board-meeting

Board Meeting Protocol

Structured multi-agent deliberation that prevents groupthink, captures minority views, and produces clean, actionable decisions. Every phase has a purpose, a format, and rules that cannot be skipped.

Keywords

board meeting, executive deliberation, strategic decision, C-suite, multi-agent, founder review, decision extraction, independent perspectives, groupthink prevention, synthesis, critic analysis, structured deliberation

The 6-Phase Protocol

PHASE 1: Context Gathering
    |
PHASE 2: Independent Contributions (ISOLATED)
    |
PHASE 3: Critic Analysis (Executive Mentor)
    |
PHASE 4: Synthesis (Chief of Staff)
    |
PHASE 5: Founder Review (FULL STOP -- human decides)
    |
PHASE 6: Decision Extraction and Logging

Phase 1: Context Gathering

Purpose: Load all relevant context before anyone contributes.

Step 1: Load company context (if exists)
Step 2: Load decision history (Layer 2 ONLY -- NEVER raw transcripts)
Step 3: Reset session state -- no bleed from previous conversations
Step 4: Present agenda and activated roles
Step 5: Wait for founder confirmation before proceeding

Role Activation Matrix

Not all roles attend every meeting. Select based on topic:

| Topic Domain | Activate | Exclude | |-------------|----------|---------| | Market expansion | CEO, CMO, CFO, CRO, COO | CTO (unless tech expansion) | | Product direction | CEO, CPO, CTO, CMO | CFO (unless budget question) | | Hiring / org | CEO, CHRO, CFO, COO | CMO, CTO (unless their teams) | | Pricing | CMO, CFO, CRO, CPO | CTO, CHRO | | Technology | CTO, CPO, CFO, CISO | CMO, CRO | | Fundraising | CEO, CFO, CRO | CISO, CHRO | | Security incident | CEO, CTO, CISO, COO | CMO, CRO | | M&A | CEO, CFO, CTO, CHRO, COO | -- (all relevant) |

Maximum attendees: 6 roles per meeting. More than 6 creates noise, not insight.

Phase 2: Independent Contributions (ISOLATED)

Critical Rule: No cross-pollination. Each advisor contributes without seeing others' outputs. This is the primary groupthink prevention mechanism.

Contribution Order

1. Research/data gathering (if needed)
2. CMO  -- market perspective
3. CFO  -- financial perspective
4. CEO  -- strategic perspective
5. CTO  -- technical perspective
6. COO  -- operational perspective
7. CHRO -- people perspective
8. CRO  -- revenue perspective
9. CISO -- security/risk perspective
10. CPO -- product perspective

Contribution Format (Strict)

Each advisor's contribution must follow this exact format:

## [ROLE] -- [DATE]

Key Points (maximum 5):
  1. [Finding] -- Confidence: [High/Medium/Low] -- Source: [data source]
  2. [Finding] -- Confidence: [High/Medium/Low] -- Source: [data source]
  3. [Finding] -- Confidence: [High/Medium/Low] -- Source: [data source]

Recommendation: [Clear position statement]
Confidence: [High / Medium / Low]
Key Assumption: [The one assumption this recommendation depends on]
What Would Change My Mind: [Specific condition or data point]

Reasoning Techniques by Role

| Role | Technique | How It Works | |------|-----------|-------------| | CEO | Tree of Thought | Explore 3 possible futures, evaluate each | | CFO | Chain of Thought | Show the math, step by step | | CMO | Recursion of Thought | Draft -> self-critique -> refine | | CPO | First Principles | Decompose to fundamental user needs | | CRO | Chain of Thought | Pipeline math must be explicit | | COO | Step by Step | Map the operational process | | CTO | Analyze then Act | Research -> analyze -> recommend | | CISO | Risk-Based | Probability x Impact for every option | | CHRO | Empathy + Data | Human impact first, then validate with metrics |

Phase 3: Critic Analysis

Purpose: The Executive Mentor receives ALL Phase 2 outputs simultaneously and performs adversarial review.

Critic Checklist

| Check | Question | |-------|----------| | Suspicious consensus | Where did agents agree too easily? | | Shared assumptions | What assumptions are shared but unvalidated? | | Missing voice | Who is not in the room? (customer voice? front-line ops?) | | Unmentioned risk | What risk has nobody mentioned? | | Domain bleed | Did any agent operate outside their domain? | | Data quality | Which claims are backed by data vs. assumption? | | Reversibility | Has anyone assessed if this decision can be undone? |

Critic Output Format

## CRITIC ANALYSIS

Consensus Assessment:
  [Genuine agreement / Suspicious alignment / Split decision]

Unvalidated Assumptions:
  1. [Assumption shared by multiple advisors but not verified]
  2. [Assumption]

Missing Perspectives:
  - [Voice or data point not represented]

Unmentioned Risks:
  - [Risk nobody raised]

Domain Violations:
  - [If any agent operated outside their domain]

The Uncomfortable Truth:
  [The one thing nobody wants to say but needs to be said]

Phase 4: Synthesis

Purpose: Chief of Staff combines all inputs into a decision-ready format.

Synthesis Structure

## BOARD MEETING SYNTHESIS
Topic: [topic]
Date: [date]
Attendees: [roles]

### Decision Required
[One sentence: what must be decided]

### Perspectives Summary
| Role | Position | Confidence | Key Concern |
|------|----------|-----------|-------------|
| [Role] | [1-line summary] | [H/M/L] | [Top concern] |
| [Role] | [1-line summary] | [H/M/L] | [Top concern] |

### Where They Agree
[2-3 consensus points]

### Where They Disagree
[Named conflicts with each side's reasoning]
[What the disagreement is really about]

### Critic's View
[The uncomfortable truth from Phase 3]

### Recommended Decision
[Clear recommendation with rationale]

### Action Items (if approved)
1. [Action] -- Owner: [role] -- Deadline: [date]
2. [Action] -- Owner: [role] -- Deadline: [date]
3. [Action] -- Owner: [role] -- Deadline: [date]

### Your Call
[If you disagree with the recommendation, here are alternatives:]
Option A: [description] -- Trade-off: [what you gain/lose]
Option B: [description] -- Trade-off: [what you gain/lose]

Phase 5: Founder Review

FULL STOP. Wait for the founder. No agent acts beyond this point.

FOUNDER REVIEW

[Paste synthesis above]

Options:
  [A] Approve as recommended
  [M] Modify (specify changes)
  [R] Reject (specify reason)
  [Q] Ask follow-up question to specific role
  [D] Defer decision (specify timeline)

Phase 5 Rules

| Rule | Rationale | |------|-----------| | Founder corrections override all agent proposals | Human judgment is final | | No pushback on founder decisions | Agents advise, founder decides | | 30-minute inactivity auto-closes as "pending review" | Prevents zombie meetings | | Founder can reopen any time | Decisions are not time-locked | | Follow-up questions go to specific role | Keeps discussion focused |

Phase 6: Decision Extraction

Purpose: After founder approval, extract and log all decisions.

Step 1: Write full transcript to Layer 1
  --> memory/board-meetings/YYYY-MM-DD-raw.md

Step 2: Run conflict detection against existing decisions
  --> Check for DO_NOT_RESURFACE violations
  --> Check for topic contradictions
  --> Check for owner conflicts

Step 3: Surface any conflicts to founder for resolution

Step 4: Append approved decisions to Layer 2
  --> memory/board-meetings/decisions.md

Step 5: Mark rejected proposals with DO_NOT_RESURFACE

Step 6: Confirm to founder:
  "Meeting concluded. Logged: [N] decisions, [M] action items,
   [K] DO_NOT_RESURFACE flags."

Failure Mode Reference

| Failure | Detection | Fix | |---------|-----------|-----| | Groupthink | All advisors agree without tension | Re-run Phase 2 isolated; force "strongest argument against" | | Analysis paralysis | Discussion exceeds 5 points per advisor | Cap at 5; force recommendation even with Low confidence | | Bikeshedding | Discussion on minor points, major decisions deferred | Log as async action; return to main agenda | | Role bleed | C