@event4u/agent-config 2.7.0 → 2.8.0

package/.agent-src/skills/expansion-playbook/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+---
+name: expansion-playbook
+description: "Use when designing account-expansion mechanics — upsell vs cross-sell, expansion-trigger signals, NRR cognition. Triggers on 'lift NRR', 'when do we upsell vs cross-sell'."
+status: active
+tier: senior
+source: package
+domain: product
+context_spine: [product, customer-segment]
+---
+
+# expansion-playbook
+
+## When to use
+
+- Net Revenue Retention plateaued and the team cannot name *which* expansion lever drives it — upsell, cross-sell, and seat-expansion get conflated under *"NRR"* and the moves are uniform when they should be lever-specific.
+- An expansion play is firing on usage signals alone — accounts using more seats are treated as expansion targets without checking the upstream pain that earned the expansion.
+- A new pricing or packaging change is live and the team needs to re-key the expansion triggers to the new shape before the old triggers misfire.
+
+Do NOT use to save churning accounts (route to
+`churn-prevention`), design days 0–30 onboarding (route to
+`onboarding-design`), or build product-led seat-expansion loops
+unattended by a human play (route to `retention-loops`).
+
+## Cognition cluster
+
+- **Mental model 18 — Pull vs. push.** Expansion that the buyer
+  pulls (because pain or scope grew) compounds; expansion the
+  vendor pushes (because the quarter needs the number) corrodes
+  the relationship and inflates churn the next cycle. Pick the
+  trigger that signals pull. See
+  [`docs/contracts/mental-models.md`](../../../docs/contracts/mental-models.md) § 18.
+- **Mental model 9 — Hypothesis-driven thinking.** Each expansion
+  trigger is a hypothesis: *"if signal X is true, the buyer will
+  accept expansion Y at price Z."* Triggers without falsification
+  evidence are wishes; if a trigger has misfired three times, the
+  trigger is wrong, not the buyer. See `mental-models.md` § 9.
+- **Mental model 3 — Pareto (80/20).** ~20 % of accounts carry
+  ~80 % of expansion potential. Uniform expansion outreach across
+  the book is noise; weighted outreach by pull-signal strength is
+  reasoning. See `mental-models.md` § 3.
+- **Context-spine — product + customer-segment.** Read the
+  **product** slot for which capabilities the segment can absorb
+  next (sequencing matters — a cross-sell into a feature the
+  segment cannot use yet inflates churn), and the
+  **customer-segment** slot for switch-event patterns that signal
+  organic scope expansion. See
+  [`context-spine`](../../../docs/contracts/context-spine.md).
+
+## Procedure
+
+### Step 0: Inspect — separate upsell, cross-sell, seat-expansion
+
+Inspect the trailing four quarters of expansion $ and decompose:
+
+1. **Upsell** — same product family, higher tier (more seats at same SKU, premium tier of same SKU).
+2. **Cross-sell** — different product family or SKU.
+3. **Seat-expansion** — same SKU, more users, no tier change.
+
+Compute each lever's $ contribution and NRR contribution. A book
+treating these as one number cannot diagnose which lever is
+broken.
+
+### Step 1: Define one expansion trigger per lever, pull-signalled
+
+Each trigger is a *buyer-side pull signal* with falsifiable
+evidence:
+
+1. **Upsell trigger** — buyer crosses tier-defining usage ceiling
+   (e.g. seats > X, or feature-X-usage > Y) sustained for ≥ 30 days.
+2. **Cross-sell trigger** — buyer requests a capability that lives
+   in an adjacent SKU **twice in 60 days**, by two different
+   contacts, in writing.
+3. **Seat-expansion trigger** — admin invites N new users in a
+   rolling 30-day window AND health-score (from `churn-prevention`)
+   is green.
+
+Triggers that misfire three times in a quarter become Step 0
+diagnoses next quarter; do not patch them inside the quarter.
+
+### Step 2: Map lever → play
+
+Each lever gets one default play and one disqualifier:
+
+- **Upsell** — quarterly business review surfacing the usage
+  ceiling; tier-upgrade proposal with proof-of-value. Disqualifier:
+  account on red health score (route to `churn-prevention`).
+- **Cross-sell** — capability-fit discovery call with sponsor +
+  user; pilot before contract change. Disqualifier: cross-sell SKU
+  not GA for the segment.
+- **Seat-expansion** — admin co-pilot session + group onboarding
+  for new seats. Disqualifier: utilisation on existing seats
+  < 40 % (you would be selling decay).
+
+### Step 3: Sequence multi-lever opportunities
+
+If two triggers fire on the same account in the same quarter:
+sequence **upsell before cross-sell** (compound the contract the
+buyer already believes in) **before seat-expansion** (the most
+fragile lever — easiest to inflate, easiest to lose). Two plays
+fired in parallel signal vendor-push and corrode the relationship.
+
+### Step 4: Compute NRR by lever and verify against the dilution check
+
+NRR = (start-ARR + expansion − churn − contraction) ÷ start-ARR,
+per cohort. Decompose expansion into the three levers. **Verify**
+each trigger's pull-signal is intact: confirm the buyer-side
+artefact (usage ceiling crossed, written request, admin invite)
+exists in instrumentation; a lever whose triggers cannot be
+verified against artefacts is push-expansion mislabelled as pull,
+and the next cycle's churn will return the revenue. A book hitting
+115 % NRR via seat-expansion only is more fragile than a book
+hitting 110 % via upsell + cross-sell — fragility shows up in the
+next cycle's churn, not this one's revenue line.
+
+### Step 5: Hand back
+
+Hand the lever decomposition, the three pull-signalled triggers,
+and the per-lever play to CS / AM operations and to
+[`forecast-accuracy`](../forecast-accuracy/SKILL.md) for the
+expansion side of the forecast call. NRR work without lever
+separation is spending in random directions.
+
+## Related Skills
+
+**WHEN to use this**
+
+- Decomposing NRR into upsell · cross-sell · seat-expansion levers.
+- Defining pull-signalled triggers and per-lever plays.
+
+**WHEN NOT to use this**
+
+- Saving accounts likely to churn — route to
+  [`churn-prevention`](../churn-prevention/SKILL.md).
+- Designing days 0–30 onboarding milestones — route to
+  [`onboarding-design`](../onboarding-design/SKILL.md).
+- Product-led, vendor-unattended seat growth loops — route to
+  [`retention-loops`](../retention-loops/SKILL.md).
+
+## When the agent should load this
+
+- "Lift our NRR — which lever?"
+- "When do we cross-sell vs upsell account X?"
+- "Why does our expansion churn back inside the next cycle?"
+- "Welcher Expansion-Trigger ist eigentlich pull, nicht push?"
+
+## Output
+
+1. **`lever-decomposition.md`** — trailing-quarter expansion $ split into upsell · cross-sell · seat-expansion with NRR contribution per lever.
+2. **`expansion-triggers.md`** — one pull-signalled trigger per lever · falsifiable evidence · misfire counter.
+3. **`lever-play-map.md`** — per-lever default play · disqualifier · sequencing rule for multi-trigger accounts.
+
+## Gotcha
+
+- A trigger that fires on usage alone, without separating *pain growth* from *consumption growth*, will push when it should pull. Push-expansion lifts this quarter and depresses the next.
+- Seat-expansion looks like the easiest lever and is the most fragile — easy to inflate by selling seats into accounts whose existing seats are under-utilised; the contraction lands one cycle later.
+- *"Strategic"* cross-sell into a capability the segment is not yet ready to use buys revenue and pays for it in churn — segment-readiness is the gate, not vendor-side ambition.
+
+## Do NOT
+
+- Do NOT fire multiple expansion plays in parallel on one account; sequence per Step 3.
+- Do NOT count seat-expansion at < 40 % existing-seat utilisation as expansion; it is selling decay.
+- Do NOT chase NRR target without lever decomposition; the headline number can be hit by the most fragile lever.
+
+## Runnable example
+
+Mid-market SaaS, NRR 112 % last quarter, churn ticked up this quarter.
+
+- Lever decomposition — upsell 35 %, cross-sell 18 %, seat-expansion 47 % of expansion $. Seat-expansion-led growth flagged as fragile.
+- Triggers — *(1)* upsell trigger: seats > 50 sustained 30+ days (band 28–42 % conversion). *(2)* cross-sell: capability request twice in 60 days from two contacts (band 41–61 % conversion). *(3)* seat-expansion: admin invites ≥ 10 new users in 30 days AND green health (band 52–68 % conversion); misfire count for the quarter: 4 — trigger flagged for Step 0 re-diagnosis next quarter.
+- Lever-play map — upsell QBR + tier proposal, disqualified for 3 red-health accounts; cross-sell pilot blocked for 2 accounts where SKU not yet GA-ready for mid-market.
+- Hand-off — decomposition + triggers → CS / AM ops; sequencing rule live; expansion side of `forecast-accuracy` rebuilt on lever-weighted historical close rates.

package/.agent-src/skills/forecast-accuracy/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
+---
+name: forecast-accuracy
+description: "Use when constructing the forecast call — commit / best-case / pipeline categorisation, deal-level evidence test, accuracy retro-loop. Triggers on 'build the forecast', 'why does our commit miss'."
+status: active
+tier: senior
+source: package
+domain: product
+context_spine: [product, customer-segment]
+---
+
+# forecast-accuracy
+
+## When to use
+
+- The quarterly forecast call is being constructed and the team needs a categorisation rule that survives retro — not a feel-good number that flatters this week.
+- Commit has missed two or more quarters and nobody can name which signals broke — the retro-loop is missing or the categorisation rule is unwritten.
+- A new RevOps lead inherits a pipeline and needs to rebuild the forecast call without inheriting last regime's optimism bias.
+
+Do NOT use to design pipeline stages (route to
+`pipeline-strategy`), qualify a single deal (route to
+`deal-qualification-meddic`), or build the finance-side
+top-down / bottom-up model (composes against — but does not
+duplicate — the finance-partner forecasting capability,
+via the `forecast-construction-shape` interface).
+
+## Cognition cluster
+
+- **Mental model 16 — Leading vs. lagging indicators.** Closed-won
+  is lagging; per-stage conversion and MEDDIC-slot completeness
+  are leading. A forecast built on lagging signals can only confirm
+  the result after it lands. See
+  [`docs/contracts/mental-models.md`](../../../docs/contracts/mental-models.md) § 16.
+- **Mental model 29 — Premortem.** Before locking the call, write
+  the post-quarter retro as if commit missed by 20 %. The premortem
+  surfaces which categorisations are riding on weak evidence; demote
+  those before the call locks. See `mental-models.md` § 29.
+- **Mental model 9 — Hypothesis-driven thinking.** Each commit deal
+  carries a falsifiable claim: *"this closes by \<date\> because
+  \<evidence\>."* If the claim cannot be falsified inside the
+  quarter, the deal is best-case, not commit. See
+  `mental-models.md` § 9.
+- **Context-spine — product + customer-segment.** Read the
+  **product** slot for what is actually GA-shippable this quarter
+  (deals depending on non-shipped scope are not commit), and the
+  **customer-segment** slot for segment-historical close rates —
+  pricing-power and cycle-length differ by segment and the forecast
+  must too. See
+  [`context-spine`](../../../docs/contracts/context-spine.md).
+
+## Procedure
+
+### Step 0: Inspect — inherit pipeline + qualification artefacts
+
+Pull `stage-definitions.md`, `coverage-by-cell.md` from
+`pipeline-strategy`, and the latest `meddic-card.md` per deal from
+`deal-qualification-meddic`. Inspect whether each commit-candidate
+deal carries falsifiable evidence per MEDDIC slot — a forecast
+built without that inspection is rep opinion, not categorisation.
+
+### Step 1: Lock the three categories with falsifiable rules
+
+1. **Commit** — deal closes in-window with ≥ 90 % subjective
+   probability **and** MEDDIC slots all filled with evidence **and**
+   decision-process has buyer-written dates inside the window.
+2. **Best-case** — deal *could* close in-window with ≥ 50 %
+   probability **and** ≤ 2 MEDDIC slots unfilled **and** at least
+   one decision-process date inside the window.
+3. **Pipeline** — everything else. Pipeline is not a forecast
+   category; it is the population from which commit and best-case
+   are drawn.
+
+Reject *"commit"* placements that do not meet all three commit
+criteria, regardless of $ value or rep confidence.
+
+### Step 2: Apply the segment-historical close rate
+
+For each deal, compute *expected $* = $ × segment-historical
+in-window close-rate (trailing four quarters). Aggregate by
+category. If commit-$ exceeds (segment historical commit close-rate
+× pipeline-$ in commit), the call is structurally optimistic — find
+the optimism source before defending the number.
+
+### Step 3: Premortem the commit list
+
+Write *"if commit misses by 20 %, the reason is \_\_\_."* The most
+common patterns: (a) one anchor deal slipped, (b) segment cycle
+lengthened, (c) procurement/legal queues bunched at quarter-end.
+Tag each commit deal with which of these would kill it; deals tagged
+with two or more move to best-case.
+
+### Step 4: Construct the call with confidence bands
+
+Report **commit $** = sum of commit-tagged after Step 3 demotions.
+**Best-case $** = commit + best-case-tagged. Attach the band:
+*"commit ± \<historical-deviation\>; best-case ± \<historical
+upside\>"*. A call without a band has no honesty about its prior
+miss-rate.
+
+### Step 5: Run the accuracy retro-loop at quarter-end
+
+Compare predicted commit / best-case / pipeline to actual
+closed-won by category. Compute per-rep, per-segment, and per-stage
+miss-rate. Patterns that repeat for two quarters become categorisation
+rule changes in Step 1; one-off misses become deal-level evidence
+upgrades in Step 0.
+
+## Related Skills
+
+**WHEN to use this**
+
+- Constructing the quarterly forecast call from a qualified pipeline.
+- Running the accuracy retro-loop and feeding it back into Step 1.
+
+**WHEN NOT to use this**
+
+- Designing pipeline stages or per-stage conversion targets — route to
+  [`pipeline-strategy`](../pipeline-strategy/SKILL.md).
+- Single-deal qualification or disqualification — route to
+  [`deal-qualification-meddic`](../deal-qualification-meddic/SKILL.md).
+- Finance-side top-down model or board-deck forecast — composes
+  against (does not replace) the finance-partner forecasting capability
+  via the `forecast-construction-shape` interface.
+
+## When the agent should load this
+
+- "Build the Q3 forecast call."
+- "Why does our commit keep missing?"
+- "Run the forecast retro for last quarter."
+- "Welche Deals gehören wirklich in Commit?"
+
+## Output
+
+1. **`forecast-call.md`** — commit $ and best-case $ with confidence bands; per-segment breakdown.
+2. **`commit-list.md`** — one row per commit deal: $, segment, MEDDIC-completeness, decision-process date, premortem tag (none / single-risk / two-risk demoted).
+3. **`retro-deltas.md`** *(at quarter-end)* — predicted vs actual per category, per-segment, per-rep miss-rate, and the categorisation-rule change (if any) for next quarter.
+
+## Gotcha
+
+- *"Strong commit"* without buyer-written dates inside the window is a wish, not a forecast. Subjective probability without artefact evidence is what the retro will punish.
+- Segment-historical close rates change after a pricing change, a packaging change, or a competitive shift. Recompute the rates when the segment shape changes, otherwise the call inherits the old regime's optimism.
+- Reporting commit as a point estimate without the band hides the prior miss-rate. A team that has missed by 18 % twice and reports commit ± 0 % is performing forecasting, not doing it.
+
+## Do NOT
+
+- Do NOT place a deal in commit because the size is large; size is independent of evidence.
+- Do NOT skip the premortem on commit deals — most misses come from a small number of anchor deals slipping, and the premortem is where you catch them.
+- Do NOT change categorisation rules on a single-quarter miss; rules change on a two-quarter pattern.
+
+## Runnable example
+
+End of Q2, last two commits missed by 14 % and 21 %.
+
+- Step 1 enforcement — three deals placed in commit had ≥ 2 MEDDIC slots open; demoted to best-case (–$ 540 k commit, +$ 540 k best-case).
+- Segment close-rate — Mid-Market historical commit close-rate is 78 %; commit-$ implies 91 % aggregate close-rate; structural optimism of ~$ 320 k.
+- Premortem — two anchor deals (each > 10 % of commit) tagged single-risk (procurement queue); one tagged two-risk (no buyer-written date) → demoted.
+- Final call — *"commit $ 4.1 m ± 12 % (historical deviation); best-case $ 6.7 m + 8 % / – 14 %."* Commit-list flags the two procurement-risk anchors for VP-level intervention.
+- Retro at quarter-end — predicted commit $ 4.1 m, actual $ 4.0 m; rule unchanged; one rep over-commits two quarters running → categorisation-coaching action.

package/.agent-src/skills/fundraising-narrative/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
+---
+name: fundraising-narrative
+description: "Use when shaping a capital-raise pitch — why-now / why-us / why-this framing, market-size reasoning, traction-story construction. Triggers on 'tighten the pitch', 'why-now is weak'."
+status: active
+tier: senior
+source: package
+domain: product
+context_spine: [product, customer-segment]
+---
+
+# fundraising-narrative
+
+## When to use
+
+- A founder is preparing a capital-raise pitch and the why-now is borrowed from a deck template instead of earned from the segment-shift the team actually rides.
+- A deck is landing as "interesting but not now" with investors and the team needs to diagnose whether the gap is *why-now*, *why-us*, or *why-this*.
+- A traction story is being built from screenshots instead of from a coherent leading-indicator arc that explains why the next stage is reachable.
+
+Do NOT use to manage the investor-CRM pipeline (out of scope), run
+the data-room (out of scope), or draft the internal vision anchor
+the org rallies behind (route to Wing-4 `vision-articulation` — the
+external pitch under capital constraint and the internal anchor
+are siblings, not the same artefact).
+
+## Cognition cluster
+
+- **Mental model 1 — First-principles thinking.** *Why-now* is
+  the load-bearing claim and the one most often borrowed. Build
+  it from the segment-shift up — what changed in the world, the
+  customer, the technology — not from a deck template. See
+  [`docs/contracts/mental-models.md`](../../../docs/contracts/mental-models.md) § 1.
+- **Mental model 9 — Hypothesis-driven development.** A pitch is
+  a falsifiable hypothesis: *if X is true, our round closes.*
+  Name the X. Investors who disagree with the hypothesis are not
+  rejecting taste — they are rejecting the falsifiable claim. See
+  `mental-models.md` § 9.
+- **Mental model 16 — Leading vs. lagging indicators.** Revenue
+  is lagging; activation, retention curve, and qualified-pipeline
+  velocity are leading. The traction story leads with the leading
+  signals; revenue is the receipt, not the argument. See
+  `mental-models.md` § 16.
+- **Mental model 30 — Inversion.** Run the round-failure
+  premortem before the deck locks: *which investor heard what we
+  did not say.* Inversion surfaces the claim the deck assumes the
+  room already shares and probably does not. See
+  `mental-models.md` § 30.
+- **Context-spine — product + customer-segment.** Read **product**
+  for the proofs the traction story can actually back; read
+  **customer-segment** for the TAM/SAM argument that survives a
+  bottom-up scrutiny. See
+  [`context-spine`](../../../docs/contracts/context-spine.md).
+
+## Procedure
+
+### Step 0: Inherit the positioning frame and vision anchor
+
+Identify the locked positioning anchors from
+[`positioning-strategy`](../positioning-strategy/SKILL.md) and the internal vision
+anchor from `vision-articulation` if it exists. The fundraising
+narrative is the *external pitch under capital constraint*; it
+inherits the internal frame, it does not re-invent it. A pitch
+that contradicts the internal anchor will fracture on the first
+hire after the round closes.
+
+### Step 1: Analyze the inherited why-now
+
+Read the current why-now claim. Three checks: *is this a market
+shift, a customer shift, or a technology shift?*  *Did the shift
+happen in the last 24 months?*  *Would the segment recognise the
+shift without prompting?* A why-now that fails two of three is
+template-borrowed. Name what the inherited deck is leaning on.
+
+### Step 2: Build why-now from first principles
+
+Strip the inherited claim. Rebuild from the segment-shift up:
+
+- **Market shift.** What changed in the buyer's environment that
+  was not true 24 months ago? (Regulation, budget cycle, channel
+  collapse, competitive exit.)
+- **Customer shift.** What changed in how the ICP measures the
+  problem? (New KPI, new buying committee, new procurement gate.)
+- **Technology shift.** What is feasible now that was not? (Cost
+  curve, model capability, infrastructure unlock.)
+
+Pick the *one* shift the segment would name without prompting.
+That is the why-now spine. The others are supporting context.
+
+### Step 3: Construct why-us under capital constraint
+
+Why-us is *unfair advantage under the next 18 months of capital*,
+not credentials. Three anchors:
+
+- **Earned access.** The audience the team can already reach that
+  the next funded peer cannot.
+- **Earned proof.** The reference customer or load-bearing
+  retention curve the team owns now.
+- **Capital fit.** What the round buys that competitors cannot buy
+  in the same window. *"More engineers"* is not capital fit;
+  *"distribution lead-time the round protects"* is.
+
+### Step 4: Build the traction story from leading indicators
+
+Order the traction story leading-first:
+
+1. **Activation curve.** Time-to-first-value trend across cohorts.
+2. **Retention curve.** Cohort retention at the load-bearing
+   milestone, ideally non-trivial — not week 1.
+3. **Pipeline velocity.** Qualified-pipeline movement, not raw
+   pipeline volume.
+4. **Revenue.** The receipt, last in the sequence — not first.
+
+A traction story that opens on revenue assumes the room already
+believes the leading signals; the deck must earn that belief.
+
+### Step 5: Validate against the round-failure premortem
+
+Validate the narrative on three checks:
+
+1. **Premortem coverage.** Run *"the round did not close because…"*
+   with five failure modes. Verify the deck explicitly neutralises
+   the top three or accepts-with-mitigation; unnamed failure modes
+   are silent rejection routes.
+2. **Falsifiable hypothesis.** Confirm the pitch is the form
+   *"if X, then our round closes."* A pitch that cannot be
+   disagreed with is also a pitch that cannot be agreed with.
+3. **Internal-external consistency.** Diff the external pitch
+   against the internal vision anchor. Contradictions kill the
+   first post-round hire round; name them now.
+
+### Step 6: Hand back
+
+Hand the artefacts to the founder for delivery, to
+`messaging-architecture` for the post-round message-stack refresh
+(why-now often shifts the primary message), and to
+`vision-articulation` (Wing-4) for the internal-anchor diff if
+contradictions surfaced.
+
+## Related Skills
+
+**WHEN to use this**
+
+- The unit of work is the why-now / why-us / why-this triad under capital constraint, not a single deck slide.
+- A diagnosed pitch gap needs a structured rebuild, not slide-polish.
+- The traction story is being built screenshot-first; reorder it leading-first.
+
+**WHEN NOT to use this**
+
+- Internal vision-anchor authoring for org alignment — route to Wing-4 `vision-articulation`.
+- Message-stack work post-round — route to [`messaging-architecture`](../messaging-architecture/SKILL.md).
+- Positioning the category and segment — route to [`positioning-strategy`](../positioning-strategy/SKILL.md) first.
+- Investor-CRM pipeline or data-room operations — out of scope.
+
+## When the agent should load this
+
+- "Tighten the why-now for the seed round."
+- "Bau mir die Traction-Story für den Pitch."
+- "Investors keep saying 'interesting but not now' — diagnose."
+- "Run the round-failure premortem on the deck."
+- "Why-us reads as a credentials list — rebuild under capital constraint."
+
+## Output
+
+1. **`why-now-spine.md`** — the one market / customer / technology shift the segment names without prompting, with the 24-month evidence trail.
+2. **`why-us-anchors.md`** — earned-access · earned-proof · capital-fit, each with a load-bearing artefact citation.
+3. **`traction-arc.md`** — activation → retention → pipeline-velocity → revenue, leading-first ordering with the leading-indicator threshold per step.
+4. **`round-failure-premortem.md`** — five failure modes with neutraliser-or-accept verdict, internal-external consistency diff appended.
+
+## Gotcha
+
+- Why-now is the most-borrowed claim in pitches because it is the hardest to earn from first principles — the room can tell.
+- Capital-fit collapses to *"hire more"* when the team has not thought through what the round protects from competitors; protect-language is the discipline.
+- Internal-external contradictions read as charm in the room and as betrayal at the post-round all-hands.
+
+## Do NOT
+
+- Do NOT carry the internal vision anchor verbatim into the pitch — internal anchor is rally; external pitch is hypothesis under capital constraint.
+- Do NOT lead the traction story with revenue when the leading signals are the actual argument.
+- Do NOT make the why-now a template-shaped *"AI changes everything"* — the segment will know.
+- Do NOT manage CRM or data-room operations from this skill; out of scope.
+
+## Runnable example
+
+Mid-market HR analytics tool raising Series A, positioning locked (retention beats acquisition):
+
+- Why-now spine — *customer shift*: HR directors now own a board-quarter retention KPI (was true on 30 % of ICP boards 24 months ago, now 70 %; verified via 14 ICP board-decks reviewed).
+- Why-us anchors — *earned access*: 200-strong HR-director community already engaged. *Earned proof*: cohort-retention curve at week-12 holding at 78 % across 9 design-partner cohorts. *Capital-fit*: round protects 18 months of distribution lead-time before two funded peers reach the same segment.
+- Traction arc — activation (time-to-first-cohort-roll-up: 14 → 6 days across last 4 cohorts) → retention (78 % week-12 cohort) → pipeline-velocity (qualified-pipeline movement at 2.4× quarter-on-quarter) → revenue (the receipt).
+- Round-failure premortem — top three failure modes neutralised in deck; one accepted-with-mitigation (we are pre-revenue at enterprise tier — mitigated by 3 named pilot LOIs).
+- Hand-off → founder for delivery; `messaging-architecture` queued for post-round refresh.

package/.agent-src/skills/funnel-analysis/SKILL.md

@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ status: active
 tier: senior
 source: package
 domain: product
+context_spine: [product, customer-segment, funnel-stage]
 ---
 
 # funnel-analysis
@@ -17,6 +18,29 @@ domain: product
 
 Do NOT use for ranking features, valuation, or OKR decomposition (see Related Skills). Funnel analysis is a **diagnostic**, not a roadmap.
 
+## Cognition cluster
+
+- **Mental model 16 — Leading vs. lagging indicators.** Paid is
+  lagging; activation is leading; signup is upstream of both. A
+  funnel decision built on the lagging stage can only confirm the
+  miss; the leading stage names the binding fix. See
+  [`docs/contracts/mental-models.md`](../../../docs/contracts/mental-models.md) § 16.
+- **Mental model 13 — Occam's razor.** When a stage drops, the
+  simpler explanation usually wins: *"acquisition mix shifted"*
+  beats *"users no longer understand the product."* Pick the simpler
+  cause; it changes the move. See `mental-models.md` § 13.
+- **Mental model 3 — Pareto (80/20).** Drops are almost never
+  uniform across segments; ~20 % of the segment × stage cells carry
+  ~80 % of the loss. Segment before treating the average as
+  actionable. See `mental-models.md` § 3.
+- **Context-spine — product + customer-segment + funnel-stage.**
+  Read the **product** slot for what activation can actually mean
+  in-product (the activation event must be shippable), the
+  **customer-segment** slot for which segments' switch-events the
+  funnel is built for, and the **funnel-stage** slot for the
+  position of each stage relative to the buying journey. See
+  [`context-spine`](../../../docs/contracts/context-spine.md).
+
 ## Procedure
 
 ### Step 0: Inspect
@@ -40,7 +64,7 @@ Do NOT use for ranking features, valuation, or OKR decomposition (see Related Sk
 
 1. The right benchmark is **your own funnel one quarter ago**, not industry averages. Industry averages mix verticals so coarsely they're useless for action.
 2. For each stage: is current rate within ±2 percentage points of trailing-quarter median? If not, that stage is the primary suspect.
-3. If multiple stages drift simultaneously, the cause is upstream (acquisition mix change, broken instrumentation), not the stage itself.
+3. If multiple stages move off-band simultaneously, the cause is upstream (acquisition mix change, broken instrumentation), not the stage itself.
 
 ### Step 4: Segment the broken stage
 
@@ -98,4 +122,4 @@ Do NOT use for ranking features, valuation, or OKR decomposition (see Related Sk
 
 1. **`funnel-table.md`** — 5-stage funnel with cohort rates, 95% CI, and 12-week trend (sparkline or compact ASCII). One row per cohort week or month.
 2. **`segment-breakdown.md`** — table of the broken stage segmented by channel · device · plan · geo. Rates with CIs. Suspect segments highlighted.
-3. **`hypothesis-list.md`** — top 3 → for the broken segment-stage with cheapest-falsification experiment per cause and an explicit prediction for the next measurement.
+3. **`hypothesis-list.md`** — top 3 causes for the broken segment-stage with cheapest-falsification experiment per cause and an explicit prediction for the next measurement.