3 · Our Progression
| Slide budget | 2 slides, 3 minutes, plus a 3-minute live demo |
| Alternative title | Engagement Progression |
| Skeleton asks for | Timeline pacing and completed deliverables · where we stand today · a high-level walkthrough of one deliverable |
| Status | ⚪ Scoped — not written |
Scope
Slide 3.1 — pacing. Six weeks from 2026-08-31, three work streams, where the offsite sits on that line. Source: Tasks.
Slide 3.2 — where we stand. The skeleton's draft claims WS 1 complete and WS 2 wrapping up this week, with a drafted target state blueprint, active constraint and trade-off analysis, and ongoing LOB working sessions.
That does not match the repository. WS 1 has all eight artifacts read and summarised but nothing validated with the authors, which is the substance of its deliverables. WS 2 has three recommendations and an open-questions register, and fourteen named target-state pages of which none are written. Reconcile the claim with the state before this slide is built — an overstatement here is the one thing that would cost more confidence than it buys.
The demo. The skeleton proposes a walkthrough of the target state architecture deliverable. Today the repository holds two faithful redraws of the client's own ADS — garb-ads-mvp-as-submitted and garb-ads-mvp-composition-flow — both registered review and not client-safe, and one placeholder that must not be shown. A redraw of the client's own submitted design is a defensible demo, and arguably a better one than a half-finished target state: it shows we read it precisely. It needs validation with the authors and a status change in diagrams/status.json first.
Decide before the offsite
- What is actually demoed, and whether it is registered client-safe by the 23rd.
- Whether the demo runs live from the site or from exported stills. Live is better and depends on Q1 and Q4.