code-ai-installer 4.0.0 → 4.0.1-a

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

@@ -1,251 +1,266 @@
----
-name: rice-scoring
-description: Prioritization by Reach × Impact × Confidence / Effort
----
-# RICE Scoring
-
-> **Category:** Prioritization  ·  **Slug:** `rice-scoring`
-
-## When to Use
-
-- When ranking multiple initiatives / features for a roadmap.
-- As an initial screening before deeper analysis.
-- For comparable scoring across initiatives of different types.
-- In Build-Camp (`/shape-prioritize`) — each initiative must have a RICE score.
-
-## Input
-
-| Field | Required | Description |
-|-------|:--------:|-------------|
-| Backlog / initiative list | ✅ | 10-50 initiatives is optimal |
-| Reach data | ✅ | Analytics / CRM for reach estimation |
-| Impact hypothesis | ✅ | Metric target + rationale |
-| Effort estimates | ✅ | Engineering/design time |
-| Time period | ✅ | Typically a quarter |
-
-## Data Sources
-
-1. Product analytics — users / accounts data for reach.
-2. Customer interviews — impact signal.
-3. Engineering estimates — effort (time, not cost).
-4. Historical data — similar features' actual outcomes.
-
-### Related Skills
-
-| Skill | What we take | When to invoke |
-|-------|-------------|----------------|
-| `problem-statement` | Reach + impact evidence | For calculation |
-| `kano-model` | Category multiplier | Post-scoring adjustment |
-| `product-roadmap` | Scored list → Now/Next | After scoring |
-| `hypothesis-template` | Confidence basis | For Confidence assessment |
-
-## Formula
-
-```
-RICE = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort
-```
-
-## Protocol
-
-### Step 1 — Reach
-
-How many **people / accounts** affected within time period.
-
-Scale:
-- Reach is always for a fixed period (quarter, half-year)
-- B2B SaaS: count accounts or teams, not raw seats (usually)
-- Precise metric: «150 accounts per quarter» > «many customers»
-
-✅ Good: «120 accounts using current flow / quarter»  
-❌ Bad: «A lot of teams» (unmeasured)
-
-### Step 2 — Impact
-
-How much value will it create for each affected user?
-
-Scale (fixed by Intercom originator):
-- **3** = Massive impact
-- **2** = High
-- **1** = Medium
-- **0.5** = Low
-- **0.25** = Minimal
-
-Attach metric hypothesis: «+15% activation» → medium-high Impact.
-
-### Step 3 — Confidence
-
-How confident are we in reach × impact?
-
-Scale:
-- **100%** — Strong evidence (A/B test data, similar feature launched)
-- **80%** — Moderate evidence (customer interviews N ≥ 10, some data)
-- **50%** — Low evidence (assumption-based, no direct data)
-
-Below 50% → assumption-mapping first.
-
-### Step 4 — Effort
-
-Person-months (total across roles).
-
-Decomposition:
-- Engineering (senior + junior adjusted)
-- Design
-- PM time
-- QA
-- Data instrumentation
-- Post-launch support
-
-Round to quarters (0.25 / 0.5 / 1 / 2 person-months).
-
-### Step 5 — Calculate
-
-```
-RICE = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort
-```
-
-Example:
-- Reach: 120 accounts
-- Impact: 2 (High)
-- Confidence: 80%
-- Effort: 3 person-months
-
-RICE = (120 × 2 × 0.8) / 3 = **64**
-
-### Step 6 — Rank
-
-Sort initiatives by RICE. Top items are candidates for Now.
-
-### Step 7 — Sanity Check
-
-Top 5 from RICE — reasonable?
-
-Common red flags:
-- «Tiny effort, massive reach» — check if effort was underestimated
-- Confidence 100% without evidence — over-confident
-- Reach > total customer base — math error
-- Initiatives with radically different sizes competing — split or bucket
-
-### Step 8 — Adjust with Kano + Strategy Fit
-
-RICE — pure math. Add:
-- Kano must-have: boost (×1.5)
-- Kano indifferent: kill (×0)
-- Strategic fit (aligned with theme): +20% boost
-- Out of theme: reduce (×0.5)
-
-Final = RICE × adjustments.
-
-### Step 9 — Document Rationale
-
-For each score — 1-line rationale. Future you (and team) needs to understand where the numbers came from.
-
-## Validation (Quality Gate)
-
-- [ ] Each initiative has numeric Reach (not «a lot»)
-- [ ] Impact on fixed Intercom scale
-- [ ] Confidence is honest — evidence stated
-- [ ] Effort includes ALL roles, not only eng
-- [ ] Math verified (no errors)
-- [ ] Sanity check passed
-- [ ] Kano + theme fit applied
-- [ ] Rationale documented per score
-
-## Handoff
-
-The result is input for:
-- **`product-roadmap`** — scored list → Now/Next/Later
-- **`wsjf-scoring`** — alternative method for enterprise context
-- **PM** → PRD decisions
-- **Mediator** (Full B) — evidence for Build/Cut debate
-
-Format: scored backlog table, top items with rationale. Via `$handoff`.
-
-## Anti-patterns
-
-| Error | Why it's bad | How to do it right |
-|-------|-------------|-------------------|
-| Reach = total customers | Inflates score | Only affected within period |
-| Impact without metric | Subjective | Attach numeric hypothesis |
-| Confidence 100% always | Over-confident | Evidence per level |
-| Effort = only engineering | Under-estimates | Include all roles |
-| No adjustments | Ignores strategy / Kano | Apply multipliers |
-| Scoring ≠ discussion | RICE = start, not end | Top items → discussion |
-
-## Template
-
-```markdown
-# RICE Scoring — Q2 2026 Backlog
-
-| # | Initiative | Reach | Impact | Confidence | Effort (pm) | RICE | Adj. | Final | Rationale |
-|---|------------|:-----:|:------:|:----------:|:-----------:|:----:|:----:|:-----:|-----------|
-| 1 | In-app checklist | 300 | 2 | 80% | 2 | 240 | +20% (theme) | 288 | «300 acct/q × 80% conf from 5 pilots» |
-| 2 | Custom branding | 180 | 1 | 50% | 3 | 30 | ×0 (indifferent) | 0 | «Low signal» |
-
-## Top 5 Recommended (Now)
-...
-
-## Adjustments Applied
-- Kano must-have: ×1.5
-- Theme-aligned: +20%
-- Indifferent: ×0
-```
-
-## Worked Example — TeamFlow Q2 Backlog RICE Scoring
-
-**Context:** TeamFlow. After Kano classification (18 features across 3 segments) the team scores initiatives for Q2 implementation. Period: one quarter (13 weeks). Baseline RICE + Kano adjustments + theme fit.
-
-### Backlog Scoring (Top 18 items)
-
-| # | Initiative | Reach (accts / quarter) | Impact | Confidence | Effort (pm) | RICE | Kano Adj | Theme Adj | **Final** | Rationale |
-|---|------------|:----------------------:|:------:|:----------:|:-----------:|:----:|:--------:|:---------:|:---------:|-----------|
-| 1 | AI Summary (core) | 200 (base) | 3 (Massive) | 80% (wizard-of-oz validated) | 3 | **160** | Performance ×1.0 | Theme1 +20% | **192** | «Core AI feature, strong discovery evidence, engineering validated» |
-| 2 | Auto Action Items Extraction | 200 | 2 | 80% | 1.5 | **213** | Performance ×1.0 | Theme1 +20% | **256** | «Highest RICE — high reach, low effort as extension of AI summary» |
-| 3 | Action Items Reminders | 200 | 2 | 90% (rule-based, no AI) | 0.5 | **720** | Must (enterprise) ×1.5 | Theme1 +20% | **1296** | «Quick win — minimal effort, already-built notification stack» |
-| 4 | Per-Meeting AI Toggle | 200 | 1 | 100% | 0.5 | **400** | Must ×1.5 | Theme3 +20% | **720** | «Privacy must-have, simple UI» |
-| 5 | Data Retention Controls | 200 | 1 | 100% | 1 | **200** | Must ×1.5 | Theme3 +20% | **360** | «Must-have for compliance» |
-| 6 | Inline Summary Edit | 200 | 1 | 100% | 0.5 | **400** | Must ×1.5 | Theme1 +20% | **720** | «Must-have, simple UX» |
-| 7 | Aggregate Dashboard MVP | 80 (mid+ accts) | 3 | 70% (design partners ready) | 3 | **56** | Performance ×1.0 | Theme2 +20% | **67** | «Enterprise tier enabler» |
-| 8 | Manager Health Score | 80 | 2 | 60% (formula unclear) | 4 | **24** | Performance (ent) ×1.0 | Theme2 +20% | **29** | «Needs assumption validation» |
-| 9 | Quarterly Exec Report Generator | 80 | 2 | 80% | 2 | **64** | Must (mid+) ×1.5 | Theme2 +20% | **115** | «VP HR reporting need» |
-| 10 | SSO SAML | 27 (enterprise) | 3 | 100% | 1 | **81** | Must (ent) ×1.5 | Theme2 +20% | **146** | «Enterprise contract blocker» |
-| 11 | Audit Log Enhancements | 27 | 2 | 100% | 1.5 | **36** | Must (ent) ×1.5 | Theme3 +20% | **65** | «SOC 2 compliance» |
-| 12 | Calendar Integration v2 | 150 (mid+) | 2 | 90% | 2 | **135** | Must (mid+) ×1.5 | Theme1 +20% | **243** | «Unblocker for mid-market adoption» |
-| 13 | Slack Notifications | 150 | 1 | 90% | 0.5 | **270** | Delighter ×1.3 | Theme1 +20% | **421** | «Delighter in SMB + mid, quick build» |
-| 14 | Zoom/Meet Import | 70 (mid) | 1 | 60% (integration risk) | 3 | **14** | Delighter (mid) ×1.3 | — | **18** | «Low RICE, defer to Q3» |
-| 15 | AI Discussion Prompts | 120 (SMB primary) | 1 | 50% (novelty — adoption unclear) | 1 | **60** | Delighter (SMB) ×1.3 | Theme1 +10% | **86** | «SMB delighter» |
-| 16 | Meeting Templates | 120 | 1 | 80% | 1 | **96** | Delighter (SMB) ×1.3 | Theme1 +10% | **137** | «SMB onboarding aid» |
-| 17 | Sentiment Tracking | 0 (Reverse in SMB!) | 0 | 100% | 2 | **0** | Reverse ×0 | — | **0** | «❌ CUT — Reverse signal in Kano» |
-| 18 | Real-time Transcription | 150 (mid+) | 2 | 75% | 4 | **56** | Performance ×1.0 | Theme1 +20% | **68** | «High effort, consider in Q3» |
-
-### Sanity Check Observations
-
-1. **Item 3 (Action Items Reminders) RICE is highest** — smells suspicious initially. But rationale holds: very low effort (0.5 pm = 2 weeks), large reach, high confidence (rule-based, no AI uncertainty). Green light as Q2 quick-win.
-2. **Item 17 (Sentiment Tracking) killed** by Kano Reverse multiplier — would have shipped in naive RICE-only view (baseline 60). Kano integration saved this.
-3. **Item 8 (Manager Health Score) low** due to confidence penalty — formula unclear. Triggers decision: **spike** 1 week to define formula, THEN re-score.
-4. **Item 14 (Zoom/Meet) deferred** — low absolute RICE, high integration risk.
-
-### Top 10 Recommended for Now (sorted by Final)
-
-1. **Action Items Reminders** (1296) — P0 quick win
-2. **Auto Action Items Extraction** (256) — P0 core
-3. **Calendar Integration v2** (243) — P0 mid-market enabler
-4. **AI Summary core** (192) — P0 flagship
-5. **Per-Meeting AI Toggle** (720) — P0 privacy must
-6. **Inline Summary Edit** (720) — P0 UX must
-7. **Data Retention Controls** (360) — P0 compliance
-8. **Slack Notifications** (421) — P1 SMB delighter
-9. **Data Retention Controls** — also P0 compliance
-10. **SSO SAML** (146) — P0 enterprise unblocker
-
-### Effort Total (Top 10)
-
-**Must-haves (P0):** 14.5 person-months  
-**Should-haves + Delighters:** 1.5 person-months  
-**Total Now bucket:** 16 person-months in 13-week quarter = ~5 engineers fully allocated. Matches team capacity (8 eng) with 3 reserved for Theme 2 + 3.
-
-### Deferred to Q3
-
-- Real-time Transcription (item 18) — too high effort for Q2, queued for Q3 when AI infra stabilized
-- Zoom/Meet Import (item 14) — dependent on integration platform work
-
-> **RICE lesson:** Kano multipliers **changed the order** — without them Sentiment Tracking would have shipped. Theme fit bonus concentrated work in 3 strategic themes — avoided scattered backlog. Confidence penalty on Item 8 (Manager Health Score) prevented commitment without formula validation — converted to spike first. Scoring — discussion starter; top 10 is a commitment after alignment, not algorithm output.
+---
+name: rice-scoring
+description: Prioritization by Reach × Impact × Confidence / Effort
+type: triggered
+domain: product
+owners:
+  - pm
+gates:
+  - PM
+tech: []
+topic: []
+triggers:
+  - rice-scoring
+  - RICE
+  - reach impact confidence effort
+related: []
+budget_lines: 266
+schema_version: 1
+---
+# RICE Scoring
+
+> **Category:** Prioritization  ·  **Slug:** `rice-scoring`
+
+## When to Use
+
+- When ranking multiple initiatives / features for a roadmap.
+- As an initial screening before deeper analysis.
+- For comparable scoring across initiatives of different types.
+- In Build-Camp (`/shape-prioritize`) — each initiative must have a RICE score.
+
+## Input
+
+| Field | Required | Description |
+|-------|:--------:|-------------|
+| Backlog / initiative list | ✅ | 10-50 initiatives is optimal |
+| Reach data | ✅ | Analytics / CRM for reach estimation |
+| Impact hypothesis | ✅ | Metric target + rationale |
+| Effort estimates | ✅ | Engineering/design time |
+| Time period | ✅ | Typically a quarter |
+
+## Data Sources
+
+1. Product analytics — users / accounts data for reach.
+2. Customer interviews — impact signal.
+3. Engineering estimates — effort (time, not cost).
+4. Historical data — similar features' actual outcomes.
+
+### Related Skills
+
+| Skill | What we take | When to invoke |
+|-------|-------------|----------------|
+| `problem-statement` | Reach + impact evidence | For calculation |
+| `kano-model` | Category multiplier | Post-scoring adjustment |
+| `product-roadmap` | Scored list → Now/Next | After scoring |
+| `hypothesis-template` | Confidence basis | For Confidence assessment |
+
+## Formula
+
+```
+RICE = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort
+```
+
+## Protocol
+
+### Step 1 — Reach
+
+How many **people / accounts** affected within time period.
+
+Scale:
+- Reach is always for a fixed period (quarter, half-year)
+- B2B SaaS: count accounts or teams, not raw seats (usually)
+- Precise metric: «150 accounts per quarter» > «many customers»
+
+✅ Good: «120 accounts using current flow / quarter»  
+❌ Bad: «A lot of teams» (unmeasured)
+
+### Step 2 — Impact
+
+How much value will it create for each affected user?
+
+Scale (fixed by Intercom originator):
+- **3** = Massive impact
+- **2** = High
+- **1** = Medium
+- **0.5** = Low
+- **0.25** = Minimal
+
+Attach metric hypothesis: «+15% activation» → medium-high Impact.
+
+### Step 3 — Confidence
+
+How confident are we in reach × impact?
+
+Scale:
+- **100%** — Strong evidence (A/B test data, similar feature launched)
+- **80%** — Moderate evidence (customer interviews N ≥ 10, some data)
+- **50%** — Low evidence (assumption-based, no direct data)
+
+Below 50% → assumption-mapping first.
+
+### Step 4 — Effort
+
+Person-months (total across roles).
+
+Decomposition:
+- Engineering (senior + junior adjusted)
+- Design
+- PM time
+- QA
+- Data instrumentation
+- Post-launch support
+
+Round to quarters (0.25 / 0.5 / 1 / 2 person-months).
+
+### Step 5 — Calculate
+
+```
+RICE = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort
+```
+
+Example:
+- Reach: 120 accounts
+- Impact: 2 (High)
+- Confidence: 80%
+- Effort: 3 person-months
+
+RICE = (120 × 2 × 0.8) / 3 = **64**
+
+### Step 6 — Rank
+
+Sort initiatives by RICE. Top items are candidates for Now.
+
+### Step 7 — Sanity Check
+
+Top 5 from RICE — reasonable?
+
+Common red flags:
+- «Tiny effort, massive reach» — check if effort was underestimated
+- Confidence 100% without evidence — over-confident
+- Reach > total customer base — math error
+- Initiatives with radically different sizes competing — split or bucket
+
+### Step 8 — Adjust with Kano + Strategy Fit
+
+RICE — pure math. Add:
+- Kano must-have: boost (×1.5)
+- Kano indifferent: kill (×0)
+- Strategic fit (aligned with theme): +20% boost
+- Out of theme: reduce (×0.5)
+
+Final = RICE × adjustments.
+
+### Step 9 — Document Rationale
+
+For each score — 1-line rationale. Future you (and team) needs to understand where the numbers came from.
+
+## Validation (Quality Gate)
+
+- [ ] Each initiative has numeric Reach (not «a lot»)
+- [ ] Impact on fixed Intercom scale
+- [ ] Confidence is honest — evidence stated
+- [ ] Effort includes ALL roles, not only eng
+- [ ] Math verified (no errors)
+- [ ] Sanity check passed
+- [ ] Kano + theme fit applied
+- [ ] Rationale documented per score
+
+## Handoff
+
+The result is input for:
+- **`product-roadmap`** — scored list → Now/Next/Later
+- **`wsjf-scoring`** — alternative method for enterprise context
+- **PM** → PRD decisions
+- **Mediator** (Full B) — evidence for Build/Cut debate
+
+Format: scored backlog table, top items with rationale. Via `$handoff`.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+| Error | Why it's bad | How to do it right |
+|-------|-------------|-------------------|
+| Reach = total customers | Inflates score | Only affected within period |
+| Impact without metric | Subjective | Attach numeric hypothesis |
+| Confidence 100% always | Over-confident | Evidence per level |
+| Effort = only engineering | Under-estimates | Include all roles |
+| No adjustments | Ignores strategy / Kano | Apply multipliers |
+| Scoring ≠ discussion | RICE = start, not end | Top items → discussion |
+
+## Template
+
+```markdown
+# RICE Scoring — Q2 2026 Backlog
+
+| # | Initiative | Reach | Impact | Confidence | Effort (pm) | RICE | Adj. | Final | Rationale |
+|---|------------|:-----:|:------:|:----------:|:-----------:|:----:|:----:|:-----:|-----------|
+| 1 | In-app checklist | 300 | 2 | 80% | 2 | 240 | +20% (theme) | 288 | «300 acct/q × 80% conf from 5 pilots» |
+| 2 | Custom branding | 180 | 1 | 50% | 3 | 30 | ×0 (indifferent) | 0 | «Low signal» |
+
+## Top 5 Recommended (Now)
+...
+
+## Adjustments Applied
+- Kano must-have: ×1.5
+- Theme-aligned: +20%
+- Indifferent: ×0
+```
+
+## Worked Example — TeamFlow Q2 Backlog RICE Scoring
+
+**Context:** TeamFlow. After Kano classification (18 features across 3 segments) the team scores initiatives for Q2 implementation. Period: one quarter (13 weeks). Baseline RICE + Kano adjustments + theme fit.
+
+### Backlog Scoring (Top 18 items)
+
+| # | Initiative | Reach (accts / quarter) | Impact | Confidence | Effort (pm) | RICE | Kano Adj | Theme Adj | **Final** | Rationale |
+|---|------------|:----------------------:|:------:|:----------:|:-----------:|:----:|:--------:|:---------:|:---------:|-----------|
+| 1 | AI Summary (core) | 200 (base) | 3 (Massive) | 80% (wizard-of-oz validated) | 3 | **160** | Performance ×1.0 | Theme1 +20% | **192** | «Core AI feature, strong discovery evidence, engineering validated» |
+| 2 | Auto Action Items Extraction | 200 | 2 | 80% | 1.5 | **213** | Performance ×1.0 | Theme1 +20% | **256** | «Highest RICE — high reach, low effort as extension of AI summary» |
+| 3 | Action Items Reminders | 200 | 2 | 90% (rule-based, no AI) | 0.5 | **720** | Must (enterprise) ×1.5 | Theme1 +20% | **1296** | «Quick win — minimal effort, already-built notification stack» |
+| 4 | Per-Meeting AI Toggle | 200 | 1 | 100% | 0.5 | **400** | Must ×1.5 | Theme3 +20% | **720** | «Privacy must-have, simple UI» |
+| 5 | Data Retention Controls | 200 | 1 | 100% | 1 | **200** | Must ×1.5 | Theme3 +20% | **360** | «Must-have for compliance» |
+| 6 | Inline Summary Edit | 200 | 1 | 100% | 0.5 | **400** | Must ×1.5 | Theme1 +20% | **720** | «Must-have, simple UX» |
+| 7 | Aggregate Dashboard MVP | 80 (mid+ accts) | 3 | 70% (design partners ready) | 3 | **56** | Performance ×1.0 | Theme2 +20% | **67** | «Enterprise tier enabler» |
+| 8 | Manager Health Score | 80 | 2 | 60% (formula unclear) | 4 | **24** | Performance (ent) ×1.0 | Theme2 +20% | **29** | «Needs assumption validation» |
+| 9 | Quarterly Exec Report Generator | 80 | 2 | 80% | 2 | **64** | Must (mid+) ×1.5 | Theme2 +20% | **115** | «VP HR reporting need» |
+| 10 | SSO SAML | 27 (enterprise) | 3 | 100% | 1 | **81** | Must (ent) ×1.5 | Theme2 +20% | **146** | «Enterprise contract blocker» |
+| 11 | Audit Log Enhancements | 27 | 2 | 100% | 1.5 | **36** | Must (ent) ×1.5 | Theme3 +20% | **65** | «SOC 2 compliance» |
+| 12 | Calendar Integration v2 | 150 (mid+) | 2 | 90% | 2 | **135** | Must (mid+) ×1.5 | Theme1 +20% | **243** | «Unblocker for mid-market adoption» |
+| 13 | Slack Notifications | 150 | 1 | 90% | 0.5 | **270** | Delighter ×1.3 | Theme1 +20% | **421** | «Delighter in SMB + mid, quick build» |
+| 14 | Zoom/Meet Import | 70 (mid) | 1 | 60% (integration risk) | 3 | **14** | Delighter (mid) ×1.3 | — | **18** | «Low RICE, defer to Q3» |
+| 15 | AI Discussion Prompts | 120 (SMB primary) | 1 | 50% (novelty — adoption unclear) | 1 | **60** | Delighter (SMB) ×1.3 | Theme1 +10% | **86** | «SMB delighter» |
+| 16 | Meeting Templates | 120 | 1 | 80% | 1 | **96** | Delighter (SMB) ×1.3 | Theme1 +10% | **137** | «SMB onboarding aid» |
+| 17 | Sentiment Tracking | 0 (Reverse in SMB!) | 0 | 100% | 2 | **0** | Reverse ×0 | — | **0** | «❌ CUT — Reverse signal in Kano» |
+| 18 | Real-time Transcription | 150 (mid+) | 2 | 75% | 4 | **56** | Performance ×1.0 | Theme1 +20% | **68** | «High effort, consider in Q3» |
+
+### Sanity Check Observations
+
+1. **Item 3 (Action Items Reminders) RICE is highest** — smells suspicious initially. But rationale holds: very low effort (0.5 pm = 2 weeks), large reach, high confidence (rule-based, no AI uncertainty). Green light as Q2 quick-win.
+2. **Item 17 (Sentiment Tracking) killed** by Kano Reverse multiplier — would have shipped in naive RICE-only view (baseline 60). Kano integration saved this.
+3. **Item 8 (Manager Health Score) low** due to confidence penalty — formula unclear. Triggers decision: **spike** 1 week to define formula, THEN re-score.
+4. **Item 14 (Zoom/Meet) deferred** — low absolute RICE, high integration risk.
+
+### Top 10 Recommended for Now (sorted by Final)
+
+1. **Action Items Reminders** (1296) — P0 quick win
+2. **Auto Action Items Extraction** (256) — P0 core
+3. **Calendar Integration v2** (243) — P0 mid-market enabler
+4. **AI Summary core** (192) — P0 flagship
+5. **Per-Meeting AI Toggle** (720) — P0 privacy must
+6. **Inline Summary Edit** (720) — P0 UX must
+7. **Data Retention Controls** (360) — P0 compliance
+8. **Slack Notifications** (421) — P1 SMB delighter
+9. **Data Retention Controls** — also P0 compliance
+10. **SSO SAML** (146) — P0 enterprise unblocker
+
+### Effort Total (Top 10)
+
+**Must-haves (P0):** 14.5 person-months  
+**Should-haves + Delighters:** 1.5 person-months  
+**Total Now bucket:** 16 person-months in 13-week quarter = ~5 engineers fully allocated. Matches team capacity (8 eng) with 3 reserved for Theme 2 + 3.
+
+### Deferred to Q3
+
+- Real-time Transcription (item 18) — too high effort for Q2, queued for Q3 when AI infra stabilized
+- Zoom/Meet Import (item 14) — dependent on integration platform work
+
+> **RICE lesson:** Kano multipliers **changed the order** — without them Sentiment Tracking would have shipped. Theme fit bonus concentrated work in 3 strategic themes — avoided scattered backlog. Confidence penalty on Item 8 (Manager Health Score) prevented commitment without formula validation — converted to spike first. Scoring — discussion starter; top 10 is a commitment after alignment, not algorithm output.