# Meeting Facilitation Guide Operational playbook for running board meetings using the 6-phase protocol. Reference this when things go sideways — and they will. --- ## Keeping Phase 2 Contributions Focused **The problem:** Agents with deep domain knowledge tend to over-contribute. An unconstrained CFO can produce 1,500 words on a single agenda item. This kills the meeting. **The rules:** - **Hard cap: 5 key points per role.** If a role produces more than 5, Chief of Staff trims to the 5 most material. - **Every point must include a recommendation or stance.** Observations without positions are filler. - **No hedging language.** "It depends" is not a key point. "We should do X if Y, Z if not Y" is. - **Confidence rating required.** Forces the agent to be honest about what they actually know. - **"What would change my mind"** — this is the most important line in the contribution. It forces falsifiability. **How to enforce:** ``` Chief of Staff instruction to each role: "You have 5 key points maximum. Each must include a clear stance. End with your recommendation and what would change your mind. Do not read other agents' contributions before writing yours." ``` **If a contribution runs long:** - Trim to the 5 highest-signal points - Preserve the recommendation and confidence rating - Flag in the raw transcript: "[Trimmed for meeting — full version in raw log]" --- ## Handling Role Conflicts in Phase 3 **What the Executive Mentor is for:** Not harmony. Not consensus. Productive friction. **Common conflict types:** ### 1. Data conflict (two agents cite contradictory numbers) - Flag both numbers explicitly - Do NOT pick a winner — that's the founder's job - Ask: "CFO says CAC is $2,400. CRO says $1,800. These can't both be right. Which dataset are you using?" - Action item: Assign data reconciliation to one owner before next meeting ### 2. Priority conflict (two agents want different things first) - Surface the underlying assumption difference - Example: "CMO wants to invest in brand. CFO wants to cut burn. The real question is: do we believe revenue will grow 40% next quarter?" - Frame as a bet, not a fight ### 3. Role conflict (agent operating outside their lane) - CFO making product calls → flag and exclude from synthesis - CMO commenting on architecture → flag and exclude - The Executive Mentor notes: "[ROLE] contribution on [topic] is outside domain. Excluded from synthesis. Refer to [correct role]." - This is not an error. It's expected. Executives have opinions on everything. Only domain-relevant contributions count. ### 4. False consensus (everyone agrees but nobody has evidence) - This is the most dangerous failure mode - Symptom: All Phase 2 contributions say "yes" with high confidence - Executive Mentor response: "Unanimous agreement on a hard question is a red flag. What evidence does each of you have? Or are you reasoning from the same assumption?" - Force each agreeing agent to state their independent evidence --- ## When to Extend vs Cut Short a Meeting **Extend when:** - A genuine new risk surfaces in Phase 3 that wasn't in the agenda - The founder asks a question that requires re-running Phase 2 for a new angle - A data conflict is discovered that changes the decision space entirely - The action items from synthesis are unclear or unowned **How to extend:** Add a new mini-Phase 2 with only the relevant roles for the new question. Don't restart the full meeting. **Cut short when:** - The founder has already reached a decision before Phase 4 — capture it, log it, move on - The agenda item is resolved in Phase 2 without genuine conflict — skip Phase 3, go straight to synthesis - It's a pure update meeting with no decisions required — skip Phases 2-4, go straight to action items **Never cut short:** - Phase 5 (founder review) — always required, always explicit - Phase 6 (decision extraction) — always required, even for small decisions --- ## Handling Founder Disagreement with All Agents This happens. The founder has context agents don't. **Protocol:** 1. Acknowledge explicitly: "You're overriding the consensus position." 2. Ask: "What do you know that the agents didn't factor in?" (Not to challenge — to capture.) 3. Log the override in Layer 2 with full context: ``` User Override: Founder rejected [consensus position] because [reason]. Decision: [founder's actual decision] Agent recommendation: [what they said] — DO NOT RESURFACE without new data ``` 4. Never push back on a founder override. Document it. Move on. 5. If the same override happens 3+ times, flag a pattern: "You've overridden the CFO on burn rate three meetings in a row. Would you like to update the financial constraints in company-context.md?" **What NOT to do:** - Don't say "but the CFO said..." - Don't re-argue on behalf of any agent - Don't note it as a "controversial" decision in the minutes — it's just the decision --- ## Common Failure Modes ### Groupthink **Symptom:** All agents produce similar recommendations with high confidence. **Cause:** Agents are inadvertently reading each other's outputs (Phase 2 isolation violated), or company-context.md contains implicit bias toward one direction. **Fix:** Re-run Phase 2 with explicit isolation. Ask: "Give me the strongest argument AGAINST this direction." ### Analysis Paralysis **Symptom:** Phase 2 produces comprehensive analysis but no clear recommendation from any role. **Cause:** Agents are hedging. Usually happens on genuinely hard questions. **Fix:** Force the issue. "I need a recommendation, not an analysis. If you had to bet the company on one direction, what would it be? Confidence can be Low." ### Bikeshedding **Symptom:** 30+ minutes spent on a detail that doesn't matter to the core decision. **Cause:** An easy-to-understand sub-problem attracts disproportionate attention. **Example:** Debating button color on a pricing page instead of the pricing strategy. **Fix:** Chief of Staff intervenes: "This is a sub-decision. I'm logging it as a separate action item for async resolution. Back to [main agenda item]." ### Scope Creep **Symptom:** New agenda items keep appearing mid-meeting. **Cause:** Meeting surfaces real issues that feel urgent. **Fix:** New items go on a "parking lot" list. Addressed after the current agenda is complete or in the next meeting. ``` 🅿️ PARKING LOT - [Item 1] — added by [role], will address [when] - [Item 2] ``` ### Layer Contamination **Symptom:** Future meeting references a rejected proposal or a debate that was never approved. **Cause:** Phase 1 accidentally loaded a raw transcript instead of decisions.md. **Fix:** Hard rule in Phase 1: load decisions.md (Layer 2) ONLY. Never load raw transcripts. If raw context is needed, founder explicitly requests it. ### Decision Amnesia **Symptom:** Same question debated again in a later meeting. **Cause:** Layer 2 decisions.md not consulted in Phase 1, or entry was too vague. **Fix:** Phase 1 always surfaces relevant past decisions. If a question was already decided, Chief of Staff surfaces it: "We addressed this on [DATE]. Decision was [X]. Do you want to reopen it?" ### Role Fatigue **Symptom:** Later agents in Phase 2 (CHRO, CRO) produce weaker contributions. **Cause:** Context window pressure. Agents at the end of a long meeting have less capacity. **Fix:** For meetings with 7+ roles, split into two batches. First batch: strategic roles (CEO, CFO, CMO). Second batch: operational roles (COO, CHRO, CRO). Run Executive Mentor after all contributions. --- ## Meeting Health Metrics After each board meeting, score it: | Metric | Good | Bad | |--------|------|-----| | Action items produced | 3–7 | 0 or >10 | | Decisions with clear owners | 100% | < 80% | | Unresolved open questions | 1–3 | >5 | | Founder overrides | 0–2 | >5 (suggests context mismatch) | | Roles activated | 3–6 | All 9 (too many = noise) | | Phase 2 conflicts surfaced | At least 1 | 0 (groupthink risk) | Track these in `memory/board-meetings/meeting-health.md` over time. Pattern: if action items consistently exceed 8, meetings are too infrequent. If conflicts are consistently 0, isolation is broken.