code-ai-installer 3.0.0 → 4.0.1-a

package/domains/product/locales/en/.agents/skills/wsjf-scoring/SKILL.md

@@ -1,315 +1,333 @@
----
-name: wsjf-scoring
-description: Weighted Shortest Job First — SAFe-style prioritization for enterprise B2B (cost of delay / job size)
----
-# WSJF Scoring
-
-> **Category:** Prioritization  ·  **Slug:** `wsjf-scoring`
-
-## When to Use
-
-- Enterprise B2B context with large initiatives and long cycles.
-- When RICE is insufficient due to time-sensitivity / opportunity cost.
-- In SAFe (Scaled Agile) environments — standard for portfolio/ART planning.
-- When you need to explicitly surface **cost of delay**.
-
-## Input
-
-| Field | Required | Description |
-|-------|:--------:|-------------|
-| Epic / initiative list | ✅ | Large items, 1+ sprint |
-| Business value data | ✅ | Revenue, retention impact |
-| Time criticality factors | ✅ | Deadlines, market windows |
-| Risk reduction opportunity | ✅ | Unknowns resolved |
-| Job size estimate | ✅ | Relative sizing (T-shirt or points) |
-
-## Data Sources
-
-1. Financial projections — business value component.
-2. Market analysis — time criticality.
-3. Risk register — RR/OE factor.
-4. Engineering estimates — job size.
-
-### Related Skills
-
-| Skill | What we take | When to invoke |
-|-------|-------------|----------------|
-| `rice-scoring` | Alternative method | Choose one for consistency |
-| `epic-breakdown` | Job size estimation | Before WSJF |
-| `product-roadmap` | Scored list → theme assignment | After WSJF |
-
-## Formula
-
-```
-WSJF = Cost of Delay / Job Size
-
-Cost of Delay (CoD) = User-Business Value + Time Criticality + Risk Reduction / Opportunity Enablement
-```
-
-Three CoD components (scale 1-10 Fibonacci: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 20):
-- **User-Business Value (UBV):** value to users/business if delivered now
-- **Time Criticality (TC):** value lost with each week of delay
-- **Risk Reduction / Opportunity Enablement (RR/OE):** risk mitigation + future opportunities enabled
-
-Job Size — relative (also 1-20 Fibonacci).
-
-## Protocol
-
-### Step 0 — Identify Epic-level Items
-
-WSJF works at **epic-level**, not stories. If items are too small — aggregate.
-
-### Step 1 — User-Business Value (UBV)
-
-Questions:
-- How much revenue uplift?
-- How many customers retained / expanded?
-- How strategic is it?
-
-Scale:
-- **1-2** — Minimal impact
-- **3-5** — Moderate
-- **8-13** — High
-- **20** — Transformational
-
-B2B SaaS typical:
-- Enterprise feature unlocking Fortune 500 deals: 13-20
-- SMB onboarding improvement: 5-8
-- UX polish: 2-3
-
-### Step 2 — Time Criticality (TC)
-
-Questions:
-- Is there a hard deadline (regulatory, customer contract)?
-- Does a window of opportunity close?
-- What is the damage per week of delay?
-
-Scale:
-- **1-2** — No deadline, no decay
-- **3-5** — Some time pressure
-- **8-13** — Hard deadline within quarter
-- **20** — Existential / immediate
-
-### Step 3 — Risk Reduction / Opportunity Enablement (RR/OE)
-
-Questions:
-- Does it solve a critical architectural risk?
-- Does it unlock future initiatives (platform play)?
-- Does it reduce technical debt blocking other work?
-
-Scale:
-- **1-2** — Standalone, no downstream
-- **3-5** — Enables 1-2 future items
-- **8-13** — Unlocks major platform capability
-- **20** — Foundational
-
-### Step 4 — Job Size
-
-Relative estimation by Fibonacci. If smallest epic = 1, others are relative.
-
-Factors:
-- Engineering effort
-- Design complexity
-- Integration touches
-- Testing scope
-- Deployment complexity
-
-Not precise estimates — relative sizing.
-
-### Step 5 — Calculate WSJF
-
-```
-CoD = UBV + TC + RR/OE
-WSJF = CoD / Job Size
-```
-
-Higher WSJF = higher priority.
-
-Example:
-- Epic: SSO SAML implementation
-- UBV: 13 (unlocks enterprise tier)
-- TC: 8 (2 deals waiting)
-- RR/OE: 5 (unlocks SCIM in next quarter)
-- Job Size: 8 (medium-large)
-- WSJF = (13 + 8 + 5) / 8 = **3.25**
-
-### Step 6 — Rank
-
-Sort by WSJF descending. Top items first.
-
-### Step 7 — Sanity Check
-
-- Top item — is it genuinely highest priority?
-- Bottom item — really lowest?
-- Job Size relative consistency — 13-sized item actually ~6× larger than 2-sized?
-
-### Step 8 — Portfolio View
-
-For portfolio of 20+ epics:
-- Visualize on 2D: CoD (y-axis) × Job Size (x-axis)
-- Diagonal from top-left = higher WSJF
-- Discuss outliers: why large jobs with low CoD?
-
-## Validation (Quality Gate)
-
-- [ ] Epic-level items (not stories)
-- [ ] Each component (UBV, TC, RR/OE) scored with rationale
-- [ ] Fibonacci scale applied consistently
-- [ ] Job Size relative, not absolute time
-- [ ] Sanity check — top/bottom make sense
-- [ ] Portfolio view created if >10 items
-- [ ] Scoring session included cross-functional stakeholders (eng + biz + security)
-
-## Handoff
-
-The result is input for:
-- **`product-roadmap`** — scored epics → PI planning (if SAFe)
-- **`epic-breakdown`** — top epics → stories
-- **Tech Lead** → capacity allocation
-- **PM** → quarter planning
-
-Format: WSJF table + 2D portfolio view. Via `$handoff`.
-
-## Anti-patterns
-
-| Error | Why it's bad | How to do it right |
-|-------|-------------|-------------------|
-| Precise job size estimates | False precision | Fibonacci relative |
-| All items scored same | Not discriminating | Spread across scale |
-| Skip RR/OE | Miss platform plays | Score all three CoD |
-| No rationale | Scores look arbitrary | 1-line per score |
-| Solo scoring | Lost perspectives | Cross-functional session |
-| WSJF for tiny items | Overkill | Use for epics (>sprint) |
-
-## Template
-
-```markdown
-# WSJF Portfolio — Q2 2026
-
-## Scoring Legend
-Scale: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 20 (Fibonacci)
-- UBV: User-Business Value
-- TC: Time Criticality
-- RR/OE: Risk Reduction / Opportunity Enablement
-
-## Epic Scores
-
-| # | Epic | UBV | TC | RR/OE | CoD | Job Size | WSJF | Rationale |
-|---|------|:---:|:--:|:-----:|:---:|:--------:|:----:|-----------|
-| 1 | SSO SAML | 13 | 8 | 5 | 26 | 8 | 3.25 | «2 enterprise deals waiting» |
-| 2 | Mobile app | 8 | 3 | 2 | 13 | 20 | 0.65 | «Large effort, low urgency» |
-
-## Top 5 (Rank by WSJF)
-1. [Epic 1] — WSJF 3.25
-...
-
-## Portfolio 2D (CoD × Job Size)
-[Placeholder for chart]
-```
-
-## Worked Example — TeamFlow Enterprise Epic Portfolio WSJF
-
-**Context:** TeamFlow — 10 enterprise customers (500+ employee accounts), 8 in active expansion negotiation. WSJF applied at epic-level portfolio Q2-Q3 2026. SAFe-adjacent process: quarterly Program Increment planning.
-
-### Epic Portfolio (9 epics, SAFe PI Planning session)
-
-| # | Epic | Business Context | UBV | TC | RR/OE | CoD | Job Size | **WSJF** |
-|---|------|------------------|:---:|:--:|:-----:|:---:|:--------:|:--------:|
-| 1 | **SSO SAML + SCIM Provisioning** | 2 enterprise deals waiting ($800K ARR), 3 more in Q3 pipeline | 13 | 13 | 5 | 31 | 5 | **6.20** |
-| 2 | **SOC 2 Type II for AI features** | Compliance gate for 4 Enterprise deals + existing customer renewals | 13 | 8 | 3 | 24 | 8 | **3.00** |
-| 3 | **AI Summarization (Core MVP)** | Flagship feature, category positioning | 13 | 5 | 5 | 23 | 13 | **1.77** |
-| 4 | **Aggregate Dashboard (Enterprise tier)** | Unlocks Enterprise tier pricing ($15+ seat), 80 mid+ accounts | 8 | 5 | 8 | 21 | 8 | **2.63** |
-| 5 | **Data Residency (EU + APAC regions)** | 2 EU enterprise blocked by data residency; APAC prospect | 8 | 5 | 5 | 18 | 13 | **1.38** |
-| 6 | **Zoom/Meet Native Integration** | Competitive parity (Lattice shipped Q4 2025) | 5 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 13 | **0.85** |
-| 7 | **Audit Log API** | Enterprise SIEM integration — nice-to-have, deal enhancer | 5 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 5 | **2.20** |
-| 8 | **Mobile App (iOS + Android)** | Managers want mobile review; not blocking deals | 5 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 20 | **0.45** |
-| 9 | **HIPAA Attestation for Healthcare segment** | 1 prospect in healthcare vertical | 3 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 13 | **0.62** |
-
-### Scoring Rationale (per component)
-
-**Epic 1 — SSO SAML + SCIM (WSJF 6.20):**
-- **UBV 13:** 2 deals × $400K avg = $800K immediate + multiplier effect on Q3 pipeline
-- **TC 13:** Deals close quarterly — delay 1 quarter = lose deals to competitor
-- **RR/OE 5:** Unlocks enterprise sales motion (future deals easier)
-- **Job Size 5:** Moderate — SCIM complex but SAML standardized
-
-**Epic 2 — SOC 2 Type II (WSJF 3.00):**
-- **UBV 13:** 4 Enterprise deals + renewal protection (~$1.5M combined)
-- **TC 8:** 6-month audit cycle — must complete for Q4 renewal wave
-- **RR/OE 3:** One-time certification, doesn't unlock future ones
-- **Job Size 8:** Significant — SOC 2 requires audit firm engagement + documentation + attestation
-
-**Epic 3 — AI Summarization Core (WSJF 1.77):**
-- **UBV 13:** Transformational — category play
-- **TC 5:** Competitors may launch parallel AI, but 6-month window exists
-- **RR/OE 5:** Unlocks AI tier pricing + future AI initiatives (platform investment)
-- **Job Size 13:** Large — 6-8 engineers × 3 months + ongoing
-
-**Epic 4 — Aggregate Dashboard (WSJF 2.63):**
-- **UBV 8:** Strong — Enterprise tier unlock
-- **TC 5:** Seasonality — Board review cycles in Q2 + Q4
-- **RR/OE 8:** Unlocks all future People Ops analytics features (huge downstream value)
-- **Job Size 8:** Medium-large
-
-**Epic 8 — Mobile App (WSJF 0.45):**
-- **UBV 5:** Marginal — managers workflow primarily desktop
-- **TC 2:** No hard deadline, no lost deals attributed
-- **RR/OE 2:** Standalone, minimal platform leverage
-- **Job Size 20:** Massive — 2 platforms, 2 teams, likely 6+ months
-
-### Ranked Portfolio (by WSJF)
-
-1. **SSO SAML + SCIM** (6.20) — ship Q2 sprint 1-2 (2 weeks)
-2. **SOC 2 Type II** (3.00) — parallel track, Q2 end target
-3. **Aggregate Dashboard** (2.63) — Q2 sprint 3-6
-4. **Audit Log API** (2.20) — Q2 Q3 sprint 7-8 quick win
-5. **AI Summarization Core** (1.77) — Q2 sprint 3-8 (biggest epic but lower WSJF)
-6. **Data Residency EU** (1.38) — Q3 priority
-7. **Zoom/Meet Integration** (0.85) — Q3-Q4 (competitive parity not burning)
-8. **HIPAA Attestation** (0.62) — Q4 (1 customer waiting, low revenue impact)
-9. **Mobile App** (0.45) — **DEFER, reconsider next PI**
-
-### 2D Portfolio View (CoD × Job Size)
-
-```
-CoD (y)
- 31  │ Epic 1 ★       
- 24  │         Epic 2 ★
- 23  │             Epic 3 (large)
- 21  │         Epic 4 ★
- 18  │                         Epic 5
- 11  │ Epic 7 (small)    Epic 6
-  9  │                                 Epic 8 (huge)
-  8  │                         Epic 9
-     └─────────────────────────────────────────
-       5       8       13              20   Job Size (x)
-
-★ = top-left quadrant (high CoD, smaller job = high WSJF priority)
-```
-
-### Insight from Portfolio View
-
-- **Top-left cluster** (Epics 1, 2, 4, 7): high CoD + manageable size = **PI priority**
-- **Epic 3 (AI Summarization)** is odd-one-out: high CoD but largest job size. Need to **decompose** into sub-epics to manage better (done in `$epic-breakdown`).
-- **Epic 8 (Mobile)** bottom-right: huge job, marginal CoD → **defer**. Re-evaluate next PI if customer feedback elevates.
-- **Portfolio balance:** 4 high-WSJF items fit in Q2 capacity with AI decomposition.
-
-### Decomposition Trigger (Epic 3)
-
-Epic 3 «AI Summarization Core» has WSJF 1.77 due to job size penalty. **Decompose in `$epic-breakdown`**:
-- Sub-epic A: Transcription infrastructure (shared platform) — medium, CoD via RR/OE
-- Sub-epic B: Summary generation pipeline — small-medium, CoD via UBV
-- Sub-epic C: Manager review UI — small, CoD via usability
-- Each sub-epic gets own WSJF rescoring — likely higher than parent due to better size ratio
-
-### PI Commitment (Q2)
-
-| Epic | Assignment | Teams | PI Objectives |
-|------|------------|-------|---------------|
-| Epic 1 | Committed | Platform + Security | «SSO live by Sprint 2» |
-| Epic 2 | Committed | Security + Compliance | «SOC 2 attestation by Sprint 12» |
-| Epic 3 (decomposed) | Committed | AI team | «MVP summarization shipped by Sprint 8» |
-| Epic 4 | Committed | Analytics + Eng | «Dashboard beta by Sprint 10» |
-| Epic 7 | Stretch | Platform | «Audit API if capacity» |
-
-> **WSJF lesson:** Mobile App (Epic 8) WSJF 0.45 was **controversial** initially — loud customer voices «we need mobile». WSJF forced accounting: $20 pm effort for marginal CoD = **terrible ratio**. Deferring saved 20 pm for higher-impact work. AI Summarization (Epic 3) WSJF 1.77 — counterintuitively NOT highest — but this is an artifact of large job size. **Decomposition** fixes this: sub-epics score much higher individually. WSJF doesn't work on monolithic giant epics — decompose first.
+---
+name: wsjf-scoring
+description: Weighted Shortest Job First — SAFe-style prioritization for enterprise B2B (cost of delay / job size)
+type: triggered
+domain: product
+owners:
+  - pm
+  - tech_lead
+gates:
+  - PM
+  - TECH_LEAD
+tech: []
+topic: []
+triggers:
+  - "wsjf-scoring"
+  - "WSJF"
+  - "weighted shortest job first"
+  - "SAFe"
+related: []
+budget_lines: 333
+schema_version: 1
+---
+# WSJF Scoring
+
+> **Category:** Prioritization  ·  **Slug:** `wsjf-scoring`
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Enterprise B2B context with large initiatives and long cycles.
+- When RICE is insufficient due to time-sensitivity / opportunity cost.
+- In SAFe (Scaled Agile) environments — standard for portfolio/ART planning.
+- When you need to explicitly surface **cost of delay**.
+
+## Input
+
+| Field | Required | Description |
+|-------|:--------:|-------------|
+| Epic / initiative list | ✅ | Large items, 1+ sprint |
+| Business value data | ✅ | Revenue, retention impact |
+| Time criticality factors | ✅ | Deadlines, market windows |
+| Risk reduction opportunity | ✅ | Unknowns resolved |
+| Job size estimate | ✅ | Relative sizing (T-shirt or points) |
+
+## Data Sources
+
+1. Financial projections — business value component.
+2. Market analysis — time criticality.
+3. Risk register — RR/OE factor.
+4. Engineering estimates — job size.
+
+### Related Skills
+
+| Skill | What we take | When to invoke |
+|-------|-------------|----------------|
+| `rice-scoring` | Alternative method | Choose one for consistency |
+| `epic-breakdown` | Job size estimation | Before WSJF |
+| `product-roadmap` | Scored list → theme assignment | After WSJF |
+
+## Formula
+
+```
+WSJF = Cost of Delay / Job Size
+
+Cost of Delay (CoD) = User-Business Value + Time Criticality + Risk Reduction / Opportunity Enablement
+```
+
+Three CoD components (scale 1-10 Fibonacci: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 20):
+- **User-Business Value (UBV):** value to users/business if delivered now
+- **Time Criticality (TC):** value lost with each week of delay
+- **Risk Reduction / Opportunity Enablement (RR/OE):** risk mitigation + future opportunities enabled
+
+Job Size — relative (also 1-20 Fibonacci).
+
+## Protocol
+
+### Step 0 — Identify Epic-level Items
+
+WSJF works at **epic-level**, not stories. If items are too small — aggregate.
+
+### Step 1 — User-Business Value (UBV)
+
+Questions:
+- How much revenue uplift?
+- How many customers retained / expanded?
+- How strategic is it?
+
+Scale:
+- **1-2** — Minimal impact
+- **3-5** — Moderate
+- **8-13** — High
+- **20** — Transformational
+
+B2B SaaS typical:
+- Enterprise feature unlocking Fortune 500 deals: 13-20
+- SMB onboarding improvement: 5-8
+- UX polish: 2-3
+
+### Step 2 — Time Criticality (TC)
+
+Questions:
+- Is there a hard deadline (regulatory, customer contract)?
+- Does a window of opportunity close?
+- What is the damage per week of delay?
+
+Scale:
+- **1-2** — No deadline, no decay
+- **3-5** — Some time pressure
+- **8-13** — Hard deadline within quarter
+- **20** — Existential / immediate
+
+### Step 3 — Risk Reduction / Opportunity Enablement (RR/OE)
+
+Questions:
+- Does it solve a critical architectural risk?
+- Does it unlock future initiatives (platform play)?
+- Does it reduce technical debt blocking other work?
+
+Scale:
+- **1-2** — Standalone, no downstream
+- **3-5** — Enables 1-2 future items
+- **8-13** — Unlocks major platform capability
+- **20** — Foundational
+
+### Step 4 — Job Size
+
+Relative estimation by Fibonacci. If smallest epic = 1, others are relative.
+
+Factors:
+- Engineering effort
+- Design complexity
+- Integration touches
+- Testing scope
+- Deployment complexity
+
+Not precise estimates — relative sizing.
+
+### Step 5 — Calculate WSJF
+
+```
+CoD = UBV + TC + RR/OE
+WSJF = CoD / Job Size
+```
+
+Higher WSJF = higher priority.
+
+Example:
+- Epic: SSO SAML implementation
+- UBV: 13 (unlocks enterprise tier)
+- TC: 8 (2 deals waiting)
+- RR/OE: 5 (unlocks SCIM in next quarter)
+- Job Size: 8 (medium-large)
+- WSJF = (13 + 8 + 5) / 8 = **3.25**
+
+### Step 6 — Rank
+
+Sort by WSJF descending. Top items first.
+
+### Step 7 — Sanity Check
+
+- Top item — is it genuinely highest priority?
+- Bottom item — really lowest?
+- Job Size relative consistency — 13-sized item actually ~6× larger than 2-sized?
+
+### Step 8 — Portfolio View
+
+For portfolio of 20+ epics:
+- Visualize on 2D: CoD (y-axis) × Job Size (x-axis)
+- Diagonal from top-left = higher WSJF
+- Discuss outliers: why large jobs with low CoD?
+
+## Validation (Quality Gate)
+
+- [ ] Epic-level items (not stories)
+- [ ] Each component (UBV, TC, RR/OE) scored with rationale
+- [ ] Fibonacci scale applied consistently
+- [ ] Job Size relative, not absolute time
+- [ ] Sanity check — top/bottom make sense
+- [ ] Portfolio view created if >10 items
+- [ ] Scoring session included cross-functional stakeholders (eng + biz + security)
+
+## Handoff
+
+The result is input for:
+- **`product-roadmap`** — scored epics → PI planning (if SAFe)
+- **`epic-breakdown`** — top epics → stories
+- **Tech Lead** → capacity allocation
+- **PM** → quarter planning
+
+Format: WSJF table + 2D portfolio view. Via `$handoff`.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+| Error | Why it's bad | How to do it right |
+|-------|-------------|-------------------|
+| Precise job size estimates | False precision | Fibonacci relative |
+| All items scored same | Not discriminating | Spread across scale |
+| Skip RR/OE | Miss platform plays | Score all three CoD |
+| No rationale | Scores look arbitrary | 1-line per score |
+| Solo scoring | Lost perspectives | Cross-functional session |
+| WSJF for tiny items | Overkill | Use for epics (>sprint) |
+
+## Template
+
+```markdown
+# WSJF Portfolio — Q2 2026
+
+## Scoring Legend
+Scale: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 20 (Fibonacci)
+- UBV: User-Business Value
+- TC: Time Criticality
+- RR/OE: Risk Reduction / Opportunity Enablement
+
+## Epic Scores
+
+| # | Epic | UBV | TC | RR/OE | CoD | Job Size | WSJF | Rationale |
+|---|------|:---:|:--:|:-----:|:---:|:--------:|:----:|-----------|
+| 1 | SSO SAML | 13 | 8 | 5 | 26 | 8 | 3.25 | «2 enterprise deals waiting» |
+| 2 | Mobile app | 8 | 3 | 2 | 13 | 20 | 0.65 | «Large effort, low urgency» |
+
+## Top 5 (Rank by WSJF)
+1. [Epic 1] — WSJF 3.25
+...
+
+## Portfolio 2D (CoD × Job Size)
+[Placeholder for chart]
+```
+
+## Worked Example — TeamFlow Enterprise Epic Portfolio WSJF
+
+**Context:** TeamFlow — 10 enterprise customers (500+ employee accounts), 8 in active expansion negotiation. WSJF applied at epic-level portfolio Q2-Q3 2026. SAFe-adjacent process: quarterly Program Increment planning.
+
+### Epic Portfolio (9 epics, SAFe PI Planning session)
+
+| # | Epic | Business Context | UBV | TC | RR/OE | CoD | Job Size | **WSJF** |
+|---|------|------------------|:---:|:--:|:-----:|:---:|:--------:|:--------:|
+| 1 | **SSO SAML + SCIM Provisioning** | 2 enterprise deals waiting ($800K ARR), 3 more in Q3 pipeline | 13 | 13 | 5 | 31 | 5 | **6.20** |
+| 2 | **SOC 2 Type II for AI features** | Compliance gate for 4 Enterprise deals + existing customer renewals | 13 | 8 | 3 | 24 | 8 | **3.00** |
+| 3 | **AI Summarization (Core MVP)** | Flagship feature, category positioning | 13 | 5 | 5 | 23 | 13 | **1.77** |
+| 4 | **Aggregate Dashboard (Enterprise tier)** | Unlocks Enterprise tier pricing ($15+ seat), 80 mid+ accounts | 8 | 5 | 8 | 21 | 8 | **2.63** |
+| 5 | **Data Residency (EU + APAC regions)** | 2 EU enterprise blocked by data residency; APAC prospect | 8 | 5 | 5 | 18 | 13 | **1.38** |
+| 6 | **Zoom/Meet Native Integration** | Competitive parity (Lattice shipped Q4 2025) | 5 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 13 | **0.85** |
+| 7 | **Audit Log API** | Enterprise SIEM integration — nice-to-have, deal enhancer | 5 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 5 | **2.20** |
+| 8 | **Mobile App (iOS + Android)** | Managers want mobile review; not blocking deals | 5 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 20 | **0.45** |
+| 9 | **HIPAA Attestation for Healthcare segment** | 1 prospect in healthcare vertical | 3 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 13 | **0.62** |
+
+### Scoring Rationale (per component)
+
+**Epic 1 — SSO SAML + SCIM (WSJF 6.20):**
+- **UBV 13:** 2 deals × $400K avg = $800K immediate + multiplier effect on Q3 pipeline
+- **TC 13:** Deals close quarterly — delay 1 quarter = lose deals to competitor
+- **RR/OE 5:** Unlocks enterprise sales motion (future deals easier)
+- **Job Size 5:** Moderate — SCIM complex but SAML standardized
+
+**Epic 2 — SOC 2 Type II (WSJF 3.00):**
+- **UBV 13:** 4 Enterprise deals + renewal protection (~$1.5M combined)
+- **TC 8:** 6-month audit cycle — must complete for Q4 renewal wave
+- **RR/OE 3:** One-time certification, doesn't unlock future ones
+- **Job Size 8:** Significant — SOC 2 requires audit firm engagement + documentation + attestation
+
+**Epic 3 — AI Summarization Core (WSJF 1.77):**
+- **UBV 13:** Transformational — category play
+- **TC 5:** Competitors may launch parallel AI, but 6-month window exists
+- **RR/OE 5:** Unlocks AI tier pricing + future AI initiatives (platform investment)
+- **Job Size 13:** Large — 6-8 engineers × 3 months + ongoing
+
+**Epic 4 — Aggregate Dashboard (WSJF 2.63):**
+- **UBV 8:** Strong — Enterprise tier unlock
+- **TC 5:** Seasonality — Board review cycles in Q2 + Q4
+- **RR/OE 8:** Unlocks all future People Ops analytics features (huge downstream value)
+- **Job Size 8:** Medium-large
+
+**Epic 8 — Mobile App (WSJF 0.45):**
+- **UBV 5:** Marginal — managers workflow primarily desktop
+- **TC 2:** No hard deadline, no lost deals attributed
+- **RR/OE 2:** Standalone, minimal platform leverage
+- **Job Size 20:** Massive — 2 platforms, 2 teams, likely 6+ months
+
+### Ranked Portfolio (by WSJF)
+
+1. **SSO SAML + SCIM** (6.20) — ship Q2 sprint 1-2 (2 weeks)
+2. **SOC 2 Type II** (3.00) — parallel track, Q2 end target
+3. **Aggregate Dashboard** (2.63) — Q2 sprint 3-6
+4. **Audit Log API** (2.20) — Q2 Q3 sprint 7-8 quick win
+5. **AI Summarization Core** (1.77) — Q2 sprint 3-8 (biggest epic but lower WSJF)
+6. **Data Residency EU** (1.38) — Q3 priority
+7. **Zoom/Meet Integration** (0.85) — Q3-Q4 (competitive parity not burning)
+8. **HIPAA Attestation** (0.62) — Q4 (1 customer waiting, low revenue impact)
+9. **Mobile App** (0.45) — **DEFER, reconsider next PI**
+
+### 2D Portfolio View (CoD × Job Size)
+
+```
+CoD (y)
+ 31  │ Epic 1 ★       
+ 24  │         Epic 2 ★
+ 23  │             Epic 3 (large)
+ 21  │         Epic 4 ★
+ 18  │                         Epic 5
+ 11  │ Epic 7 (small)    Epic 6
+  9  │                                 Epic 8 (huge)
+  8  │                         Epic 9
+     └─────────────────────────────────────────
+       5       8       13              20   Job Size (x)
+
+★ = top-left quadrant (high CoD, smaller job = high WSJF priority)
+```
+
+### Insight from Portfolio View
+
+- **Top-left cluster** (Epics 1, 2, 4, 7): high CoD + manageable size = **PI priority**
+- **Epic 3 (AI Summarization)** is odd-one-out: high CoD but largest job size. Need to **decompose** into sub-epics to manage better (done in `$epic-breakdown`).
+- **Epic 8 (Mobile)** bottom-right: huge job, marginal CoD → **defer**. Re-evaluate next PI if customer feedback elevates.
+- **Portfolio balance:** 4 high-WSJF items fit in Q2 capacity with AI decomposition.
+
+### Decomposition Trigger (Epic 3)
+
+Epic 3 «AI Summarization Core» has WSJF 1.77 due to job size penalty. **Decompose in `$epic-breakdown`**:
+- Sub-epic A: Transcription infrastructure (shared platform) — medium, CoD via RR/OE
+- Sub-epic B: Summary generation pipeline — small-medium, CoD via UBV
+- Sub-epic C: Manager review UI — small, CoD via usability
+- Each sub-epic gets own WSJF rescoring — likely higher than parent due to better size ratio
+
+### PI Commitment (Q2)
+
+| Epic | Assignment | Teams | PI Objectives |
+|------|------------|-------|---------------|
+| Epic 1 | Committed | Platform + Security | «SSO live by Sprint 2» |
+| Epic 2 | Committed | Security + Compliance | «SOC 2 attestation by Sprint 12» |
+| Epic 3 (decomposed) | Committed | AI team | «MVP summarization shipped by Sprint 8» |
+| Epic 4 | Committed | Analytics + Eng | «Dashboard beta by Sprint 10» |
+| Epic 7 | Stretch | Platform | «Audit API if capacity» |
+
+> **WSJF lesson:** Mobile App (Epic 8) WSJF 0.45 was **controversial** initially — loud customer voices «we need mobile». WSJF forced accounting: $20 pm effort for marginal CoD = **terrible ratio**. Deferring saved 20 pm for higher-impact work. AI Summarization (Epic 3) WSJF 1.77 — counterintuitively NOT highest — but this is an artifact of large job size. **Decomposition** fixes this: sub-epics score much higher individually. WSJF doesn't work on monolithic giant epics — decompose first.