The mandate is easy. The workflow is the job.
Leadership says go, and PMs, designers, and engineers each guess what go meant. This is the alignment layer that mandate skipped, built as a tool you can use right now.
Pressure-test your AI decision.
Pick the question closest to where you're stuck. Take the framework with you.
Leadership said go. Now what?
The failure mode is rarely the technology. It's a mandate with no workflow attached, so three disciplines hear “go” and move in three directions.
Why this exists
I kept watching the same thing. A company decides to adopt AI, and the decision lands as a decree with nothing attached. Product, design, and engineering all hear go and move in three directions.
The features that follow solve for novelty, because nobody aligned on the problem first. The missing piece is almost never the technology. It's a shared way for three disciplines to decide together, before anyone builds.
So I built the decision layer I wanted teams to have, and put it in your hands.
Who it's for
Two readers. The leader who made the call and now needs their teams to execute without thrashing. And the PMs, designers, and engineers living downstream of go, who need a shared language to scope, push back, and ship.
The tool serves both. Pick the question closest to where you're stuck and carry the framework into your next conversation.
The decree is not the work
A mandate sets direction. It does not create alignment. Alignment is a workflow: a written problem statement everyone signs, a clear owner for each decision, and hand-offs that carry the user problem intact across disciplines.
Skip that and you get speed, in three different directions.
Speed in three directions is slower than going nowhere.
The frameworks in the tool are that workflow, broken into the decisions teams actually fight about. Start with alignment, roles, and hand-offs. The product calls come easier once the team is moving as one.