{
  "$schema": "./product-strategy.schema.json",
  "strategyId": "STRATEGY-SIGNAL-RELAY-001",
  "version": 3,
  "state": "in-review",
  "title": "Signal Relay product strategy",
  "product": "Signal Relay",
  "strategyPeriod": {
    "startsOn": "2026-08-01",
    "reviewBy": "2026-08-29",
    "expiresOn": "2026-10-31"
  },
  "people": [
    {
      "id": "PERSON-STEWART",
      "name": "Sam Steward",
      "role": "strategy-steward",
      "contact": "sam@signal-relay.example.test"
    },
    {
      "id": "PERSON-DECIDER",
      "name": "Devon Decider",
      "role": "decision-owner",
      "contact": "devon@signal-relay.example.test"
    },
    {
      "id": "PERSON-EVIDENCE",
      "name": "Elliot Evidence",
      "role": "evidence-owner",
      "contact": "elliot@signal-relay.example.test"
    },
    {
      "id": "PERSON-MEASURES",
      "name": "Morgan Measures",
      "role": "measure-owner",
      "contact": "morgan@signal-relay.example.test"
    }
  ],
  "evidence": [
    {
      "id": "EVIDENCE-INTERVIEWS",
      "kind": "user-research",
      "label": "Fictional venue coordinator interviews",
      "observedAt": "2026-07-10",
      "ownerId": "PERSON-EVIDENCE",
      "summary": "Several fictional coordinators described copying incomplete maintenance requests from email and chat into a shared spreadsheet before assigning them.",
      "limitation": "The fictional sample is small, self-selected, and cannot establish prevalence or product demand.",
      "reference": "https://research.signal-relay.example.test/studies/coordinator-intake"
    },
    {
      "id": "EVIDENCE-OPERATIONS",
      "kind": "operations",
      "label": "Fictional request rework review",
      "observedAt": "2026-07-14",
      "ownerId": "PERSON-EVIDENCE",
      "summary": "A fictional review found request records that needed follow-up because location, urgency, access, or completion evidence was missing.",
      "limitation": "The reviewed records come from one fictional venue network and use an unverified local classification rule.",
      "reference": "https://ops.signal-relay.example.test/reviews/request-rework"
    },
    {
      "id": "EVIDENCE-ANALYTICS",
      "kind": "analytics",
      "label": "Fictional assignment event audit",
      "observedAt": "2026-07-18",
      "ownerId": "PERSON-MEASURES",
      "summary": "The fictional event audit exposed inconsistent assignment timestamps and no stable definition for a clear handoff.",
      "limitation": "Instrumentation is incomplete, so no baseline or directional change can yet be trusted.",
      "reference": "https://metrics.signal-relay.example.test/audits/assignment-events"
    },
    {
      "id": "EVIDENCE-ALTERNATIVES",
      "kind": "market-observation",
      "label": "Fictional alternatives review",
      "observedAt": "2026-07-20",
      "ownerId": "PERSON-STEWART",
      "summary": "Fictional teams currently combine shared inboxes, spreadsheets, and chat channels rather than using one controlled request record.",
      "limitation": "The observation describes current workarounds, not willingness to change, pay, or adopt a new product.",
      "reference": "https://strategy.signal-relay.example.test/evidence/alternatives"
    },
    {
      "id": "EVIDENCE-CONSTRAINTS",
      "kind": "constraint",
      "label": "Fictional access and retention constraints",
      "observedAt": "2026-07-22",
      "ownerId": "PERSON-EVIDENCE",
      "summary": "The fictional venues require role-bounded access, minimal personal data, exportable records, and an explicit retention owner.",
      "limitation": "These are fictional operating constraints and are not legal, security, or compliance requirements.",
      "reference": "https://policy.signal-relay.example.test/constraints/request-records"
    }
  ],
  "diagnosis": {
    "problemStatement": "Operations coordinators lack one reviewable record for turning incomplete maintenance messages into assigned work with visible ownership and closure evidence.",
    "selectedCustomer": "Operations coordinators at small community venues who receive and route maintenance requests across staff and suppliers.",
    "selectedProblem": "Request details, ownership, and completion evidence are repeatedly reconstructed across disconnected channels.",
    "evidenceIds": [
      "EVIDENCE-INTERVIEWS",
      "EVIDENCE-OPERATIONS",
      "EVIDENCE-ANALYTICS",
      "EVIDENCE-CONSTRAINTS"
    ],
    "constraints": [
      "Minimize personal data in the durable request record",
      "Keep role and record ownership explicit",
      "Preserve an export and recovery path independent of one interface"
    ],
    "unknownIds": ["UNKNOWN-SAMPLE", "UNKNOWN-EVENTS", "UNKNOWN-EXPORT"]
  },
  "positioning": {
    "category": "Fictional maintenance request coordination record",
    "alternatives": [
      "Shared inbox plus spreadsheet",
      "Chat channel plus manual follow-up",
      "Existing work-order software with a broader operational scope"
    ],
    "advantageHypothesis": "A smaller evidence-led request record may reduce reconstruction work while preserving operator control and exportability.",
    "evidenceIds": [
      "EVIDENCE-INTERVIEWS",
      "EVIDENCE-OPERATIONS",
      "EVIDENCE-ALTERNATIVES",
      "EVIDENCE-CONSTRAINTS"
    ],
    "disconfirmingEvidence": [
      "The fictional sample does not show whether coordinators will replace current workarounds",
      "Incomplete event definitions prevent a trustworthy current baseline",
      "Some teams may need capabilities already covered by broader work-order systems"
    ]
  },
  "choices": [
    {
      "id": "CHOICE-STRUCTURED-INTAKE",
      "status": "candidate",
      "statement": "Focus the first product boundary on a structured, reviewable maintenance request intake rather than a general operations suite.",
      "rationale": "The clearest fictional evidence concerns missing request context and repeated reconstruction before assignment.",
      "evidenceIds": ["EVIDENCE-INTERVIEWS", "EVIDENCE-OPERATIONS"],
      "capabilityIds": ["CAPABILITY-INTAKE", "CAPABILITY-AUDIT"],
      "measureIds": ["MEASURE-INTAKE-COMPLETENESS"],
      "assumptionIds": ["ASSUMPTION-INTAKE-TIME"],
      "nonChoiceIds": ["NONCHOICE-GENERAL-OPS"]
    },
    {
      "id": "CHOICE-EXPLICIT-HANDOFF",
      "status": "candidate",
      "statement": "Make assignment ownership and acknowledgement explicit before adding automatic dispatch or optimization.",
      "rationale": "The fictional event audit cannot yet define a clear handoff, so visibility and evidence come before automation.",
      "evidenceIds": ["EVIDENCE-ANALYTICS", "EVIDENCE-CONSTRAINTS"],
      "capabilityIds": ["CAPABILITY-ASSIGNMENT", "CAPABILITY-AUDIT"],
      "measureIds": ["MEASURE-HANDOFF-CLARITY"],
      "assumptionIds": ["ASSUMPTION-ROLE-CLARITY"],
      "nonChoiceIds": ["NONCHOICE-AUTOMATED-DISPATCH"]
    },
    {
      "id": "CHOICE-PORTABLE-RECORDS",
      "status": "revised",
      "statement": "Treat exportable request history and recovery checks as a required capability, while revising the untested format and cadence.",
      "rationale": "Portability is a stated fictional constraint, but the team has not yet tested which export shape operators can actually recover from.",
      "evidenceIds": ["EVIDENCE-CONSTRAINTS", "EVIDENCE-ALTERNATIVES"],
      "capabilityIds": ["CAPABILITY-EXPORT", "CAPABILITY-AUDIT"],
      "measureIds": ["MEASURE-RECOVERY-CHECK"],
      "assumptionIds": ["ASSUMPTION-EXPORT-USABILITY"],
      "nonChoiceIds": ["NONCHOICE-PROPRIETARY-ONLY"]
    }
  ],
  "nonChoices": [
    {
      "id": "NONCHOICE-GENERAL-OPS",
      "statement": "Do not position the first product boundary as a general facilities or operations suite.",
      "reason": "That scope would absorb unrelated inventory, finance, scheduling, procurement, and compliance jobs without supporting evidence.",
      "revisitWhen": "Current evidence shows the selected intake and handoff job cannot stand alone.",
      "evidenceIds": ["EVIDENCE-INTERVIEWS", "EVIDENCE-ALTERNATIVES"]
    },
    {
      "id": "NONCHOICE-AUTOMATED-DISPATCH",
      "statement": "Do not automate supplier dispatch or priority decisions in the current strategy period.",
      "reason": "Ownership rules, priority semantics, and reliable event definitions remain unresolved.",
      "revisitWhen": "Role rules are reviewed and a bounded human-overridable dispatch experiment is approved separately.",
      "evidenceIds": ["EVIDENCE-ANALYTICS", "EVIDENCE-CONSTRAINTS"]
    },
    {
      "id": "NONCHOICE-PROPRIETARY-ONLY",
      "statement": "Do not make the durable request history available only through a proprietary interface.",
      "reason": "The selected fictional operating boundary requires exportability and an accountable recovery path.",
      "revisitWhen": "Never within this strategy unless the portability constraint is explicitly replaced by reviewed evidence and authority.",
      "evidenceIds": ["EVIDENCE-CONSTRAINTS"]
    }
  ],
  "capabilities": [
    {
      "id": "CAPABILITY-INTAKE",
      "name": "Structured request intake",
      "reason": "Capture location, urgency, access, requester-safe contact context, and the requested outcome in one reviewable record.",
      "ownerId": "PERSON-STEWART",
      "requiredForChoiceIds": ["CHOICE-STRUCTURED-INTAKE"],
      "gaps": [
        "Required-field semantics need observational testing",
        "Accessible error and recovery states are not specified"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "CAPABILITY-ASSIGNMENT",
      "name": "Explicit assignment acknowledgement",
      "reason": "Show who owns the next action, when they acknowledged it, and how an operator recovers an unaccepted handoff.",
      "ownerId": "PERSON-STEWART",
      "requiredForChoiceIds": ["CHOICE-EXPLICIT-HANDOFF"],
      "gaps": [
        "Acknowledgement event semantics are not yet agreed",
        "Supplier access boundaries remain open"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "CAPABILITY-AUDIT",
      "name": "Reviewable change and evidence history",
      "reason": "Preserve accountable changes, exceptions, and evidence references without presenting the audit as approval.",
      "ownerId": "PERSON-EVIDENCE",
      "requiredForChoiceIds": [
        "CHOICE-STRUCTURED-INTAKE",
        "CHOICE-EXPLICIT-HANDOFF",
        "CHOICE-PORTABLE-RECORDS"
      ],
      "gaps": [
        "Retention ownership is not assigned",
        "Evidence access rules need a separate security review"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "CAPABILITY-EXPORT",
      "name": "Portable request export and recovery check",
      "reason": "Let an accountable operator extract the durable request history and test whether it can be interpreted outside the interface.",
      "ownerId": "PERSON-MEASURES",
      "requiredForChoiceIds": ["CHOICE-PORTABLE-RECORDS"],
      "gaps": ["The export format is undecided", "No recovery rehearsal has been observed"]
    }
  ],
  "measures": [
    {
      "id": "MEASURE-INTAKE-COMPLETENESS",
      "name": "Review-ready intake proportion",
      "outcomeDefinition": "The share of eligible fictional requests that contain the locally required context before the first assignment attempt.",
      "calculation": "Eligible requests meeting every reviewed context rule divided by all eligible requests in the observation window.",
      "baseline": "Not established because the required context rule and historical sample are incomplete.",
      "expectedDirection": "Increase only after the definition and baseline pass review.",
      "decisionThreshold": "No threshold is approved; the first review decides whether the measure is usable.",
      "window": "A reviewed four-week observation window after instrumentation is corrected.",
      "dataOwnerId": "PERSON-MEASURES",
      "source": "https://metrics.signal-relay.example.test/definitions/intake-completeness",
      "limitations": "Completeness does not show correctness, urgency accuracy, user value, adoption, or reduced work. Exclude spam and test records through a reviewed rule."
    },
    {
      "id": "MEASURE-HANDOFF-CLARITY",
      "name": "Unambiguous assignment event proportion",
      "outcomeDefinition": "The share of eligible fictional assignments with one named owner, one acknowledgement state, and one recoverable next action.",
      "calculation": "Eligible assignments satisfying the reviewed handoff event definition divided by all eligible assignments in the window.",
      "baseline": "Unknown because current assignment timestamps and acknowledgement events are inconsistent.",
      "expectedDirection": "Increase if the event definition survives review and the product change is tested.",
      "decisionThreshold": "No go-live or investment threshold is defined in this strategy record.",
      "window": "One complete fictional venue maintenance cycle after event repair.",
      "dataOwnerId": "PERSON-MEASURES",
      "source": "https://metrics.signal-relay.example.test/definitions/handoff-clarity",
      "limitations": "A clear event does not prove the assignee understood the work, accepted responsibility legitimately, or completed it well."
    },
    {
      "id": "MEASURE-RECOVERY-CHECK",
      "name": "Interpretable export rehearsal result",
      "outcomeDefinition": "Whether an authorized fictional operator can extract and interpret a bounded request history using a documented recovery procedure.",
      "calculation": "Record the observed rehearsal result, failed fields, elapsed work, reviewer, and corrective actions; do not reduce it to an unsupported success percentage.",
      "baseline": "No rehearsal has been run.",
      "expectedDirection": "Move from unknown to an observed result with explicit gaps.",
      "decisionThreshold": "The accountable recovery owner defines any acceptance threshold outside this strategy.",
      "window": "One bounded rehearsal before the strategy expires.",
      "dataOwnerId": "PERSON-MEASURES",
      "source": "https://recovery.signal-relay.example.test/rehearsals/request-export",
      "limitations": "A rehearsal in one fixture cannot prove universal recoverability, retention compliance, security, or production readiness."
    }
  ],
  "assumptions": [
    {
      "id": "ASSUMPTION-INTAKE-TIME",
      "status": "open",
      "statement": "Coordinators can provide the selected context without shifting unacceptable work to requesters or operators.",
      "evidenceIds": ["EVIDENCE-INTERVIEWS", "EVIDENCE-OPERATIONS"],
      "riskIfWrong": "The intake could reduce incomplete records while increasing abandonment, support work, or inaccessible error recovery.",
      "validationOwnerId": "PERSON-EVIDENCE",
      "reviewBy": "2026-08-20"
    },
    {
      "id": "ASSUMPTION-ROLE-CLARITY",
      "status": "challenged",
      "statement": "One visible acknowledgement state can represent the real handoff across staff and external suppliers.",
      "evidenceIds": ["EVIDENCE-ANALYTICS", "EVIDENCE-CONSTRAINTS"],
      "riskIfWrong": "The interface could display false ownership while contractual or operational responsibility remains elsewhere.",
      "validationOwnerId": "PERSON-EVIDENCE",
      "reviewBy": "2026-08-22"
    },
    {
      "id": "ASSUMPTION-EXPORT-USABILITY",
      "status": "open",
      "statement": "A documented tabular and JSON export can preserve enough context for a bounded operator recovery task.",
      "evidenceIds": ["EVIDENCE-CONSTRAINTS"],
      "riskIfWrong": "The product could advertise portability while exporting records that an operator cannot safely interpret or recover from.",
      "validationOwnerId": "PERSON-MEASURES",
      "reviewBy": "2026-08-26"
    }
  ],
  "risks": [
    {
      "id": "RISK-SAMPLE-BIAS",
      "status": "open",
      "description": "The fictional research sample may overrepresent coordinators already dissatisfied with current workarounds.",
      "likelihood": "possible",
      "impact": "high",
      "ownerId": "PERSON-EVIDENCE",
      "mitigation": "Recruit against an explicit sample frame and retain non-adoption evidence."
    },
    {
      "id": "RISK-MEASURE-PROXY",
      "status": "mitigating",
      "description": "Record completeness and event clarity may become convenient proxy metrics that do not represent user or operational value.",
      "likelihood": "likely",
      "impact": "high",
      "ownerId": "PERSON-MEASURES",
      "mitigation": "Pair performance observations with user research and record measure limitations at every review."
    },
    {
      "id": "RISK-SCOPE-EXPANSION",
      "status": "open",
      "description": "Stakeholders may pull the product toward a general operations suite before the selected problem is tested.",
      "likelihood": "possible",
      "impact": "medium",
      "ownerId": "PERSON-DECIDER",
      "mitigation": "Review every proposed capability against the choices and non-choices in this record."
    }
  ],
  "unknowns": [
    {
      "id": "UNKNOWN-SAMPLE",
      "status": "open",
      "question": "How often does the selected reconstruction problem occur outside the fictional early sample?",
      "ownerId": "PERSON-EVIDENCE",
      "affectsChoiceIds": ["CHOICE-STRUCTURED-INTAKE"],
      "reviewBy": "2026-08-20",
      "resolution": null
    },
    {
      "id": "UNKNOWN-EVENTS",
      "status": "open",
      "question": "Which assignment and acknowledgement events can be defined consistently across staff and suppliers?",
      "ownerId": "PERSON-MEASURES",
      "affectsChoiceIds": ["CHOICE-EXPLICIT-HANDOFF"],
      "reviewBy": "2026-08-22",
      "resolution": null
    },
    {
      "id": "UNKNOWN-EXPORT",
      "status": "open",
      "question": "Which export shape preserves enough context for a bounded recovery rehearsal?",
      "ownerId": "PERSON-MEASURES",
      "affectsChoiceIds": ["CHOICE-PORTABLE-RECORDS"],
      "reviewBy": "2026-08-26",
      "resolution": null
    }
  ],
  "decisions": [
    {
      "id": "DECISION-REVISE-PORTABILITY",
      "action": "revise",
      "choiceIds": ["CHOICE-PORTABLE-RECORDS"],
      "nonChoiceIds": ["NONCHOICE-PROPRIETARY-ONLY"],
      "rationale": "Keep portability as a required boundary, but remove the untested export format and cadence until an operator rehearsal provides evidence.",
      "evidenceIds": ["EVIDENCE-CONSTRAINTS", "EVIDENCE-ALTERNATIVES"],
      "decidedByIds": ["PERSON-DECIDER", "PERSON-STEWART"],
      "decidedAt": "2026-08-01",
      "reviewId": "REVIEW-INITIAL"
    },
    {
      "id": "DECISION-REJECT-AUTOMATION",
      "action": "reject",
      "choiceIds": ["CHOICE-EXPLICIT-HANDOFF"],
      "nonChoiceIds": ["NONCHOICE-AUTOMATED-DISPATCH"],
      "rationale": "Reject automated dispatch during this strategy period because role semantics, overrides, and evidence remain unresolved.",
      "evidenceIds": ["EVIDENCE-ANALYTICS", "EVIDENCE-CONSTRAINTS"],
      "decidedByIds": ["PERSON-DECIDER", "PERSON-EVIDENCE"],
      "decidedAt": "2026-08-01",
      "reviewId": "REVIEW-INITIAL"
    }
  ],
  "reviews": [
    {
      "id": "REVIEW-INITIAL",
      "reviewedAt": "2026-08-01",
      "evidenceCutoff": "2026-07-22",
      "facilitatorId": "PERSON-STEWART",
      "participantIds": ["PERSON-STEWART", "PERSON-DECIDER", "PERSON-EVIDENCE", "PERSON-MEASURES"],
      "decisionIds": ["DECISION-REVISE-PORTABILITY", "DECISION-REJECT-AUTOMATION"],
      "gaps": [
        "The fictional research sample is not representative",
        "Assignment event semantics are inconsistent",
        "No export recovery rehearsal exists",
        "No outcome baseline or decision threshold is approved"
      ],
      "nextReviewAt": "2026-08-29",
      "summary": "The fictional strategy remains in review. The team retained three candidate directions, revised portability, rejected dispatch automation for this period, and assigned evidence gaps without approving investment or delivery."
    }
  ],
  "boundaries": {
    "roadmapAuthorized": false,
    "backlogPrioritized": false,
    "requirementsApproved": false,
    "researchPlanApproved": false,
    "investmentApproved": false,
    "deliveryCommitted": false,
    "marketDemandProven": false,
    "outcomesGuaranteed": false,
    "productSuccessGuaranteed": false
  }
}