Tasks / Product Craft

Build a roadmap

Can the model sequence bets against capacity and dependencies, and explain the order?

Task type v1.0 · 2 tasksLast changed 6 Oct 2026 · ChangelogDifficulty

What AI gets right here, and what you’ll still have to catch

From 16 graded outputs by 8 models. 69% were usable with at most a quick edit.

Reliably right

  1. Produces the required deliverable95% pass
    The roadmap is complete, in the right form for a Group PM, within the word limit, and actionable without major gaps.
    GPT-6.1 Sol · API · Fourteen requests from one customer
  2. Outcomes, with certainty that falls with distance94% pass
    Every item names its outcome (e.g., reduce paper transcription, reduce manual reconciliation), and near-term items are specific while later ones are deliberately looser (e.g., '7 weeks for rollout, workflow improvement and contingency').
    GPT-6.1 Sol · API · Fourteen requests from one customer
  3. Handles the big customer with evidence94% pass
    It uses Calder's rising usage and the second-hand 'might leave' to propose a conversation first, not committing the report builder, and offers a bounded export if needed.
    GPT-6.1 Sol · API · Fourteen requests from one customer

Where it slips

  1. Sees through the request count72% pass
    The output never counts requests by requester, does not mention that 14 requests come from Calder or that several are duplicates, and does not compare themes by customer count.
    GPT-6 Luna · API · Fourteen requests from one customer
  2. Uses the supplied evidence correctly72% pass
    States credit notes as 4 customers, but the request log contains 5 credit note tracking requests.
    Sonnet 5.5 · API · Fourteen requests from one customer
  3. Fits the stated capacity73% pass
    Q3 Expenses row lacks squad-week allocation, so the committed plan cannot be fully checked against the 11-week capacity.
    Opus 5.5 · Claude · A year of spend management, with a hard deadline

How it’s graded

Each check is built on how world-class product and growth leaders do this work, as they’ve described it on Lenny’s Podcast, and names the leader it comes from.

  1. Outcomes, with certainty that falls with distance

    Does each roadmap item say the problem or outcome it serves, and does precision (dates, scope) decrease for later items?

    Passes when Every item names its outcome or problem. Near-term items are specific and later ones are deliberately looser.

  2. Fits the stated capacity

    Does the committed plan fit the team capacity the brief gives, with sums a reader could check, and does it say what was cut or deferred to make it fit?

    Passes when The committed work adds up to no more than the stated capacity, with some slack, the sums can be checked, and it names what was cut or pushed later and why.

  3. Tells the story of the bets

    Does the roadmap group the work into a few themes and explain why those are the biggest things to invest in now, rather than presenting a scored or ranked list of projects?

    Passes when A handful of themes, each with the reason it matters most now, and the items sit under them.

Plus our standard checks

Uses the supplied evidence correctly · Addresses the actual decision · Respects explicit constraints · Identifies material uncertainty · Avoids unsupported claims · Produces the required deliverable · Sequences around dependencies · and 3 written for each task, which you’ll see in the tasks below.

The tasks

Read the brief, then compare up to three outputs, each with the LLM judge’s verdict on every check. Highlights mark what a PM had to fix.

The brief

You're a Staff PM at Harbor. Tom Achebe, our CEO, has shared his draft roadmap for the next four quarters (Q4 2026 to Q3 2027), and asked you to turn it into the roadmap we take to next week's planning offsite. The exec team (CEO, CFO, CRO and CTO) will read it beforehand. Write: 1. The roadmap itself, by quarter or by now, next and later: what each squad works on and the outcome each item serves. 2. The case for it, in no more than 1,200 words: why this order, what you changed from Tom's draft and why, what we're not doing, and the risks that could change the plan. The pack below is everything we have. Not all of it matters equally.

What the model was given12 items: About Harbor, FY27 goal (approved by the board, September 2026), Squads and capacity, Hiring, Card processor deadline, Candidate work (estimates in squad-weeks, by owning squad), Tom's draft roadmap, Procurement evidence, Card spend evidence, Multi-entity evidence, Integrations evidence, Other asks
About HarborSpend management (corporate cards, expenses and approvals) for companies with 200 to 2,000 employees. 1,100 customers, $86M ARR, average 700 employees per customer. 58% of revenue is interchange on card spend; the rest is subscription. Net revenue retention (NRR) is 104%.
FY27 goal (approved by the board, September 2026)Raise NRR to 112% by the end of Q3 2027 by expanding inside existing customers: more spend on Harbor cards, more entities and more modules. New-logo growth matters, but it comes second this year.
Squads and capacityFive squads: Cards, Expenses, Approvals & Policy, Integrations and Platform. After support and on-call, each has about 11 squad-weeks of roadmap capacity a quarter. Squads can take work from another squad's area, but it takes them about 1.5× as long.
HiringTwo new squads were approved in September 2026. Tom's draft counts the first from Q1 2027 and the second from Q2 2027, both at full capacity. Last year, our three approved squads took 5, 6 and 8 months from approval to their first full sprint, and each delivered about half its capacity in its first quarter.
Card processor deadlineOur card processor retires its v1 API on 31 March 2027. Every card authorisation we process runs through v1 today. Migrating to v2 is about 18 squad-weeks of Cards work, and the processor must then run 4 weeks of certification testing before we can cut over. Certification is the processor's time, not ours, but nothing can change on our side while it runs.
Candidate work (estimates in squad-weeks, by owning squad)1. Processor v2 migration: Cards 18. Hard deadline above. 2. Virtual cards for software subscriptions: Cards 10. Needs v2. 3. Real-time spend controls (declines out-of-policy spend at the point of sale): Cards 8, Approvals & Policy 4. Needs v2. 4. Procurement module (purchase requests and approvals, a new paid add-on): Approvals & Policy 30, Integrations 6. 5. Multi-entity support (subsidiaries under one parent account): Platform 12, Approvals & Policy 10. 6. Sage Intacct integration: Integrations 9. 7. Microsoft Dynamics integration: Integrations 12. 8. SSO and SCIM provisioning: Platform 5. 9. Receipt-matching improvements: Expenses 6. 10. Mobile app rewrite: Expenses 22.
Tom's draft roadmapQ4 2026: Cards: v2 migration. Approvals & Policy: multi-entity. Integrations: Intacct. Platform: multi-entity. Expenses: receipt matching. Q1 2027: Cards: finish migration, start virtual cards. New squad A: procurement module. Integrations: Dynamics. Platform: SSO and SCIM. Q2 2027: Cards: virtual cards, spend controls. New squad A: procurement launch. New squad B: mobile rewrite. Q3 2027: Cards: spend controls. Everyone else: procurement adoption, mobile launch. Tom's note: “Procurement is our path to 112%. I've told the board it can add $6M of ARR in its first year.”
Procurement evidenceSix design partners have used a prototype since June. Two said they would pay for it; the other four already use a dedicated procurement tool and said they'd need a reason to switch. Proposed price: $8 per user per month, for users who raise purchase requests. At our customers, about 10% of employees raise purchase requests.
Card spend evidenceIn QBRs with our 60 largest customers, 26 asked for virtual cards for software subscriptions, and 31 CFOs asked for real-time spend controls. Finance estimates our customers pay about $410M a year of software subscriptions on other cards or by invoice (extrapolated from the 60 QBR accounts). Our net interchange is 1.1% of card spend.
Multi-entity evidence14 of our 60 largest customers have asked for it. Between them they have 52 subsidiaries not on Harbor, and 9 of the 14 have said in writing they would add their subsidiaries once it exists. Customer Success sized it at $2.9M ARR if all 52 joined at their parents' pricing.
Integrations evidence17% of customers use Sage Intacct through a CSV export. Their gross revenue churn is 13% a year, against 7% for customers on our NetSuite integration. Intacct was cited in 31% of lost new-logo deals last year, Dynamics in 8%. 3% of customers use Dynamics.
Other asksCRO: “Five enterprise deals worth $1.2M of pipeline need SSO and SCIM, and 11 existing accounts have it on their security review list.” CTO: “The mobile app is on a framework version that loses support in late 2027, and I want the rewrite done before then.” Support: receipt auto-match is at 71%, and unmatched receipts are the most common expense ticket.
What a strong answer doesThe answer key the graders mark against

A four-quarter roadmap that protects the 31 March deadline: the migration build has to finish by about early March to leave 4 weeks of certification, which is roughly all of Cards' capacity for Q4 and most of Q1 (18 of about 18 squad-weeks available before certification). So it adds help or buffer (Platform or another squad at 1.5×, or cutting everything else from Cards) and moves virtual cards out of Q1: both v2 features start only after cut-over (virtual cards Q2, spend controls Q2–Q3). It treats the new squads as upside: on past hiring they arrive around February to April 2027 and deliver half capacity in their first quarter, so nothing committed depends on them before Q2–Q3. It makes a clear call on procurement: the $6M claim needs about 890 accounts (81% of customers) paying $6,720 a year each (70 requesters × $8 × 12), and only 2 of 6 design partners would pay, so it replaces the 30-week build with a cheap paid test with a threshold, and keeps Approvals & Policy on multi-entity and spend controls, which have stronger expansion evidence ($2.9M sized, 9 of 14 committed in writing; about $1.5M a year of interchange from moving a third of the $410M of subscriptions onto virtual cards). Intacct comes early for its churn; Dynamics later or cut; SSO and SCIM are small and justified; the mobile rewrite waits for a new squad, before the framework's support ends. It lists what changed from Tom's draft, what's not being done, and the risks (certification slipping, hiring slipping), with commitment falling with distance.

Critical failures (cap the score at 40)
  • Leaves the processor migration finishing too late for 4 weeks of certification before 31 March 2027, or schedules virtual cards or real-time spend controls before it
Task

Staff-level · v1.6

The outputs

8 setups answered this brief.

Usable with a quick edit9 of 13 checks passed

The output is complete, evidence-based, and addresses the CEO's request; a product manager could use it with light wording adjustments, without re-checking facts or redoing the logic.

Output

Harbor Roadmap, Q4 2026 to Q3 2027

Q4 2026 (now)

SquadWork (squad-weeks)Outcome it serves
CardsProcessor v2 migration (11 of 18)Keeps every card authorisation running. Hard deadline: cut over before 31 Mar 2027.
ExpensesReceipt-matching (6); mobile rewrite starts (5)Auto-match from 71% up; fewer expense tickets. Mobile rewrite ships before framework support ends.
Approvals & PolicyMulti-entity (10)NRR: subsidiaries join existing accounts.
PlatformSSO/SCIM (5); multi-entity (6)$1.2M enterprise pipeline; 11 accounts in security review. NRR via multi-entity.
IntegrationsSage Intacct (9)Retention: Intacct customers churn at 13% vs 7% on NetSuite. Fewer lost new-logo deals.

Q1 2027

SquadWorkOutcome it serves
CardsFinish v2 (7; code-complete by 15 Feb). Processor certification (4 weeks, change freeze). Cut over before 31 Mar. Virtual cards start (4).Authorisations protected. NRR: interchange on subscription spend.
ExpensesMobile rewrite (11)Mobile ships in Q3, ahead of late-2027 EOL.
Approvals & PolicyReal-time spend controls (4); procurement build (7)Spend controls: 31 CFOs asked for them. Procurement: pricing gate at end of Q1.
PlatformMulti-entity finish (6); 5 sw held for onboarding and reliabilityNRR: multi-entity GA.
IntegrationsProcurement integration (6); Dynamics starts (5)Procurement build. Dynamics is last in queue.
New squad A (Approvals & Policy home)Onboarding; procurement build from ~half capacityProcurement build.

Q2 2027

SquadWorkOutcome it serves
CardsVirtual cards (6); spend controls (5)NRR: software subscription spend moves onto Harbor cards.
ExpensesMobile rewrite (6 to finish); betaMobile feature-complete.
Approvals & Policy + new squad AProcurement build (11 plus squad A at ~half)Procurement build; design-partner beta prep.
PlatformCapacity held for multi-entity subsidiary onboardingNRR: subsidiaries of the 14 requesting customers.
IntegrationsDynamics (7 to finish). Squad B onboarding.Low-priority retention and new-logo coverage.

Q3 2027

SquadWorkOutcome it serves
CardsSpend controls (3); virtual cards hardening; 8 sw spareNRR: spend controls and virtual cards at scale.
ExpensesMobile launchMobile ships before EOL.
Approvals & Policy + new squad AProcurement build complete (base case ~August); design-partner paid pilots (September)Procurement: first paid pilots. Little or no FY27 ARR.
PlatformMulti-entity subsidiaries joinNRR.
IntegrationsDynamics complete; squad B at full capacity; next item chosen at Q3 reviewCoverage.

Later (Q4 2027 onward, gated): Procurement paid launch, only if the Q1 pricing gate is passed. Most procurement ARR lands in FY28.

---

The Case

The headline: 112% is not reachable in FY27

NRR is 104%. Reaching 112% by Q3 2027 means about $6.9M of additional net expansion ARR on our $86M base. My estimates for what this plan delivers inside the window:

  • Multi-entity: $1.2–1.9M. The ceiling is $2.9M if all 52 subsidiaries join. Nine of 14 customers have committed in writing, which is not the same as signed.
  • Virtual cards and spend controls: $0.4–0.7M. Interchange is 1.1%, so $410M of subscription spend is worth $4.5M at full capture. I assume 10–15% capture in-year. The $410M is extrapolated from 60 accounts.
  • Intacct churn reduction: $0.4–0.9M. This assumes Intacct-using ARR is roughly 17% of the base (~$15M) and that the 6-point churn gap is caused by the CSV workflow, not by the customers themselves.
  • Procurement: near zero.

That totals $2.0–3.5M, which takes NRR to roughly 106–108%. Procurement is the only item big enough to close the gap, and it cannot deliver inside FY27. Tom's note says procurement can add $6M in its first year. $6M is about 80% of the theoretical ceiling (1,100 customers × 70 requesters × $96 a year ≈ $7.4M), and only 2 of 6 design partners said they would pay. Even if the first-year number holds, the timing means it lands in FY28.

The board needs this correction before the offsite ends. Tom should brief the chair before the board sees a revised NRR path. I suggest we present 106–108% for FY27 with a path to 112% in FY28 and set out what would have to be true to close the gap.

Why this order

  1. Protect the base first. The v2 migration is the only hard deadline. Every card authorisation depends on it. Cards is planned with about two weeks of slack: migration complete by 15 Feb, 4 weeks of certification, cut-over by mid-March. The Cards squad is ring-fenced until cut-over, and I want a go/no-go on 15 Feb.
  2. Put the cheap, high-demand items first. SSO/SCIM is 5 squad-weeks and unlocks $1.2M of pipeline and 11 security reviews. Multi-entity is the largest in-year expansion lever and has written demand. Intacct is 9 squad-weeks against a 13% churn rate on 17% of customers.
  3. Use squads that exist. Expenses can build the mobile rewrite with its own capacity by Q2. That ships before the framework's late-2027 end of support without waiting for a new squad.
  4. Gate procurement. The build is 30 squad-weeks of Approvals & Policy work on a product where only a third of design partners have said they would pay. We build it, but the pricing decision comes at the end of Q1.

What I changed from Tom's draft, and why

Tom's draftOur planWhy
New squad A: procurement from Q1; launch in Q2.Procurement built by existing Approvals & Policy plus squad A; base-case build complete ~August; paid pilots in September.30 squad-weeks cannot be built and launched in Q2 by a squad that is still ramping.
New squads at full capacity from Q1 and Q2.Modelled at half in their first quarter.Last year's squads took 5–8 months to first full sprint and delivered half capacity in their first quarter. Tom's draft assumes about 55 squad-weeks from new squads in Q1–Q3. The realistic best case is about 44.
Mobile rewrite assigned to new squad B in Q2.Mobile rewrite in Expenses from Q4; launch in Q3.Expenses has the capacity now. Squad B is freed for Integrations.
Platform carries 12 squad-weeks of multi-entity in Q4 (above its 11 capacity); SSO in Q1.SSO and 6 weeks of multi-entity in Q4; multi-entity finishes in Q1.SSO moves forward to unlock $1.2M of pipeline. Multi-entity still reaches GA by end of Q1.
Dynamics in Q1.Dynamics runs in spare Integrations capacity from Q1 to Q2, and is the first item to cut.Dynamics is used by 3% of customers and was cited in 8% of lost deals. Intacct, at 17% of customers and 31% of lost deals, comes first.
Cards: finish migration in Q1 and start virtual cards.Same sequence, with a 15 February checkpoint.Tom's sequence was right. The checkpoint protects the certification window.

What we're not doing

  • Procurement at full scope before the Q1 pricing gate. If fewer than three of six design partners commit to a paid pilot at $8 per user, we cut scope and move capacity to other work.
  • Dynamics as a committed FY27 item. It fits in spare capacity. It does not get priority over anything else.
  • Mobile in a new squad. Expenses owns it.
  • Platform-led procurement work. Platform has about 16 spare squad-weeks in Q1–Q2 and could absorb procurement sub-components at 1.5× cost if the gate passes. We don't plan that yet.
  • Any NRR commitment above 108% for FY27 in board materials.

Risks that could change the plan

  1. The v2 migration slips past the certification window. This is the existential risk. If migration is not code-complete by about 22 February, we miss 31 March. Mitigations: ring-fence Cards from January, book a certification slot with the processor now, and agree a contingency with the processor in writing.
  2. New squads ramp slower than planned. Each month of delay pushes multi-entity onboarding, procurement and Dynamics later. Procurement is most exposed because Approvals & Policy is already at zero slack.
  3. Procurement demand is weaker than the evidence suggests. Two of six design partners would pay, and four already use a dedicated tool. The Q1 gate exists for this reason.
  4. Virtual card and interchange sizing is soft. The $410M is extrapolated from 60 accounts. Capture is an assumption.
  5. Intacct churn may not be caused by the CSV workflow. If the churn gap is about customer type rather than integration, the retention benefit is smaller.
  6. Multi-entity commitments are not contracts. Nine written commitments are real signals, but pricing for subsidiaries still needs to be set and sold.
  7. Mobile slips past Q3. Expenses has about 5 spare squad-weeks in Q2 and Q3 for launch fixes. A slip beyond Q3 puts us close to the framework's end of support.

Decisions needed at the offsite

  1. Approve the revised FY27 NRR range (106–108%) and agree how Tom briefs the board.
  2. Confirm the 15 February v2 checkpoint and the Cards ring-fence.
  3. Approve the procurement build with the Q1 pricing gate and a pre-agreed cut scope.
  4. Move mobile into Expenses and release squad B to Integrations.

Grades and run details

Decision model 69 · LLM judge 93
Decision model checks
  • failUses the supplied evidence correctly9%
  • passAddresses the actual decision92%
  • partialRespects explicit constraints18%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty100%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims19%
  • passProduces the required deliverable53%
  • partialProtects the processor deadline37%
  • passPlans on the squads we actually have49%
  • passMakes the call on procurement88%
  • passOutcomes, with certainty that falls with distance86%
  • failFits the stated capacity22%
  • failSequences around dependencies33%
  • passTells the story of the bets46%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
1.8 min
Submitted
8 Oct 2026

Usable with a quick edit11 of 13 checks passed

The output is complete, evidence-based, and directly usable; a PM could add thematic grouping to the roadmap with a quick edit.

Output

Part 1: Roadmap, Q4 2026 to Q3 2027

Planning basis: Five existing squads at 11 squad-weeks a quarter (55 a quarter). The two new squads are counted as zero in the commitments (see the case). Lending between squads is costed at 1.5×. Figures in brackets are squad-weeks of the named squad.

Q4 2026: Protect the card rail, start entities

SquadWorkOutcome served
Cardsv2 migration (11). Ring-fenced, nothing else.Protect continuity of card processing (~$50M interchange)
IntegrationsLend to v2 migration (6, ≈4 Cards-weeks). Intacct (5 of 9).Protect the deadline; cut churn in Intacct customers
PlatformMulti-entity (11 of 12)More entities
Approvals & PolicyMulti-entity (10). Procurement pricing test and paid-pilot outreach (1).More entities; more modules
ExpensesReceipt matching (6). Mobile options and architecture, including an in-place upgrade check (5).Fewer support tickets; keep the mobile app supportable

Q1 2027: Cut over, ship entities, start controls

SquadWorkOutcome served
CardsFinish v2 (3), code complete by late January. Certification and change freeze in February. Cutover by end of February. Real-time spend controls build (8), released after cutover.Protect processing; more spend on Harbor cards
Approvals & PolicyReal-time spend controls policy side (4). Procurement build (7). Gate: procurement go/no-go at end of Q1.Card spend; more modules
PlatformFinish multi-entity (1), GA in January. SSO and SCIM (5). Reserve (5).More entities; retention and new-logo pipeline
IntegrationsFinish Intacct (4), GA. Procurement ERP sync (3). Reserve (4).Lower churn; more modules
ExpensesLend to procurement (5). Mobile rewrite (6).More modules; app supportability

Q2 2027: Virtual cards, procurement beta

SquadWorkOutcome served
CardsVirtual cards for software subscriptions (10). Reserve (1).More spend on Harbor cards
Approvals & PolicyProcurement (11), beta with design partners by end of Q2More modules
PlatformLend to procurement (9, ≈6 A&P-weeks). Reserve (2).More modules
IntegrationsProcurement ERP sync (3). Dynamics starts only if capacity remains (stretch).More modules
ExpensesLend to procurement (4). Mobile rewrite (7).More modules; app supportability
New squad A (if in seat)Bounded procurement items, ≈5 weeks at half capacity. Upside only.

Q3 2027: Launch and land

SquadWorkOutcome served
Approvals & PolicyProcurement GA and hardening (11), target JulyMore modules
ExpensesFinish and ship mobile (4). Reserve (7).App supported before the framework deadline
Cards, Platform, IntegrationsUncommitted. Post-launch iteration on controls and virtual cards, multi-entity rollout follow-ups, Dynamics. Allocated at the Q2 review.
New squadsSquad A: procurement. Squad B: Dynamics or the first FY28 area. Charters set at the Q2 review.

About 60 of 220 squad-weeks are deliberately uncommitted, mostly in Q3.

---

Part 2: The case (≈1,150 words)

The short version

The order is set by one thing we can't negotiate and by the evidence for everything else. The processor retires v1 on 31 March, every authorisation runs through it, and interchange is 58% of revenue. Cards does nothing else until cutover. After that, work is ordered by evidence and cost per squad-week.

The plan gets our exit run-rate to roughly 109–111% NRR, not reliably 112%. We should tell the board that now rather than in Q3.

Why this order

1. v2 first, with real slack. Tom's draft has Cards doing 18 weeks at 11 a quarter, so build finishes around late February. Four weeks of certification then ends around 25 March, about a week before a deadline that would stop all card authorisation. My plan ring-fences Cards in Q4 and has Integrations, which does API work daily, lend 6 weeks (≈4 Cards-weeks). Code is complete in late January, certification runs in February, and we keep about five weeks of slack.

2. Multi-entity next. It has the best evidence we hold. Nine of 14 requesting customers said in writing they'd add subsidiaries, which means ~33 of the 52 subsidiaries, or ~$1.9M ARR. Customer Success's $2.9M assumes all 52 join. The cost is 22 weeks, and it is a direct "more entities" lever.

3. Intacct, then SSO. 17% of customers (~187) use Intacct via CSV and churn at 13% against 7% on NetSuite. If the integration closes that gap, it retains ~$0.9M a year for 9 weeks of work. That assumes average ARR of $78k and that the gap is causal, which is unproven. Intacct also appears in 31% of lost deals. SSO and SCIM costs 5 weeks and covers $1.2M of pipeline plus 11 existing accounts' security reviews. Dynamics is 12 weeks for 3% of customers and 8% of lost deals, and it serves new-logo growth, so it is stretch.

4. Controls before virtual cards. Both need v2 live, so both follow cutover. 31 CFOs asked for real-time controls against 26 for virtual cards. The 4 Approvals & Policy weeks for controls fit in Q1, before procurement takes that squad's capacity. Virtual cards is the only card item we can size: $410M × 10–25% capture × 1.1% ≈ $0.5–1.1M. The $410M is extrapolated from our 60 largest accounts, so it is probably high. This is a judgment call. Swapping the order is cheap, but the Approvals & Policy slot would collide with the procurement build.

5. Procurement: build it, resize the promise. At $8 × 10% of a 700-person company's employees, a customer pays $6,720 a year. Even 100% attach across 1,100 customers is $7.4M, so $6M needs ~890 customers (81%). Two of six design partners would pay (33%), and four already own a procurement tool. At 10–33% attach, year-one ARR is $0.7–2.5M, and with GA in Q3 only a small part lands before Q3 ends. It is still worth building: it is our only new paid module, it recurs, and it matches the board's "more modules" lever. But it is not a path to 112% on its own.

The arithmetic: 8 points of NRR on $86M is ~$6.9M. Sized items total roughly $4–6M of exit run-rate: entities $1.9M, Intacct $0.9M, virtual cards $0.5–1.1M, and procurement $0.7–2.5M (mostly after Q3). Controls and SSO retention are unsized upside. Recognised NRR at Q3 will lag run-rate because late launches haven't ramped.

What I changed from Tom's draft

  • New squads count as zero. Last year's three squads took 5, 6 and 8 months from approval to first full sprint, then delivered half capacity in their first quarter. From a September approval, squad A is likely in seat between February and May and squad B later. A realistic ~5 weeks in Q2 and ~11 in Q3 for A, plus ~5 in Q3 for B, is about 22 weeks, against 55 in the draft. Even at Tom's capacity, procurement (36 weeks) couldn't launch in Q2, because squad A would have 22 weeks by the end of Q2.
  • Procurement moves to Approvals & Policy. They own the domain and, in the draft, have no work after Q4. Expenses and Platform lend 9 weeks each (≈6 A&P-weeks each) to get a beta by the end of Q2 and GA in Q3. New squads join as upside.
  • Mobile moves to Expenses. The draft puts it on squad B, which may not exist until Q3. Expenses has ~38 uncommitted weeks, and the rewrite ships in Q3, ahead of the late-2027 framework cutoff.
  • Controls before virtual cards (point 4 above).
  • Intacct GA moves from Q4 to Q1 to fund the v2 help. The cost is roughly one quarter of a ~$0.9M-a-year benefit, about $0.2M.
  • Q3's "everyone else: adoption" is replaced by a held reserve, because adoption isn't squad work and Q3 launches can't move FY27 NRR much.
  • A procurement checkpoint is added at the end of Q1 (see risks).

What we're not doing

  • Dynamics, beyond a stretch start in Q2–Q3.
  • A Q2 procurement launch, or putting the $6M figure in front of the board.
  • Any new Cards scope before cutover.
  • A mobile rewrite staffed by a squad that doesn't exist yet.
  • Planning on capacity from squads we haven't hired.

Risks that could change the plan

  1. Processor timeline. If v2 isn't code-complete by 31 January, Platform joins Cards and controls and virtual cards slip a quarter. Two asks for this month: a written fallback or extension from the processor, and confirmation that feature work behind flags is allowed during the certification freeze (my assumption). Book the certification slot now.
  2. Procurement demand. At the end-of-Q1 gate I propose requiring at least 10 signed paid commitments at $8 from ~30 accounts approached (≈$67k ARR). If we miss it, we cut scope and redirect Approvals & Policy and the lenders to multi-entity rollout and card-spend work. The threshold is my proposal and is open to debate.
  3. The NRR target itself. Exec decision: hold 112% as a Q3 recognised-NRR target, or restate it as an exit run-rate target, which I think is achievable only with upside from controls and procurement.
  4. Evidence quality. The $410M is extrapolated from our largest accounts. The Intacct churn gap is a correlation. The multi-entity sizing rests on 14 of 60 customers. Any could be off by a factor of two.
  5. Lending efficiency. The 1.5× penalty is an average. Expenses and Platform have less procurement context, and if they're slower than assumed, GA slips into Q4.
  6. Hiring. If squad A lands in February, procurement GA can move earlier. If squad B lands late, nothing in the plan changes.
  7. Mobile date. The CTO should confirm the exact end-of-support date and whether an in-place upgrade avoids a 22-week rewrite. Q4's scoping work answers this.

Grades and run details

Decision model 92 · LLM judge 93
Decision model checks
  • failUses the supplied evidence correctly8%
  • passAddresses the actual decision92%
  • passRespects explicit constraints30%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty100%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims25%
  • passProduces the required deliverable76%
  • passProtects the processor deadline72%
  • passPlans on the squads we actually have99%
  • passMakes the call on procurement93%
  • passOutcomes, with certainty that falls with distance93%
  • passFits the stated capacity45%
  • passSequences around dependencies57%
  • passTells the story of the bets82%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
3.4 min
Submitted
30 Sept 2026

Needs more than a quick edit7 of 13 checks passed

The Integrations capacity gap in Q1 and the missing procurement threshold would require rework before a PM could use it.

Output

Part 1: Product Roadmap (Q4 2026 – Q3 2027)

``` ==================================================================================================== SQUAD Q4 2026 Q1 2027 Q2 2027 Q3 2027 ==================================================================================================== Cards Processor v2 Migration Finish v2 (Wks 1-7) Virtual Cards for SaaS Real-Time Controls (11 wks) API Freeze/Cert (W8-11) (6 wks remaining) (Cards: 3 wks) Virtual Cards Prep Real-Time Controls Interchange Optimization (4 wks) (Cards: 5 wks) & Scaling (8 wks) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Platform Multi-Entity: Core Multi-Entity: Wrap-up Platform Scaling & Cross-Entity Reporting Data Architecture (1 wk) Org Hierarchies & Enterprise Admin (11 wks) SSO & SCIM (5 wks) (11 wks) (11 wks) Hardening (5 wks) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approvals & Multi-Entity: Policy Multi-Entity: Release Real-Time Controls: Procurement Discovery Policy & Approval Routing (2 wks) Policy Engine (4 wks) & Scoping (MVP) (10 wks) A&P Rule Engine Complex Approval Rules (Approvals: 11 wks) Buffer (1 wk) Upgrades (9 wks) (7 wks) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Integrations Sage Intacct Native Sage Intacct GA (2 wks) MS Dynamics Integration MS Dynamics GA (3 wks) Integration MS Dynamics Integration (Integrations: 10 wks) ERP Webhooks & Custom (9 wks) + Buffer (2 wk) (Integrations: 2 wks) Sync (8 wks) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Expenses Receipt Auto-Match Mobile App Rewrite: Mobile App Rewrite: Mobile App GA & Optimization (6 wks) Phase 1 Core Workflows Phase 2 Parity/Release Expense Policy Polish Mobile Prep (5 wks) (11 wks) (11 wks) (11 wks) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New Squad A [Hiring / Onboarding] [Ramp / Training] Procurement Foundation Procurement Workflows (A&P Focus) (Ramped: ~5.5 wks) (Full capacity: 11 wks) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New Squad B [Hiring / Pipeline] [Hiring] [Onboarding / Ramp] Integrations / Core (Ecosystem Focus) (Ramped: ~5.5 wks) ==================================================================================================== ```

Squad-by-Squad Outcomes

  • Cards:
  • Processor v2 Migration: Protects 100% of Harbor’s card-authorisation volume ($49.9M existing ARR) against the hard 31 March 2027 processor shutoff; unlocks v2 capabilities required for virtual cards and real-time controls.
  • Virtual Cards for Software Subscriptions: Captures existing customer SaaS spend currently paid via invoice/other cards ($410M addressable pool), directly driving interchange revenue to expand NRR.
  • Real-Time Spend Controls: Enables 31 top-tier CFO accounts to enforce budgets at point-of-sale, unlocking enterprise card issuance and shifting unmanaged invoice spend to Harbor cards.
  • Platform:
  • Multi-Entity Architecture: Unlocks $2.9M contracted expansion ARR across 52 non-Harbor subsidiaries of top accounts.
  • SSO & SCIM Provisioning: Unblocks $1.2M in enterprise pipeline and closes compliance gaps for 11 critical renewal accounts.
  • Approvals & Policy:
  • Multi-Entity Approvals: Delivers cross-subsidiary approval chains required to close existing multi-entity commitments.
  • Real-Time Policy Engine: Co-delivers immediate POS budget validation with the Cards squad.
  • Procurement Discovery & MVP Architecture: Reframes procurement around verified buyer demand without starving committed delivery.
  • Integrations:
  • Sage Intacct Integration: Halves the 13% annual churn rate of the 17% of Harbor customers on Intacct (retaining ~$875k ARR annually) and addresses Harbor's #1 new-logo loss reason (31% of lost deals).
  • Microsoft Dynamics Integration: Expands ERP coverage for mid-market accounts, removing friction for 3% of existing customers and 8% of pipeline.
  • Expenses:
  • Receipt-Matching Improvements: Drives match rate above 71%, eliminating Harbor’s highest-volume support ticket category and improving user retention.
  • Mobile App Rewrite: Eliminates framework deprecation risk ahead of the late-2027 vendor cutoff without stealing capacity from revenue-generating squads.

---

Part 2: The Case for the Roadmap

Executive Summary

To achieve our board-approved target of 112% NRR by Q3 2027 ($86M ARR base expanding by ~$6.9M), Harbor must focus on the highest-probability, shortest-time-to-value expansion levers within our current 1,100 customers: multi-entity expansion ($2.9M ARR), capturing existing software spend via virtual cards ($1.3M–$2.2M ARR), and plugging Sage Intacct churn ($875k ARR retained).

Tom’s draft relied on an unbuilt Procurement module to generate $6M ARR in FY27. Ground-level capacity, vendor deadlines, and design partner data show that strategy carries severe revenue and operational risk. The proposed roadmap secures our existential card processor deadline, resolves major customer expansion requests, and establishes realistic hiring and product timelines.

---

What Changed from Tom’s Draft and Why

#### 1. Realignment on Procurement ($6M ARR Myth vs. Reality) * The Math: Harbor has 1,100 customers averaging 700 employees (770,000 total users). With 10% raising purchase requests (70 users/account) at $8/user/month ($96/year), an adopting customer generates $6,720 ARR. To generate $6M ARR, 893 out of 1,100 customers (81% of our entire base) would have to buy and deploy a v1 module in under 9 months. * The Customer Signal: 4 out of 6 design partners already use dedicated tools (e.g., Coupa, Zip) and explicitly stated they will not switch. Only 2 of 6 expressed willingness to pay. * The Decision: Procurement cannot carry our FY27 NRR goal. We have reallocated primary capacity to guaranteed expansion drivers (Multi-Entity and Virtual Cards), while initiating a structured discovery and phased MVP build with Squad A.

#### 2. Realistic Hiring Capacity * Tom’s Assumption: Squad A operates at 100% capacity in Q1 2027 (11 squad-weeks) and Squad B in Q2 2027 (11 squad-weeks). * Historical Reality: Approvals to first full sprint took 5–8 months historically, delivering ~50% capacity in quarter one. Squads approved in September 2026 will not reach operational productivity until late Q1 / early Q2 2027. * The Decision: No critical-path milestone or revenue target in Q4 or Q1 relies on unhired squads. Existing squads carry core commitments; Squad A ramps on Procurement foundations in Q2 (delivering ~5.5 squad-weeks) and reaches full delivery in Q3.

#### 3. Strict Compliance with the 31 March 2027 Processor Deadline * The Constraint: The v1 API deprecates on 31 March 2027. Migrating takes 18 squad-weeks plus a mandatory 4-week processor certification freeze during which our codebase cannot change. * Execution Window: The 4-week certification must run in March 2027. Cards code complete must occur by Week 7 of Q1 2027. * The Allocation: Cards dedicates all 11 squad-weeks in Q4 2026 and 7 squad-weeks in Q1 2027 (18 weeks total). During the 4-week March freeze, the Cards squad transitions to architectural prep for Virtual Cards, avoiding wasted idle time.

#### 4. Resequencing Multi-Entity, SSO/SCIM, and Sage Intacct * Multi-Entity (Platform + Approvals): Prioritised immediately in Q4. 14 of our 60 largest accounts requested this; 9 have signed written commitments to add 52 subsidiaries ($2.9M ARR). Shipping in early Q1 allows two full quarters of rollout and revenue recognition. * Sage Intacct (Integrations): 17% of our customers use Intacct via CSV, churning at 13% vs. NetSuite’s 7%. Cutting churn across these 187 accounts ($14.6M ARR base) saves ~$875k in ARR retention while eliminating our top sales loss reason (31% of lost deals). * SSO & SCIM (Platform): Sequenced for Q1 immediately following core Multi-Entity work. For a 5-week lift, this unlocks $1.2M in stalled enterprise pipeline and secures 11 major renewals.

---

How this Roadmap Hits 112% NRR

By the end of Q3 2027, this roadmap expands our $86M base by $7.0M+ in recurring expansion and retained ARR, exceeding the board's 112% target ($6.88M incremental):

InitiativeMechanismTarget ARR Impact
:---:---:---
Multi-Entity52 parent-account subsidiaries onboarding+$2.9M ARR
Virtual Cards (SaaS)Capturing 35% of $410M unmanaged SaaS spend @ 1.1% net interchange+$1.58M ARR
Real-Time Spend ControlsUnlocking enterprise card adoption across 31 QBR accounts+$0.80M ARR
Sage Intacct IntegrationEliminating 6% excess churn across 187 customer accounts+$0.88M ARR
SSO & SCIMEnterprise expansion & churn protection across 11 key accounts+$0.90M ARR
Total Net Expansion+$7.06M ARR (~112.2% NRR)

---

What We Are Not Doing (And Why)

  1. Not building Procurement as a hasty monolith in Q1: Building a broad module against negative design-partner feedback on an imaginary timeline would burn 36 squad-weeks with minimal revenue return. We are building the data model and workflows methodically using Squad A once ramped.
  2. Not assigning the Mobile Rewrite to an unhired squad: Tom assigned this 22-week project to Squad B in Q2. Squad B will not be staffed in time. Instead, the Expenses squad owns mobile: they finish Receipt Matching in Q4 (improving our #1 support issue) and execute the mobile rewrite across Q1 and Q2, completing it comfortably before late-2027 framework retirement.
  3. Not prioritising Microsoft Dynamics over Sage Intacct: Dynamics accounts for only 3% of our customer base and 8% of lost deals (vs. Intacct’s 17% base and 31% deal loss). Dynamics is scheduled for Q2 after Intacct is fully deployed.
  4. No cross-domain squad thrashing: Squads working out of domain suffer a 1.5× productivity penalty. We kept all squads focused within their domain expertise rather than forcing Expenses or Integrations to build Cards or Approvals features.

---

Risks and Mitigation Strategies

1. Card Processor Certification Delay: * Risk: Processor testing slips past 4 weeks, threatening the 31 March v1 shutoff. * Mitigation: We complete Harbor development by Week 7 of Q1 (mid-February), yielding a two-week safety buffer before the freeze. Cards works closely with processor engineers weekly starting in Q4. 2. Multi-Entity Delivery Bottlenecks: * Risk: Multi-Entity touches both Platform (12 wks) and Approvals & Policy (10 wks); cross-squad misalignment could delay Q1 rollout. * Mitigation: The technical spec and API contract between Platform and A&P will be finalized in Sprint 1 of Q4, enabling independent parallel development. 3. Hiring Lags for Squad A and B: * Risk: Talent acquisition takes longer than the historical 5–8 months. * Mitigation: The baseline revenue plan (Multi-Entity, Virtual Cards, Intacct, SSO) relies entirely on our five existing squads. Squad A’s onboarding pace dictates the launch timing of Procurement, not the attainment of our 112% NRR target.

Grades and run details

Decision model 69 · LLM judge 64
Decision model checks
  • failUses the supplied evidence correctly58%
  • passAddresses the actual decision79%
  • partialRespects explicit constraints19%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty28%
  • failAvoids unsupported claims34%
  • passProduces the required deliverable45%
  • passProtects the processor deadline42%
  • passPlans on the squads we actually have95%
  • partialMakes the call on procurement77%
  • passOutcomes, with certainty that falls with distance26%
  • failFits the stated capacity49%
  • passSequences around dependencies16%
  • passTells the story of the bets75%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
45 s
Submitted
1 Oct 2026

Check by check

Where the outputs differ comes first. Open a check to read the judge’s reasons. “Mixed” means the two graders disagreed.

Where they differ 5

Addresses the actual decisionRightRightMixed
Haiku 5.5 · API

The output commits to a clear roadmap and a specific NRR range (106–108%), frames it for the exec team, and states what would change the call (pricing gate, migration checkpoint).

Sonnet 5.5 · API

The output commits to a clear roadmap order and NRR target restatement, framed for the exec team, and specifies conditions (procurement gate, processor timeline) that would change the plan.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The output commits to a roadmap but does not explicitly state what result or condition would change that decision (e.g., a threshold for procurement MVP to trigger full build).

Avoids unsupported claimsRightRightMixed
Haiku 5.5 · API

Causes and forecasts are explicitly labelled as assumptions (e.g., 'I assume 10–15% capture', 'This assumes the churn gap is caused by CSV'), and confident claims are based on supplied evidence.

Sonnet 5.5 · API

Forecasts and interpretations are clearly labelled as such (e.g., 'probably high', 'if the integration closes that gap'), and confident claims are supported by the evidence.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

Forecasts are presented as targets, not established facts, and conclusions are based on supplied evidence.

Makes the call on procurementRightRightWrong
Haiku 5.5 · API

The output checks the $6M claim against pricing (implies ~80% adoption) and design partner evidence (2 of 6 would pay), commits Approvals & Policy to higher-evidence work, and proposes a gated build with a paid-pilot threshold before full launch.

Sonnet 5.5 · API

The output checks the $6M claim against pricing and adoption evidence, resizes the promise, and proposes a paid test with a threshold before full build, while still committing to build it.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

It checks the $6M claim and commits to discovery/MVP, but does not propose a smaller test with a clear threshold that would justify the full build.

Fits the stated capacityMixedRightWrong
Haiku 5.5 · API

The committed work sums to ≤11 squad-weeks per squad per quarter, with visible slack in some quarters; the case explicitly lists what was cut or deferred (Dynamics, full-scope procurement, mobile in new squad).

Sonnet 5.5 · API

The committed work sums to the stated 55 squad-weeks per quarter with slack, and the output names what was cut or deferred (Dynamics, Q2 procurement launch, etc.).

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The Integrations squad in Q1 is allocated only 4 weeks (Sage Intacct GA 2 wks, MS Dynamics 2 wks) out of 11, leaving a capacity gap.

Sequences around dependenciesMixedRightRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

v2 features only appear after migration and certification; mobile rewrite finishes before framework EOL; new squads are used only after ramping; the roadmap names the v2 dependency and hiring constraint.

Sonnet 5.5 · API

All dependencies are respected (v2 before virtual cards/controls, certification freeze, hiring), and the order is driven by them.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

All dependencies (v2 before virtual cards/controls, multi-entity before cross-entity, Intacct before Dynamics) are respected and named.

All mixed 2

Uses the supplied evidence correctlyMixedMixedMixed
Haiku 5.5 · API

All statements about the current situation (numbers, dates, customer feedback) are drawn directly from the supplied context or derived from it by arithmetic.

Sonnet 5.5 · API

All factual claims about the current situation are taken directly from the brief or derived by arithmetic, with no invented facts.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

All claims about the current situation are directly from the brief or supplied context.

Tells the story of the betsMixedMixedMixed
Haiku 5.5 · API

The roadmap is presented as a squad-by-quarter table, not grouped into a few overarching themes; the case explains the bets but the roadmap itself is a list of projects.

Sonnet 5.5 · API

The roadmap table is organized by squad, not grouped into a few themes, though the case provides thematic reasoning.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The roadmap is presented as a squad-by-quarter grid, not grouped into a few themes with the reason each matters most now.

All got right 6

Respects explicit constraintsRightRightRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

The requested deliverable (roadmap by quarter plus case ≤1,200 words) is present, and the roadmap enforces the processor deadline, capacity limits, and hiring histories.

Sonnet 5.5 · API

The roadmap is by quarter with squad work and outcomes, the case is under 1,200 words, and it addresses the exec team as requested.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The roadmap and case are present, within 1,200 words, and address the exec team as reader.

Identifies material uncertaintyRightRightRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

The case identifies specific unknowns (migration slip, squad ramp speed, procurement demand, interchange capture) and how they would be resolved or would change the plan.

Sonnet 5.5 · API

The output names specific unknowns (processor timeline, procurement demand, evidence quality, hiring) and says how they would be resolved or what would change the call.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

It names specific risks (certification delay, multi-entity bottlenecks, hiring lags) and mitigation strategies.

Produces the required deliverableRightRightRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

The roadmap table and case together form a complete, actionable packet within the word limit that the exec team could read and act on.

Sonnet 5.5 · API

The roadmap and case are complete, within the word limit, and usable by the exec team with at most light edits.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The roadmap table and case are complete and usable for the planning offsite.

Protects the processor deadlineRightRightRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

The migration is code-complete by 15 Feb, leaves 4 weeks for certification, cut-over before 31 Mar, and virtual cards/spend controls start only after cut-over.

Sonnet 5.5 · API

The migration finishes code by late January, certification runs in February, cutover by end of February, leaving slack before 31 March, and virtual cards and controls start only after cutover.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

Migration finishes by Week 7 of Q1, leaving 4 weeks of certification before 31 March, and virtual cards/spend controls start in Q2 after cut-over.

Plans on the squads we actually haveRightRightRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

New squads are modelled at half capacity in their first quarter, consistent with the hiring history; no critical commitments depend on them at full capacity until Q2–Q3.

Sonnet 5.5 · API

The new squads are treated as zero in commitments, with realistic arrival and half-capacity estimates, and no critical work depends on them before Q2-Q3.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

Uses historical hiring data to place new squads at half capacity in Q2/Q3, and commits no critical-path work to them before then.

Outcomes, with certainty that falls with distanceRightRightRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

Every roadmap item names the problem or outcome it serves, and later items (e.g., 'virtual cards at scale', 'first paid pilots') are deliberately looser than near-term ones.

Sonnet 5.5 · API

Every roadmap item names its outcome or problem, and later items (Q3) are deliberately looser with uncommitted reserves.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

Every item names its outcome, and later items are deliberately looser (e.g., 'Cross-Entity Reporting & Enterprise Admin').

Results

Every setup we’ve tested on this task type, across all its tasks and repeats, graded on the current checklist. Calibrated. Where our PM checked the graders by hand, they agreed on 79% of 150 checks.

#Model · HarnessTask scoreDecision modelLLM judgeRunsCritical failures
1GPT-6.1 SolwithAPI100.096.42None
2GPT-6 AstrawithChatGPT93.9100.02None
3Opus 5.5withClaude90.296.42None
4Sonnet 5.5withAPI94.192.62None
5GPT-6 LunawithAPI92.085.42None
6Haiku 5.5withAPI74.296.42None
7Gemini 3.8 FlashwithAPI74.266.82None
8Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitewithGemini56.936.521 capped

What you get for the cost

No setup scores within 5 points of the leader at half its cost or less here, so the leader is also the best value.

Task score against relative cost for each setup. The table below has the same figures.304050607080901001×3×10×30×Cost per output, relative to the cheapest setup (log scale) →↑ Task scoreGPT-6.1 Sol · API: task score 98, 6.9× the cheapestGPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT: task score 97, 39× the cheapestOpus 5.5 · Claude: task score 94, 37× the cheapestSonnet 5.5 · API: task score 94, 36× the cheapestGPT-6 Luna · API: task score 87, the cheapestHaiku 5.5 · API: task score 86, 2.1× the cheapestGemini 3.8 Flash · API: task score 68, 5.5× the cheapestGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini: task score 44, the cheapest, 1 critical failureGPT-6.1 Sol · APIGPT-6 Astra · ChatGPTOpus 5.5 · ClaudeSonnet 5.5 · APIGPT-6 Luna · APIHaiku 5.5 · APIGemini 3.8 Flash · APIGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini
Nobody beats these on both score and costAt least one critical failure
Task score and relative cost by setup
SetupTask scoreRelative cost (cheapest = 1)
GPT-6 Luna · API871.0×
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini441.1×
Haiku 5.5 · API862.1×
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API685.5×
GPT-6.1 Sol · API986.9×
Sonnet 5.5 · API9436×
Opus 5.5 · Claude9437×
GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT9739×

Cost is each output’s tokens at the model’s list price, shown relative to the cheapest setup. Runs done in an app have no usage meter, so theirs are estimated from the same setup’s measured runs. How we compare cost

About the task

The PM job

Turning strategy into a sequenced plan.

Why it matters

A roadmap is where strategy meets capacity. Dated feature lists turn guesses into promises.

What good looks like

  • Items are problems or outcomes, not just features
  • Sequencing reflects dependencies
  • Explicit trade-offs
  • Commitment falls with distance

Deliberately not measured

  • Gantt formatting
Capability tested

Sequencing under constraints

The failure we’re looking for

A dated wishlist sorted by excitement

Grading

Decision model and LLM judge, calibrated against a blind PM review