Board Meeting

# 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 happ