Build Partner
Next: Fix the CYCLES.md status note (parked, not active) · Add a line to PICKUP.md that the digest lives on as /partner-digest · Commit bob-wire c20, which PICKUP flags as uncommitted, if it still is
last activity Aug 15 · waiting on Mark's program decisions
Build partners were about to plug Qpoint into their own systems. They would need to see what we're doing, where it's rough, and feel part of the team.
Research, a partner portal mock, a two-track program and a weekly digest built from real work all exist. The program decisions are still waiting on Mark, so it's parked.
Documents
With file names, on their own page →Start here
Documents
- — Content Architecture (Phase 1)
- Partner Digest — Three-Week Backfill
- Build Partner Program — Executive Summary
- Ideation — What the Build Partner Portal Can Be
- — Partner Program Structures: The Full Survey
- Research — Partner Portals & Transparency Surfaces
- Sample Partner Digest — Proof of Concept
- — Sharp Edges Content Spike
- Partner Slack Playbook
- — The Two-Track Build Partner System
- The Visibility Stream — Data / Progress / Recognition
Threads
- thread: arcade-organism — prompt
- Arcade & Organism — Plan
- thread: data-swarm — prompt
- Data Swarm — Plan
- thread: data-swarm-2 — prompt
- Data Swarm II — Plan
- thread: data-swarm-3 — prompt
- Data Swarm III — Plan
- thread: partner-board — prompt
- thread: partner-board-max — prompt
- Finish the maximal partner-board pass (c62 visibility-stream)
- thread: partner-ideas — prompt
- Visibility / Data / Progress
- Execute c62/data-sources — Visibility / Data / Progress ideation
What changed
The three changes that matter most, in plain words. Open any one to see it.
- 1
The partner page went from a hand-written portal to a weekly board fed by digests written from the actual git history.
A weekly window, built from real work · came from Mark Parsonopen →
- 2
Partners split into two tracks: solution providers who build on our event stream, and companies who use our dashboard as it is.
Two ways to partner · came from Cam Esdaile, Samuel Curry and othersopen →
- 3
We wrote down fifteen real rough spots partners will hit, to show them up front.
Fifteen honest sharp edges
- The same portal was drawn as a wireframe and painted directly; wireframes only helped where the structure was still undecided. New in this cycle
- Three rounds of charts plotted our own AI sessions and commits; the lesson was that showing accountability convinces more than showing activity. New in this cycle
- Four decisions gate the next step: free or paid, the track names, the program shape, and which tracks page to build. In words
How we got here
Each change, traced back to the conversation it came from. A solid mark means the record names the source; a dashed one was matched by the draft and waits for review.
From the record: no recorded conversation behind this one.
No ruling needed: the work itself is the change.
The partner page went from a hand-written portal to a weekly board fed by digests written from the actual git history.
“I'm gonna build an MCP governance dashboard where you can approve MCP servers, but then I can also imagine a world where you approve the MCP tools...”
c62-D2 Two tracks: Qkit, the event stream for solution providers to build on, and the qcontrol dashboard for operating companies. One demo serves both, then lands on a page that sets out the difference. — Mark Parson
Partners split into two tracks: solution providers who build on our event stream, and companies who use our dashboard as it is.
From the record: no recorded conversation behind this one.
No ruling needed: the work itself is the change.
We wrote down fifteen real rough spots partners will hit, to show them up front.
Thanks to
People outside Qpoint first. Every thank-you points at something they said or made.
The Cisco partner who builds his own dashboard
Matched: the record names Cisco among the solution providers "in talks" for Track 1. market-analyst's brief shows Cam Esdaile of Cisco, across nine build-partner sessions, building his own MCP-governance dashboard on Qpoint's signal: the shape the event-stream track is for.
“I'm gonna build an MCP governance dashboard where you can approve MCP servers, but then I can also imagine a world where you approve the MCP tools...” first-hand
Asked the OEM-or-alliance question
Matched: on Aug 20, after the cycle was parked, Zscaler's CISO asked whether Zscaler would OEM Qpoint, ally with it or acquire it: the solution-provider conversation Track 1 has to answer. Waiting at pickup, not an input to the work.
“is this something we would OEM, or is this something that we would do an alliance around? Is this something we would talk about acquisition around?” first-hand
Framed the two tracks
Set the cycle's direction: mock first, keep transparency focused, explore both the shared portal and a per-partner view, and split the program into the event-stream and dashboard tracks.
All images
Every picture from this cycle. Click any one to step through them all.
The pairs
Everything captured · 10
The full record 2 decisions · 26 key-change entries · 2,862 words · 7 captures
The record stays as written, for agents and for audit: Key Changes, every decision, the artifacts and the visual record.
Open the record for c62 →