W WorkshopBuddy by NeuroForge
Sample Illustrative output. Names, decisions and stats are fictional — this is what a real WorkshopBuddy wrap-up looks like at the end of a session.
Wrap-up complete

Q2 AI Roadmap Alignment

Tue, 5 May 2026 · 09:30 – 12:30 (3h 00m) · Berlin · Studio 4
MB
JK
PS
LF
AV
TR
7
Topics
5
Decisions
9
Action items
3h
Duration

What this meeting produced

Decisions 3 strong · 1 moderate · 1 contested
Action items 2 high · 5 medium · 2 low
Parked items 4 carry-forward · 1 assigned · 1 discarded
Tracker coverage 83% of tracked items addressed

"We now know what ships in Q2 and what we're explicitly not doing — and that's the part the team usually leaves the room arguing about."

Meeting highlights

Fastest decision

"Move the on-prem deployment to a Q3 follow-up" — landed in 4 minutes once Anna shared the cost model.

Most impactful contribution

Priya's framing of "two evaluation tracks: regression + safety" reshaped the rest of the agenda.

💬

Most engaged discussion

Pricing model for the pilot — 22 minutes, all six participants spoke at least twice.

🎯

Decision under pressure

The "ship behind a flag" outcome was reached with two minutes left in the slot — group chose moderate confidence over delaying.

Personal contributions

MB
Maya Brandt · Facilitator
Led 3 topic transitions, surfaced 2 contested votes, kept the group inside the time-box.
JK
Jonas Keller · Engineering lead
Anchored 4 of 5 decisions with concrete trade-offs; pushed back on the "ship by April" framing.
PS
Priya Shah · Research
Cited 3 evaluation results; introduced the regression-vs-safety frame that the group adopted.
LF
Lukas Fischer · Product
Owns 3 of the 9 action items; brought the customer-pilot constraint that scoped the roadmap.
AV
Anna Voss · Finance partner
Provided cost model that unlocked the on-prem deferral decision; quiet most of the session, decisive at the end.
TR
Tom Reuter · Design
Caught 2 UX risks in the eval flow; volunteered to prototype the safety dashboard.

Session feedback

MB
Maya Brandt
"focused"
★★★★★
JK
Jonas Keller
"pragmatic"
★★★★
PS
Priya Shah
"clarifying"
★★★★★
LF
Lukas Fischer
"tight"
★★★★
AV
Anna Voss
"finally-decided"
★★★★★
TR
Tom Reuter
"productive"
★★★★

Summary

What we set out to do

Align on the Q2 AI roadmap with a shared answer to three questions: which two pilots ship, how we evaluate them, and what we explicitly defer to Q3.

Where we landed

  • Two pilots are committed for Q2: the support-triage assistant and the internal knowledge search. Both ship behind a feature flag with a 4-week soak period.
  • Evaluation runs on two parallel tracks — regression against last quarter's gold set, and safety via the new red-team rubric Priya introduced.
  • On-prem deployment is deferred to Q3. The cost model Anna shared made the trade-off concrete: ~6 weeks of platform work, with no committed pilot customer to anchor it.

Open tensions worth naming

  • Pricing for the support-triage pilot is contested. Per-seat vs. per-resolution split the room 4–2 — the group chose per-seat for the pilot, with a 60-day review.
  • Two participants flagged that the safety evaluation rubric is still drafty. Priya owns hardening it before the first pilot release.

Energy & engagement

Most engaged stretch was the pricing discussion (22 minutes, full participation). Lowest energy was around the deployment topic — partly because the conclusion ("defer") felt foregone once the cost model landed.

Decisions 5

1
Ship support-triage assistant and internal knowledge search as Q2 pilots, both behind a feature flag with a 4-week soak period.
Strong 6/6 in favour
2
Adopt parallel evaluation tracks: regression suite + safety rubric. Both must pass before any pilot moves out of feature-flag.
Strong 6/6 in favour
3
Defer on-prem deployment to Q3. Reopen when we have a committed pilot customer who needs it.
Strong 5/6 in favour, 1 abstain
4
Pricing for the support-triage pilot will be per-seat, with a 60-day review against per-resolution alternatives.
Contested 4/6 in favour, 2 against
5
Tom prototypes the safety dashboard before the first pilot release; design review by 2026-05-19.
Moderate 5/6 in favour, 1 abstain

Action items 9

PS
Harden the safety evaluation rubric — share v1 to the group for sign-off.
Priya Shah · due 2026-05-12
High
JK
Wire feature flags + soak telemetry for both Q2 pilots in the platform.
Jonas Keller · due 2026-05-15
High
LF
Draft the per-seat pricing page + 60-day review checkpoint with finance.
Lukas Fischer · due 2026-05-19
Medium
TR
Prototype the safety dashboard; book a design review by 2026-05-19.
Tom Reuter · due 2026-05-19
Medium
AV
Update the Q3 cost model with the deferred on-prem scope and circulate.
Anna Voss · due 2026-05-26
Medium
MB
Schedule the pricing review checkpoint for July; pre-read out 3 days before.
Maya Brandt · due 2026-06-30
Medium
LF
Identify 2 candidate pilot customers for the support-triage assistant.
Lukas Fischer · due 2026-05-22
Medium
LF
Write the customer-facing one-pager for the knowledge search pilot.
Lukas Fischer · due 2026-05-26
Low
JK
Spike: cost-of-on-prem refresh, to inform the Q3 reopen.
Jonas Keller · due 2026-06-09
Low

Parked items 6

Multi-tenant analytics dashboard for partners.
Carry forward
Voice-input mode for the triage assistant.
Carry forward
SSO with the customer's Azure AD tenant.
Carry forward
Auto-translation of the knowledge index for non-DE customers.
Carry forward
Custom model fine-tune for triage classification (Anna to scope).
Assigned · Anna
"Build our own vector DB" — not now, not us.
Discarded

Time analysis

Roadmap framing discovery
22 min
Pilot selection decision
28 min
Evaluation tracks decision
26 min
Pricing model decision
22 min
On-prem trade-off decision
18 min
Safety dashboard scope discovery
30 min
Wrap-up & next steps review
14 min
Discovery Decision Review

Suggested follow-up meetings 3

Based on parked items, contested decisions, and action item dependencies.

Pricing review checkpoint
Suggested · 2026-07-08, 60 min

The per-seat pricing was the only contested decision — revisit it after 60 days of pilot data instead of letting it drift.

MB
LF
AV
Maya, Lukas, Anna
  1. Pilot revenue + usage data
  2. Per-seat vs. per-resolution — revisit
  3. Decision: keep, adjust, or switch model
Safety rubric sign-off
Suggested · 2026-05-13, 30 min

Two participants flagged the rubric as drafty; the rest of the roadmap depends on it. Tight loop, small group.

PS
JK
TR
Priya, Jonas, Tom
  1. Walk through rubric v1
  2. Edge cases + scoring guidance
  3. Sign-off or next iteration
Q3 on-prem reopen
Suggested · 2026-06-23, 45 min

Reopen the deferred on-prem decision once Anna's refreshed cost model and Lukas's customer pipeline are in.

AV
LF
JK
Anna, Lukas, Jonas
  1. Updated cost model
  2. Pilot customer pipeline
  3. Go / no-go for Q3 scoping

Want this for your workshops?

WorkshopBuddy runs as a private engagement with NeuroForge. We’ll set up a live walkthrough on a real session of yours.