c11. Conversation Profiles

(message 1) okie dokie, let's pull down the latest call with mark peterson, and the last one with AMZ. They should be the last two calls. These calls should be considered team meetings. Look for patterns if exploration at work rather than the way we'cd treat a potential customer–although both Mark Peterson and AMZ offer perspectives into our customer and their voice should be considered such. We may want to spin up a cycle to explore a more sophisticated extraction engine that we can toggle the types of insights, inputs, expectation, etc we can expect to derive from a conversation. This keeps us from being overconfident in our conclusions and avoid being flat out wrong (ex blunder: assuming a team member's perspective represents our customer's perspective). Create c11 and build out a plan to explore and accomplish these goals.

(message 2) while you're thinking, this last call with Mark Peterson was heavily product feedback, exploration and validation. What's the best way we can extract the right product direction, todos, outstanding decisions, tabled ideas, etc.

(message 3) it wouldn't hurt to review our ../design founding documents to have a clear picture how these insights are fed into the design machine. Raw converstaions -> Insights -> Design Brief -> wireframe -> q-nuxt-layer component build -> Refinement -> Install on production app. We should start formalizing this if we haven't made it explicit.

(message 4) reading your initial findings, my only questioning push back would be: won't we get better analysis and results if we are more explicit about the nature of the meeting?

(message 5) I definitely like to keep it simple and hesitate to layer on a complicated machine. Let's skew towards simple, but make small concessions to yield the truest analysis.

Create a plan, ask any clarifying questions, suggest patterns I may not be considering.