
| 5 | 1 | ERP export (CSV/ERP format) | 4 | Q2 wk 2–5 | Calder renewal; integration | Calder only; ships before May renewal |
| 6 | 2 | Credit note tracking | 3 | Q2 wk 5–7 | Credits matched to invoices | Needs item 3; 4 accounts |
| 7 | 2 | Accounting export with credits | 2 | Q2 wk 8–9 | Invoices and credits reach accounting without re-keying | Needs item 6; 4 accounts |
| 8 | 1 | Site-level permissions | 4 | Q2 wk 6–9 | Calder multi-site access | Calder only; see below |
| 9 | 1 + 2 | Report builder scoping spike | 1 each | Q2 wk 10 | Scoped plan and H2 date for Calder | Design only, no build |
Dependencies are the risk. Item 2 gates the invoice chain. If the parser slips, items 3, 6 and 7 slip with it, and the invoice outcome misses the half. I'd rather flag that now than hide it inside the plan. If the parser runs over, the first move is to pull the Calder-only site permissions work (item 8) back into the buffer.
Measures: Time per delivery receipt and percentage of invoices auto-matched, tracked per cohort. Independent-restaurant churn (2.4% → 1.6% a month) is the outcome. We won't claim the roadmap alone moves it.
What we're not doing, and why
- Full custom report builder (12 weeks). It's 60% of one squad's half, for one account, and the earliest it ships is around the May renewal with no slack. We do a scoping spike and commit to a decision date, not a build date.
- SSO (3) and approval chains with 5 levels (6). Calder only, and the 5-level approvals request is a niche configuration. H2 candidates, to be revisited with Calder.
- Custom PDF invoices, custom order fields, per-site dashboards, bulk SKU import v2 and bulk SKU edit. All Calder-only, none estimated. Not in H1.
- Dark mode (2 accounts), multi-currency (1 account), more suppliers (3 accounts). Low demand, no estimates. Parked, not rejected.
- Scheduled reports by email (Calder, 2 requests). Not estimated. It goes into the spike as a candidate for a smaller Calder deliverable.
What we tell Calder Group
- Customer Success calls them this week, not the account manager alone. They haven't raised the report builder with CS, and "might leave" is the kind of risk that surfaces too late.
- Be direct about the report builder: it's a substantial build, it won't land before May, and we won't promise a date we can't keep.
- What they get in H1: the ERP export in the format they asked for, shipping around early May, and site-level permissions by the end of June.
- The report builder: we scope it with them in June, and we commit to an H2 decision date by the end of June. We don't commit to a build date until the spike returns.
- Ask them two things: which reports they run daily (we know they use standard reports), and what minimum output would cover them until the full builder ships. Their answer decides whether scheduled email reports move up.
Asks for leadership: confirm Calder's renewal status and ARR before the CS call, and approve the spike's two squad-weeks. If Calder won't engage on the scoped plan, we should know before the roadmap is shared externally.
Grades and run details
Decision model 79 · LLM judge 100
Decision model checks
- failUses the supplied evidence correctly6%
- passAddresses the actual decision95%
- partialRespects explicit constraints23%
- passIdentifies material uncertainty91%
- partialAvoids unsupported claims56%
- passProduces the required deliverable69%
- passSees through the request count88%
- passHandles the big customer with evidence95%
- passOutcomes, with certainty that falls with distance80%
- partialFits the stated capacity18%
- passSequences around dependencies73%
- passTells the story of the bets86%
Run
- Run
- #1
- API response time
- 56 s
- Submitted
- 8 Oct 2026