Attendees: Tony (VTKL, intro), Charlie (VTKL, CTO), Joana (VTKL, lead & client touchpoint), Victor (VTKL, background) | Hector, Nick, RJ, Matt (Valent) | Charlie, Tony (TBD)
| Time | Topic | Lead | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0:00–0:05 | Intro & Relationship | Tony | Sets the tone. Introduces team: Tony (GTM), Charlie (CTO), Joana (delivery lead & primary contact). "Exploration, not a pitch." |
| 0:05–0:15 | Pilot Scope + What Warren Delivers | Charlie / Joana | Charlie walks through capabilities (CTO credibility). Joana connects to Valent's delivery context. 4 deliverables, customizable. |
| 0:15–0:25 | What We Need From You | Joana | Project docs, Teams admin, channel. "Upload to Teams — Warren reads automatically." |
| 0:25–0:35 | Working Model & Success Criteria | Joana | Cadence, Joana in channel as support. "Minor edits, not rewrites." Let them add criteria. |
| 0:35–0:40 | Q&A | All | Technical → Charlie/Victor. Delivery → Joana/Victor. Strategy → Tony. |
| 0:40–0:45 | Next Steps | Joana | Action items, owners, Day 1 of 14-day timeline. |
Facilitator notes: Keep Hector on strategic value. Let RJ drive "how will I use this daily" questions. Answer Matt's technical questions directly and honestly. Frame: "our team configures and maintains this for you."
Background: 35+ years consulting/telecom. CS degrees (SMU, Baylor). Former CSO at Pariveda. Sprint, Level 3, Accenture.
Cares about: Customization & flexibility. Strategic value to Valent's practice. Scale across client engagements. Revenue impact (1-2 FTE equivalent = $200K-$500K/yr).
Wants to hear: "You can change format, detail level, graphics, color. It adapts to each client's standards." "Real SDLC potential."
Avoid: Over-technical details. Rigid product framing. Anything implying Valent loses control of client relationships.
Key signal: "That's money" (on SDLC). "How easy to change roadmap format?"
Background: Leads Business Transformation. Strategy-oriented, big-picture.
Cares about: How this fits Valent's strategy practice. Competitive differentiation. Scale potential.
Wants to hear: "Augments your consultants — doesn't replace them." "Spin up an AI partner for every new engagement within days."
Avoid: Implying AI replaces consulting judgment. Cost-cutting framing vs capability multiplier.
Background: Hands-on PMO practitioner. Primary daily user. His experience determines expansion.
Cares about: "Can I use this?" Day-to-day workflow. Quality. Time saved vs time learning.
Wants to hear: "Talk to it like a colleague in Teams. Ask for a status report, it produces one."
Avoid: Abstract strategy talk. Jargon. Making him feel like a test subject.
Background: Technical evaluator. Assesses AI capability and quality.
Cares about: AI quality/accuracy. Hallucination risk. Data handling. Architecture (high level).
Wants to hear: "Frontier models. The value is agent configuration + methodology encoding, not just the model." Be honest about limitations.
Avoid: Hand-waving. Claiming perfection. Exposing internal tooling.
| # | Item | Priority | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Teams/M365 admin contact | BLOCKING | Name + email for app installation |
| 2 | Approval to install Teams bot app | BLOCKING | May require IT security review |
| 3 | Target team/channel | BLOCKING | Dedicated channel recommended |
| 4 | Historical project documentation | BLOCKING | Deliverables, meeting notes, artifacts through ~midpoint (3-5 person project) |
| 5 | PMO methodology templates | HIGH | Status report format, sprint report format — customize to their standards |
| 6 | Format preferences | HIGH | Word templates, branding, color, logo |
| 7 | Security/compliance constraints | HIGH | Data handling, cloud hosting reqs, BAA needs |
| 8 | Communication cadence preference | MEDIUM | Weekly sync? Async-first? |
| 9 | Escalation path | MEDIUM | Who to contact for issues |
| 10 | Jira/Confluence access status | LOW (Phase 2) | Future planning only — Phase 1 is doc-based |
Talking point: "We need enough project context to simulate being dropped into an active engagement at the midpoint."
Risk: 5 days to build what took 3+ months with the production system. Clean install = no memory, no context, no calibration.
Impact: Pilot outputs underwhelm, Valent loses confidence.
Mitigation: Production system coaches behind scenes (GitHub architecture). Pre-seed memory with Valent context and AIPMO methodology. Front-load configuration before kickoff.
Owner: Charlie
Risk: If deployed on client infrastructure, we lose access to logs, outputs, iteration ability.
Impact: Can't iterate, debug, or improve quality during pilot.
Mitigation: All infra on VTKL AWS. Talking point: "Dedicated secure environment managed by our team for optimal quality."
Owner: Charlie
Risk: System calibrated for agentic engineers; Valent has human teams.
Impact: Deliverables miss the mark on tone, detail level, or methodology.
Mitigation: Seed with PMO-specific methodology. Phase 1 = deliverables only (not estimation). Gather calibration data during pilot.
Owner: Victor
Risk: Paradigm shift in progress internally. Risk of quality drop without intermediate gates.
Impact: Inconsistent output quality.
Mitigation: Client deployment keeps analytical/process-following tier. Internal system experiments with new paradigm separately.
Owner: Tony
Risk: Internal and external names differ. Client sees inconsistency.
Mitigation: Decide before kickoff: one name. Recommendation: "Warren" (matches signed SOW).
Owner: Victor
Risk: Valent uses CLIENT Jira, not their own. BAAs, healthcare data complications.
Mitigation: Phase 1 = non-Jira, doc-based only. Jira deferred to Phase 2 if Phase 1 succeeds.
Owner: Charlie
Risk: Internal tooling, pipeline, other client details leak through agent responses.
Mitigation: Sanitization rules in agent configuration. Strict context isolation. Never mention internal systems or other clients.
Owner: Charlie
Risk: System calibrated for agentic engineers, not human teams.
Mitigation: Phase 1 doesn't include estimation. Defer to Phase 2 with methodology calibration.
Owner: Tony
| # | Decision | Context | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Architecture: GitHub-based config sync vs standalone? | Golden repo → deploy model confirmed, but coaching mechanism undefined. | GitHub config sync. Define mechanism: shared memory files via git, or manual knowledge transfer? |
| 2 | Naming | SOW says "Warren." Internal codename is different. | "Warren" for client-facing (matches signed SOW). |
| 3 | Teams integration path | Install bot in Valent's tenant vs invite to VTKL channel. | Install in their tenant (matches SOW §2.1). |
| 4 | Governance gates | 4 blocking items on golden repo (#6-#9). All truly blocking? | SOUL.md (#6) + Operating Policies (#9) = true blockers. Scope (#7) + Client-Fit (#8) = parallel. |
| 5 | Dogfood skip? | Charlie's path was dogfood-then-Valent. Kickoff is June 10 — 4 days. | Likely no time. Options: fast dogfood Jun 6-9, skip, or delay kickoff. |
| 6 | Config sync mechanism | How does the production system feed the client instance? | Simplest: write memory/skill files to golden repo. Complex: real-time API. |
| 7 | Who attends kickoff? | VTKL confirmed: Victor, Joana. | Charlie/Tony for intros (first 10 min) signals commitment. |