Kit 26 · Board Brief · deliverable · designed and built by I Wayan Usada · fictional company, board and figures
The analyst at Certum Opleidingen (fictional) builds tomorrow's one-page board brief from twelve indicators. Nothing is marked while building. The board then reads the page in fifteen minutes, and the read is the feedback. Revised after the build so it matches the 2D builder (brief.html) and the 3D boardroom (3d.html); both read brief-data.js.
The earlier storyboard promised that "scoring replays the board member's fifteen minutes, minute by minute". That was not built; it is now the core of both builds.
| # | Step | On screen | The learner decides | Consequence shown |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cards on the page | 12 cards with name, value and a neutral note (no colour coding, no hints), 5 slots | which cards, in which order | a card with no job costs the reader an extra minute ("why is this here?") |
| 2 | The claim | three parts, three options each, equal length, shuffled | what is happening · because · so we ask | a part the page does not support costs three minutes; a part the page contradicts sends the item back |
| 3 | Trade-off line | three lines: visible cost · win-win · cost in appendix C | what goes on the page about the cost | visible: two minutes of discussion · win-win: four minutes and doubt · appendix: approved, then reopened in six weeks |
| 4 | Opening sentence | free text, at least 12 words | the finding, the ask and a figure in own words | shown next to a model opening |
| 5 | The read | minute-by-minute timeline (2D) · hourglass, moving attention, threads and question marks (3D) | nothing: watch | outcome: approved, approved then reopened, approved with doubt, approved the wrong fix, sent back, no decision, or deferred |
| 6 | Debrief and revise | score /14, part-by-part feedback, card table, model opening | revise this brief, or start a new one | run count; the brief stays as it was so one thing can be changed |
| Card | Value | Job |
|---|---|---|
| Waitlist depth | 310 names | demand |
| Seasonal demand | 41% in Q4 | demand |
| Trainer utilisation | 64% (Q3 52%, Q4 93%) | capacity |
| Q3 line yield | €1,120 / session | cost of the move |
| Regulatory deadline | 1 January | risk the plan must survive |
| Occupancy trend · Cost per learner | 81% · €212 | confirm the trend, do not explain it |
| Trainer attrition · Cancellations · NPS · Competitor scan · No-show rate | — | true, but not this decision |
A wrong mechanism is only caught if the contradicting card is on the page. Without the waitlist, "fewer organisations want our courses" goes unchallenged and the board approves the wrong fix: the build shows that missing evidence is not neutral.
One minute for the opening and claim; one per card; +1 for a card with no job; +3 for each claim part the page does not support; +3 for each contradiction; +2 to discuss a visible cost (+2 more if the Q3 yield card is missing); +4 for a win-win line; +3 if the ask holds but the 1 January deadline is not on the page. Over fifteen minutes: deferred to next quarter. The best brief takes eight minutes.
Cards that do work 5 · claim 6 (2 per part that holds) · trade-off line 2 (visible only) · opening sentence 1 (12+ words with a figure). Maximum 14. Pass = approved in the meeting and 12 or more.
Cards stand on a credenza and fly onto the brief's slots. During the read the hourglass drains against a minute counter, a ring follows the chair's attention, each card that supports the claim is tied to its claim part with thread as it is read (the Q3 yield card to the ask and the trade-off line, the deadline card to the wall calendar), and every question leaves a "?" where it arose. The outcome is stamped on the page; a deferred item turns the calendar to next quarter.
Prefer the source? Download the raw markdown.