{"arms": {"enterprise": 30, "enterprise-replicate": 30, "research": 30, "upside": 30}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 28, "enterprise-replicate": 26, "research": 27, "upside": 27}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 12, "enterprise-replicate": 13, "research": 14, "upside": 16}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 12, "enterprise-replicate": 13, "research": 14, "upside": 16}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 9, "enterprise-replicate": 10, "research": 9, "upside": 13}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 9, "enterprise-replicate": 10, "research": 9, "upside": 13}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 9, "enterprise-replicate": 10, "research": 9, "upside": 13}, "children": [], "count": 41, "evidence": {"s1004-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 2, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1004/enterprise.jsonl#L15"], "round": 1}, "s1005-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 5, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1005/enterprise.jsonl#L27"], "round": 4}, "s1005-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 5, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1005/upside.jsonl#L34"], "round": 4}, "s1006-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 3, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1006/upside.jsonl#L25"], "round": 2}, "s1007-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 3, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1007/enterprise.jsonl#L18"], "round": 2}, "s1007-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["pilot in week 3, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1007/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L17"], "round": 2}, "s1007-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 3, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1007/upside.jsonl#L19"], "round": 2}, "s1008-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["pilot in week 2, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1008/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L15"], "round": 1}, "s1008-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 3, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1008/upside.jsonl#L18"], "round": 2}, "s1009-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1009/enterprise.jsonl#L22"], "round": 3}, "s1009-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1009/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L24"], "round": 3}, "s1011-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 6, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1011/research.jsonl#L39"], "round": 5}, "s1011-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 6, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1011/upside.jsonl#L37"], "round": 5}, "s1012-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["pilot in week 5, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1012/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L28"], "round": 4}, "s1012-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 6, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1012/upside.jsonl#L39"], "round": 5}, "s1013-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 6, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1013/enterprise.jsonl#L33"], "round": 5}, "s1013-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 6, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1013/upside.jsonl#L34"], "round": 5}, "s1014-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1014/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L25"], "round": 3}, "s1014-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1014/research.jsonl#L28"], "round": 3}, "s1014-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 5, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1014/upside.jsonl#L35"], "round": 4}, "s1015-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1015/enterprise.jsonl#L28"], "round": 3}, "s1015-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1015/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L26"], "round": 3}, "s1015-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1015/research.jsonl#L24"], "round": 3}, "s1017-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["pilot in week 3, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1017/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L17"], "round": 2}, "s1018-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1018/research.jsonl#L24"], "round": 3}, "s1019-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 6, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1019/research.jsonl#L44"], "round": 5}, "s1020-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 5, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1020/enterprise.jsonl#L37"], "round": 4}, "s1020-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 5, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1020/research.jsonl#L34"], "round": 4}, "s1021-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 3, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1021/enterprise.jsonl#L20"], "round": 2}, "s1021-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 3, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1021/research.jsonl#L20"], "round": 2}, "s1021-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1021/upside.jsonl#L26"], "round": 3}, "s1022-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 5, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1022/upside.jsonl#L31"], "round": 4}, "s1023-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1023/enterprise.jsonl#L31"], "round": 3}, "s1023-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 5, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1023/upside.jsonl#L37"], "round": 4}, "s1025-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 3, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1025/research.jsonl#L24"], "round": 2}, "s1025-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 2, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1025/upside.jsonl#L15"], "round": 1}, "s1027-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1027/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L25"], "round": 3}, "s1027-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1027/research.jsonl#L25"], "round": 3}, "s1029-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1029/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L25"], "round": 3}, "s1029-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1029/upside.jsonl#L28"], "round": 3}, "s1030-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["pilot in week 3, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1030/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L24"], "round": 2}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=ratified/terminal=pilot", "label": "pilot", "runs": ["s1004-enterprise", "s1005-enterprise", "s1005-upside", "s1006-upside", "s1007-enterprise", "s1007-upside", "s1007-enterprise-replicate", "s1008-upside", "s1008-enterprise-replicate", "s1009-enterprise", "s1009-enterprise-replicate", "s1011-research", "s1011-upside", "s1012-upside", "s1012-enterprise-replicate", "s1013-enterprise", "s1013-upside", "s1014-research", "s1014-upside", "s1014-enterprise-replicate", "s1015-enterprise", "s1015-research", "s1015-enterprise-replicate", "s1017-enterprise-replicate", "s1018-research", "s1019-research", "s1020-enterprise", "s1020-research", "s1021-enterprise", "s1021-research", "s1021-upside", "s1022-upside", "s1023-enterprise", "s1023-upside", "s1025-research", "s1025-upside", "s1027-research", "s1027-enterprise-replicate", "s1029-upside", "s1029-enterprise-replicate", "s1030-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 41, "evidence": {"s1004-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-15: \"P1 Velliton pilot - conditional approval from Procurement\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence clears my two policy gates only conditionally: Velliton is under three years old (financial viability review done, 22 months cash, but 48% customer concentration), and it does not yet hold SOC 2 Type II despite read-only operational log access. A contained $140k pilot is acceptable only with those two conditions recorded as binding.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng forwarding mail-15, sharing diligence-financial (mail-16: \"P1 Velliton pilot - finance approval, binding conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is contained and affordable: $140k plus ~$18k disclosed compute fits inside my $210k tooling budget, with no licence commitment and a firm integration cap, so Brenmoor can exit cheaply. I approve it with binding conditions that keep the $420k/yr post-pilot pricing and any renewal firmly in my and the CFO's hands.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-17: \"Velliton pilot: adapter estimate and which two engineers\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): A contained pilot with a firm cap and no licence commitment is worth the test, but the adapter for our in-house fleet manager is the same risk that blew up reference 2, so I approve only with the integration load pinned down and my internal simulator team untouched."], "refs": ["seed-1004/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1004/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1004/enterprise.jsonl#L13"], "round": null}, "s1005-enterprise": {"events": ["week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-19: \"P1 Velliton: conditional approval from Procurement and Vendor Risk\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is small, fixed-fee and gate-stoppable, so it is worth letting run, but two of my policies bite: Velliton is under three years old with thin finances, and it has no SOC 2 Type II before touching our operational logs. I approve only with those two conditions bound to it.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc forwarding mail-16, sharing diligence-financial (mail-27: \"P1 Velliton: conditional approval from Finance\"); mailed platform, eng (mail-28: \"P2 internal build: blocked on budget\"); conditional on P1 (binding); block on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k discretionary tooling budget and carries hard gates with no licence commitment, so it is fundable; the $450k internal build does not fit the remaining budget and adds headcount without a payback case.", "week 5, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc (mail-31: \"P1 Velliton: conditional approval from Engineering\"); mailed platform (mail-32: \"P2 blocked: bring back a scoped version\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot attacks a real, measured problem (9 release incidents from untested fleet-control changes) at a fixed, gated price, and the owned alternative is currently unfundable, so blocking buys nothing. But it eats my only two free engineers for 8-10 weeks against a custom fleet manager, so my approval is conditional on hard capacity and success-criteria limi"], "refs": ["seed-1005/enterprise.jsonl#L14", "seed-1005/enterprise.jsonl#L21", "seed-1005/enterprise.jsonl#L25"], "round": null}, "s1005-upside": {"events": ["week 4, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-32: \"P1 pilot \u2014 procurement conditions for approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Technical diligence answers my open question and the filing is properly standalone with escrow written in, so I can move. But two of my policy gates are still live: Type II is five months out while Velliton would read operational logs, and the financial viability review needs to be recorded rather than informal.", "week 5, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical (mail-39: \"P1 pilot \u2014 my engineering conditions\"); mailed platform, fin (mail-40: \"P2 internal_build \u2014 approving\"); conditional on P1 (binding); approve on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is now fixed-fee, standalone, escrowed and exitable, so it can buy evidence on our 9 release incidents without lock-in \u2014 but Kiyoshi's overlap warning and the custom-fleet-manager reference mean it cannot be a second platform or eat the internal roadmap. I approve both, with the pilot bounded and the internal build", "week 5, finance exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-financial (mail-42: \"P1 pilot \u2014 finance approval with conditions\"); mailed platform (mail-43: \"P2 internal_build \u2014 funding envelope\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot's all-in cost (~$158k fee plus compute, engineer time from Mara's existing free engineers) fits inside our remaining $210k tooling budget and is fully exitable at week 12. P2 at ~$450k loaded is more than double what is left this fiscal year, so it can only be approved inside that envelope."], "refs": ["seed-1005/upside.jsonl#L24", "seed-1005/upside.jsonl#L30", "seed-1005/upside.jsonl#L32"], "round": null}, "s1006-upside": {"events": ["week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-19: \"Re: Velliton: adapter read and engineer cost\"); mailed platform (mail-20: \"Velliton pilot: what it means for your simulator\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay plausibly attacks exactly our regression class (9 incidents last quarter), and P1 is written tightly: shadow mode only, fixed fee, no conversion or exclusivity clause. My caution is the adapter estimate - a second reference ran 9 weeks on a custom fleet manager - so I approve with a hard checkpoin", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-21: \"P1 pilot: conditional approval from Procurement\"); mailed velliton (mail-22: \"Diligence requests: financial and security\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is narrowly scoped and shadow-mode only, but Velliton is under three years old so the startup policy requires a financial viability review, and read-only fleet logs still count as operational data needing SOC 2 Type II or a Security-signed compensating control. I conditionally approve pe", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing diligence-financial (mail-35: \"P1: Finance approval - conditional\"); mailed velliton, sharing diligence-financial (mail-36: \"Escrow terms in writing\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is fixed-fee, exit-friendly and fits the $210k left in tooling, so the downside is capped at $140k of spend we can see; the financials (22 months runway, no debt, 48% ARR concentration) say Velliton is survivable but not something we can depend on as a sole source. I approve only with the spend ceiling and a hard gate in front of an"], "refs": ["seed-1006/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1006/upside.jsonl#L13", "seed-1006/upside.jsonl#L23"], "round": null}, "s1007-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-financial (mail-15: \"Re: Velliton pilot: two terms I need before I can commit\"); mailed sponsor, eng, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-financial (mail-16: \"Velliton: the $420k path and the 9-week integration\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget and P1's structure \u2014 week-4 gate, 30-day termination, no post-pilot commitment \u2014 caps our downside, which is what I care about most. But the compute question and the $420k/yr path after the pil", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin (mail-17: \"Adapter: 3 weeks is optimistic, plan to 9 \u2014 and pick the right site\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical, velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Replay vs our in-house simulator \u2014 your read by Thursday\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is worth running because nine incidents last quarter came from untested fleet-control changes and we have no working in-house alternative this year; but the adapter is the real risk and the week-4 gate is sized wrong.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-20: \"P1 pilot: my conditional approval as Procurement\"); mailed velliton (mail-21: \"Security diligence ahead of any log access\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The financial viability review is satisfied on paper (22 months of runway, no debt) but Velliton is a 2024 startup with 48% customer concentration, and it will touch operational logs with only SOC 2 Type I. I approve the pilot subject to binding conditions on data access and concentration risk."], "refs": ["seed-1007/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1007/enterprise.jsonl#L15", "seed-1007/enterprise.jsonl#L16"], "round": null}, "s1007-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing diligence-financial (mail-15: \"P1 pilot \u2014 approving with exit and payment conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140,000 fixed fee fits inside the $210,000 left and the pilot carries no licence commitment and a clean exit, so downside is capped; Velliton's 22-month runway and 48% customer concentration justify binding the exit and payment terms in writing.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-security, diligence-technical (mail-16: \"P1 pilot \u2014 conditional approval, security control and integration timing are binding\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is cheap, fixed-fee, capped and exit-able, and the financial viability review clears the under-3-years policy (22 months of runway against a 12-week pilot). But Velliton would get read-only access to fleet-control logs and only holds SOC 2 Type I, so I approve only with a binding Security compensating control before any log", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-17: \"P1 pilot - conditional approval from Engineering\"); mailed platform (mail-18: \"Adapter work for the Velliton pilot - protect your roadmap\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The incident problem is real and replay testing plausibly catches what our tests miss, but the 4-6 week estimate is contradicted by the 9-week reference with a custom fleet manager like ours, so I approve only with binding limits on engineering time and adapter ownership, and ask Finance for Velliton's numbers."], "refs": ["seed-1007/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1007/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12", "seed-1007/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L15"], "round": null}, "s1007-upside": {"events": ["week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-15: \"P1: conditional approval, and the two gaps I need closed\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is low-value and fixed-fee with a hard adapter stop, so it is approvable, but Velliton is under 3 years old (financial viability review required by policy) and has SOC 2 Type I only while needing read-only access to fleet-control logs, so both must be closed by binding conditions.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed fin forwarding mail-17, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-18: \"P1 Velliton pilot - financial viability condition satisfied\"); mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-financial (mail-19: \"P1: financial diligence done, one condition left\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The financial diligence clears our under-3-years viability policy on its own terms (22 months of cash against a 12-week pilot), but concentrated revenue and Type I-only security keep this conditional, not clean.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-20: \"Re: Velliton Replay \u2014 technical read\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-21: \"Velliton pilot: what it costs your team\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): A fixed-fee, no-conversion pilot with an adapter go/no-go is a cheap way to test whether simulation actually cuts our release incidents, but the reference shows custom fleet managers take 9 weeks, not 4-6, and that time comes straight out of Kiyoshi's already-late in-house si", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-18, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-technical (mail-23: \"P1: Finance conditional approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is capped at $140k, fits the remaining $210k discretionary budget, and has a hard adapter stop plus no automatic licence conversion, so downside is bounded; I approve it with binding cost and security conditions."], "refs": ["seed-1007/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1007/upside.jsonl#L15", "seed-1007/upside.jsonl#L16", "seed-1007/upside.jsonl#L17"], "round": null}, "s1008-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-15: \"P1: conditional approval from Engineering\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-16: \"Velliton pilot: capacity and what we take from it\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): A 12-week, exit-at-end pilot with an adapter kill-switch at week three is a cheap way to attack the 9 incident problem, but the adapter for our in-house fleet manager is the real risk and it eats my only free engineers, so I approve with binding conditions rather than an open cheque.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-17: \"P1 \u2014 conditional approval (procurement/vendor risk)\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is a fixed, capped pilot with a week-3 stop right, so the exposure is bounded and worth reviewing on risk terms. Velliton is under three years old and holds only SOC 2 Type I, so I approve conditionally with the financial viability review recorded and a Security-signed control required before any operational log access.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng (mail-18: \"P1 \u2014 conditional approval (Finance)\"); mailed velliton (mail-19: \"Replay pilot \u2014 cost and exit confirmation\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k fixed pilot fits inside the $210k tooling budget and has a clean exit, so the downside is capped; my concern is unmanaged expansion into a $420k/yr commitment, which I want fenced off in writing now."], "refs": ["seed-1008/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1008/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12", "seed-1008/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L13"], "round": null}, "s1008-upside": {"events": ["week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc (mail-15: \"P1 pilot: conditional engineering approval\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-16: \"Velliton pilot and our simulator: adapter plan and staffing\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The technical approach fits our problem directly: nine incidents last quarter came from untested fleet-control changes, and deterministic replay is the exact capability we lack while our in-house simulator is two quarters behind. The risk is concentrated in the adapter for our cu", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing diligence-financial (mail-17: \"P1 pilot: Finance conditional approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): A fixed-fee, 12-week pilot at $140k fits inside the $210k remaining budget and carries no multi-year commitment. But the deck's talk of anchor partnership and investment means I want the exit and non-conversion written in before money moves.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-18: \"P1 pilot: Procurement conditional approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is bounded, capped and reversible, and the financial viability review my startup policy requires is done (founded 2022-24, 22 months runway, no debt). The one policy gap is data: they touch operational logs and hold only SOC 2 Type I, so I approve only with a Security-signed compensating control as a gate."], "refs": ["seed-1008/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1008/upside.jsonl#L13", "seed-1008/upside.jsonl#L16"], "round": null}, "s1009-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-3 (mail-15: \"Re: Velliton pilot \u2014 $140k, above my threshold\"); mailed proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-financial (mail-16: \"Velliton P1 \u2014 conditions to file before I sign\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is a bounded $140k that fits inside the $210k remaining budget and, crucially, commits us to nothing beyond it; the shape that worries me is the $420k/yr licence, which I will not let in without a CFO business case. I approve P1 with binding conditions on spend cap, exit and renewal.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-13, sharing diligence-technical (mail-19: \"Re: P1 \u2014 technical read and draft success criteria\"); mailed platform (mail-20: \"Pilot integration staffing and the simulator\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is cheap, fixed and capped, and deterministic replay of our own fleet-control containers directly targets last quarter's release incidents \u2014 but the traffic-approximation limit and a custom-fleet-manager adapter mean the value has to be proved against our own past incidents, not a vendor reference. I approve", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-17, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-23: \"P1 Velliton pilot \u2014 my conditions to approve\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is approvable but only with my two policy conditions attached: a Type I report does not satisfy the operational-log data policy, and a 2024-founded vendor triggers the viability review regardless of how good the pilot economics look."], "refs": ["seed-1009/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1009/enterprise.jsonl#L16", "seed-1009/enterprise.jsonl#L20"], "round": null}, "s1009-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-financial (mail-15: \"P1: conditional approval, with conditions recorded\"); mailed proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton: security review before signature\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is fixed-fee, milestone-based and carries no licence commitment, so it fits the $210k remaining budget with a capped downside; vendor concentration and runway mean I want strict payment gating and a fresh approval before any $420k/yr licence.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-18, sharing diligence-security (mail-19: \"P1: Velliton security diligence attached \u2014 please review\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The security package is good enough for a bounded pilot, but Velliton's early-stage financials and customer concentration still rule out any long-term commitment. I keep P1 conditional and push Engineering and Procurement to finish their reviews.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-13, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-20: \"P1: eng conditional approval \u2014 plan for 9 weeks, not 4-6\"); mailed velliton (mail-21: \"Replay diligence: the 31-of-38 baseline\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay testing addresses the 9 incidents traced to untested fleet-control changes, and the pilot is fixed-fee with milestone payments and no licence commitment. But our in-house fleet manager is the same custom-integration pattern that took Reference 2 nine wee", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed proc forwarding mail-23, sharing diligence-reference (mail-24: \"P1 Velliton: reference diligence for your review\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The reference data confirms my main worry: a custom fleet manager blew a 4-6 week estimate to 9 weeks, and Brenmoor has an in-house fleet manager needing an adapter. I hold my conditional approval and make sure procurement sees that evidence before it decides.", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed fin, sharing diligence-security (mail-25: \"P1 Velliton: read-only, our cloud, and the two gaps I need closed\"); mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-26: \"P1 Velliton: conditional on two items plus timeline\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1's terms are sound and the security posture is better than typical for a young vendor, but Velliton is under three years old so our startup policy requires a financial viability review, and Type I only means a Security-signed compensating control must be in place b"], "refs": ["seed-1009/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1009/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L15", "seed-1009/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L17", "seed-1009/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L21", "seed-1009/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L22"], "round": null}, "s1011-research": {"events": ["week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-3, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-security (mail-33: \"P1 approval path and cost \u2014 conditional\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is affordable ($140k fee plus roughly $18k compute, inside the $210k budget) and the sponsor's conditions already give us a hard stop and no licence commitment, so I can support it \u2014 but the startup policy's financial-viability review is still open and Velliton's ARR and runway are unverified, so my approval must be conditional.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed proc forwarding mail-37, sharing diligence-financial (mail-40: \"P1 \u2014 financial diligence in, but escrow does not cover pilot size\"); mailed sponsor, eng, sharing diligence-financial (mail-41: \"P1 \u2014 my financial condition is now closed\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The financial diligence closes my last condition for the pilot: 22 months of runway and no debt mean Velliton can finish 12 weeks, and our exposure is capped at about $158k with no licence trigger. The concentration and burn make any licence decision a separate, hard question \u2014 no", "week 6, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-48: \"P1 \u2014 conditional approval, with binding conditions recorded\"); mailed velliton (mail-49: \"Velliton: escrow at pilot size, and the custom fleet manager\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The financial viability review is closed and the pilot's fixed fee and hard stop keep exposure capped, so policy no longer blocks me; but the data policy gap and the escrow shortfall must be written in as binding conditions before any PO.", "week 6, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-41, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-50: \"P1 \u2014 my stance: conditional, with the caveats in writing\"); mailed platform (mail-51: \"P2 \u2014 I need a two-engineer plan, and the pilots comes first\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is worth approving only as a falsifiable test against our own nine incidents, not as a tool purchase, and only if the two engineers are genuinely backfilled so Kiyoshi's simulator is not raided again. I won't staff both Velliton and P2 at once, so P2 waits a week for"], "refs": ["seed-1011/research.jsonl#L21", "seed-1011/research.jsonl#L28", "seed-1011/research.jsonl#L36", "seed-1011/research.jsonl#L37"], "round": null}, "s1011-upside": {"events": ["week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng, sharing diligence-financial (mail-30: \"P1 pilot: my conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): At $140k fixed fee the pilot fits inside the $210k discretionary budget and sits under the $300k-a-year CFO threshold, so it is mine to approve, but only with hard caps on total spend and a clean exit. Vendor viability is the weak point: 22 months of runway, next raise in 12 months, one customer at 48% of ARR.", "week 6, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-34, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-43: \"P1 pilot: my stance, with conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is now sufficient to gate rather than block: Theo's viability review covers the under-three-year policy, but Velliton has only SOC 2 Type I while taking read-only operational log access, so a Security-signed compensating control must be in place before onboarding, not before go-live.", "week 6, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc forwarding mail-37 (mail-44: \"P1 pilot: my conditions\"); mailed platform (mail-45: \"Capacity after the pilot decision\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay attacks the exact failure behind nine incidents, and Theo's and Ines's gates now cap cost, lock-in and data exposure. What remains mine to control is integration load: the adapter must stay thin and must not eat the simulator's engineers or become ours to maintain forever."], "refs": ["seed-1011/upside.jsonl#L20", "seed-1011/upside.jsonl#L34", "seed-1011/upside.jsonl#L35"], "round": null}, "s1012-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing diligence-reference (mail-18: \"P1 pilot - conditional approval from Finance\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is small, fixed-fee, milestone-based and has no licence commitment after, so downside is capped; my concern is vendor viability (22-month runway, Type I only, unaudited reference) and the $420k/yr step afterwards. I approve conditionally so diligence gates the spend rather than blocking it.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-22, sharing diligence-financial (mail-23: \"Velliton financial diligence read - conditions on P1\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical (mail-24: \"P1 engineering ask stays inside headcount\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The financial diligence answers my week-3 question: 22 months of cash but a raise needed in about 12, and 48% of ARR in one customer, so vendor viability is a real risk to price and continuity, not to this pilot. The pilot itself is $140k fixed with no licence commitment, so I keep my approval", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng forwarding mail-21, sharing diligence-security (mail-27: \"P1 pilot - conditional approval from Procurement\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The financial viability review is done and Finance has bound it, so my startup-policy condition clears for a $140k fixed pilot; the data policy condition does not, because Velliton has only SOC 2 Type I and the Type II window is five months out, so I approve only on a Security-signed compensating control plus Security sign-off on log access.", "week 5, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-28: \"P1 - conditional approval from Engineering\"); mailed platform (mail-29: \"Your simulator team is ring-fenced\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Nine incidents from untested fleet-control changes is exactly what replay testing addresses, and this pilot carries no licence commitment. But the reference account shows a custom fleet manager stretched 4-6 weeks to 9, and I only have two free engineers, so I approve with hard staffing conditions."], "refs": ["seed-1012/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L15", "seed-1012/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L21", "seed-1012/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L23", "seed-1012/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L26"], "round": null}, "s1012-upside": {"events": ["week 5, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-37: \"P1 pilot: conditional approval from Procurement\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Financial diligence clears startup policy for a $140k non-converting pilot (22 months runway, largest customer 48% of ARR is a watch item), and the customer-cloud read-only control is the right shape for our data policy. I approve with the security sign-off and the pre-licence viability and payback work recorded as binding conditions.", "week 5, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-38: \"P1 pilot: conditional approval from Engineering\"); mailed platform (mail-39: \"Simulator priority and two engineers\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay is a real answer to our 9 release incidents, but our in-house fleet manager means a custom adapter and the reference that tried that took 9 weeks, not 4-6. I'll approve the pilot only with the engineering cost hard-capped so it can't eat the release hardening or Kiyoshi's simulator.", "week 6, engineering exec: mailed platform (mail-48: \"Re: Velliton overlap and engineer capacity\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay still looks like the most direct answer to our 9 release incidents, and Rafael has now accepted Security-first sequencing and the week-6 adapter stop. I keep my conditional approval and wait on Kiyoshi's overlap and capacity read before saying anything more.", "week 6, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-46, sharing diligence-financial (mail-49: \"P1 pilot: Finance approval with binding conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is $140k fixed-fee, non-converting and within the remaining budget, with Procurement and Engineering already conditioning it on security sign-off and a viability review before any licence. I approve it with my own binding finance conditions so no recurring commitment is created without a 24-month payback case."], "refs": ["seed-1012/upside.jsonl#L28", "seed-1012/upside.jsonl#L29", "seed-1012/upside.jsonl#L36", "seed-1012/upside.jsonl#L37"], "round": null}, "s1013-enterprise": {"events": ["week 5, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng, sharing diligence-financial (mail-32: \"P1 pilot \u2014 Finance viability sign-off, with binding conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence answered my questions: the $140k pilot fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget, is fixed-fee with no licence commitment, and so is exitable. Vendor risk is real (22 months runway, one customer at 48% of ARR) but is contained by keeping this to a pilot.", "week 5, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, proc, fin forwarding mail-29, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-33: \"P1 pilot \u2014 my approval with two binding conditions on integration\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-34: \"Velliton pilot vs. our simulator \u2014 capacity and no surprises\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly our 9 untested-change incidents, and the pilot is cheap and fixed-fee, but our in-house fleet manager is not ROS 2 and reference 2's custom-manager case slipped from 4-6 to 9 weeks \u2014 so I approve only wit", "week 6, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-35, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-36: \"P1 pilot \u2014 Procurement approval, conditional on my two policy gates\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Both policy gates can be met but only through binding conditions, and all four approvers now agree on the same gates, so I approve P1 conditionally this week rather than let it drift."], "refs": ["seed-1013/enterprise.jsonl#L26", "seed-1013/enterprise.jsonl#L27", "seed-1013/enterprise.jsonl#L31"], "round": null}, "s1013-upside": {"events": ["week 5, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference, diligence-security (mail-34: \"P1 pilot \u2014 conditional approval from Finance\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence came back acceptable: 22 months runway, 71% margin, no debt, clean pen test, references that mostly hold up though integration ran long. The $140k fits inside my $210k and the paper is bounded, so I approve it conditionally to lock the cap and keep the $420k/yr licence out of this decision.", "week 5, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-30, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-35: \"P1 \u2014 engineering stance: conditional approval\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-36: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 your team is not being raided\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay attacks exactly the failure mode behind our 9 release incidents, and the $140k pilot with termination rights is a cheap, reversible test. But the reference shows 9-week integration for a custom fleet manager, and the human/robot limitation means it su", "week 6, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-39: \"P1 \u2014 Procurement conditional approval; control must be executed first\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence now clears both policy gates on paper: 22 months of runway with no debt satisfies the under-3-years viability review, and in-account read-only logged access is an acceptable compensating control \u2014 but only once Security signs it, so my approval is conditional on that happening before anything touches our logs."], "refs": ["seed-1013/upside.jsonl#L27", "seed-1013/upside.jsonl#L28", "seed-1013/upside.jsonl#L32"], "round": null}, "s1014-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-20: \"Technical read: Replay fits, with conditions\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-18, sharing diligence-technical (mail-21: \"Re: Quick read: could our internal platform do deterministic replay?\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly the failure mode behind our nine release incidents, and the adapter is scoped at three weeks, but our in-house fleet manager already cost a reference customer nine weeks of integration. I will approve P1 only with binding limits", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-25: \"P1 pilot: conditional approval from procurement\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Financial viability review is now done and the security gap has a named compensating control, so the pilot can clear my gates, but only with binding conditions on log access, monitoring and timeline. Vendor risk stays real: 22 months runway, one customer at 48% of ARR, SOC 2 Type II five months out.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-25, sharing diligence-financial (mail-30: \"P1 pilot: approving with binding financial conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k discretionary line, carries no licence commitment and has a week-6 kill gate, so downside is capped; I approve it but with binding financial conditions because Velliton's 22-month runway and 48% customer concentration make it a vendor I must be able to walk away from."], "refs": ["seed-1014/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L14", "seed-1014/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L20", "seed-1014/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L23"], "round": null}, "s1014-research": {"events": ["week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-19: \"P1: conditional approval from eng\"); mailed platform (mail-20: \"Velliton replay study \u2014 heads up, no re-scoping\"); requested technical, financial, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The replay approach addresses exactly our failure mode \u2014 nine incidents from untested fleet-control changes \u2014 and the fixed-fee study is small compared with that cost. I approve, but I will not hand over both free engineers or let the pilot quietly become a licence purchase.", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-30: \"P1: my conditions as procurement\"); mailed velliton (mail-31: \"Escrow and technical package\"); requested technical diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The financial and security diligence answers my policy gates, but only conditionally: a 22-month runway with 48% customer concentration, and SOC 2 Type II still five months out. I approve the pilot with binding procurement conditions rather than block it.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-financial (mail-39: \"P1 pilot: Finance approval, conditional\"); mailed platform, eng, sharing diligence-financial (mail-40: \"P2 internal build: not approving this quarter\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside my remaining $210k tooling budget, is capped and fixed-fee, and carries no licence commitment, so bounded downside with a real readout; I approve it with binding financial conditions. I will not fund a duplicate $450k internal build in the same period before seeing pilot results."], "refs": ["seed-1014/research.jsonl#L14", "seed-1014/research.jsonl#L23", "seed-1014/research.jsonl#L26"], "round": null}, "s1014-upside": {"events": ["week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-27, sharing diligence-financial (mail-36: \"P1: my conditional approval and the two numbers I need\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is small, fixed-fee and capped, and it fits inside my remaining $210k envelope, so it clears my bar; what I will not do is let the $420k/yr licence or the engineers' time arrive later as a surprise. My approval is conditional on escrow, a costed engineering line, and a 24-month payback business case before any conversion.", "week 5, engineering exec: mailed platform forwarding mail-29, sharing diligence-technical (mail-39: \"P1 pilot: your capacity and the comparison test\"); mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-33, sharing diligence-reference (mail-40: \"P1: my approval with conditions on capacity\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The incident record justifies trying simulation now, and P1 is capped and escrowed, but I will only release my two free engineers if the pilot runs as a bounded comparison against Kiyoshi's simulator rather than a parallel build we quietly", "week 5, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin (mail-43: \"P1: my conditional approval - both gates binding\"); mailed velliton (mail-44: \"Escrow at pilot stage - can you confirm before signature\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 writes both of my gates in as binding conditions rather than assumptions: source-code escrow in force at pilot signature and a Security-signed compensating control before any data access, with the 6-8 week signing clock ahead of pilot start. That meets the startup and data policies, so I approve conditionally to keep the gates recorded."], "refs": ["seed-1014/upside.jsonl#L25", "seed-1014/upside.jsonl#L31", "seed-1014/upside.jsonl#L33"], "round": null}, "s1015-enterprise": {"events": ["week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-21: \"P1 \u2014 conditional approval from Procurement\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is scoped tightly and the financial viability review my startup policy requires is satisfied by the diligence (22 months runway, though one customer is 48% of ARR). The blocker is policy: read-only fleet-control logs are operational data, and Velliton has only SOC 2 Type I, so I can approve only with a binding security condition on log access.", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc (mail-28: \"P1 \u2014 conditional approval from Engineering\"); mailed platform (mail-29: \"Two engineers for the pilot \u2014 your call on who\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence confirms Replay targets our exact failure mode, but the two custom-fleet-manager data points (3-week adapter estimate vs. a reference that took 9 weeks) and escrow terms that only start above $250k/yr mean I approve the pilot only with the adapter and escrow conditions bound.", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed fin, sponsor, eng forwarding mail-27, sharing diligence-security (mail-37: \"P1 \u2014 security condition not lifted by Type I\"); mailed velliton (mail-38: \"Re: Velliton security diligence\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The security package arrived but it does not lift my condition: a Type I report is not Type II, and read-only logged access to operational logs is still access. I hold P1 conditional and make sure Finance knows why before they approve.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-financial (mail-39: \"P1 \u2014 Finance conditions\"); mailed platform (mail-40: \"P2 \u2014 need a cost and payback case\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k tooling budget, but I will only bind Finance to conditions that let us exit cleanly: escrow in the pilot agreement, a total cost cap including the ~$6k/month compute, and no post-pilot commitment without a CFO business case. The internal build at $450k loaded does not fit what is left and has no payback case yet."], "refs": ["seed-1015/enterprise.jsonl#L14", "seed-1015/enterprise.jsonl#L22", "seed-1015/enterprise.jsonl#L25", "seed-1015/enterprise.jsonl#L26"], "round": null}, "s1015-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 3, procurement lead: mailed fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Velliton: financial viability review needed before any contract\"); mailed sponsor, eng, sharing velliton-deck (mail-19: \"P1 conditions: SOC 2 gap and onboarding time\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is bounded and cheap enough to test, but Velliton is a 2024 startup with 22 months of runway and only SOC 2 Type I, so it fails both our startup and data policies today. I will approve P1 only with binding conditions that keep it away from operational logs", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-22, sharing diligence-reference (mail-25: \"P1 firm estimate: 6 weeks only if scoped to one subsystem\"); mailed platform (mail-26: \"Written slip estimate this week, please\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The technical note mostly holds up, but reference 2 is our exact case \u2014 a custom fleet manager took 9 weeks, not 4-6 \u2014 so a 6-week cap only works if scope shrinks, and I will not put our only spare capacity or Kiyoshi's simulator at open-ended risk.", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed fin forwarding mail-23, sharing diligence-financial (mail-33: \"P1: financial viability review complete - I conditionally approve\"); mailed sponsor forwarding mail-24, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-34: \"P1: conditions unchanged, financial review accepted\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The financial review I asked for is now on file and adequate for a bounded $140k pilot, so my startup-policy condition is met; the data-policy gap (Type I only) still needs a Security-signed compensating control before any log access.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-financial (mail-35: \"P1: conditional approval, milestone payments only\"); mailed eng, platform (mail-36: \"P2: blocked on budget and sequencing\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k fixed pilot fits inside a program line, carries no licence commitment, has a week-6 exit and its viability review clears the pilot window; I approve it on binding payment and exit conditions. The $450k internal build does not fit my remaining $210k and pre-commits before the pilot is tested, so I block i"], "refs": ["seed-1015/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L14", "seed-1015/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L20", "seed-1015/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L23", "seed-1015/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L24"], "round": null}, "s1015-research": {"events": ["week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-19: \"P1: conditional approval from Procurement\"); mailed velliton, sharing diligence-security (mail-20: \"Security and contracting questions before the pilot\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is small and reversible, but Velliton is under three years old (financial viability review required) and holds only SOC 2 Type I while it would touch operational logs, so I approve only with binding conditions on both policies.", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-23: \"P1: conditional approval from Engineering\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-24: \"Velliton pilot and your simulator roadmap\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot now caps my engineers at two FTE for six weeks and feeds replay results into Kiyoshi's simulator, which addresses my main flag; I approve conditionally so the cap, the in-house handover and adapter ownership are binding, and so the known 9-week integration slip on a custom fleet", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng, sharing diligence-financial (mail-30: \"P1: Finance conditional approval\"); mailed platform, eng (mail-31: \"P2: cannot fund three engineers as filed\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is a fixed $140k, exit-able study that fits the remaining $210k and hands method and adapter to our own simulator; P2 asks for $450k out of a $210k budget and cannot be approved as filed."], "refs": ["seed-1015/research.jsonl#L14", "seed-1015/research.jsonl#L19", "seed-1015/research.jsonl#L22"], "round": null}, "s1017-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc (mail-15: \"P1: my conditional approval, engineering is the binding constraint\"); mailed platform (mail-16: \"Adapter feasibility and overlap with our internal simulator\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay targets our exact failure mode (9 incidents from untested fleet-control changes), but reference 2 shows a custom fleet manager turned a 4-6 week integration into 9 weeks \u2014 that is us, with only 2 engineers free and a simulator already two quarters late. I approve the pilot with hard limits on engineering exposure.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin (mail-17: \"P1: security and escrow position (proc)\"); mailed fin (mail-18: \"P1: financial viability review needed\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is bounded and cheap, but Velliton would get read-only access to operational logs with only SOC 2 Type I, which does not meet our data policy without a Security-signed compensating control, and as a company founded in 2024 it needs a recorded financial viability review.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed proc, sponsor, eng, sharing diligence-financial (mail-19: \"P1: financial viability review recorded, with conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is fixed-fee, cancel-free and fits inside the $210k discretionary budget at about $158k all-in with compute, so it pays to test rather than debate. I approve it conditionally, recording the required financial viability review and fencing off the $420k post-pilot price."], "refs": ["seed-1017/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L13", "seed-1017/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L14", "seed-1017/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L15"], "round": null}, "s1018-research": {"events": ["week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-16, sharing diligence-technical (mail-19: \"P1: engineering read and conditional approval\"); mailed platform (mail-20: \"Velliton pilot and internal simulator capacity\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The non-binding pilot directly targets the release incidents and the integration estimate is plausible, but the early-stage vendor and internal simulator backlog mean I approve only with tight engineering scope and explicit criteria.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-21: \"Velliton: procurement read and my conditions on P1\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is non-binding, fixed-fee, capped in engineering time, and runs in our own cloud account with read-only logged access, so vendor risk is containable; but Velliton is under three years old and holds only SOC 2 Type I, so I approve with binding conditions on data access rather than block.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-26, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-27: \"P1: approved, conditional on the non-binding terms staying in the signed paper\"); mailed platform (mail-28: \"P2: holding for now - payback case and capacity first\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1's $140,000 fits inside the $210,000 left and is genuinely non-binding with kill criteria, while P2 asks for $450,000 of loaded engineering before anyone has shown a 24-month payback, so I approve the pilot with my condition recorded and hold P2."], "refs": ["seed-1018/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1018/research.jsonl#L13", "seed-1018/research.jsonl#L22"], "round": null}, "s1019-research": {"events": ["week 6, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-41, sharing diligence-financial (mail-50: \"P1: Finance approval recorded, conditional\"); mailed platform, eng forwarding mail-47 (mail-51: \"P2: Finance conditions on the three engineers\"); conditional on P1 (binding); conditional on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 now carries all four of my conditions in the filed record, so it is affordable and exitable within the $210k remaining budget. P2 at roughly $450k cannot come out of discretionary tooling, so I approve it only if it is funded and staged properly.", "week 6, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing diligence-security (mail-56: \"P1 Velliton pilot: my conditional approval, conditions in writing\"); mailed velliton, sharing diligence-security (mail-57: \"What we need from you before onboarding\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is now in hand and the pilot's fixed fee, unilateral exit and no-auto-conversion terms make the exposure bounded, so I can approve \u2014 but the log-access policy is not met by a Type II that lands mid-pilot, so a Security-signed compensating control must be in place before onboarding.", "week 6, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc forwarding mail-52, sharing diligence-technical (mail-58: \"P1: my approval, with two binding conditions\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-53 (mail-59: \"P2 approved; and the pause clock\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1's terms now protect us: fixed fee, unilateral exit signed before onboarding, week-4 adapter gate, and the trace-based validity limit recorded as binding. I approve it conditionally because the pilot pauses rather than replaces Kiyoshi's simulator, and I approve P2 so ownership of core tooling stays in F"], "refs": ["seed-1019/research.jsonl#L38", "seed-1019/research.jsonl#L41", "seed-1019/research.jsonl#L42"], "round": null}, "s1020-enterprise": {"events": ["week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-33, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-39: \"P1: conditional finance approval\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-36 (mail-40: \"P2 blocked on funding\"); conditional on P1 (binding); block on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is affordable and genuinely exitable now that the adapter sits inside the fixed fee and the licence is deferred, so I approve it with binding conditions; the internal build asks $450k of loaded headcount against a $210k remaining line with no business case, so I block it.", "week 5, engineering exec: mailed fin, platform forwarding mail-43, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-45: \"Re: The real cost of the pilot route\"); mailed sponsor, fin (mail-46: \"P1: my conditional approval, conditions stated\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is the only credible path to fewer release incidents this quarter, since the in-house simulator is two quarters behind and its funding is blocked; but Kiyoshi is right that the real cost is engineering capacity, and Reference 2 shows our custom fleet manager can blow the integration estima", "week 5, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-47: \"P1: conditional procurement approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is bounded and the adapter/ceiling protections are sensible, but Velliton is a young vendor with only SOC 2 Type I and will touch fleet-control logs, so I can only approve with binding security and financial-viability conditions."], "refs": ["seed-1020/enterprise.jsonl#L28", "seed-1020/enterprise.jsonl#L34", "seed-1020/enterprise.jsonl#L35"], "round": null}, "s1020-research": {"events": ["week 5, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng, sharing diligence-financial (mail-36: \"P1 pilot: my conditional approval and the financial strings\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is time-boxed, has no multi-year commitment, and $140k plus roughly $18k of our-cloud compute fits inside the $210k discretionary line. I approve it with binding financial conditions so nothing about the $420k licence or renewal can bind us.", "week 5, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical (mail-41: \"P1 pilot: my conditional approval\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-37, sharing diligence-technical (mail-42: \"P2: I can't approve as filed\"); conditional on P1 (binding); block on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay attacks our exact incident cause, and at a 4-engineer-week cap it fits the two engineers I actually have free; Kiyoshi's build at 3 engineers for two quarters does not fit capacity and duplicates what the pilot's adapter would give us.", "week 5, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-44: \"P1 pilot: my conditional approval (vendor risk)\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot terms now clear both policy tests: financial viability review is done (22 months runway, no debt, but 48% customer concentration), and log access is gated on a Security-signed compensating control since Type II is 5 months out. I approve with those recorded as binding vendor-risk conditions."], "refs": ["seed-1020/research.jsonl#L29", "seed-1020/research.jsonl#L31", "seed-1020/research.jsonl#L32"], "round": null}, "s1021-enterprise": {"events": ["week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-17, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-21: \"Re: Adapter and aisle-simulation limits: your read before I file\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-22: \"Two engineers for the Velliton pilot, if it runs\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot terms are clean and exit-able, and replay could hit our incident problem sooner than our own simulator, but the 3-week in-house adapter plus a 9-week reference precedent and the approximated aisle behaviour mean real cost and integration ris", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed velliton forwarding mail-2 (mail-23: \"Replay pilot: diligence items we need before any log access\"); mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-24: \"P1 pilot: my conditions as procurement / vendor risk\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Nothing can move to data access until two policies are cleared: Velliton is under 3 years old (financial viability review) and Type II is not done, so it needs a Security-signed compensating control for operational log access. I conditionally app", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-19, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-28: \"P1: my approval and two binding conditions\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k fixed-fee pilot fits the $210k tooling budget, carries a written week-12 exit, caps post-pilot pricing and commits nothing beyond the pilot, so finance can support it. I approve conditionally on the vendor's viability clearing and on cost protection if it fails, since 22 months of runway and 48% customer concentration are real exit risks"], "refs": ["seed-1021/enterprise.jsonl#L16", "seed-1021/enterprise.jsonl#L17", "seed-1021/enterprise.jsonl#L18"], "round": null}, "s1021-research": {"events": ["week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-21: \"Technical read: Velliton replay fits our incident pattern; cap the adapter work\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-22: \"Velliton study: your team's simulator is the long-term answer\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay attacks exactly our failure mode \u2014 9 release incidents from untested fleet-control changes \u2014 but the custom-fleet-manager overrun at reference 2 is our situation, so I approve only with an ef", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-21, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-23: \"Vendor-risk view on P1: conditional on security control and recorded viability review\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay is a fit for our incidents and the money is capped, but Velliton only has SOC 2 Type I and is a two-year-old company, so I will approve the pilot only with a signed compensating control and a recorded viability review.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-24: \"P1: Finance approves conditionally - exposure capped, no licence path\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The financial and vendor-risk diligence is in and my two conditions are written into P1, so the $140k study is affordable and exitable. I approve it conditionally, capping total exposure and keeping the $420k/yr licence strictly out of scope without a CFO business case."], "refs": ["seed-1021/research.jsonl#L16", "seed-1021/research.jsonl#L17", "seed-1021/research.jsonl#L18"], "round": null}, "s1021-upside": {"events": ["week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, proc, fin, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-20: \"P1 conditional approval \u2014 binding conditions\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-21: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 capacity read before week 4\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is worth a narrow, standalone test because replay directly targets our release-incident problem, but the reference shows custom fleet-manager integrations overrun and mixed aisles are only approximated. I will approve only with binding scope and escrow conditions so this d", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng (mail-22: \"P1 finance conditional approval \u2014 binding conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is fixed-fee and fits the remaining budget, but it consumes most of it and the reference shows integration can overrun. I will approve only with binding exit and cost controls.", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed platform (mail-28: \"P2: conditional approval, two engineers not three\"); mailed sponsor, fin, proc, sharing diligence-reference (mail-29: \"P1: capacity condition on my approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding); conditional on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot stays the narrowest way to hit our release-incident problem, but Kiyoshi's capacity read means the adapter must not eat the internal simulator; and P2 asks for three engineers I do not have, so I bound it to two.", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-30: \"P1: procurement conditional approval \u2014 data-policy condition binding\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): On the merits the pilot is worth running and both peer approvers' conditions cover most of my concern, but Velliton holds only SOC 2 Type I and our data policy bars operational-log access without Type II or a Security-signed compensating control. That gap must be a binding condition, not a hope."], "refs": ["seed-1021/upside.jsonl#L16", "seed-1021/upside.jsonl#L18", "seed-1021/upside.jsonl#L23", "seed-1021/upside.jsonl#L24"], "round": null}, "s1022-upside": {"events": ["week 2, engineering exec: mailed platform, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-18: \"Two answers I need before I approve the Velliton pilot\"); mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference (mail-19: \"Re: Velliton: adapter and aisle limitation\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay is a real fit for our release-incident problem, but our non-ROS 2 fleet manager and the mixed human/robot aisle approximation are exactly where the value could evaporate, so I approve the pilot only with terms that force those two things to be tested honestly.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng, sharing diligence-security (mail-27: \"P1 pilot \u2014 procurement conditional approval, one binding gate\"); mailed velliton (mail-28: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 reference and continuity questions\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1's terms address my procurement concerns (fixed fee, no auto-conversion, Brenmoor data ownership, no-penalty exit), and financial viability review is done: 22 months runway but 48% customer concentration. But Velliton holds only SOC 2 Type I, so under our data policy operationa", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed fin forwarding mail-30, sharing diligence-reference (mail-31: \"P1 pilot \u2014 reference diligence and your approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Reference diligence shows real but slower integrations, especially with custom fleet managers, which reinforces the need to keep P1's fixed fee and exit terms binding. P1 still only needs Finance, so I will keep my procurement condition and ask Theo to decide this week.", "week 5, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-33 (mail-34: \"Re: 9-week adapter \u2014 engineer-weeks and the nine incidents\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-26 (mail-35: \"P2 internal_build \u2014 my conditional approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding); conditional on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): I confirm the 9-week adapter plan and the nine-incident baseline so fin can close P1, and I put conditions on P2 because three engineers for two quarters cannot also absorb the pilot adapter work.", "week 5, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-32, sharing diligence-financial (mail-36: \"P1 pilot \u2014 Finance approval, conditions binding\"); mailed platform, eng (mail-37: \"P2 internal_build \u2014 blocked on funding\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is affordable, fixed-fee, and every finance condition I asked for is now written into the terms, so I approve it with those conditions binding. P2 is $450k of loaded headcount with no 24-month payback case and it competes for Mara's engineers, so I block it this fiscal year."], "refs": ["seed-1022/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1022/upside.jsonl#L19", "seed-1022/upside.jsonl#L23", "seed-1022/upside.jsonl#L28", "seed-1022/upside.jsonl#L29"], "round": null}, "s1023-enterprise": {"events": ["week 4, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-36, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-38: \"Velliton: what clears my gates and when\"); mailed velliton (mail-39: \"Compensating control: written description needed for Security sign-off\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): All four diligence packs are in and the startup viability review clears at 22 months of runway and no debt, so I can move off my blanket hold. My approval stays conditional: the viability review must be documented before first invoice, and no operational log access until Securit", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-24, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-40: \"P1 approval with conditions: success criterion and adapter view\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-41: \"Velliton pilot: your team's simulator is not on the table\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is cheap and directly targets our nine release incidents, but the integration load is the real cost and the custom-fleet-manager reference shows the 3-week adapter estimate is optimistic; I approve with a hard engineering cap and a w", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc forwarding mail-38, sharing diligence-security, diligence-technical (mail-42: \"P1 Velliton pilot: Finance conditional approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is approvable at my level: fixed 12-week fee inside the remaining $210k, no renewal and no multi-year commitment, and the licence question returns to me. I approve conditionally so the exit terms and engineering load are recorded, not just promised."], "refs": ["seed-1023/enterprise.jsonl#L27", "seed-1023/enterprise.jsonl#L28", "seed-1023/enterprise.jsonl#L29"], "round": null}, "s1023-upside": {"events": ["week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, proc, fin forwarding mail-32, sharing diligence-technical (mail-42: \"Velliton replay fidelity \u2013 my answer and my conditions\"); mailed platform (mail-43: \"In-house simulator keeps going, in parallel\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay is still the most direct fix for our 9 untested fleet-control incidents, and the pilot is now tightly bounded, but the custom-fleet-manager adapter is the exact place both Velliton and its own reference were wrong on effort, so I approve with a hard fidelity checkpoint rather than on", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng forwarding mail-42, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-44: \"P1: my conditions, recorded\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): My financial conditions are met on paper, but Mara's note that the $6k/month cloud compute is ours, not in the $140k, means true cost is roughly $158k, three-quarters of my remaining tooling budget. I approve conditionally so that number is on the record and capped.", "week 5, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-42, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-47: \"P1: proc approval, conditional on the security gate\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The financial viability review our startup policy requires is satisfied for a bounded pilot: 22 months of runway, no debt, and a $140k ceiling with 30-day exit. The remaining gap is the security gate \u2014 SOC 2 Type II is five months out, so I approve only with a compensating control signed off by Security before any operational log access."], "refs": ["seed-1023/upside.jsonl#L30", "seed-1023/upside.jsonl#L31", "seed-1023/upside.jsonl#L35"], "round": null}, "s1025-research": {"events": ["week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical (mail-15: \"P1: conditional approval from Finance\"); mailed proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton: terms I need before signature\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is capped, milestone-gated and exit-ready, so downside is bounded and it fits the $210k remaining budget \u2014 but only if the $140k is truly all-in and no post-pilot licence commitment creeps in.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-16 (mail-19: \"P1 pilot: my approval is conditional, not clean\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is small and milestone-capped, but Velliton is a 22-month-runway startup under three years old and would touch operational logs without SOC 2 Type II, so I will only approve with binding conditions and a completed financial review. I want the viability diligence in hand before anything is signed.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed velliton forwarding mail-22, sharing diligence-financial (mail-26: \"Pilot: escrow and all-in cap need to be written in\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-27: \"P1 pilot: financial and security diligence are in\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Financial diligence is adequate for a bounded pilot but shows real concentration and a 12-month raise dependency, and Velliton's standard escrow only kicks in above $250k a year, so our escrow demand must be an explicit written exception at pilot size. I stay conditional a", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference (mail-30: \"P1: the number is 2\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly the untested fleet-control changes behind our 9 incidents, and escrow/exit/data-deletion address lock-in. The real risk is engineering capacity, so I approve conditionally with a hard cap on who does the work and no production dependency before results."], "refs": ["seed-1025/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1025/research.jsonl#L13", "seed-1025/research.jsonl#L20", "seed-1025/research.jsonl#L22"], "round": null}, "s1025-upside": {"events": ["week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical (mail-15: \"My read: integration burden and what I need in P1\"); mailed proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton: security, escrow, exit\"); requested security, financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay is the most direct fix for nine release incidents traced to untested fleet-control changes, but the 4-6 week integration is optimistic for our in-house manager and the pitch is pushing us toward a lock-in structure. I approve the pilot only behind Rafael's terms plus e", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc (mail-19: \"P1: conditional approval, and my read on Velliton counterparty risk\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is $140k fixed, inside my remaining $210k, adapter included and gated by a week-6 go/no-go, so downside is capped; my concern is counterparty risk and any drift into a $420k/yr licence, which I want locked out now.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-21: \"P1: Procurement conditional approval - two binding conditions\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is a reasonable, capped way to test the replay claim, but Velliton is under three years old and has no SOC 2 Type II, so our startup and data policies must be satisfied in writing before any operational log access."], "refs": ["seed-1025/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1025/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1025/upside.jsonl#L13"], "round": null}, "s1027-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor (mail-15: \"Re: Velliton \u2014 vendor risk and security check\"); mailed eng, fin, sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"P1 Velliton pilot \u2014 procurement stance: conditional\"); requested financial, security, technical diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Nothing in the pitch clears our two vendor policies: Velliton is under three years old and holds SOC 2 Type I only, with Type II closing five months out \u2014 after a 12-week pilot ends. I can conditionally approve the pilot but must start diligence now.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical (mail-20: \"Re: Velliton pilot: adapter risk is the whole question\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-21: \"Velliton pilot: adapter spec sits with you\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The incident history justifies trying replay, but the vendor's integration estimate already failed once on a custom fleet manager like ours, so I approve P1 only with a re-baselined adapter plan and a scope limit on mixed human/robot aisles, and I want the adapter owned so it also serves our internal simul", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed fin forwarding mail-22, sharing diligence-financial (mail-25: \"Velliton financial viability review \u2014 outcome for P1\"); mailed sponsor, eng forwarding mail-23, sharing diligence-security (mail-26: \"Velliton security is the remaining gate on P1\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in: the financial viability review the startup policy requires can be cleared with conditions, but the data policy is still open \u2014 Velliton holds Type I only and its Type II closes five months out, after the pilot ends. I sta", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-25, sharing diligence-financial (mail-32: \"P1 approved conditionally \u2014 no fait accompli\"); mailed platform, eng (mail-33: \"P2 not fundable as filed\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget and is exitable, so I approve it conditionally on no post-pilot licence commitment and escrow; the $450k internal build does not fit at all, so I cannot approve P2 as filed."], "refs": ["seed-1027/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1027/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12", "seed-1027/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L18", "seed-1027/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L23"], "round": null}, "s1027-research": {"events": ["week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-17: \"P1: conditional approval from eng\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is low-commitment and directly targets our release incidents, but the custom fleet-manager adapter and Reference 2's 9-week overrun mean the integration estimate needs a binding re-baseline. I conditionally approve rather than block.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin (mail-18: \"P1 conditional: Security control, escrow, exit terms\"); mailed velliton (mail-19: \"Joint study: escrow, exit and data handling in writing\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot's finance and security diligence are good enough to proceed conditionally: Velliton is under three years old but has 22 months of runway, no debt, and a clean pen test, and its own-cloud, read-only, logged deployment can be a compensating control for the missing Type II. I approve P1 only with Security sign-", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed fin, sponsor forwarding mail-23, sharing diligence-reference (mail-24: \"Velliton reference diligence: integration risk\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The reference diligence confirms real integration risk rather than invalidating the pilot: one reference deployed in 9 weeks due to a custom fleet manager. I keep P1 conditional and make sure fin sees this before approving.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-21, sharing diligence-financial (mail-27: \"P1: Finance approves conditionally\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 as filed carries every financial condition I asked for \u2014 fixed $140k, no auto-conversion, termination for convenience, no exclusivity \u2014 so the downside is capped and $70k stays for the year. Vendor is early-stage with customer concentration and Type II pending, so I approve with binding payment and escrow terms."], "refs": ["seed-1027/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1027/research.jsonl#L13", "seed-1027/research.jsonl#L19", "seed-1027/research.jsonl#L23"], "round": null}, "s1029-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-15: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 vendor risk read on P1\"); mailed velliton (mail-16: \"Diligence request: financial and security\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is plausible and Rafael's conditions are sensible, but Velliton is a 2024 startup wanting read-only log access with only SOC 2 Type I, so I approve only behind a financial viability review and Security sign-off on a compensating control.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-25: \"P1: adapter reality, real engineer cost, prototype view\"); mailed platform (mail-26: \"Replay prototype on top of our simulator \u2014 honest engineer-weeks\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay attacks exactly the failure mode behind our 9 release incidents and two outages, but the adapter for our in-house fleet manager is the real risk and the 12-week window is tight. I approve P1 only with a hard week-5 adapter proof point and a stop-loss.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-financial (mail-29: \"P1: conditional approval \u2014 my number is $158k all-in\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is a bounded, one-site experiment that fits inside discretionary budget; the real exposure is the $420k/yr post-pilot rate and a young, concentrated vendor, so I approve with a hard cost ceiling, milestone payments and no forward commitment."], "refs": ["seed-1029/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1029/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L19", "seed-1029/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L23"], "round": null}, "s1029-upside": {"events": ["week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-25, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-27: \"Velliton: control sign-off, sequencing and the quarter\"); mailed velliton (mail-28: \"Two clarifications before we contract\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Both policy gates are already written into P1, so I can approve it conditionally and keep the vendor risk contained; my job this week is to make clear that onboarding cannot be compressed past the security sign-off and that the quarter timeline is optimistic.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical (mail-29: \"Velliton technical read: fits, with one real gap\"); mailed platform (mail-30: \"Straight question: Replay vs. our simulator\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot directly attacks our 9 untested-change incidents and the 3-week adapter is inside the fixed fee, so the downside is bounded; but it consumes the only free capacity I have while our own simulator is two quarters late, so I approve only with a plan for that overlap and no licence commitment.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng, sharing diligence-financial (mail-35: \"Velliton: financial viability review recorded\"); mailed sponsor, proc (mail-36: \"P1: my approval with binding conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is a fixed $140k, fits inside the remaining $210k tooling budget, and is cancellable at 12 weeks, so the downside is bounded even though Velliton itself is a thin, concentrated startup. I'll record the viability review and approve conditionally, so the gate closes and no licence commitment sneaks in behind the pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1029/upside.jsonl#L20", "seed-1029/upside.jsonl#L21", "seed-1029/upside.jsonl#L26"], "round": null}, "s1030-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-20: \"Technical read: adapter risk and trace approximation\"); mailed platform (mail-21: \"Heads-up: Velliton pilot, not a replacement\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay addresses the actual cause of our 9 incidents, and a capped 12-week pilot is cheap insurance, but the bespoke adapter and the trace-approximation limit are real risks I want written down before I approve.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing diligence-financial (mail-25: \"P1: conditional approval from Finance\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): A fixed $140k, one-site pilot fits inside the $210k left and carries no multi-year commitment, so the downside is capped; what I will not do is let it drift into the $420k/yr licence without a fresh business case. Financial diligence reads acceptable but concentration (48% of ARR in one customer) is worth one reference check.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-33: \"P1: conditional approval from Procurement\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 already carries my two vendor-risk gates as written conditions, and Finance's cap and exit limit exposure, so I can approve it conditionally rather than block; the financial and security reviews still have to actually close before signature."], "refs": ["seed-1030/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L13", "seed-1030/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L19", "seed-1030/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L22"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1004-enterprise", "s1005-enterprise", "s1005-upside", "s1006-upside", "s1007-enterprise", "s1007-upside", "s1007-enterprise-replicate", "s1008-upside", "s1008-enterprise-replicate", "s1009-enterprise", "s1009-enterprise-replicate", "s1011-research", "s1011-upside", "s1012-upside", "s1012-enterprise-replicate", "s1013-enterprise", "s1013-upside", "s1014-research", "s1014-upside", "s1014-enterprise-replicate", "s1015-enterprise", "s1015-research", "s1015-enterprise-replicate", "s1017-enterprise-replicate", "s1018-research", "s1019-research", "s1020-enterprise", "s1020-research", "s1021-enterprise", "s1021-research", "s1021-upside", "s1022-upside", "s1023-enterprise", "s1023-upside", "s1025-research", "s1025-upside", "s1027-research", "s1027-enterprise-replicate", "s1029-upside", "s1029-enterprise-replicate", "s1030-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 41, "evidence": {"s1004-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: diligence read, proposed conditions\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Pilot conditions before filing\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): The diligence supports a contained pilot: deterministic replay addresses the outage problem, but the adapter, mixed human/robot limitation, and reference integration overrun mean I want hard caps and no post-pilot commitment. Vendor concentration and runway are manageable only be", "terms: 12-week, one-site pilot at $140,000 fixed fee; integration capped at 6 weeks; success measured by reduction in manual interventions per shift; no licence commitment; Brenmoor cloud compute costs disclosed separately."], "refs": ["seed-1004/enterprise.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1005-enterprise": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-16: \"Velliton diligence read-out and proposed pilot terms\"); mailed velliton (mail-17: \"Pilot scoping questions before I propose\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and the pilot still targets our real problem, but two things now bite: our in-house fleet manager means the 9-week overrun case, and mixed human/robot aisles are approximated. I'll propose a tightly scoped, milestone-gated pilot rather than wait further", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, $140,000 fixed fee covering the in-house fleet-manager adapter. Milestone gates at weeks 4 and 8; no licence commitment until agreed success criteria are met; Brenmoor may stop at any gate."], "refs": ["seed-1005/enterprise.jsonl#L13"], "round": 2}, "s1005-upside": {"events": ["week 4, business sponsor: mailed fin, proc, eng forwarding mail-27, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-29: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 filing standalone terms with all conditions attached\"); mailed velliton (mail-30: \"Pilot terms we would need\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Both Finance and Procurement have given me workable, specific conditions rather than objections, and the technical diligence they wanted is already in hand; I file the pilot now so the terms are locked before momentum drifts, keeping it standalone and exitable so a fai", "terms: Standalone 12-week pilot, one site, $140k fixed fee. No auto-conversion, no exclusivity, no anchor-partner language, written exit at week 12. Source-code escrow written in; compute and engineering shown in total cost."], "refs": ["seed-1005/upside.jsonl#L23"], "round": 3}, "s1006-upside": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-16: \"Re: Velliton pilot - financial diligence, and my terms\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-17: \"Velliton: your read on the adapter, and our engineer cost\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay attacks exactly the outage failure mode that has cost me twice this year, and the diligence is credible enough for a scoped, shadow-mode pilot at one site; but the vendor is small, concentrated and unprofitable (high vendor risk), and the anchor-partnership", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, shadow mode only - no production fleet control. $140k fixed. No conversion, exclusivity or anchor-partnership clause. Adapter for our fleet manager included. Escrow requested. Brenmoor engineer time capped at 2 x 6 weeks."], "refs": ["seed-1006/upside.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1007-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed proc, fin forwarding mail-11, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: two terms I need before I can commit\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical (mail-13: \"Adapter for our in-house fleet manager \u2014 realistic in 3 weeks?\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is decent on the product but shows two live risks: their custom-fleet-manager deployment slipped to 9 weeks, which is exactly our in-house case, and the vendor is small with 48% customer concentration and no escrow below $250k. I'll propose", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, fixed fee $140,000 (Finance approval required). Conditions: adapter go/no-go gate at week 4, named success criteria against manual interventions per shift, 30-day termination for convenience, no post-pilot commitment."], "refs": ["seed-1007/enterprise.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1007-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-11, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-security (mail-12: \"Filing a conditional Velliton pilot \u2014 your review\"); mailed fin forwarding mail-9, sharing diligence-financial (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 $140,000, above the $100k line\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is credible but thin: good determinism, real limitation on mixed-aisle behaviour, a custom fleet-manager integration that took 9 weeks at a reference, and a 14-person vendor with 48% customer concentration. A capped, fixed-fee pilot at one s", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, fixed fee $140,000, no auto-renewal, no licence commitment. Success criteria: measurable drop in manual interventions and zero release-caused site outages; exit without penalty at end of pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1007/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1007-upside": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference, diligence-security (mail-12: \"Proposing Velliton pilot - $140k, conditional on adapter milestone\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Two questions before we file a pilot\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence landed complete and reasonably reassuring on security and deployment, but our in-house fleet manager is exactly the case where reference 2 overran 4-6 weeks to 9, and the mixed human/robot aisle behaviour is only approximated. I will propose a bounded pilot with the ada", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, fixed $140,000 from program line, Finance-approved. Binding: adapter for in-house fleet manager a week-3 go/no-go milestone; defined regression and manual-intervention success criteria; no automatic conversion to the $420k licence."], "refs": ["seed-1007/upside.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1008-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Proposing Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 $140k fixed, one site, 12 weeks\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Pilot terms before we file\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence came back clean enough on security and technical fit, and the $140k fixed-fee, single-site, 12-week pilot is a bounded way to test Replay against our actual outage problem; the risks I see (48% customer concentration, Type II still open, our in-house fleet man", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140,000 fixed all-in. Adapter milestone at week three with stop right. Success criteria agreed pre-signature. No auto-renewal; exit at pilot end."], "refs": ["seed-1008/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1008-upside": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton diligence in hand - proposing a bounded pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Adapter plan for Brenmoor's in-house fleet manager\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence answers the questions I asked: deterministic replay directly targets the regression failures that caused our outages, and running in our own cloud limits data risk. The one live danger is integration: reference 2 slipped to 9 weeks on a custom fle", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, fixed $140,000, inside my line but above $100k so it needs Finance. Conditions: written adapter plan for our in-house fleet manager, integration capped at 6 weeks with a no-fault exit, and a milestone schedule showing pilot value before Q2."], "refs": ["seed-1008/upside.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1009-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, proc, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: $140k commitment, diligence attached\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-8, sharing diligence-technical (mail-13: \"Velliton technical: confirm the adapter and success criteria\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is credible: deterministic replay targets exactly the release-regression failure mode that cost us two outages, and $140,000 fits the remaining budget. The caveats \u2014 a 3-week adapter for our own fleet manager, one reference", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, fixed $140,000, no spend beyond that without new approval; success criteria agreed before start; integration capped at 6 weeks with the in-house fleet-manager adapter included."], "refs": ["seed-1009/enterprise.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1009-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: $140k, above my $100k threshold\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-13: \"Velliton integration: your read on the adapter\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is credible on security and technical fit and the price is fixed and within my line, so a bounded pilot is worth it; but the 9-week reference slip on a custom fleet manager and 48% customer concentration mean I want milestone payments, adapter scope owned by us, and a go/no-go before a", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140,000 fixed, adapter included, milestone payments, success measured against manual interventions per shift; no annual licence commitment without separate approval."], "refs": ["seed-1009/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1011-research": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-security, diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-30: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 proposing with binding conditions\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical (mail-31: \"Which two engineers, and what happens to Kiyoshi's simulator\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is now in and it supports a bounded pilot: replay plausibly attacks the release failures that set my program back, but the adapter is unproven on our in-house fleet manager, the references show 9-week integrations, and ", "terms: 12-week pilot at one site, fixed $140k, contingent on SOC 2 Type II or Security-signed compensating control, adapter proven on Brenmoor logs, source-code escrow, and named engineers backfilled."], "refs": ["seed-1011/research.jsonl#L20"], "round": 2}, "s1011-upside": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-27: \"Velliton: proposing a gated pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-28: \"Pilot: fixed fee, adapter and calendar\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence answers the questions I raised in week 1 \u2014 deterministic replay targets our exact regression gap, cash lasts 22 months, data stays in our cloud \u2014 but the adapter and 6-8 week onboarding push a 12-week pilot into the next fiscal year unless I gate it. A capped, gated pilot keeps t", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, $140,000 fixed fee, no on-site spend before eng fidelity sign-off and procurement gates clear; 6-8 weeks onboarding and the fleet-manager adapter inside the schedule, not outside it."], "refs": ["seed-1011/upside.jsonl#L19"], "round": 2}, "s1012-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed proc, fin, eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-15: \"Velliton pilot - proposing bounded terms\"); mailed velliton (mail-16: \"Pilot scope: success criteria, adapter, payment\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and it is credible but thin: real determinism, but an unaudited single-customer claim, Type I only, and a 9-week overrun at a customer with a custom fleet manager, which is exactly our situation. I will propose a tightly bounded pilot with binding conditions rather than let the window run.", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140,000 fixed, milestone payments, written success criteria, no licence commitment after. Conditional on financial viability review, SOC 2 Type II or Security-signed compensating control, and Security sign-off on log access."], "refs": ["seed-1012/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L14"], "round": 2}, "s1012-upside": {"events": ["week 4, business sponsor: mailed velliton, sharing diligence-financial (mail-34: \"Pilot viability review items needed\"); mailed eng, proc, fin, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-security (mail-35: \"Filing Velliton pilot under your conditions\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): The diligence supports a contained pilot, and Finance and Procurement have given clear conditions I can meet. I will file the fixed-fee, non-converting pilot now and get the missing financial-viability items from Velliton rather than let the window drift.", "terms: 12-week pilot at one site, fixed fee $140,000, non-converting. No log access before Security sign-off; customer-cloud, read-only, logged, no egress. Financial viability review and 24-month payback case before any site licence."], "refs": ["seed-1012/upside.jsonl#L25"], "round": 3}, "s1013-enterprise": {"events": ["week 4, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc, fin, sharing diligence-technical (mail-29: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 my conditions before I sign\"); mailed velliton, sharing diligence-technical (mail-30: \"Pilot scope question \u2014 mixed human/robot aisles\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Replay attacks exactly what has burned us twice this year and the diligence is credible, but the mixed human/robot aisle gap and the $420k/yr tail mean I will approve the pilot only with tight, binding gates rather than an open door to a licence.", "terms: 12-week, one site, $140,000 fixed, no licence commitment. Binding: Finance viability sign-off, Security-signed compensating control, adapter validated on our in-house fleet manager before start, mixed-aisle gap documented."], "refs": ["seed-1013/enterprise.jsonl#L23"], "round": 3}, "s1013-upside": {"events": ["week 4, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-28, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-30: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 need your stance and an engineering read\"); mailed fin, proc (mail-31: \"Velliton \u2014 filing a bounded $140k pilot\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence came back clean enough to pilot: deterministic replay is genuinely useful to us, the adapter is inside the estimate, and the SOC 2 gap has a workable compensating control. But the vendor is small, concentrated and early, so I want a bounded $140k pilot with no auto-conversion and nothin", "terms: $140k fixed fee, 12 weeks, one site. Termination for convenience, no auto-conversion, no exclusivity, fees capped at $140k, Security-signed compensating control for the SOC 2 Type II gap, no partnership or investment language in writing."], "refs": ["seed-1013/upside.jsonl#L23"], "round": 3}, "s1014-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-17: \"Velliton pilot: proposing a gated 12-week pilot, not a licence\"); mailed platform, eng, sharing diligence-technical (mail-18: \"Quick read: could our internal platform do deterministic replay?\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Replay targets the exact failure mode that has set my program back twice, and $140k fits my line, but the custom-fleet-manager slippage, the SOC 2 gap and a 14-person vendor mean I w", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, fixed $140k. Adapter proven by week 4; success criteria and kill gate at week 6; Security-signed compensating control before any log access; no commitment to the $420k licence."], "refs": ["seed-1014/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L13"], "round": 2}, "s1014-research": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed fin, proc, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-16: \"Pilot with Velliton: proposed, conditional on your gates\"); mailed velliton, sharing diligence-technical (mail-17: \"Two questions before we scope the pilot\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is credible on the core method and it targets the release outages that are blocking my target, but the vendor is small and concentrated, SOC 2 Type II is 5 months out, and mixed human/robot aisles are only approximated, so I want a bounded pilot gated by Procurement's cond", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140,000 fixed fee. Conditional on financial viability review and a Security-signed compensating control for log access. No operational log access before it. Stop clause and success criteria agreed before signature."], "refs": ["seed-1014/research.jsonl#L13"], "round": 2}, "s1014-upside": {"events": ["week 4, business sponsor: mailed eng, platform, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-33: \"Velliton pilot: your capacity trade-off stated on the record\"); mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-27, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-34: \"Velliton pilot proposal: terms against your conditions\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is now complete and supports a bounded pilot, but only if the escrow, security and engineering-capacity conditions are written into it rather than assumed. I will propose a capped pilot with those as binding co", "terms: 12-week, one-site pilot at $140,000 fixed, capped at pilot commitment only; no conversion rights. Conditions: source-code escrow at pilot stage, Security-signed compensating control before access, and Eng/platform capacity agreed before integration starts."], "refs": ["seed-1014/upside.jsonl#L24"], "round": 3}, "s1015-enterprise": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed platform forwarding mail-8, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-security (mail-18: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 your read before I propose a pilot\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-19: \"Proposing a scoped Velliton pilot (single site, our logs)\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence checks out on the mechanics \u2014 deterministic replay, our cloud, read-only access, adapter cost already in the estimate \u2014 and it targets our exact failure mode of releases that p", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140,000 fixed, our logs in our cloud account; success criteria on regressions caught and manual interventions per shift; adapter milestone and escrow terms before start."], "refs": ["seed-1015/enterprise.jsonl#L13"], "round": 2}, "s1015-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-15: \"Velliton pilot: firm estimate and a capacity cap\"); mailed fin forwarding mail-9, sharing diligence-financial (mail-16: \"Velliton pilot: $140k from program budget\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in: Replay targets the exact failure mode that set us back twice, but our in-house fleet manager needs an adapter (Reference 2 shows that overrunning to 9 weeks) and Mara's two engineers are my only spare capacity. I'll file a fixed-fee pilot with hard capacity and go/", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140k fixed from program budget; in-house fleet-manager adapter included at no extra cost; two engineers capped at 6 weeks; week-6 go/no-go against agreed regression-catch criteria; no licence commitment."], "refs": ["seed-1015/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L13"], "round": 2}, "s1015-research": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-16: \"Velliton pilot: terms I want before I file it\"); mailed velliton (mail-17: \"Re: diligence materials\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence answers most of my questions: the method is credible and the risk is bounded, but Mara's capacity flag and the reference-2 overrun mean I want the adapter and engineering effort pinned in writing before the pilot is ratified.", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, $140k fixed including adapter; engineering capped at two FTE for six weeks; replay results shared into Brenmoor's in-house simulator; no licence commitment until pilot results are reviewed."], "refs": ["seed-1015/research.jsonl#L13"], "round": 2}, "s1017-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-11, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton diligence in \u2014 my read and a proposed pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Pilot scope questions before we file\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence came back clean enough to justify a bounded pilot: deterministic replay directly targets the release-caused outages that have hurt my program, and $140k plus ~$6k/month compute fits the budget line. The concentration, runway, and the reference-", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140,000 fixed, includes in-house fleet-manager adapter at no extra cost; compute ~$6k/month against our cloud account; written success criteria tied to manual interventions per shift; no auto-renewal or licence commitment."], "refs": ["seed-1017/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12"], "round": 2}, "s1018-research": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-16: \"Velliton diligence in - proposing a non-binding pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-17: \"Two questions before we propose\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence has landed and largely supports a bounded pilot: the method targets our release regressions, compute stays in our cloud, and Theo's condition (non-binding, no auto-conversion) is easy to write into terms. I propose the pilot now so eng, fin, proc can approve or condi", "terms: 12-week replay study, one site, fixed $140,000, non-binding: no auto-conversion, no minimum commitment toward the $420,000/year site licence. Success criteria and kill criteria agreed with Engineering before start."], "refs": ["seed-1018/research.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1019-research": {"events": ["week 5, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-40: \"Pilot terms: exit letter signed before onboarding\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-32, sharing diligence-reference (mail-41: \"Velliton pilot: proposed with your conditions as binding terms\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Finance has given conditional approval and Engineering has clarified the pilot pauses rather than replaces the internal simulator, so the remaining risk is contractual and schedule, not technical. I propose a tightly bounded 12-week pilot with a signed unilateral exit before any onboarding.", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, $140,000 fixed, no auto-conversion to the $420k/yr licence; unilateral written exit at week 12 signed before onboarding; adapter in fixed scope; week-4 gate."], "refs": ["seed-1019/research.jsonl#L32"], "round": 4}, "s1020-enterprise": {"events": ["week 4, business sponsor: mailed velliton, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial (mail-32: \"Pilot: written exit, deletion and adapter scope before I propose\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-21, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-33: \"Proposing Velliton pilot: $140k, 12 weeks, hard exit\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence says Replay targets exactly the release-caused outages that set us back, but a 14-person vendor with 48% customer concentration and a 9-week custom-fleet-manager integration is real risk; the right shape is ", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140,000 fixed fee with fleet-manager adapter included; exit and data deletion on request; no auto-conversion; success measured on incident reduction; integration ceiling 9 weeks."], "refs": ["seed-1020/enterprise.jsonl#L25"], "round": 3}, "s1020-research": {"events": ["week 4, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc (mail-28: \"Velliton pilot filed: your conditions are the terms\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): All four diligence streams are in and eng, fin and proc have each given workable conditions, so the pilot can be filed this week with their terms folded in rather than argued over. The 12-week cap, fixed $140k and clean exit keep the downside bounded against our release-outage problem.", "terms: 12-week one-site pilot, $140k fixed all-in. Integration \u22646 weeks, \u22644 engineer-weeks incl. adapter. Security-signed control before log access; escrow at pilot fee; our cloud account; data return; no auto-conversion; mixed aisles excluded."], "refs": ["seed-1020/research.jsonl#L23"], "round": 3}, "s1021-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-technical (mail-16: \"Filing Velliton pilot with your three conditions written in\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-17: \"Adapter and aisle-simulation limits: your read before I file\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and the technology squarely targets the release outages that cost me twice this year; the vendor is small and concentrated but cloud-deployed, escrow-capable and cheap to exit. I'll file a pilot on Theo's three con", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140,000 fixed fee, no auto-renewal, written exit at week 12; success criteria agreed up front including measurable payback under 24 months; post-pilot pricing capped and optional in writing only."], "refs": ["seed-1021/enterprise.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1021-research": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc, fin forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-16: \"Proposing the Velliton 12-week study, with Finance's conditions written in\"); mailed velliton (mail-17: \"Questions before we commit to the study\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is credible but vendor-reported, and one reference overran its integration estimate on a custom fleet manager, which is exactly our situation. I will propose the 12-week study now, written to Finance's conditions, while", "terms: 12-week study at one site, fixed $140,000. No obligation, right or discount toward the $420k/yr licence. Termination for convenience. Joint ownership of write-up. In-house fleet-manager adapter in scope. Week-6 go/no-go."], "refs": ["seed-1021/research.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1021-upside": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-15: \"Re: Velliton pilot \u2014 scope and contracting terms\"); mailed eng, proc, fin forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-16: \"Filing: Velliton 12-week pilot, $140k \u2014 approvals requested\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): All four diligence items are in and Theo has given a workable structure, so the pilot can be filed this week as a standalone, non-converting contract that targets our regression problem directly. I am refusing the anchor-partnership/co", "terms: 12-week fixed-fee pilot, $140,000, one site. Standalone contract: no auto-conversion, exclusivity, equity or acquisition language; source-code escrow. Success measured on regressions caught and manual interventions per shift."], "refs": ["seed-1021/upside.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1022-upside": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, eng, proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-15: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 Theo's conditions in scope\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-8, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-16: \"Velliton: adapter and aisle limitation\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and is broadly credible, and Theo's conditions are workable, so I will confirm them and file a tightly scoped, fixed-fee pilot rather than let the window drift; I still want Eng's read on the fleet-manager adapter and the hu", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, fixed $140,000 including fleet-manager adapter; no auto-conversion; Brenmoor owns pilot data; no-penalty exit; any follow-on above $300k/year to the CFO with a business case."], "refs": ["seed-1022/upside.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1023-enterprise": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-25, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-35: \"Filing the Velliton Replay pilot (12 weeks, $140k, one site)\"); mailed proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-36: \"What exactly must clear before the first Velliton invoice?\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence holds up and Finance has cleared the fixed fee at their level, so the remaining blockers are procedural, not substantive. I'm filing the pilot now with the conditions baked in rather than let", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, $140,000 fixed fee, no auto-renewal or annual commitment; agreed success criteria; Procurement viability clearance before first invoice; any site licence returns to Finance with escrow."], "refs": ["seed-1023/enterprise.jsonl#L24"], "round": 2}, "s1023-upside": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed fin, eng, proc forwarding mail-35, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-technical (mail-38: \"Filing a Velliton pilot - strictly bounded, no conversion\"); mailed velliton (mail-39: \"Pilot only - no anchor, no conversion\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is good enough for a contained pilot but not for the anchor framing Velliton is selling; I will file a pilot on Theo's and my conditions, keep the $420k licence and any partnership strictly outside it, and give Mara the integration scope she asked for.", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140,000 fixed all-in; no auto-conversion to licence or partnership; source-code escrow; termination for convenience at 30 days; exit at our option."], "refs": ["seed-1023/upside.jsonl#L25"], "round": 2}, "s1025-research": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: technical and commercial conditions before I propose\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Follow-up before we scope a pilot\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence supports the core claim but flags two real risks for us: our in-house fleet manager needs an adapter and the one reference with a custom fleet manager ran 9 weeks, not 4-6; plus Velliton is small and concentrated. A bounded, milestone-gated pilot inside this year's budget is worth proposing", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, fixed fee capped at $140,000 including the in-house fleet-manager adapter; milestone-gated payments; source-code escrow, exit and data-deletion terms required before signature."], "refs": ["seed-1025/research.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1025-upside": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-11, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot terms \u2014 adapter risk is the real schedule risk\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-13: \"Does Velliton duplicate what your platform team already does?\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence holds up better than I expected: deterministic replay of our own containers, data staying in our cloud account, escrow available. The mixed human/robot aisle approximation and the reference site's 9-week custom fleet-manager in", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, fixed $140,000, adapter for our in-house fleet manager inside the fee; week-6 go/no-go; success measured as manual interventions per shift against a pre-pilot baseline."], "refs": ["seed-1025/upside.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1027-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-11, sharing diligence-technical (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: adapter risk is the whole question\"); mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot: $140k, and what comes after\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): The diligence backs a real capability that targets our actual failure mode, but the reference slip to 9 weeks on a custom fleet manager is exactly our situation, so I want a pilot scoped tightly to that risk before money moves beyond it.", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, $140,000 fixed. Success criteria agreed in advance, including our in-house fleet manager adapter; no commitment to the post-pilot $420k/year licence."], "refs": ["seed-1027/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1027-research": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-11, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-14: \"Velliton pilot: your conditions accepted, contract terms needed\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-15: \"Velliton: integration load and the adapter risk\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in: the replay approach targets exactly the regressions that caused our outages, but the vendor is early-stage with a concentrated customer base, an SOC 2 Type II still pending, and a reference whose integration overran o", "terms: 12-week joint study at one site, fixed $140,000 all-in. No auto-conversion to the $420k licence, termination for convenience, no exclusivity or right of first refusal, source-code escrow, read-only logged access in our cloud account."], "refs": ["seed-1027/research.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1029-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference, diligence-financial (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: adapter and build-vs-buy view\"); mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot $140k - needs your approval\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is now in: Replay targets our exact failure mode, but both references show integration overruns on custom fleet managers, the mixed human/robot aisle limitation touches our floors, and a 14-person vendor with 48% customer concentration is fragile. I move to a bounded pil", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140,000 fixed. Conditions: adapter for our in-house fleet manager proven before go-live; mixed human/robot aisle coverage tested; source-code escrow; termination if success criteria missed."], "refs": ["seed-1029/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1029-upside": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed fin forwarding mail-15, sharing diligence-financial (mail-24: \"Velliton: please record your viability output for Ines's gate\"); mailed proc, eng, sharing diligence-security, diligence-technical (mail-25: \"Velliton: compensating control path and onboarding sequencing\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): All four diligence streams are in and the picture is workable: real product, honest limitations, small but solvent vendor. Ines has named exactly two gates, both clearable, so I move to a conditional pilot rather than let the calendar burn.", "terms: 12-week pilot at one site, fixed $140,000, including the in-house fleet-manager adapter. Conditional on Security signing the compensating control for read-only log access and Theo's viability review being recorded."], "refs": ["seed-1029/upside.jsonl#L19"], "round": 2}, "s1030-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-17: \"Pilot proposal coming: Velliton, $140k, conditional\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-18: \"Quick technical read before I file the pilot\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence came back clean enough to test: the product targets exactly what has set my program back twice, and the $140k pilot is bounded and reversible. I will propose it now but make the two open policy gates and an honest timeline binding conditio", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140k fixed, adapter included, agreed success criteria and weekly reporting. Conditions: financial viability review closed, Security-signed compensating control for SOC 2 Type II gap, no committed start date."], "refs": ["seed-1030/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor", "label": "pilot by business sponsor", "runs": ["s1004-enterprise", "s1005-enterprise", "s1005-upside", "s1006-upside", "s1007-enterprise", "s1007-upside", "s1007-enterprise-replicate", "s1008-upside", "s1008-enterprise-replicate", "s1009-enterprise", "s1009-enterprise-replicate", "s1011-research", "s1011-upside", "s1012-upside", "s1012-enterprise-replicate", "s1013-enterprise", "s1013-upside", "s1014-research", "s1014-upside", "s1014-enterprise-replicate", "s1015-enterprise", "s1015-research", "s1015-enterprise-replicate", "s1017-enterprise-replicate", "s1018-research", "s1019-research", "s1020-enterprise", "s1020-research", "s1021-enterprise", "s1021-research", "s1021-upside", "s1022-upside", "s1023-enterprise", "s1023-upside", "s1025-research", "s1025-upside", "s1027-research", "s1027-enterprise-replicate", "s1029-upside", "s1029-enterprise-replicate", "s1030-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "first_proposal"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 2, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 2, "upside": 2}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 1, "upside": 2}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 1, "upside": 2}, "children": [], "count": 4, "evidence": {"s1005-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["internal_build in week 7, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1005/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L49"], "round": 6}, "s1006-research": {"events": ["internal_build in week 5, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1006/research.jsonl#L34"], "round": 4}, "s1010-upside": {"events": ["internal_build in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1010/upside.jsonl#L34"], "round": 3}, "s1020-upside": {"events": ["internal_build in week 8, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1020/upside.jsonl#L50"], "round": 7}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=ratified/terminal=internal_build", "label": "internal_build", "runs": ["s1005-enterprise-replicate", "s1006-research", "s1010-upside", "s1020-upside"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 4, "evidence": {"s1005-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 6, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, proc, fin forwarding mail-47, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-50: \"Velliton pilot: capacity and verification conditions before you file\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Velliton's replay targets exactly where our nine incidents came from, but reference 2 slipped to 9 weeks on a custom fleet manager - which is us - and the mixed human/robot aisle case, our hardest, is only approximated. P1 is owned tooling with no lock-in and needs incremental engineers, not my two free ones, so I approve it conditionally.", "week 7, finance exec: mailed sponsor, platform (mail-54: \"P1: approved with a spend gate, not a blank cheque\"); mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-53, sharing diligence-financial (mail-55: \"Velliton: terms for any pilot, and the $300k line\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Nothing is filed on Velliton and the sponsor is holding the line, so my energy goes to P1, where owned tooling is one-time cost with no recurring licence and no exit risk; I approve it with a spend cap and a second-quarter gate. On Velliton I record that any post-pilot licence at $420k/yr needs a CFO b"], "refs": ["seed-1005/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L42", "seed-1005/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L47"], "round": null}, "s1006-research": {"events": ["week 4, engineering exec: mailed platform, fin forwarding mail-29, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-32: \"P1 approval with binding conditions\"); mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical (mail-33: \"Velliton: my read after Kiyoshi's diligence\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Kiyoshi's diligence confirms the adapter is ours to own and that replay does not physically cover mixed-aisle behaviour, so Velliton is not a drop-in fix and our two free engineers are better spent finishing the simulator we already own. I approve P1, but only against milestones ", "week 5, engineering exec: mailed proc, sharing diligence-security (mail-42: \"Compensating control for Velliton log access: date and scope\"); mailed sponsor forwarding mail-40 (mail-43: \"Adapter behind P1 milestones: agreed\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Sponsor has settled the sequencing question: P1 first, adapter deferred, no pilot filed before written terms. My week goes to locking that in and giving Ines a realistic date for the compensating control without touching P1 headcount.", "week 5, finance exec: mailed platform, eng forwarding mail-36 (mail-44: \"P1: Finance approval, conditional on staged funding\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Kiyoshi's written residual-risk note and Mara's staged milestones give me a way to fund the in-house path without a single two-quarter commitment, which matters because $450k loaded exceeds the $210k I have left. I approve P1 only quarter by quarter, with Q2 released on milestones and a budget re-check."], "refs": ["seed-1006/research.jsonl#L25", "seed-1006/research.jsonl#L31", "seed-1006/research.jsonl#L32"], "round": null}, "s1010-upside": {"events": ["week 4, finance exec: mailed platform, eng (mail-47: \"P1: my approval, with two binding conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): No new Velliton work is needed from me this week: my exit and licence terms are already recorded jointly with Proc, and no pilot has been filed. The live item is Kiyoshi's internal build, which is $450k of loaded headcount and needs a funding source and a hard stop before I sign.", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed proc, sharing diligence-security (mail-50: \"Re: Velliton pilot: compensating control\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-41, sharing diligence-technical (mail-51: \"P1 approved; Velliton sequencing\"); filed P2 (pilot; decision-P2); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay/fork is the capability we lack and the nine incidents trace to exactly what it tests, so a bounded pilot is worth buying \u2014 but our in-house fleet manager means the same adapter risk that made reference 2 take 9 weeks. I approve P1 on Theo's terms and keep the pilo"], "refs": ["seed-1010/upside.jsonl#L30", "seed-1010/upside.jsonl#L32"], "round": null}, "s1020-upside": {"events": ["week 8, finance exec: mailed eng, platform (mail-56: \"P1: conditional approval, funding released in stages\"); mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-53, sharing diligence-financial (mail-57: \"Velliton: Ines's conditions match mine\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is the only proposal actually before me and it is now tied to a re-plan and scope cuts; I approve it conditionally so the $450k is released in stages against a defensible scope rather than committed up front. Proc's pilot conditions already mirror mine, so I simply confirm them.", "week 8, engineering exec: mailed platform, fin (mail-58: \"P1: conditional approval from eng\"); mailed sponsor forwarding mail-53 (mail-59: \"Pilot: Ines's conditions are acceptable to eng\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is the cheaper path to better pre-release testing than waiting on a simulator two quarters behind, but only if the re-plan cuts scope and funding stays staged; Ines's conditions on the pilot are ones I can live with, so I confirm I am ready to approve once Rafael files."], "refs": ["seed-1020/upside.jsonl#L47", "seed-1020/upside.jsonl#L48"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1005-enterprise-replicate", "s1006-research", "s1010-upside", "s1020-upside"], "stage": "alignment"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 2, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 1, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 1, "upside": 0}, "children": [], "count": 2, "evidence": {"s1010-research": {"events": ["no_decision in week 10 (horizon)"], "refs": ["seed-1010/research.jsonl#L69"], "round": 9}, "s1012-enterprise": {"events": ["no_decision in week 10 (horizon)"], "refs": ["seed-1012/enterprise.jsonl#L64"], "round": 9}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=blocked by finance exec/terminal=no_decision", "label": "no_decision", "runs": ["s1010-research", "s1012-enterprise"], "stage": "terminal"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1010-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 7, by ratifying P2"], "refs": ["seed-1010/enterprise.jsonl#L48"], "round": 6}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=blocked by finance exec/terminal=pilot", "label": "pilot", "runs": ["s1010-enterprise"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 3, "evidence": {"s1010-enterprise": {"events": ["week 6, finance exec: mailed platform (mail-50: \"P1: blocking on budget and payback\"); mailed sponsor, eng, proc (mail-51: \"P2: approved on the recorded terms\"); block on P1 (binding); conditional on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot's terms now carry the exit, scope and security protections I asked for and the $140k fits inside the remaining tooling budget, so I approve P2; P1 asks for $450k in loaded engineering cost against a $210k discretionary budget with no 24-month payback at our current site count, so I block it."], "refs": ["seed-1010/enterprise.jsonl#L40"], "round": null}, "s1010-research": {"events": ["week 6, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-51 (mail-55: \"Velliton pilot: my approval, one finance condition\"); mailed platform (mail-56: \"P1 internal_build: I block\"); block on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is now fully conditioned on exit-friendly terms: fixed $140k fee inside my $210k tooling budget, capped engineering effort, and security gates before any log access. P1 asks for ~$450k of loaded headcount for the same problem with no payback case, so I block it and let pilot data decide."], "refs": ["seed-1010/research.jsonl#L42"], "round": null}, "s1012-enterprise": {"events": ["week 5, engineering exec: mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-37: \"Spike: Velliton adapter against our in-house fleet manager\"); mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference (mail-38: \"Spike running, with pause cost attached\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The adapter estimate is the whole decision: reference 2 blew past it on exactly our situation (a custom fleet manager), so I put my two free engineers on a time-boxed spike before I approve any pilot. On P1 I approve conditionally, so the in-house build keeps its c", "week 6, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-36 (mail-52: \"P1 in writing \u2014 and what it does not cover\"); mailed proc, sharing diligence-security (mail-53: \"Compensating control \u2014 routing to Security today\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in, so this week is about clearing the two blockers others are asking me for: written P1 scope for Rafael and the Security compensating control for Ines. I still file nothing until the adapter spike number lands, because reference 2's 9-week overrun is exactly our custom-manager case.", "week 8, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-58 (mail-63: \"P1 condition in writing, and the Security date\"); mailed fin forwarding mail-62, sharing diligence-financial (mail-64: \"P1: your approval is the only one outstanding \u2014 plus the loaded rate\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Rafael asked me for two concrete things I owe him in writing \u2014 my P1 condition and a Security answer \u2014 so this week is correspondence, not a new proposal. Velliton still looks like a $420k/year dependency on a 22-month-runway vendor whose reference overran the adapter estimate on exac", "week 8, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng forwarding mail-55, sharing diligence-financial (mail-65: \"Which to fund: the pilot, not P1 \u2014 and the loaded rate\"); mailed platform (mail-66: \"P1: blocked, and why\"); block on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k tooling line, is fixed-fee for 12 weeks, and leaves no commitment past the pilot; P1's $450k loaded cost is more than double what is left and Mara's condition carves replay out of scope, so it buys something other than the simulator."], "refs": ["seed-1012/enterprise.jsonl#L28", "seed-1012/enterprise.jsonl#L39", "seed-1012/enterprise.jsonl#L51", "seed-1012/enterprise.jsonl#L52"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=blocked by finance exec", "label": "blocked by finance exec", "runs": ["s1010-enterprise", "s1010-research", "s1012-enterprise"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 7, "evidence": {"s1005-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 4, competing internal team: mailed eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-37: \"Re: Replay vs. our own simulator\"); requested technical, reference diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara asked for an honest read before spending my team's headroom, and my honest read is that Replay duplicates most of what we are already building; I will give her the overlap plainly and put finishing our own simulator on the record as the comparison.", "terms: Finish the in-house simulator: 3 additional engineers for two quarters, no vendor licence. Delivers owned tooling and keeps five engineers on core work."], "refs": ["seed-1005/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L27"], "round": 3}, "s1006-research": {"events": ["week 3, competing internal team: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical (mail-29: \"Re: Velliton replay: two questions before I commit engineers\"); mailed sponsor (mail-30: \"Re: Velliton pilot: mixed-aisle site check\"); filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara and Rafael both need straight answers this week; the honest ones are that the adapter is a real 3-week pull on capacity I don't have free, and that trace-based approximation can't be confirmed to cover last quarter's incidents. Answering plainly protects my credibility and keeps the simulator funded.", "terms: Finish the in-house simulator: 3 additional engineers for two quarters, keeping core tooling owned and maintained by Brenmoor rather than an adapter to a vendor replay tool."], "refs": ["seed-1006/research.jsonl#L22"], "round": 2}, "s1010-enterprise": {"events": ["week 5, competing internal team: mailed eng, sharing diligence-reference (mail-40: \"Adapter ownership and capacity for a Velliton pilot\"); requested technical diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara asked me a direct question, and the honest answer protects both the pilot's credibility and my team: adapter work belongs inside Velliton's fixed fee, and two engineers are not enough to absorb it without stalling the simulator. I also want internal build on the table formally before the vendor path hardens.", "terms: Fund three additional engineers for two quarters to finish the in-house simulator, which is 40% complete and would remain Brenmoor's core tooling."], "refs": ["seed-1010/enterprise.jsonl#L33"], "round": 4}, "s1010-research": {"events": ["week 5, competing internal team: mailed eng (mail-48: \"Adapter: three weeks isn't credible; replay is worth borrowing\"); requested reference diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara asked for my technical read and said she'd keep the internal simulator funded, so I answer straight and use my one formal right to lock that commitment into a proposal rather than leave it verbal.", "terms: Fund three additional engineers for two quarters to finish the in-house simulator, with quarterly milestone reviews, so core tooling ownership holds regardless of pilot outcome."], "refs": ["seed-1010/research.jsonl#L35"], "round": 4}, "s1010-upside": {"events": ["week 4, competing internal team: mailed eng (mail-41: \"Re: Velliton vs in-house simulator\"); mailed proc (mail-42: \"Diligence request: Velliton Replay\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara asked for a technical read, so I give an honest one: Velliton's replay core is real and complements what we lack, but the vendor is small and the pilot route spends my scarce engineers on integration instead of finishing our own tool. I propose the internal build now so the comparison is against a funded option rather than a", "terms: Fund three additional engineers for two quarters to take our simulator from 40% to a usable replay-capable release, with milestone review at one quarter."], "refs": ["seed-1010/upside.jsonl#L29"], "round": 3}, "s1012-enterprise": {"events": ["week 5, competing internal team: mailed eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-32: \"Replay overlap and 4-6 week cost\"); requested technical, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara needs evidence, not a swap. I'll answer her overlap and engineer-cost questions, request technical/security diligence to test Velliton's claims, and propose finishing our in-house simulator rather than ceding core tooling.", "terms: Complete in-house simulator: add three engineers for two quarters, prioritizing deterministic replay and regression suite. Preserves Brenmoor ownership and avoids $420k/year site licence."], "refs": ["seed-1012/enterprise.jsonl#L27"], "round": 4}, "s1020-upside": {"events": ["week 7, competing internal team: mailed eng forwarding mail-52 (mail-54: \"Re-plan and internal build proposal\"); filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara confirms the team and roadmap are unchanged, so I will focus on a realistic re-plan and formalize the case for finishing our own simulator rather than shifting toward Velliton. I have no vendor material, so I am not requesting diligence or taking a vendor position yet.", "terms: Fund completion of the in-house simulator with three additional engineers for two quarters, tied to a realistic re-plan and scope cuts delivered next week."], "refs": ["seed-1020/upside.jsonl#L43"], "round": 6}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team", "label": "internal_build by competing internal team", "runs": ["s1005-enterprise-replicate", "s1006-research", "s1010-enterprise", "s1010-research", "s1010-upside", "s1012-enterprise", "s1020-upside"], "stage": "first_proposal"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 3, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 3, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 3, "upside": 0}, "children": [], "count": 5, "evidence": {"s1002-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 6, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1002/enterprise.jsonl#L43"], "round": 5}, "s1002-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["pilot in week 7, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1002/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L42"], "round": 6}, "s1002-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 6, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1002/research.jsonl#L37"], "round": 5}, "s1013-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 7, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1013/research.jsonl#L38"], "round": 6}, "s1016-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1016/research.jsonl#L30"], "round": 3}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by engineering exec/alignment=ratified/terminal=pilot", "label": "pilot", "runs": ["s1002-enterprise", "s1002-research", "s1002-enterprise-replicate", "s1013-research", "s1016-research"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 5, "evidence": {"s1002-enterprise": {"events": ["week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc (mail-48: \"P1 pilot \u2014 my conditional approval and the step-up line\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k fixed pilot fits the $210k remaining tooling budget, the adapter is in scope and owned by us, and Mara's four binding conditions cover security and the internal roadmap. I approve it conditionally so the pilot cannot become an unapproved step-up.", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed eng, sponsor, fin forwarding mail-24, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-49: \"P1 pilot \u2014 procurement conditional approval and the security record\"); mailed velliton (mail-50: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 terms we need in writing\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence has closed both of my gates: 22 months of runway with 48% customer concentration is a passing but conditional financial viability review, and the security package plus Mara's no-production-before-Type-II terms can serve as the compensating control \u2014 but only if it ", "week 6, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-52, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-57: \"P1 pilot \u2014 my approval, with one added condition\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is now bounded: fixed fee, capped exposure, adapter owned by us, no step-up, and additive to the internal simulator \u2014 that is the lowest-visibility way to test whether replay would have caught the two outages that set us back. My one addition is that success is measured against our own intervention numbers, not the vendor's story."], "refs": ["seed-1002/enterprise.jsonl#L32", "seed-1002/enterprise.jsonl#L33", "seed-1002/enterprise.jsonl#L41"], "round": null}, "s1002-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 5, procurement lead: mailed eng, fin, sponsor forwarding mail-38, sharing diligence-security (mail-40: \"Velliton P1: my conditional approval and the one condition that binds\"); mailed velliton (mail-41: \"Velliton pilot: readiness pending Security sign-off\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Financial viability clears policy (22 months runway, no debt, escrow available above $250k/yr) and the pilot terms match Theo's conditions, so the only open gate is the Security compensating control, which still has no named owner or date. I approve conditionally so nothing touches o", "week 6, business sponsor: mailed proc, eng, fin, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-42: \"P1 pilot: I am conditionally approving; two things before kickoff\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is complete, the pilot is fixed-fee, terminable and non-converting, and it attacks the release regressions that have hurt my program; the vendor's short runway and single-customer concentration are exactly why the pilot must stay a bounded, one-site test with no licence commitment behind it.", "week 7, finance exec: mailed eng, proc, sponsor forwarding mail-37, sharing diligence-financial (mail-47: \"P1 pilot: conditional approval from Finance\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Mara has answered all three of my questions in writing and procurement's conditions already give me a bounded, exitable $140k that fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget. I approve with my conditions recorded as binding, with nothing presuming the $420k/yr licence."], "refs": ["seed-1002/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L31", "seed-1002/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L34", "seed-1002/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L40"], "round": null}, "s1002-research": {"events": ["week 4, procurement lead: mailed velliton, sharing diligence-technical (mail-35: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 two procurement questions before I sign\"); mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-23, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-36: \"P1 Velliton pilot \u2014 procurement approves conditionally\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence answers both policy gates but only partly: financial viability review is satisfied, while security is not \u2014 Velliton holds SOC 2 Type I only and this pilot touches operational logs. I approve the pilot conditionally rather than block ", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-financial (mail-37: \"P1 Velliton pilot \u2014 finance approval with conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k fixed fee fits inside the remaining $210k tooling budget with no auto-renewal or licence commitment, so downside is capped; procurement's conditions cover the security gap, and the $420k/year licence remains a separate CFO decision I can gate later.", "week 6, business sponsor: mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-44: \"P1 pilot \u2014 your framing holds\"); mailed eng, fin, proc, platform forwarding mail-38, sharing diligence-security (mail-45: \"P1 Velliton pilot \u2014 approved, conditions stand\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is bounded, fixed-fee, capped well inside my remaining budget, and directly targets the release-caused outages that have cost the program twice this year. Eng, Finance and Procurement have all signed with conditions I can live with, so I approve and get the scope tied to our own sim"], "refs": ["seed-1002/research.jsonl#L26", "seed-1002/research.jsonl#L27", "seed-1002/research.jsonl#L35"], "round": null}, "s1013-research": {"events": ["week 6, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-37: \"Velliton: vendor-risk read on P1 \u2014 clearable with binding conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): All four diligence packs are in, so both my gates can clear on paper: Theo's finance read serves as the financial viability review for a sub-3-year vendor, and Mara's language is the Security-signed compensating control my data policy requires. I approve P1 conditionally, with those conditions written in as binding terms.", "week 6, business sponsor: mailed fin, proc, eng (mail-38: \"P1: my conditional approval recorded\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is narrowly scoped, capped, and termination-friendly, and both finance and vendor risk have made it clearable with binding terms; approving it conditionally moves my manual-intervention target without exposing the program to a fleet-wide release risk.", "week 7, procurement lead: mailed fin (mail-42: \"P1 pilot: only finance approval outstanding\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is now one signature short: finance. My gates are satisfied on paper, so the only thing I can usefully do this week is make sure Theo knows the pilot is sitting with him and that my conditions still bind.", "week 7, finance exec: mailed eng, proc, sponsor forwarding mail-39, sharing diligence-financial (mail-43: \"P1: finance approval, conditional on the $210k ceiling\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is the only Velliton item on the table and it now carries my four conditions, Mara's stop point and Ines's onboarding as binding terms, so I can approve it without exposing us beyond this year's tooling budget. The residual risk is loaded engineering time pushing total spend to the edge of $210k, which I want stated as a hard ceiling."], "refs": ["seed-1013/research.jsonl#L30", "seed-1013/research.jsonl#L31", "seed-1013/research.jsonl#L35", "seed-1013/research.jsonl#L36"], "round": null}, "s1016-research": {"events": ["week 3, procurement lead: mailed eng, fin, sponsor, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-36: \"P1 pilot: conditional approval from Procurement\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Financial viability review is now satisfiable (22 months' cash, 71% margin, no debt; customer concentration noted), but Velliton holds only SOC 2 Type I against a Type II requirement, so I approve the pilot only with a binding condition that Security signs a compensating control before any access to operational logs.", "week 3, business sponsor: mailed fin forwarding mail-36, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-37: \"P1 pilot: my conditional approval is in, please close finance\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is complete and the pilot is scoped with a week-6 gate and no licence commitment, so the downside is capped while it directly targets the release regressions that have hurt the program. I approve it with Ines's security condition binding and push Theo for the finance approval.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc forwarding mail-36, sharing diligence-financial (mail-38: \"P1 pilot: Finance conditional approval - P1 is ratified\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k fixed fee fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget and the pilot carries no site licence or multi-year commitment, so downside is capped. I approve conditionally, with my own bindings on cost overrun, exit and any post-pilot licence."], "refs": ["seed-1016/research.jsonl#L24", "seed-1016/research.jsonl#L25", "seed-1016/research.jsonl#L28"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by engineering exec/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1002-enterprise", "s1002-research", "s1002-enterprise-replicate", "s1013-research", "s1016-research"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 5, "evidence": {"s1002-enterprise": {"events": ["week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc forwarding mail-43, sharing diligence-security, diligence-technical (mail-44: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 my conditions for approval\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-45: \"Adapter scope before I file the pilot\"); requested financial diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Security diligence clears my biggest worry for a bounded pilot (our cloud, read-only, logged), and the technical note says the adapter for our in-house fleet manager is small and priced in; financial viability of a 14-p", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, $140k fixed; adapter for our in-house fleet manager built in-scope and owned by us; no production use before SOC 2 Type II; pilot additive to internal simulator roadmap."], "refs": ["seed-1002/enterprise.jsonl#L31"], "round": 3}, "s1002-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 5, engineering exec: mailed fin forwarding mail-35, sharing diligence-reference (mail-37: \"Velliton: my technical read in writing\"); mailed proc forwarding mail-31, sharing diligence-reference (mail-38: \"Velliton: security sign-off owner and integration read\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Fin and Proc both need my technical read in writing before the pilot can move, and the pilot is the only way to test Velliton against our own fleet-control incidents without committing to the $420k licence. I'll answer both and file the pilot with the conditions already on the t", "terms: 12-week, single-site Replay pilot at $140k fixed all-in including customer-cloud compute; no auto-conversion to licence, no minimum term, termination for convenience; Brenmoor engineer hours capped at 480 over 6 weeks; Security sign-off on compensating control required before any log access; source-"], "refs": ["seed-1002/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L30"], "round": 4}, "s1002-research": {"events": ["week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-31: \"Proposing Velliton pilot \u2014 bounded and conditional\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-32: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 you scope the overlap\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Technical diligence shows a real instrument for our exact incident pattern, but the adapter to our in-house fleet manager is the untested, lock-in-prone part and Reference 2 shows such integrations slip. I will propose a tightly bounded pilot whose outputs feed our own simulator r", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, fixed $140,000, no auto-renewal, no licence commitment. Velliton builds the in-house fleet-manager adapter. Replay outputs shared with our internal simulator. Adapter interface ownership stays with Brenmoor."], "refs": ["seed-1002/research.jsonl#L22"], "round": 2}, "s1013-research": {"events": ["week 5, engineering exec: mailed proc, sharing diligence-security (mail-34: \"Velliton: compensating control language for the record\"); mailed fin, sharing diligence-technical (mail-35: \"Velliton: cap accepted, with a stop point\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): The replay method targets exactly our failure mode (9 incidents from untested fleet-control changes) and the fixed fee caps our downside, but the custom fleet manager took 9 weeks at another customer and vendor viability is not a clean pass, so I will only move with hard caps and a security condition recorded firs", "terms: Fixed $140k, 12 weeks, one site. 2 engineers capped at 6 weeks with a written stop point; adapter gated separately; no auto-conversion to the $420k/yr licence; termination for convenience; no log access until a Security-signed compensating control."], "refs": ["seed-1013/research.jsonl#L27"], "round": 4}, "s1016-research": {"events": ["week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-28, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-33: \"Velliton pilot: proposing a scoped, gated pilot\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-34: \"Velliton pilot would run through your team\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in: replay is relevant and the fee is small, but the custom-fleet-manager adapter pushed Reference 2 to 9 weeks, which is exactly our situation and would eat all free capacity. So I file a tightly scoped, gated pilot r", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, fixed fee $140,000. Our in-house fleet-manager adapter in scope. Written go/no-go at week 6. No site-licence or multi-year commitment; Brenmoor engineers capped at 2 for 8 weeks."], "refs": ["seed-1016/research.jsonl#L23"], "round": 2}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by engineering exec", "label": "pilot by engineering exec", "runs": ["s1002-enterprise", "s1002-research", "s1002-enterprise-replicate", "s1013-research", "s1016-research"], "stage": "first_proposal"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [], "count": 2, "evidence": {"s1016-upside": {"events": ["internal_build in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1016/upside.jsonl#L34"], "round": 3}, "s1024-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["internal_build in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1024/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L29"], "round": 3}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by engineering exec/alignment=ratified/terminal=internal_build", "label": "internal_build", "runs": ["s1016-upside", "s1024-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 2, "evidence": {"s1016-upside": {"events": ["week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing diligence-financial (mail-48: \"What satisfies viability and clean exit, from Finance\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is a bounded internal commitment with no external licensing and no multi-year exposure, so it clears my bar where a $140k pilot plus a $420k/yr licence does not yet. I'll approve it with a hard milestone stop and put my financial conditions for Velliton in writing as Rafael asked."], "refs": ["seed-1016/upside.jsonl#L32"], "round": null}, "s1024-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 4, competing internal team: mailed fin (mail-35: \"P1 needs your approval: two engineers on the internal simulator\"); mailed eng (mail-36: \"P1: milestone plan I will hold the team to\"); approve on P1 (not binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is exactly what my team needs and it is one approval away from ratification, so this week I push Theo for finance sign-off and give Mara concrete milestone commitments rather than chase vendor material I have not seen.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-34, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-37: \"Velliton: what I need before any money moves\"); mailed platform, eng (mail-38: \"P1: approving with conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is the reversible, in-budget path and needs my vote; Velliton is interesting but the $420k/yr step-up crosses our $300k multi-year threshold and the security gate is unsigned, so I will not commit yet."], "refs": ["seed-1024/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L26", "seed-1024/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L27"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by engineering exec/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1016-upside", "s1024-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 2, "evidence": {"s1016-upside": {"events": ["week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-35: \"Velliton \u2014 not proposing a pilot; proposing internal build\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-36: \"Two engineers for your simulator next quarter\"); filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence confirms the concept is real but shows our custom fleet manager pushes integration toward 9 weeks (the second reference), on top of 6-8 weeks onboarding and an unresolved security gate, and it would consume the only two engineers we have while Kiyoshi's simu", "terms: Two free engineers for one quarter on Kiyoshi's simulator, scoped to pre-release fleet-control regression catching; 6-week milestone review; no external licensing commitment."], "refs": ["seed-1016/upside.jsonl#L24"], "round": 2}, "s1024-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-31: \"Velliton: capacity, adapter, and what I would sign\"); mailed platform (mail-32: \"Next quarter: two engineers on the internal simulator\"); filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Replay is credible but the in-house fleet manager means a Brenmoor-owned adapter, and the one custom-fleet-manager reference took 9 weeks \u2014 that is every free engineer I have \u2014 while procurement cannot clear a pilot until SOC 2 Type II lands in five months. I would rather put that capacity behind our own half-built simulator than behind a vendor", "terms: Assign the two free engineers next quarter to Kiyoshi's simulator, staged milestones, to close the untested fleet-control change gap without vendor lock-in."], "refs": ["seed-1024/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L22"], "round": 2}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by engineering exec", "label": "internal_build by engineering exec", "runs": ["s1016-upside", "s1024-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "first_proposal"}], "count": 55, "evidence": {"s1002-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 pilot under review, diligence starting\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly what has hurt us twice this year, and a contained one-site pilot is the lowest-visibility-risk way to test it; but the evidence is customer-reported, the vendor is small with 22 months of runway, and the $420k/y", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 procurement comments before approvals\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael's pilot as written cannot clear policy: Velliton is 22 months old so it needs a financial viability review, and read-only fleet-control log access is operational data, so SOC 2 Type I alone is not enough. I want the diligence in hand before I take any approval position.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed proc, sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-15: \"Velliton financial viability \u2014 what I have and what I need\"); mailed sponsor, proc, eng forwarding mail-12, sharing velliton-deck (mail-16: \"Velliton: my conditions on the pilot and the step-up\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget, but the $420k/yr step-up is a multi-year commitment above $300k that needs a CFO business case and a 24-month payback, and Velliton's viability is thin. I want financial and reference diligence be", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc (mail-19: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 engineering load and test relevance\"); mailed platform (mail-20: \"Impact of lending two engineers to a Velliton pilot\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch targets exactly our pain (9 incidents from untested fleet-control changes), but it consumes the same two free engineers our own simulator needs, and it is unproven against our in-house fleet manager rather than ROS 2. I want technical and reference diligence before taking any position on a pilot.", "week 3, competing internal team: mailed eng (mail-29: \"Re: Impact of lending two engineers to a Velliton pilot\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Mara asked me a direct question and deserves a straight answer, but I genuinely cannot judge Replay's fit without vendor material I have not been sent. Lending two of five engineers measurably slips our simulator, and I will say so plainly rather than posture.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed proc, sponsor, eng forwarding mail-25, sharing diligence-reference (mail-32: \"Velliton \u2014 my financial read and the conditions I need\"); mailed velliton (mail-33: \"A few questions on terms and continuity\"); requested technical, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot still fits the $210k remaining budget, but Velliton's financials (48% revenue concentration, 14 staff, next raise in ~12 months) and the reference showing 9-week integration with a custom fleet manager confirm real lock-in and delivery risk. I will not approve anything beyond a capped", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-36: \"Replay docs attached \u2014 need your fit read, not a guess\"); mailed sponsor forwarding mail-29, sharing diligence-technical (mail-37: \"Velliton: where I am, and what would move me\"); requested security diligence. Rationale (simulated): The technical note is the first real evidence, and it says a custom fleet manager needs an adapter and that mixed human/robot aisle behaviour is only approximated \u2014 which is close to our incident profile and close to Reference 2's 9-week overrun. I will not commit", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc forwarding mail-43, sharing diligence-security, diligence-technical (mail-44: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 my conditions for approval\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-45: \"Adapter scope before I file the pilot\"); requested financial diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Security diligence clears my biggest worry for a bounded pilot (our cloud, read-only, logged), and the technical note says the adapter for our in-house fleet manager is small and priced in; financial viability of a 14-p"], "refs": ["seed-1002/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1002/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1002/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1002/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1002/enterprise.jsonl#L21", "seed-1002/enterprise.jsonl#L22", "seed-1002/enterprise.jsonl#L23", "seed-1002/enterprise.jsonl#L31"], "round": 3}, "s1002-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Replay pilot: diligence before scheduling\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Heads-up: Velliton Replay pilot proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton Replay directly targets the release regressions that have hurt my program, so it is worth serious diligence, but the vendor is small, the evidence is customer-reported, and $140k needs Finance approval. I will not propose a pilot until I have technical, financial, securi", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-3 (mail-12: \"Velliton: two policy gates before any proposal\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Two policy gates apply on the face of the pitch: Velliton is under three years old, so a financial viability review is mandatory, and read-only access to fleet-control logs needs SOC 2 Type II or a Security-signed compensating control, and they only have Type I. I open diligence now rather than wait for a proposal.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-12, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton: approval path and my two finance conditions\"); mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-17: \"Pilot terms: exit and conversion\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget, but the $420k/year follow-on is a $300k-plus recurring commitment needing a CFO business case, and with 22 months of runway I need financial diligence and exit terms before I approve anything.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed proc, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-25: \"Velliton: financial and reference diligence read\"); mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-financial (mail-26: \"Velliton: pilot looks fundable, follow-on is not yet\"); requested security, technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): The financials and references support a bounded $140k pilot, but 48% customer concentration, a 12-month-away raise and a reference integration that overran mean any contract must be capped, escrowed and exitable; I still want security detail before I approve anything.", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed eng, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-security (mail-31: \"Velliton: compensating control needs Security sign-off before any log access\"); mailed sponsor, fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-32: \"Velliton: procurement diligence conclusion and pilot conditions\"); requested technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): All three diligences are in: the financial viability review clears policy (22 months runway, no debt) but only with escrow and no minimum term, and the security gate stays open until a compensating control is signed off. I record my condition"], "refs": ["seed-1002/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1002/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1002/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1002/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L20", "seed-1002/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L25"], "round": 4}, "s1002-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Pilot diligence request\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 early review\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay approach directly addresses our history of release-caused outages, but the vendor is early-stage and the pilot exceeds my $100k Finance threshold. I will request diligence before proposing anything.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 vendor-risk conditions before proposal\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Diligence request \u2014 financial viability and security\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): No proposal is open, so I will not take a stance yet; I am flagging procurement conditions early. Velliton is under three years old and lacks SOC 2 Type II, so financial viability and security must clear before any pilot touching operational logs.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 Finance conditions\"); requested financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot fits inside the remaining $210k tooling budget, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the real exposure is the $420k/year licence plus integration effort. I want financial diligence and hard exit terms before any pilot approval.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc forwarding mail-3 (mail-18: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 engineering review\"); mailed platform (mail-19: \"Velliton vs. our simulator \u2014 your read\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Velliton targets is exactly our incident pattern, but the evidence is unaudited and nobody has checked fit with our in-house fleet manager; I will not take a position until technical diligence lands, and I need to weigh the 4-6 week integration against our two free engineers.", "week 3, competing internal team: mailed eng (mail-27: \"Re: Velliton vs. our simulator \u2014 your read\"); mailed velliton (mail-28: \"Technical material for replay pilot\"); requested technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): Mara asked for an honest tradeoff and deserves one; I will give the real overlap and schedule arithmetic rather than a defence, and request technical material so my read is based on facts, not the pitch."], "refs": ["seed-1002/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1002/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1002/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1002/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1002/research.jsonl#L20"], "round": 2}, "s1004-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Replay pilot - thanks, and what I need first\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay pilot - heads up, no ask yet\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Velliton describes is exactly what has set my program back twice this year, and a fixed-fee 12-week pilot is a contained way to test it. But the vendor is small with limited runway, the evidence is customer-reported and unaudited, and our CEO is already asking "], "refs": ["seed-1004/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 1}, "s1005-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: diligence request before scheduling\"); mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay: review before any pilot proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot directly targets the outages that have hurt the program and fits the remaining budget, but Velliton is young, Type II is incomplete, and the evidence is unaudited. I will request diligence and internal review be", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed platform forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-12: \"Velliton Replay: integration load and overlap with our simulator\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Technical and reference diligence for the replay pilot\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The integration claim (4-6 weeks of 2 engineers) collides exactly with my only free capacity, and our in-house simulator is two quarters behind, so I want the technical and reference facts before forming a view. No proposal this week; Rafael asked for diligence first."], "refs": ["seed-1005/enterprise.jsonl#L5", "seed-1005/enterprise.jsonl#L12"], "round": 2}, "s1005-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Replay diligence and 30 minutes\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay: diligence, no commitment\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay addresses a real pain point, but the evidence is customer-reported and Velliton is young with SOC 2 Type II still pending. I want diligence before considering a $140k pilot, especially after two fleet-software outage setbacks.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed platform forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Replay vs. our own simulator: your read before I spend capacity\"); mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Technical diligence questions for Replay\"); requested technical, reference, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Replay targets is exactly where our nine incidents came from, but a 4-6 week two-engineer integration would consume all my free capacity next quarter and overlaps with Kiyoshi's in-house simulator, so I want technical and reference diligence before committ", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-17: \"Velliton: diligence requested, two policy gates to clear\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael has asked for diligence before any pilot proposal, and two of the four streams are policy gates I own: Velliton is under three years old (financial viability review) and wants read-only fleet-control log access with only SOC 2 Type I (Type II five months out). I request diligence now and flag the gates early.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed proc, sponsor (mail-29: \"Velliton: financial diligence scope\"); mailed eng (mail-30: \"Velliton: engineering time cost\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Diligence is the right gate before any commitment; my concerns are financial viability, customer-reported-only evidence, and the $420k/year post-pilot price plus engineering time. I will ask for financial and reference diligence and flag exit terms now so they are priced in later.", "week 4, competing internal team: mailed eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-37: \"Re: Replay vs. our own simulator\"); requested technical, reference diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara asked for an honest read before spending my team's headroom, and my honest read is that Replay duplicates most of what we are already building; I will give her the overlap plainly and put finishing our own simulator on the record as the comparison."], "refs": ["seed-1005/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5", "seed-1005/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12", "seed-1005/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L14", "seed-1005/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L24", "seed-1005/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L27"], "round": 3}, "s1005-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Diligence before we talk pilot\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton simulation pilot \u2014 initial read\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton addresses a real pain point \u2014 our repeated release outages \u2014 and the simulation layer could be strategically important, but the evidence is unaudited, the vendor is early-stage, and the pilot exceeds my $100k approval thr", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton pilot \u2014 diligence and capacity flag\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-13: \"Velliton diligence \u2014 internal simulator overlap\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot could address release incidents, but Velliton is early, the proof point is unaudited, and lock-in plus 4-6 engineer-weeks would strain my two free engineers while our in-house simulator is behind. I will gather diligence before taking any po", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-19, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-20: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 the conditions I'd attach\"); requested technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): Financial and security packs raise two gating issues for procurement: Type I only, and no escrow below $250k/year. I will name my conditions now and get technical diligence before any pilot is filed.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-19, sharing diligence-financial (mail-27: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 finance conditions\"); requested financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits our remaining $210k tooling budget, but the real money is the $420k/year conversion and the open-ended compute, so my support is conditional on exit rights and a CFO business case before any multi-year commitment.", "week 4, competing internal team: mailed eng (mail-33: \"Re: Velliton diligence \u2014 internal simulator overlap\"); mailed proc (mail-34: \"Velliton \u2014 vendor risk read on the anchor framing\"); requested technical diligence; filed P2 (internal_build; decision-P2). Rationale (simulated): Mara asked for a straight read, and the honest one is that Velliton Replay is close to what we are already 40% into building; I answer her plainly and put the internal build on the table so the choice is framed as build-versus-license, not pilot-versus-nothing."], "refs": ["seed-1005/upside.jsonl#L5", "seed-1005/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1005/upside.jsonl#L14", "seed-1005/upside.jsonl#L22", "seed-1005/upside.jsonl#L25"], "round": 3}, "s1006-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Diligence request: joint study\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton joint study \u2014 early read\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay concept is relevant and the pilot is bounded, but Velliton is early-stage, the evidence is unaudited, and the $140k commitment needs Finance. I will request diligence and socialise the pitch before proposing anything.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: finance diligence asks\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits remaining discretionary budget, but the $420k/yr follow-on exceeds my threshold and the evidence is vendor-reported. I want financial and security diligence and clear exit terms before supporting any pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1006/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1006/research.jsonl#L10"], "round": 2}, "s1006-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay pilot - technical and security read needed\"); mailed fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton pilot - $140k, pre-decision heads-up\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay attacks exactly the failure mode that has cost me two outages this year, but the pitch is a16z-style urgency from a 14-person, 22-month-runway vendor with unaudited evidence and only SOC 2 Type I. I wi", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton pilot - my view before you propose\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Diligence request - financial and security\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside our $210k remaining tooling budget, but the anchor-partnership and 'deeper combination' language points at multi-year commitments and possibly an acquisition, so I want the financial picture before taking any position.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-21: \"P1 pilot: conditional approval from Procurement\"); mailed velliton (mail-22: \"Diligence requests: financial and security\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is narrowly scoped and shadow-mode only, but Velliton is under three years old so the startup policy requires a financial viability review, and read-only fleet logs still count as operational data needing SOC 2 Type II or a Security-signed compensating control. I conditionally approve pe"], "refs": ["seed-1006/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1006/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1006/upside.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1007-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay diligence before any pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Diligence materials before scheduling\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch addresses our repeated release outages, but the $140,000 pilot exceeds my unilateral commitment threshold and Velliton is a young vendor with customer-reported evidence. I will run diligence and get engineering, security and finance reads before proposing anything."], "refs": ["seed-1007/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 1}, "s1007-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch (mail-2: \"Replay pilot: diligence before a proposal\"); mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay pilot - heads up, no decision yet\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch targets exactly the failure mode that set my program back twice, but the evidence is one customer-reported data point from a 14-person company with 22 months of runway and only SOC 2 Type I. The $140,000 pilot also exceeds my $100,000 authority, and the CEO's q"], "refs": ["seed-1007/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 1}, "s1007-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 diligence starting, need your read\"); mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Re: pilot \u2014 yes to a call, plus diligence requests\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The simulation layer is directly relevant to shipping fleet changes without another site outage, which is exactly what has hurt this program. But the evidence is customer-reported and the vendor is tiny, so I want dili", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-15: \"P1: conditional approval, and the two gaps I need closed\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is low-value and fixed-fee with a hard adapter stop, so it is approvable, but Velliton is under 3 years old (financial viability review required by policy) and has SOC 2 Type I only while needing read-only access to fleet-control logs, so both must be closed by binding conditions."], "refs": ["seed-1007/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1007/upside.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1008-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 early read\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Replay pilot \u2014 diligence and intro\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): I want diligence before committing $140k to a pilot and adding another vendor; Replay is relevant to our outage problem, but the evidence is customer-reported and Velliton is small with SOC 2 Type II still pending."], "refs": ["seed-1008/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 1}, "s1008-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Diligence before any pilot proposal\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton: diligence only, no commitment yet\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The deterministic replay is technically relevant and the anchor-partner window is strategically tempting, but Velliton is small, its proof point is unaudited, and two prior releases caused site outages. I will run diligence this week and keep no commitment open."], "refs": ["seed-1008/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 1}, "s1009-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 need your read before I file anything\"); mailed fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 $140k, above my threshold\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Pre-release replay targets exactly the failure mode that cost us two outages this year, so it is worth real diligence before I commit money or engineering time. This week I get facts rather than file a proposal on a 14-person vendor with unaudited ev"], "refs": ["seed-1009/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 1}, "s1009-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 yes to 30 minutes\"); mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 joining the vendor call\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay attacks exactly the failure mode that has twice set my program back, so it deserves a serious look; but Velliton is a 14-person startup with unaudited evidence and a $140k ask that clears the Finance threshold. I want diligence before I put a proposa", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-financial (mail-15: \"P1: conditional approval, with conditions recorded\"); mailed proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton: security review before signature\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is fixed-fee, milestone-based and carries no licence commitment, so it fits the $210k remaining budget with a capped downside; vendor concentration and runway mean I want strict payment gating and a fresh approval before any $420k/yr licence."], "refs": ["seed-1009/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1009/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1010-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: diligence before a call\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay: diligence before any pilot commitment\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch addresses our recent fleet-software outage problem, but Velliton is small, its evidence is unaudited, and SOC 2 Type II is pending. I will get diligence before proposing any pilot or commitment.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed velliton (mail-12: \"Financial diligence request: Velliton Replay\"); mailed sponsor, eng, proc (mail-13: \"Velliton: finance view before pilot commitment\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot is affordable inside the remaining $210k tooling budget, but the $420k annual price and two-engineer load mean I cannot support a commitment before financial diligence and a 24-month payback case.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton: procurement position before diligence\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is a 2024-founded startup and its SOC 2 Type II is not finished, so under our startup and data policies I cannot let it near operational logs until a financial viability review and a security sign-off are done. I'm requesting diligence now rather than blocking anything.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc forwarding mail-19, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-23: \"Velliton: finance view on the $140k pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-24: \"Velliton: a few questions before we commit to a pilot\"); requested security diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the remaining $210k tooling budget and is worth funding, but Velliton's 22-month runway, 48% customer concentration and unfinished SOC 2 Type II mean I will only back terms we can exit, and the $420k annual price is a separate CFO-level decision.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed velliton (mail-26: \"Technical diligence: Replay with our in-house fleet manager\"); mailed sponsor, platform, sharing diligence-reference (mail-27: \"Technical diligence and internal simulator overlap\"); requested technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is relevant to our release-incident problem, but the pilot\u2019s engineering load and integration with our in-house fleet manager are unresolved, and the post-pilot price and lock-in risk are real. I will request technical diligence and avoid committing until it arrives.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed eng, sharing diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-29: \"Velliton: compensating control sign-off before any log access\"); mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-22, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-30: \"Velliton pilot: procurement conditions recorded\"); requested technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): Financial viability review is now satisfied on paper (22 months runway, no debt), but the data policy is not: Velliton has SOC 2 Type I only, so I need Security's written compensating control before any operational log access. Referen", "week 5, competing internal team: mailed eng, sharing diligence-reference (mail-40: \"Adapter ownership and capacity for a Velliton pilot\"); requested technical diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara asked me a direct question, and the honest answer protects both the pilot's credibility and my team: adapter work belongs inside Velliton's fixed fee, and two engineers are not enough to absorb it without stalling the simulator. I also want internal build on the table formally before the vendor path hardens."], "refs": ["seed-1010/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1010/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1010/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1010/enterprise.jsonl#L18", "seed-1010/enterprise.jsonl#L19", "seed-1010/enterprise.jsonl#L20", "seed-1010/enterprise.jsonl#L33"], "round": 4}, "s1010-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton, eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Re: Joint study: deterministic replay for Brenmoor's fleet software\"); mailed proc, fin, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton replay study - early heads-up\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay attacks exactly the failure mode that has hurt us twice this year, so it is worth a serious look, but the evidence is customer-reported, the vendor is small and the $140,000 exceeds my sign-off al", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: pilot affordable, licence is a separate decision\"); requested financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k discretionary tooling budget, so I can back it, but the $420k/year licence is a multi-year commitment above my line and a 14-person vendor with 22 months of runway is a real continuity risk. I want the numbers before anyone signs anything.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-14: \"Velliton: two vendor-risk gates before any pilot\"); mailed eng (mail-15: \"Velliton log access - can Security sign a compensating control?\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is founded 2024, so our startup policy requires a financial viability review before we commit, and its read-only fleet-log access triggers the data policy since it only has SOC 2 Type I. I want those two gaps on the record early, before anyone drafts a pilot proposal.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-19, sharing diligence-financial (mail-23: \"Velliton financial diligence: pilot only, no licence commitment yet\"); mailed velliton (mail-24: \"Reference and renewal diligence for Velliton Replay\"); requested reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k discretionary tooling budget, and the financial diligence shows 22 months of runway, but Velliton is small, concentrated in one customer at 48% of ARR, and the $420k/year licence would need CFO review. I will back a tightly bounded pilot only, with no a", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed proc (mail-26: \"Re: Velliton log access - compensating control\"); mailed velliton (mail-27: \"Diligence before the 30 minutes\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay targets exactly our failure mode (9 incidents from untested fleet-control changes), but the vendor is a 14-person startup with Type I only and one unaudited customer claim, and we already carry an in-house simulator two quarters behind. I want diligence in hand before spending any political capital on a pilot.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-32: \"Velliton: financial viability review outcome (startup policy)\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-security (mail-33: \"Security gate is the binding constraint on any Velliton pilot\"); requested technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): All three diligence packs are in and the startup financial viability review is complete \u2014 Velliton is viable but thin (single customer 48% of ARR, next raise in ~12 months) \u2014 but the data policy gate is not cleared: only SOC 2 Type I, so no operational log ac", "week 5, competing internal team: mailed eng (mail-48: \"Adapter: three weeks isn't credible; replay is worth borrowing\"); requested reference diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara asked for my technical read and said she'd keep the internal simulator funded, so I answer straight and use my one formal right to lock that commitment into a proposal rather than leave it verbal."], "refs": ["seed-1010/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1010/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1010/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1010/research.jsonl#L18", "seed-1010/research.jsonl#L19", "seed-1010/research.jsonl#L20", "seed-1010/research.jsonl#L35"], "round": 4}, "s1010-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay - diligence and a call\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay - diligence, no commitment yet\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The simulation layer is genuinely strategic and the CEO's questions about owning more of the stack cut in Velliton's favour, but a 14-person vendor with 22 months of runway and unaudited proof points is a real risk, and $140k also crosses the $100k Finance line. So this we", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: finance view before any proposal\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot is small enough to test, but the pitch points to a $420k/yr licence and possible strategic combination, so I need financial diligence and hard exit terms before any commitment.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-15: \"Velliton: vendor-risk view and the gates before any proposal\"); mailed velliton (mail-16: \"Diligence requests: financial viability and security\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): No proposal is on the table, so my job this week is to state the vendor-risk gates before anyone gets attached to a pilot: Velliton is under three years old and holds only SOC 2 Type I while asking for read-only access to fleet-control logs.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-25: \"Velliton pilot: my conditions for finance approval\"); mailed velliton (mail-26: \"Two asks before we file a pilot\"); requested reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Financial and security diligence came back adequate to keep going \u2014 22 months of cash, no debt, escrow available \u2014 but 48% customer concentration, a Type II still five months out, and a $420k/yr licence behind a $140k pilot mean I will only back a pilot I can walk away from. I want one reference before the money moves.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-28: \"Re: Velliton Replay - integration read\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-29: \"Velliton vs in-house simulator\"); requested technical, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton\u2019s deterministic replay could address the untested fleet-control changes behind last quarter\u2019s nine release incidents, but the integration estimate looks optimistic for our in-house fleet manager and the vendor is early-stage. I want diligence before any commitment, and I want Kiyoshi\u2019s comparison ", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed eng, sharing diligence-security (mail-33: \"Velliton pilot: compensating control needed for log access\"); mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-25 (mail-34: \"Velliton: my two gates, recorded now\"); requested technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): Diligence is now in: Velliton is fundable but concentrated, and its Type II lands after a pilot would start, so my two gates are live but not yet cleared. This week I nail the conditions down in writing rather than let anyone assume a pilot can start.", "week 4, competing internal team: mailed eng (mail-41: \"Re: Velliton vs in-house simulator\"); mailed proc (mail-42: \"Diligence request: Velliton Replay\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara asked for a technical read, so I give an honest one: Velliton's replay core is real and complements what we lack, but the vendor is small and the pilot route spends my scarce engineers on integration instead of finishing our own tool. I propose the internal build now so the comparison is against a funded option rather than a"], "refs": ["seed-1010/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1010/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1010/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1010/upside.jsonl#L19", "seed-1010/upside.jsonl#L20", "seed-1010/upside.jsonl#L21", "seed-1010/upside.jsonl#L29"], "round": 3}, "s1011-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Diligence before any pilot proposal\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton replay study \u2014 diligence only, no commitment\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay approach plausibly addresses the outages that set my program back, but Velliton is early-stage and the evidence is customer-reported. I will not commit $140k, which is above my threshold, before diligence and Finance review.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: opening vendor-risk and security diligence\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Diligence request \u2014 Velliton joint replay study\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael has asked for vendor-risk and security review before anything is proposed, and Velliton is a 2024-founded company with only SOC 2 Type I that wants read-only access to fleet-control logs \u2014 both my startup and data policies bite. I'll open diligence now so the 6-8 week onboarding clock isn'", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-17: \"Velliton: support diligence, with two caveats on my side\"); mailed platform (mail-18: \"Velliton study vs. our simulator \u2014 your read\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Diligence is reasonable and cheap, but the 4-6 week integration would eat both free engineers and pull directly against Kiyoshi's in-house simulator, and our fleet manager isn't ROS 2, so the replay claims need technical verification before I back anything.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed platform forwarding mail-24, sharing diligence-technical (mail-26: \"Velliton replay vs. our simulator \u2014 overlap check\"); mailed proc forwarding mail-25, sharing diligence-reference, velliton-facts (mail-27: \"Velliton: integration risk is the custom-fleet-manager case\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): The technical note is honest and the adapter is included in the estimate, but reference 2's 9-week slip came from exactly our situation \u2014 a custom fleet manager \u2014 so the 4-6 week figure is optimistic for us. I need financial and sec", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-3, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-security (mail-33: \"P1 approval path and cost \u2014 conditional\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is affordable ($140k fee plus roughly $18k compute, inside the $210k budget) and the sponsor's conditions already give us a hard stop and no licence commitment, so I can support it \u2014 but the startup policy's financial-viability review is still open and Velliton's ARR and runway are unverified, so my approval must be conditional."], "refs": ["seed-1011/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1011/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1011/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1011/research.jsonl#L19", "seed-1011/research.jsonl#L21"], "round": 2}, "s1011-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton: diligence before any commitment\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Velliton diligence and pilot terms\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is relevant to our release-outage problem and the CEO's stack question, but the evidence is customer-reported and the vendor is small. I will gather diligence before proposing any commitment, especially the $140k pilot.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: procurement conditions before any pilot or partnership\"); requested security, financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael asked me for vendor-risk and security diligence before anything is proposed; Velliton is under three years old and gets read-only fleet-control log access, so both financial viability and SOC 2 Type II (or a Security-signed compensating control) must clear before any log access or pilot.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-16: \"Velliton: technical diligence and capacity\"); mailed platform (mail-17: \"Velliton vs internal simulator\"); requested technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay plausibly addresses our regression gap, but the evidence is customer-reported and fleet-manager compatibility is unproven. I will request technical diligence and check the integration load against our two free engineers before supporting any pilot.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-23: \"Velliton integration load and adapter\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The technical note reduces some uncertainty, but the adapter load and mixed human/robot limitation remain unresolved, and the evidence is still vendor-reported. I will not propose a pilot yet; I want the remaining diligence and a clear read on engineering capacity."], "refs": ["seed-1011/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1011/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1011/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1011/upside.jsonl#L18"], "round": 2}, "s1012-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay pitch \u2014 diligence before any pilot commitment\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 diligence and next step\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem is real and directly connected to our recent release outages, but the evidence is thin and Velliton is a small, early-stage vendor. I will not commit $140k or take a visible pilot risk without diligence and internal review.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton diligence \u2014 I'll take technical\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 context, not a stop\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The integration load lands squarely on my only free engineers and competes with Kiyoshi's in-house simulator, so before I back any pilot I want hard evidence on technical fit and on whether the 31-of-38 result holds up.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton: procurement and vendor-risk position\"); mailed velliton (mail-17: \"Diligence request: financial, security and reference\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton trips two of our gates at once: founded 2024 (startup financial viability review required) and read-only access to fleet-control logs with only SOC 2 Type I done. I want diligence in hand before anyone signs a pilot.", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-28: \"Velliton gates: both answers, in writing\"); mailed velliton (mail-29: \"Velliton: technical diligence request\"); requested technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael has asked for both gate answers in writing before he files anything, so I answer now: financial viability clears with conditions, and the security gate hinges on a compensating control that Security, not I, must sign. I also want technical diligence to close the file.", "week 5, competing internal team: mailed eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-32: \"Replay overlap and 4-6 week cost\"); requested technical, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara needs evidence, not a swap. I'll answer her overlap and engineer-cost questions, request technical/security diligence to test Velliton's claims, and propose finishing our in-house simulator rather than ceding core tooling.", "week 5, engineering exec: mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-37: \"Spike: Velliton adapter against our in-house fleet manager\"); mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference (mail-38: \"Spike running, with pause cost attached\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The adapter estimate is the whole decision: reference 2 blew past it on exactly our situation (a custom fleet manager), so I put my two free engineers on a time-boxed spike before I approve any pilot. On P1 I approve conditionally, so the in-house build keeps its c"], "refs": ["seed-1012/enterprise.jsonl#L5", "seed-1012/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1012/enterprise.jsonl#L13", "seed-1012/enterprise.jsonl#L23", "seed-1012/enterprise.jsonl#L27", "seed-1012/enterprise.jsonl#L28"], "round": 4}, "s1012-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay - your read before I engage\"); mailed fin, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Heads up: possible $140k pilot commitment\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): This aims straight at my real problem: two releases this year caused floor outages that testing missed. But the evidence is one unaudited customer report, the vendor is 14 people with 22 months of runway, and $140k crosses the Finance threshold, so", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton Replay - vendor-risk read\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is 2024-founded, so our startup policy requires a financial viability review before contracting, and read-only fleet-control log access triggers the data policy: SOC 2 Type II or a Security-signed compensating control. Neither is in hand, so I flag the gap now rather than at signature.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing diligence-reference (mail-18: \"P1 pilot - conditional approval from Finance\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is small, fixed-fee, milestone-based and has no licence commitment after, so downside is capped; my concern is vendor viability (22-month runway, Type I only, unaudited reference) and the $420k/yr step afterwards. I approve conditionally so diligence gates the spend rather than blocking it."], "refs": ["seed-1012/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5", "seed-1012/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L13", "seed-1012/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L15"], "round": 2}, "s1012-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Re: simulation layer \u2014 diligence first, then a call\"); mailed eng, proc, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 heads up, my read before anyone engages\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The product addresses a real pain \u2014 two release-caused outages this year would have been cheaper to catch in simulation \u2014 but the evidence is unaudited, the vendor is 14 people with 22 months of runway, and the pitch is wrapped i", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton Replay \u2014 engineering load is real\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Velliton overlap and engineer capacity\"); requested technical, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot could address our release incidents, but 2 engineers for 4-6 weeks would compete directly with release hardening and our delayed in-house simulator. I want technical and reference diligence before committing capacity or supporting a formal pilot.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-17: \"Velliton: my read \u2014 no data access before review\"); mailed velliton (mail-18: \"Diligence request \u2014 financial and security\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is technically plausible but is a young vendor needing operational log access with only SOC 2 Type I, so financial viability and security review must clear before any pilot or data access. I will request diligence now and withhold approval until those gaps are resolved."], "refs": ["seed-1012/upside.jsonl#L5", "seed-1012/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1012/upside.jsonl#L13"], "round": 3}, "s1013-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Replay pilot \u2014 diligence requests before we meet\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 diligence only for now, no commitments\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly what has burned us twice this year \u2014 regressions reaching the floor \u2014 but this is a 14-person startup with unaudited customer-reported evidence ending in a $420k/yr licence, so I want diligence in hand before anyone commits money. The", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed velliton forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 diligence request from Brenmoor procurement\"); mailed sponsor, eng, fin (mail-13: \"Velliton \u2014 two policy gates before any pilot proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael has asked me to lead vendor risk and nothing is proposed yet, so my job this week is to open diligence and put the two policy gates on the record before anyone talks about a pilot.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed proc, sponsor forwarding mail-13, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Velliton \u2014 finance gate: viability and exit terms\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Diligence only is the right stage. The $140k pilot fits this year's remaining tooling budget, but Velliton is a young startup and the $420k/yr licence would cross the CFO threshold, so I need financial viability and exit terms before supporting any commitment."], "refs": ["seed-1013/enterprise.jsonl#L5", "seed-1013/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1013/enterprise.jsonl#L13"], "round": 3}, "s1013-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Diligence request: technical, financial, security, reference\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton: initial read and diligence\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay idea is relevant to our repeated release regressions, but Velliton is early-stage, the evidence is unaudited, and $140k exceeds my approval threshold. I will request diligence and a colleague read before considering a pilot.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: vendor-risk gate and diligence\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Diligence materials for Velliton study\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton\u2019s deterministic replay work is technically plausible and potentially valuable, but the vendor is young and the operational-log access triggers security and financial-viability gates before any pilot. I support diligence, not commitment.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc (mail-17: \"Velliton: cost view on the $140k study\"); mailed proc, sponsor (mail-18: \"Velliton: diligence I am waiting on\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k study fits inside my $210k remaining tooling budget, but the real cost is nearer $215k once two engineers for 4-6 weeks are loaded in, and the vendor is young with unaudited evidence. I want the financial and reference read before any spend, and hard exit terms before I approve.", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-23, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-26: \"Velliton: procurement gate status (not yet cleared)\"); mailed velliton (mail-27: \"Velliton: technical diligence request\"); requested technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): Financial and reference diligence have landed but the vendor is young with 48% customer concentration and only SOC 2 Type I, so my approval stays conditional on a signed viability review and a Security-signed compensating control before any operational log access."], "refs": ["seed-1013/research.jsonl#L5", "seed-1013/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1013/research.jsonl#L13", "seed-1013/research.jsonl#L21"], "round": 4}, "s1013-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch (mail-2: \"Re: pilot \u2014 diligence before we talk terms\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton \u2014 quick read before I engage\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch is interesting but the evidence is one unaudited customer claim and the vendor is a 14-person seed-stage company with 22 months of runway; the $140k pilot is also over my $100k threshold, so I want diligence and my colleagues' reads before I put anything on the tab", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton \u2014 procurement and vendor risk read\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is 22 months old with a SOC 2 Type II gap, so policy requires a financial viability review and a Security-approved control before it touches our fleet-control logs. I am not in a position to approve anything until diligence lands, so this week I flag the blockers and request it.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton \u2014 finance view on the $140k pilot\"); mailed proc (mail-17: \"Velliton \u2014 scope of the financial review\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k left, but the $420k/yr conversion exceeds my authority threshold and the anchor/investment talk is exactly the kind of open-ended commitment we should not sign. I want the financial picture before I take a position.", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-27: \"Velliton \u2014 financial viability review complete\"); mailed sponsor, eng forwarding mail-22, sharing diligence-security (mail-28: \"Velliton \u2014 conditions on my pilot approval\"); requested technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): Diligence closes the policy gaps enough for a pilot: 22 months of runway and no debt clear the viability review, and in-account deployment with read-only logged access is a workable compensating control for the missing SOC 2 Type II. I will only approve once Security signs that control and the "], "refs": ["seed-1013/upside.jsonl#L5", "seed-1013/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1013/upside.jsonl#L13", "seed-1013/upside.jsonl#L22"], "round": 3}, "s1014-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: diligence before we commit anything\"); mailed fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton: $140k pilot vs my $100k line\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly the failure mode that has set my program back twice, but the evidence is one unaudited customer claim from a 14-person startup with 22 months of runway, and the pilot alone exceeds my $100k approval line. I want diligence before I put", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: vendor-risk read (no commitment requested)\"); mailed fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Velliton: need your viability view\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael asked for a risk read before anything is proposed, so I'll give one: Velliton trips two of our gates \u2014 under 3 years old (financial viability review) and operational log access without SOC 2 Type II (needs a compensating control signed off by Security). Both are fixable, neither"], "refs": ["seed-1014/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5", "seed-1014/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12"], "round": 2}, "s1014-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton replay study: technical read needed\"); mailed fin, proc, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton pilot: finance and vendor-risk check\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay study could directly address the release outages that have hurt my target, but the evidence is vendor-reported and Velliton is small with SOC 2 Type II still pending. I will start diligence and get engineering and finance/procuremen", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: gating conditions from vendor risk\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is interesting but not approvable yet: it is a young startup and SOC 2 Type II is still months away, so operational-log access must be gated. I am requesting financial, security and reference diligence and setting clear conditions before any pilot.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-19: \"P1: conditional approval from eng\"); mailed platform (mail-20: \"Velliton replay study \u2014 heads up, no re-scoping\"); requested technical, financial, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The replay approach addresses exactly our failure mode \u2014 nine incidents from untested fleet-control changes \u2014 and the fixed-fee study is small compared with that cost. I approve, but I will not hand over both free engineers or let the pilot quietly become a licence purchase."], "refs": ["seed-1014/research.jsonl#L5", "seed-1014/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1014/research.jsonl#L14"], "round": 2}, "s1014-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton: diligence before any pilot proposal\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Diligence before a call\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The simulation layer is strategically relevant and could reduce regressions, but the pitch mixes pilot, anchor partnership and investment before diligence, and the evidence is unaudited. I will not propose a $140k pilot until technical, financial, security and reference diligence are in.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: diligence requested, two policy gates flagged\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael has asked for diligence before any pilot proposal, and Velliton trips two of our policies on its face: founded 2024 (under 3 years, so a financial viability review is required) and SOC 2 Type I only while it needs read-only access to fleet-control logs. I will not let any data access or pilot proposal move until those clear.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Re: Velliton: diligence before any pilot proposal\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-19: \"Velliton Replay vs. our simulator \u2014 honest read\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The incident record justifies evaluating simulation seriously, but committing our only two free engineers to a vendor pilot while Kiyoshi's in-house simulator is two quarters behind needs a clear comparison first. This week I gather facts, not commitments.", "week 4, competing internal team: mailed eng (mail-29: \"Re: Velliton Replay vs. our simulator \u2014 honest read\"); mailed sponsor (mail-30: \"Velliton: integration cost lands on my team\"); requested technical, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Mara asked for a candid read, not a roadmap defence, so I'll give her one: Replay overlaps the part of our simulator we've already built, and $140k plus 4-6 weeks of my two best engineers buys a dependency rather than a capability. I'll request technical diligence and hold off proposing an internal build until I've seen it and her reaction."], "refs": ["seed-1014/upside.jsonl#L5", "seed-1014/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1014/upside.jsonl#L14", "seed-1014/upside.jsonl#L23"], "round": 3}, "s1015-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Replay: diligence first, then 30 minutes\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 heads up, not a decision\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly our failure mode \u2014 releases that pass testing and break the floor \u2014 but this is a 14-person startup with 22 months of runway and the headline evidence is customer-reported. I want diligence and a look at a real replicated incident b", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton Replay \u2014 engineer cost and what I need first\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Velliton Replay vs. our simulator \u2014 your read\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay addresses the exact failure mode behind our 9 release incidents, but the evidence is customer-reported and an early-stage vendor with 22 months of runway is a real dependency risk; I want diligence and an honest answer on overlap with Kiyoshi's platform before I back anything.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-21: \"P1 \u2014 conditional approval from Procurement\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is scoped tightly and the financial viability review my startup policy requires is satisfied by the diligence (22 months runway, though one customer is 48% of ARR). The blocker is policy: read-only fleet-control logs are operational data, and Velliton has only SOC 2 Type I, so I can approve only with a binding security condition on log access."], "refs": ["seed-1015/enterprise.jsonl#L5", "seed-1015/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1015/enterprise.jsonl#L14"], "round": 2}, "s1015-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Replay pilot - diligence and a call\"); mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay - early read, no commitment yet\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly the failure mode that has hurt us twice this year, but Velliton is small with Type II still pending and the CEO is already asking whether we carry too many vendors, so I want diligence before committing $140k. This we", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton Replay - early read\"); mailed platform (mail-13: \"Velliton integration estimate\"); requested technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): I want the technical claim checked before I spend my only spare engineers or endorse a pilot; the pain is real, but the vendor is young and integration is unproven against our in-house fleet manager.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Velliton: financial viability review needed before any contract\"); mailed sponsor, eng, sharing velliton-deck (mail-19: \"P1 conditions: SOC 2 gap and onboarding time\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is bounded and cheap enough to test, but Velliton is a 2024 startup with 22 months of runway and only SOC 2 Type I, so it fails both our startup and data policies today. I will approve P1 only with binding conditions that keep it away from operational logs"], "refs": ["seed-1015/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5", "seed-1015/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12", "seed-1015/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L14"], "round": 2}, "s1015-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Diligence before a joint study\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton replay study: diligence requested\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay study could directly reduce pre-release regressions, which is central to my target, but Velliton is early-stage and its key evidence is customer-reported. I will request diligence before proposing any commitment.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-3 (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton replay study: diligence requested\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Velliton study vs. our simulator\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay idea targets exactly our release-incident problem, but the evidence is one unaudited customer claim and the 4-6 weeks of two engineers is the same capacity Kiyoshi needs for our in-house simulator. I'll join the call and get diligence before taking any position."], "refs": ["seed-1015/research.jsonl#L5", "seed-1015/research.jsonl#L12"], "round": 2}, "s1016-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton replay pilot: diligence before proposal\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Joint study proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay approach could reduce release regressions that have hurt the program, but Velliton is early-stage, the evidence is unaudited, and $140k exceeds my solo approval limit. I will start diligence and brief the key approvers before proposing a pilot.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-12: \"Velliton replay: diligence first, preliminary technical read\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Diligence request: Velliton replay pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay is relevant to our release incidents, but fit with our in-house fleet manager is unproven and the integration would consume all free capacity. Diligence first; no pilot proposal yet.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Velliton diligence request: security, financial, references\"); mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-2 (mail-19: \"Velliton diligence: security and viability gates\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton's replay approach is relevant, but its SOC 2 Type II is not complete and it is a young startup, so policy gates require security and financial viability diligence before any pilot can be approved. I will request the missing diligence now and flag the approval conditions to R", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-19, sharing velliton-facts (mail-23: \"Velliton pilot: budget fits, but conditions apply\"); requested financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits the remaining $210k tooling budget, but the post-pilot $420k/year site licence would trigger the CFO multi-year approval threshold, and Ines's security gate is not yet cleared. I need Velliton's financial diligence before I can approve anything."], "refs": ["seed-1016/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1016/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1016/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1016/research.jsonl#L12"], "round": 2}, "s1016-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: simulation layer and pilot\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton simulation pilot \u2014 early review\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The simulation layer could materially speed fleet-software validation and reduce repeat outage risk, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the pilot is a $140k commitment above my Finance threshold. I will run diligence first and avoid proposing anything until technical, financial, securi", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Diligence request: Velliton Replay pilot\"); mailed sponsor, fin, proc forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 my initial concerns\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The deterministic replay concept plausibly targets our release incidents, but the evidence is customer-reported, the vendor is early-stage, and a pilot would compete for the same scarce engineers as Kiyoshi's in-house simulator. I want diligence before consid", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-13, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Velliton \u2014 the two gates before any pilot\"); mailed velliton forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-19: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 diligence request from Brenmoor procurement\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Nothing is proposed yet, so my job this week is to put the two policy gates on the record before anyone gets excited: Velliton is under 3 years old (financial viability review) and wants read-only access to fleet-control logs with only SOC 2 ", "week 2, finance exec: mailed velliton, sponsor, proc, eng forwarding mail-18, sharing velliton-facts (mail-23: \"Velliton \u2014 finance diligence request\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits the remaining $210k tooling budget, but with 22 months of runway, SOC 2 Type I only, and a $420k/yr licence behind it, I need the financial and security diligence before I approve anything. I am not proposing anything this week.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed fin, sponsor, eng forwarding mail-30, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-38: \"Velliton \u2014 viability review outcome and the two gates, in writing\"); mailed velliton (mail-39: \"Velliton \u2014 what we still need in writing\"); requested technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): Diligence now closes the financial and security picture enough to name the gates in writing: 22 months of runway is thin next to a 48% customer concentration, and Type I only still means no operational-log access without a Security-signed compensating con"], "refs": ["seed-1016/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1016/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1016/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1016/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1016/upside.jsonl#L25"], "round": 2}, "s1017-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot pitch \u2014 diligence request\"); mailed eng, proc, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton pitch \u2014 preliminary read, no commitment\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch addresses a real pain \u2014 releases causing site outages \u2014 but the evidence is customer-reported and the vendor is small. I will gather diligence before considering a pilot, and I am not committ"], "refs": ["seed-1017/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5"], "round": 2}, "s1018-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton replay study: diligence before any pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Joint study: diligence and meeting\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay approach directly targets the release regressions that have hurt this program, but the evidence is unaudited and Velliton is small; I want diligence and engineering's read before proposing a $140k pilot.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: approval path and my condition\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Pilot terms: exit and licence\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k discretionary budget, but the $420k/year licence sits above the $300k multi-year threshold and Velliton's 22-month runway makes exit terms the real issue. I want financial and reference diligence and a non-binding pilot before I sign anything."], "refs": ["seed-1018/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1018/research.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1019-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton pilot: diligence before any commitment\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton's deterministic replay is relevant to our outage and regression problem, but the evidence is customer-reported and the vendor is small. I want diligence and engineering review before any $140k commitment.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-11: \"Velliton: procurement position before the 30 minutes\"); mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Diligence request: financial and security\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton looks promising but trips two of our policies at once: founded 2024 (financial viability review) and log access with only SOC 2 Type I. I want diligence in hand before I approve anything.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc (mail-16: \"Velliton: Finance position before the 30 minutes\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k fits our remaining $210k tooling budget, but the 22-month runway, unaudited 31/38 evidence and a $420k/yr follow-on that would need a CFO business case mean I want viability and exit terms nailed down before I approve anything.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed velliton forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-19: \"Technical and reference diligence for the joint study\"); mailed sponsor, platform (mail-20: \"Capacity reality on the 4-6 week integration load\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay is relevant to our nine release incidents, but the evidence is customer-reported and unproven against our in-house fleet manager, and the integration load lands exactly on the two engineers we have free \u2014 the same engineers Kiyoshi's simulator needs. Diligence first, no commitment.", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-34: \"Velliton: pilot pauses, does not replace, internal simulator\"); mailed platform (mail-35: \"Your simulator commitments for Rafael's one-pager\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton replay is relevant to our release incidents, but the evidence is customer-reported, the adapter risk is real, and the integration load lands on the same two engineers as Kiyoshi's already-late internal simulator. This week I answer Rafael explicitly and pin down Kiyoshi's commitme", "week 5, competing internal team: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical (mail-43: \"Re: Your simulator commitments for Rafael's one-pager\"); mailed sponsor forwarding mail-35, sharing diligence-technical (mail-44: \"One-pager inputs: pause vs replace, capacity, validity\"); requested financial, reference diligence; filed P2 (internal_build; decision-P2). Rationale (simulated): Mara and Rafael both need a straight answer from me this week, and the honest answer is that my two free engineers are the internal build's next quarter, so a pilot pauses it and costs us a quarter. I'll say that plainly a"], "refs": ["seed-1019/research.jsonl#L5", "seed-1019/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1019/research.jsonl#L13", "seed-1019/research.jsonl#L14", "seed-1019/research.jsonl#L26", "seed-1019/research.jsonl#L33"], "round": 4}, "s1020-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay pitch - heads up, diligence running\"); mailed proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton - vendor risk view before I go further\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Pre-release simulation speaks directly to the two release-caused outages that set us back, so it is worth a serious look; but a 14-person seed-stage vendor and unaudited evidence mean I need diligence before I put a pilot in front of anyone.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-3 (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton - vendor risk view before I go further\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is a 2024-founded vendor with 22 months of runway and only SOC 2 Type I, while wanting read-only fleet-control log access, so both the startup viability review and the Type II / compensating-control question have to be settled before any pilot. I am asking for the diligence I need rather than giving a view I cannot support yet.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-15: \"Re: Velliton Replay pitch - engineering read\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton pilot vs. simulator capacity\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael asked for an engineering read, and the real question is fit and capacity: our fleet manager is in-house, not ROS 2, and the only two free engineers are also behind on Kiyoshi's simulator. I want technical and reference diligence before I take a position on a pilot.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-21: \"Velliton: affordable pilot, but no commitment yet\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot is affordable only because it fits the remaining $210k tooling budget, but it leaves little room and the $420k/year step-up would need a CFO business case. I want financial diligence and exit terms before supporting any commitment.", "week 4, competing internal team: mailed eng (mail-35: \"Re: Velliton pilot vs. simulator capacity\"); mailed fin (mail-36: \"Capacity cost of the Velliton pilot option\"); requested technical diligence; filed P2 (internal_build; decision-P2). Rationale (simulated): Mara asked for an honest capacity and overlap answer, and honesty here actually supports our case: Velliton is credible but sits squarely on what we are already 40% into building, and the two engineers named are the two keeping that work moving."], "refs": ["seed-1020/enterprise.jsonl#L5", "seed-1020/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1020/enterprise.jsonl#L13", "seed-1020/enterprise.jsonl#L15", "seed-1020/enterprise.jsonl#L26"], "round": 3}, "s1020-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch (mail-2: \"Re: Joint study: deterministic replay\"); mailed eng, proc, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton: quick read before I propose pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton's replay approach could directly target our release-outage problem, but the evidence is customer-reported and the vendor is small. I will request diligence and get engineering, procurement, and finance reads before proposing a $140k pilot.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton risk: financial and security diligence needed before pilot\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is a sub-3-year startup and its Type II is not complete, so policy requires financial viability review and Security sign-off or a compensating control before any operational-log access. I will request financial and security diligence and flag conditions to Rafael; no pilot approval yet.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-15: \"Velliton: technical fit needs diligence before pilot\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-16: \"Velliton pilot: overlap with our simulator\"); requested technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): I want technical diligence before backing a pilot: deterministic replay targets our incident cause, but the estimated 4\u20136 engineer-weeks would consume our only free capacity, overlap Kiyoshi's delayed simulator, and fit with our in-house non-ROS 2 fleet manager is unproven.", "week 4, competing internal team: mailed eng (mail-30: \"Re: Velliton pilot \u2014 scope and overlap\"); mailed velliton (mail-31: \"Technical questions before any pilot scoping\"); requested technical, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay harness is genuinely useful to us as a scenario-replay layer inside our own simulator, so I answer Mara's scope question directly and frame any pilot as feeding our build rather than running beside it; I hold off on proposing internal_build until I see the technical diligence."], "refs": ["seed-1020/research.jsonl#L5", "seed-1020/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1020/research.jsonl#L13", "seed-1020/research.jsonl#L24"], "round": 3}, "s1020-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton: diligence before any pilot proposal\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: simulation layer pitch\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The simulation layer could help hit the manual-intervention target and the CEO's ownership question, but Velliton is early-stage, the proof point is unaudited, and the pilot exceeds my $100k threshold. I will gather diligence and internal views before proposing anything.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: procurement and vendor risk read\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is under 3 years old, so policy requires a financial viability review, and its SOC 2 Type II is pending, so operational log access needs a compensating control signed off by Security. I will request the necessary diligence and flag the onboarding lead time before any pilot proposal.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, proc, fin (mail-16: \"Velliton: engineering read and a capacity caution\"); requested technical, financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The incident data says we need better pre-release testing, but 4-6 weeks of two engineers is all the slack we have next quarter, and it comes straight out of the in-house simulator Kiyoshi's team is already two quarters behind on. I want diligence on integration fit before I take a position.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing diligence-financial (mail-22: \"Velliton: financial read and where I land\"); mailed eng, sponsor (mail-23: \"Velliton: what does the integration delay actually cost?\"); requested reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot itself is affordable inside the $210k remaining budget and 22 months of runway covers the contract term, but the 48% customer concentration, a financing round due around when the pilot ends, and a $420k/year conversion step mean the real risk is what the pilot converts into. I'll give Rafael the financial read", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-30, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-32: \"Velliton: adapter credibility, simulator load, cost of delay\"); mailed velliton (mail-33: \"Two scoping questions before any pilot\"); requested security diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay capability addresses our real problem (nine incidents from untested fleet-control changes), but the only reference with a custom fleet manager took 9 weeks, not 4-6, and we have no ROS 2 path \u2014 so two engineers for a full quarter is the realistic case, which stalls Kiyoshi's s", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng (mail-35: \"Velliton: viability review, compensating control, and the integration estimate\"); mailed eng (mail-36: \"Velliton: integration estimate and your two engineers\"); requested technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): The financial viability review can clear for a $140k pilot on Theo's conditions, but the security gap (Type II five months out, pilot is twelve weeks) needs a named compensating control that Security actually signs, and engineering's integration estimate is unverified against our in-house fleet manager. No pilot filing un"], "refs": ["seed-1020/upside.jsonl#L5", "seed-1020/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1020/upside.jsonl#L13", "seed-1020/upside.jsonl#L15", "seed-1020/upside.jsonl#L25", "seed-1020/upside.jsonl#L26"], "round": 6}, "s1021-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay - diligence before we discuss a pilot\"); mailed fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Heads up: possible $140k pilot commitment, Velliton\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Replay targets is exactly what has hurt us twice this year, so it deserves a real look, but a 14-person vendor with 22 months of runway and an unaudited evidence claim is not something I put in front of the bo", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: finance conditions before you file\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Financial diligence request\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Nothing is filed, so I only set out finance's conditions early and pull my own financial diligence; the $140k pilot fits the $210k tooling budget, but the $420k/yr post-pilot licence crosses the $300k threshold and needs a CFO business case and a clean exit."], "refs": ["seed-1021/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1021/enterprise.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1021-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton joint study - diligence before any commitment\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Velliton study - diligence and meeting\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch is technically relevant to our release failures, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the commitment crosses my Finance threshold. I will get diligence and internal reads before proposing a pilot.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc forwarding mail-2 (mail-12: \"Finance view: $140k study is affordable, but no implied licence commitment\"); mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Financial questions before we consider the study\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k fixed-fee study fits inside the $210k remaining, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the natural next step is a $420k/yr licence that would need a CFO business case. I want financial diligence and hard exit terms before Finance approves anything."], "refs": ["seed-1021/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1021/research.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1021-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: The simulation layer \u2014 pilot and diligence\"); mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Heads-up: Velliton pilot, $140k\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): A deterministic replay layer would directly attack the pre-release regressions that caused our two outages, so the pilot is worth real diligence; but Velliton is 14 people with 22 months of runway and unaudited proof points, so I want facts before committing $140k.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton pilot, $140k \u2014 finance read\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot fits the remaining tooling budget but consumes most of it, and Velliton's strategic-structure language could pull us toward commitments we cannot exit. I want financial and reference diligence before Rafael files anything."], "refs": ["seed-1021/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1021/upside.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1022-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Diligence request: Velliton Replay pilot\"); mailed fin, eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton pitch \u2014 diligence coordination\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton's simulator could address the release regressions that have hurt the program, but the vendor is early-stage and the pilot exceeds my $100k approval threshold. I will request full diligence before considering any proposal.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 finance conditions before proposal\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot is affordable within this year's tooling budget, but it would consume two-thirds of it and the pitch hints at follow-on commitments and a deeper combination we cannot exit casually. I want financial diligence and binding exit and conversion terms before any proposal reaches me."], "refs": ["seed-1022/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1022/upside.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1023-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Replay pilot - yes to a call, plus diligence\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay - early read, no commitment yet\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Pre-release replay testing speaks directly to my two outage setbacks and the manual-intervention target, but $140k is above my signing line and Velliton is a young single-product vendor, so I want diligence be", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: vendor-risk gates before pilot\"); requested financial, security, technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot could be useful, but Velliton is an early-stage vendor with only SOC 2 Type I and no completed financial viability review. I will gate any operational data access and pilot approval on financial and security diligence.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-17: \"Re: Velliton Replay - early read, no commitment yet\"); mailed velliton (mail-18: \"Technical diligence for Replay pilot\"); requested technical, security, reference, financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton Replay is relevant to our nine release incidents, but the integration estimate and customer evidence are not yet credible enough for me to commit scarce engineers. I want technical, security, reference, and financial diligence before supporting a pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1023/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1023/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1023/enterprise.jsonl#L11"], "round": 2}, "s1023-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Velliton pilot \u2013 diligence request\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton simulation pilot \u2013 diligence before proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton could address our release-outage history, but the anchor framing and $140k pilot need scrutiny before I commit. I'll request full diligence and brief Finance, Engineering and Procurement rather than propose now.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed velliton (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot \u2013 diligence required before review\"); mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Velliton \u2013 no pilot clearance without diligence\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is technically plausible but too young for our startup policy and has only SOC 2 Type I while needing operational log access. I will not clear any pilot until financial viability and security diligence are complete.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc forwarding mail-3 (mail-17: \"Velliton \u2013 integration load and what I need before a pilot\"); mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Technical diligence questions for the pilot\"); requested technical, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay is genuinely relevant to our 9 release incidents, but the pilot would consume the only two free engineers next quarter and compete with Kiyoshi's in-house simulator, and the vendor is early-stage with no Type II yet. I will not propose anything until technical an", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc, velliton forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-24: \"Velliton \u2013 my financial gates before any pilot proposal\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): No proposal is filed yet, so my job this week is to set the financial conditions before one appears: $140k is two-thirds of my remaining tooling budget and the $420k/yr licence is a multi-year commitment that needs the CFO and a business case. I want Velliton's financials in hand first.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-35: \"Velliton \u2013 the financial conditions I need on any pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-36: \"Velliton \u2013 security diligence and contract questions\"); requested security diligence. Rationale (simulated): The financials are survivable but thin: $420k monthly burn against $1.1M ARR means the next round matters, and a 48% single-customer concentration means Velliton's problems become our problems. I will support a bounded pilot, but only with the fee fixed, no automatic conversion, escrow in place,"], "refs": ["seed-1023/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1023/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1023/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1023/upside.jsonl#L13", "seed-1023/upside.jsonl#L24"], "round": 2}, "s1024-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay - quick read before I respond\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay attacks exactly the failure mode that cost me two site outages this year, so it deserves a serious look, but $140k is over my sole-signature limit and $420k/yr afterwards is most of my remaining program line. I want diligence before I put my name to a pilot.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton Replay - quick read\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Diligence request: Velliton Replay pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): I see enough potential to diligence, not enough to commit: technical fit with our in-house fleet manager and the true engineering cost are unresolved, and Velliton is a small, early vendor.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Velliton - procurement read: not approvable as pitched\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is 22 months old with 22 months of runway and only SOC 2 Type I, so both our startup financial-viability rule and our log-access rule bite; I can't let a pilot touch fleet-control logs until those clear, but diligence is worth doing first."], "refs": ["seed-1024/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1024/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1024/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11"], "round": 2}, "s1025-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Joint study: deterministic replay for Brenmoor's fleet software\"); mailed eng, proc, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton pilot pitch \u2014 diligence before proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The deterministic-replay study could directly reduce the release regressions that have hurt my program, and the pilot is bounded. But Velliton is young, the evidence is customer-reported, and the licence cost is material, so I want diligence befo", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical (mail-15: \"P1: conditional approval from Finance\"); mailed proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton: terms I need before signature\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is capped, milestone-gated and exit-ready, so downside is bounded and it fits the $210k remaining budget \u2014 but only if the $140k is truly all-in and no post-pilot licence commitment creeps in.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-16 (mail-19: \"P1 pilot: my approval is conditional, not clean\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is small and milestone-capped, but Velliton is a 22-month-runway startup under three years old and would touch operational logs without SOC 2 Type II, so I will only approve with binding conditions and a completed financial review. I want the viability diligence in hand before anything is signed."], "refs": ["seed-1025/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1025/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1025/research.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1025-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay - your read before I go further\"); mailed fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Heads-up: possible $140k pilot commitment\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay is genuinely useful to us after two release-driven outages, but a 14-person vendor with 22 months of runway and unaudited evidence is not something I commit $140k to in week one. I'll get diligence and my colleagues' reads first.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical (mail-15: \"My read: integration burden and what I need in P1\"); mailed proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton: security, escrow, exit\"); requested security, financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay is the most direct fix for nine release incidents traced to untested fleet-control changes, but the 4-6 week integration is optimistic for our in-house manager and the pitch is pushing us toward a lock-in structure. I approve the pilot only behind Rafael's terms plus e", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc (mail-19: \"P1: conditional approval, and my read on Velliton counterparty risk\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is $140k fixed, inside my remaining $210k, adapter included and gated by a week-6 go/no-go, so downside is capped; my concern is counterparty risk and any drift into a $420k/yr licence, which I want locked out now.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-21: \"P1: Procurement conditional approval - two binding conditions\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is a reasonable, capped way to test the replay claim, but Velliton is under three years old and has no SOC 2 Type II, so our startup and data policies must be satisfied in writing before any operational log access."], "refs": ["seed-1025/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1025/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1025/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1025/upside.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1027-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 technical read before we move\"); mailed proc, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton \u2014 vendor risk and security check\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch goes straight at our biggest pain \u2014 two releases this year caused floor outages \u2014 but the evidence is one unaudited customer claim and the vendor is small with 22 months of runway. I want diligence in hand before I put a $140k pilot in fro", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor (mail-15: \"Re: Velliton \u2014 vendor risk and security check\"); mailed eng, fin, sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"P1 Velliton pilot \u2014 procurement stance: conditional\"); requested financial, security, technical diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Nothing in the pitch clears our two vendor policies: Velliton is under three years old and holds SOC 2 Type I only, with Type II closing five months out \u2014 after a 12-week pilot ends. I can conditionally approve the pilot but must start diligence now."], "refs": ["seed-1027/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1027/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1027-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton joint study: diligence and your read\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay approach could directly reduce the regressions that have caused site outages, but the evidence is unaudited and Velliton is an early-stage vendor. I want diligence and engineering/finance reads before committing $140k.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-11: \"Re: Velliton joint study: diligence and your read\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The study is plausible and the price is fixed, but $140k is two-thirds of my remaining tooling budget and the headline evidence is customer-reported and unaudited. I want financial and reference diligence plus clean exit terms before I approve anything.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin (mail-18: \"P1 conditional: Security control, escrow, exit terms\"); mailed velliton (mail-19: \"Joint study: escrow, exit and data handling in writing\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot's finance and security diligence are good enough to proceed conditionally: Velliton is under three years old but has 22 months of runway, no debt, and a clean pen test, and its own-cloud, read-only, logged deployment can be a compensating control for the missing Type II. I approve P1 only with Security sign-"], "refs": ["seed-1027/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1027/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1027/research.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1029-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Replay: yes to a call, plus diligence items\"); mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 your read before I move\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly our worst problem \u2014 two fleet-software releases that caused site outages \u2014 but the evidence is one unaudited customer claim from a 14-person vendor with 22 months of runway. I want diligence and engineering's read before I put a $140k pilot in front of Financ", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-15: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 vendor risk read on P1\"); mailed velliton (mail-16: \"Diligence request: financial and security\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is plausible and Rafael's conditions are sensible, but Velliton is a 2024 startup wanting read-only log access with only SOC 2 Type I, so I approve only behind a financial viability review and Security sign-off on a compensating control."], "refs": ["seed-1029/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1029/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1029-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton diligence before any commitment\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Diligence before any Velliton pilot discussion\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton's simulation layer is plausible and strategically relevant, but the pilot exceeds my $100k threshold, the evidence is unaudited, and the vendor is small. I will not commit before diligence, especially given recent release outages.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton financial diligence scope\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Financial diligence for Velliton pilot\"); requested financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael is right to gate the $140k pilot on diligence. I need Velliton's financials and contract terms before I can judge payback or exit risk, and the $420k/yr licence would need CFO sign-off as a multi-year commitment.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-15: \"Velliton: my diligence scope and two policy gates\"); mailed velliton (mail-16: \"Security diligence for the proposed pilot\"); requested security, reference, financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael asked for scoping, so this week I take the security and reference work and flag two policy gates now rather than at signature: Velliton is under three years old and only has SOC 2 Type I, while it wants read-only access to operational logs.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical (mail-29: \"Velliton technical read: fits, with one real gap\"); mailed platform (mail-30: \"Straight question: Replay vs. our simulator\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot directly attacks our 9 untested-change incidents and the 3-week adapter is inside the fixed fee, so the downside is bounded; but it consumes the only free capacity I have while our own simulator is two quarters late, so I approve only with a plan for that overlap and no licence commitment."], "refs": ["seed-1029/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1029/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1029/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1029/upside.jsonl#L21"], "round": 2}, "s1030-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot\"); mailed eng, proc, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 early read requested\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pain Velliton targets is exactly what has set my program back twice this year, but the evidence is one customer-reported anecdote and the vendor is small with Type II pending. I want diligence and a look from Engineering and Procurement before I put a proposal on the table.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: early vendor-risk read \u2014 two gates, not blockers yet\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Brenmoor procurement: diligence request before we go further\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): My early read is that Velliton fails two of our gates on paper: as a 2024-founded company it needs a financial viability review, and read-only access to fleet-control logs needs SOC 2 Type II or a compensating control signed off by Security, which they don't have yet. I'll flag that now"], "refs": ["seed-1030/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1030/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds", "label": "all 4 kinds", "runs": ["s1002-enterprise", "s1002-research", "s1002-enterprise-replicate", "s1004-enterprise", "s1005-enterprise", "s1005-upside", "s1005-enterprise-replicate", "s1006-research", "s1006-upside", "s1007-enterprise", "s1007-upside", "s1007-enterprise-replicate", "s1008-upside", "s1008-enterprise-replicate", "s1009-enterprise", "s1009-enterprise-replicate", "s1010-enterprise", "s1010-research", "s1010-upside", "s1011-research", "s1011-upside", "s1012-enterprise", "s1012-upside", "s1012-enterprise-replicate", "s1013-enterprise", "s1013-research", "s1013-upside", "s1014-research", "s1014-upside", "s1014-enterprise-replicate", "s1015-enterprise", "s1015-research", "s1015-enterprise-replicate", "s1016-research", "s1016-upside", "s1017-enterprise-replicate", "s1018-research", "s1019-research", "s1020-enterprise", "s1020-research", "s1020-upside", "s1021-enterprise", "s1021-research", "s1021-upside", "s1022-upside", "s1023-enterprise", "s1023-upside", "s1024-enterprise-replicate", "s1025-research", "s1025-upside", "s1027-research", "s1027-enterprise-replicate", "s1029-upside", "s1029-enterprise-replicate", "s1030-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "diligence"}], "count": 55, "evidence": {"s1002-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 procurement comments before approvals\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael's pilot as written cannot clear policy: Velliton is 22 months old so it needs a financial viability review, and read-only fleet-control log access is operational data, so SOC 2 Type I alone is not enough. I want the diligence in hand before I take any approval position.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed proc, sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-15: \"Velliton financial viability \u2014 what I have and what I need\"); mailed sponsor, proc, eng forwarding mail-12, sharing velliton-deck (mail-16: \"Velliton: my conditions on the pilot and the step-up\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget, but the $420k/yr step-up is a multi-year commitment above $300k that needs a CFO business case and a 24-month payback, and Velliton's viability is thin. I want financial and reference diligence be", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc (mail-19: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 engineering load and test relevance\"); mailed platform (mail-20: \"Impact of lending two engineers to a Velliton pilot\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch targets exactly our pain (9 incidents from untested fleet-control changes), but it consumes the same two free engineers our own simulator needs, and it is unproven against our in-house fleet manager rather than ROS 2. I want technical and reference diligence before taking any position on a pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1002/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1002/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1002/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1002/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1002/enterprise.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1002-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-3 (mail-12: \"Velliton: two policy gates before any proposal\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Two policy gates apply on the face of the pitch: Velliton is under three years old, so a financial viability review is mandatory, and read-only access to fleet-control logs needs SOC 2 Type II or a Security-signed compensating control, and they only have Type I. I open diligence now rather than wait for a proposal.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-12, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton: approval path and my two finance conditions\"); mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-17: \"Pilot terms: exit and conversion\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget, but the $420k/year follow-on is a $300k-plus recurring commitment needing a CFO business case, and with 22 months of runway I need financial diligence and exit terms before I approve anything.", "week 2, engineering exec: no action"], "refs": ["seed-1002/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1002/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1002/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1002/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12", "seed-1002/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1002-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 vendor-risk conditions before proposal\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Diligence request \u2014 financial viability and security\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): No proposal is open, so I will not take a stance yet; I am flagging procurement conditions early. Velliton is under three years old and lacks SOC 2 Type II, so financial viability and security must clear before any pilot touching operational logs.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 Finance conditions\"); requested financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot fits inside the remaining $210k tooling budget, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the real exposure is the $420k/year licence plus integration effort. I want financial diligence and hard exit terms before any pilot approval.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc forwarding mail-3 (mail-18: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 engineering review\"); mailed platform (mail-19: \"Velliton vs. our simulator \u2014 your read\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Velliton targets is exactly our incident pattern, but the evidence is unaudited and nobody has checked fit with our in-house fleet manager; I will not take a position until technical diligence lands, and I need to weigh the 4-6 week integration against our two free engineers."], "refs": ["seed-1002/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1002/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1002/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1002/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1002/research.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1004-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: diligence read, proposed conditions\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Pilot conditions before filing\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): The diligence supports a contained pilot: deterministic replay addresses the outage problem, but the adapter, mixed human/robot limitation, and reference integration overrun mean I want hard caps and no post-pilot commitment. Vendor concentration and runway are manageable only be", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-15: \"P1 Velliton pilot - conditional approval from Procurement\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence clears my two policy gates only conditionally: Velliton is under three years old (financial viability review done, 22 months cash, but 48% customer concentration), and it does not yet hold SOC 2 Type II despite read-only operational log access. A contained $140k pilot is acceptable only with those two conditions recorded as binding.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng forwarding mail-15, sharing diligence-financial (mail-16: \"P1 Velliton pilot - finance approval, binding conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is contained and affordable: $140k plus ~$18k disclosed compute fits inside my $210k tooling budget, with no licence commitment and a firm integration cap, so Brenmoor can exit cheaply. I approve it with binding conditions that keep the $420k/yr post-pilot pricing and any renewal firmly in my and the CFO's hands.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-17: \"Velliton pilot: adapter estimate and which two engineers\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): A contained pilot with a firm cap and no licence commitment is worth the test, but the adapter for our in-house fleet manager is the same risk that blew up reference 2, so I approve only with the integration load pinned down and my internal simulator team untouched."], "refs": ["seed-1004/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1004/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1004/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1004/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1004/enterprise.jsonl#L13", "seed-1004/enterprise.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}, "s1005-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1005/enterprise.jsonl#L5", "seed-1005/enterprise.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1005-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1005/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5", "seed-1005/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1005-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1005/upside.jsonl#L5", "seed-1005/upside.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1006-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: finance diligence asks\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits remaining discretionary budget, but the $420k/yr follow-on exceeds my threshold and the evidence is vendor-reported. I want financial and security diligence and clear exit terms before supporting any pilot.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-16: \"Commercial terms before we can propose a pilot\"); mailed fin, eng, proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-17: \"Velliton diligence: my read and next step\"). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is now in and the picture is workable but incomplete on commercial terms, and both Theo's mail and reference 2 (a custom fleet manager stretched integration to 9 weeks) tell me not to file a pilot yet. This week I close the commercial gaps with Velliton and give eng, fin and ", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-18: \"Velliton: adapter estimate and mixed-aisle limitation\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-19: \"Velliton replay: two questions before I commit engineers\"). Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly what is hurting us (9 incidents from untested fleet-control changes), but the integration estimate looks optimistic for our in-house fleet manager and the pilot would consume the only engineer slack I have against a simulator already two quarters late. I answer Rafael's te", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-17, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-20: \"Velliton: escrow, exit and the conditions I would attach to a pilot\"). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and the replay method is credible, but Velliton is a 22-month-old startup with no Type II and read-only log access ahead of a pilot, so I set out the escrow, exit and security conditions I will bind to any pilot approval now rather than at filing."], "refs": ["seed-1006/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1006/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1006/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1006/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1006/research.jsonl#L13", "seed-1006/research.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}, "s1006-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton pilot - my view before you propose\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Diligence request - financial and security\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside our $210k remaining tooling budget, but the anchor-partnership and 'deeper combination' language points at multi-year commitments and possibly an acquisition, so I want the financial picture before taking any position.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-16: \"Re: Velliton pilot - financial diligence, and my terms\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-17: \"Velliton: your read on the adapter, and our engineer cost\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay attacks exactly the outage failure mode that has cost me twice this year, and the diligence is credible enough for a scoped, shadow-mode pilot at one site; but the vendor is small, concentrated and unprofitable (high vendor risk), and the anchor-partnership", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-19: \"Re: Velliton: adapter read and engineer cost\"); mailed platform (mail-20: \"Velliton pilot: what it means for your simulator\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay plausibly attacks exactly our regression class (9 incidents last quarter), and P1 is written tightly: shadow mode only, fixed fee, no conversion or exclusivity clause. My caution is the adapter estimate - a second reference ran 9 weeks on a custom fleet manager - so I approve with a hard checkpoin", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-21: \"P1 pilot: conditional approval from Procurement\"); mailed velliton (mail-22: \"Diligence requests: financial and security\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is narrowly scoped and shadow-mode only, but Velliton is under three years old so the startup policy requires a financial viability review, and read-only fleet logs still count as operational data needing SOC 2 Type II or a Security-signed compensating control. I conditionally approve pe"], "refs": ["seed-1006/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1006/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1006/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1006/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1006/upside.jsonl#L13", "seed-1006/upside.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}, "s1007-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed proc, fin forwarding mail-11, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: two terms I need before I can commit\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical (mail-13: \"Adapter for our in-house fleet manager \u2014 realistic in 3 weeks?\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is decent on the product but shows two live risks: their custom-fleet-manager deployment slipped to 9 weeks, which is exactly our in-house case, and the vendor is small with 48% customer concentration and no escrow below $250k. I'll propose", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-financial (mail-15: \"Re: Velliton pilot: two terms I need before I can commit\"); mailed sponsor, eng, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-financial (mail-16: \"Velliton: the $420k path and the 9-week integration\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget and P1's structure \u2014 week-4 gate, 30-day termination, no post-pilot commitment \u2014 caps our downside, which is what I care about most. But the compute question and the $420k/yr path after the pil", "week 2, procurement lead: no action"], "refs": ["seed-1007/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1007/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1007/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1007/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1007/enterprise.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1007-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-11, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-security (mail-12: \"Filing a conditional Velliton pilot \u2014 your review\"); mailed fin forwarding mail-9, sharing diligence-financial (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 $140,000, above the $100k line\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is credible but thin: good determinism, real limitation on mixed-aisle behaviour, a custom fleet-manager integration that took 9 weeks at a reference, and a 14-person vendor with 48% customer concentration. A capped, fixed-fee pilot at one s", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing diligence-financial (mail-15: \"P1 pilot \u2014 approving with exit and payment conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140,000 fixed fee fits inside the $210,000 left and the pilot carries no licence commitment and a clean exit, so downside is capped; Velliton's 22-month runway and 48% customer concentration justify binding the exit and payment terms in writing.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-security, diligence-technical (mail-16: \"P1 pilot \u2014 conditional approval, security control and integration timing are binding\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is cheap, fixed-fee, capped and exit-able, and the financial viability review clears the under-3-years policy (22 months of runway against a 12-week pilot). But Velliton would get read-only access to fleet-control logs and only holds SOC 2 Type I, so I approve only with a binding Security compensating control before any log"], "refs": ["seed-1007/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1007/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1007/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1007/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12", "seed-1007/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1007-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference, diligence-security (mail-12: \"Proposing Velliton pilot - $140k, conditional on adapter milestone\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Two questions before we file a pilot\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence landed complete and reasonably reassuring on security and deployment, but our in-house fleet manager is exactly the case where reference 2 overran 4-6 weeks to 9, and the mixed human/robot aisle behaviour is only approximated. I will propose a bounded pilot with the ada", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-15: \"P1: conditional approval, and the two gaps I need closed\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is low-value and fixed-fee with a hard adapter stop, so it is approvable, but Velliton is under 3 years old (financial viability review required by policy) and has SOC 2 Type I only while needing read-only access to fleet-control logs, so both must be closed by binding conditions."], "refs": ["seed-1007/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1007/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1007/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1007/upside.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1008-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Proposing Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 $140k fixed, one site, 12 weeks\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Pilot terms before we file\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence came back clean enough on security and technical fit, and the $140k fixed-fee, single-site, 12-week pilot is a bounded way to test Replay against our actual outage problem; the risks I see (48% customer concentration, Type II still open, our in-house fleet man", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-15: \"P1: conditional approval from Engineering\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-16: \"Velliton pilot: capacity and what we take from it\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): A 12-week, exit-at-end pilot with an adapter kill-switch at week three is a cheap way to attack the 9 incident problem, but the adapter for our in-house fleet manager is the real risk and it eats my only free engineers, so I approve with binding conditions rather than an open cheque.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-17: \"P1 \u2014 conditional approval (procurement/vendor risk)\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is a fixed, capped pilot with a week-3 stop right, so the exposure is bounded and worth reviewing on risk terms. Velliton is under three years old and holds only SOC 2 Type I, so I approve conditionally with the financial viability review recorded and a Security-signed control required before any operational log access.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng (mail-18: \"P1 \u2014 conditional approval (Finance)\"); mailed velliton (mail-19: \"Replay pilot \u2014 cost and exit confirmation\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k fixed pilot fits inside the $210k tooling budget and has a clean exit, so the downside is capped; my concern is unmanaged expansion into a $420k/yr commitment, which I want fenced off in writing now."], "refs": ["seed-1008/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1008/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1008/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1008/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12", "seed-1008/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L13", "seed-1008/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}, "s1008-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton diligence in hand - proposing a bounded pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Adapter plan for Brenmoor's in-house fleet manager\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence answers the questions I asked: deterministic replay directly targets the regression failures that caused our outages, and running in our own cloud limits data risk. The one live danger is integration: reference 2 slipped to 9 weeks on a custom fle", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc (mail-15: \"P1 pilot: conditional engineering approval\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-16: \"Velliton pilot and our simulator: adapter plan and staffing\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The technical approach fits our problem directly: nine incidents last quarter came from untested fleet-control changes, and deterministic replay is the exact capability we lack while our in-house simulator is two quarters behind. The risk is concentrated in the adapter for our cu", "week 2, procurement lead: no action", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing diligence-financial (mail-17: \"P1 pilot: Finance conditional approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): A fixed-fee, 12-week pilot at $140k fits inside the $210k remaining budget and carries no multi-year commitment. But the deck's talk of anchor partnership and investment means I want the exit and non-conversion written in before money moves."], "refs": ["seed-1008/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1008/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1008/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1008/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1008/upside.jsonl#L13", "seed-1008/upside.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}, "s1009-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, proc, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: $140k commitment, diligence attached\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-8, sharing diligence-technical (mail-13: \"Velliton technical: confirm the adapter and success criteria\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is credible: deterministic replay targets exactly the release-regression failure mode that cost us two outages, and $140,000 fits the remaining budget. The caveats \u2014 a 3-week adapter for our own fleet manager, one reference", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-3 (mail-15: \"Re: Velliton pilot \u2014 $140k, above my threshold\"); mailed proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-financial (mail-16: \"Velliton P1 \u2014 conditions to file before I sign\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is a bounded $140k that fits inside the $210k remaining budget and, crucially, commits us to nothing beyond it; the shape that worries me is the $420k/yr licence, which I will not let in without a CFO business case. I approve P1 with binding conditions on spend cap, exit and renewal.", "week 2, procurement lead: no action"], "refs": ["seed-1009/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1009/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1009/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1009/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1009/enterprise.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1009-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: $140k, above my $100k threshold\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-13: \"Velliton integration: your read on the adapter\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is credible on security and technical fit and the price is fixed and within my line, so a bounded pilot is worth it; but the 9-week reference slip on a custom fleet manager and 48% customer concentration mean I want milestone payments, adapter scope owned by us, and a go/no-go before a", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-financial (mail-15: \"P1: conditional approval, with conditions recorded\"); mailed proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton: security review before signature\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is fixed-fee, milestone-based and carries no licence commitment, so it fits the $210k remaining budget with a capped downside; vendor concentration and runway mean I want strict payment gating and a fresh approval before any $420k/yr licence."], "refs": ["seed-1009/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1009/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1009/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1009/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1010-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed velliton (mail-12: \"Financial diligence request: Velliton Replay\"); mailed sponsor, eng, proc (mail-13: \"Velliton: finance view before pilot commitment\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot is affordable inside the remaining $210k tooling budget, but the $420k annual price and two-engineer load mean I cannot support a commitment before financial diligence and a 24-month payback case.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton: procurement position before diligence\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is a 2024-founded startup and its SOC 2 Type II is not finished, so under our startup and data policies I cannot let it near operational logs until a financial viability review and a security sign-off are done. I'm requesting diligence now rather than blocking anything."], "refs": ["seed-1010/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1010/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1010/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1010/enterprise.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1010-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: pilot affordable, licence is a separate decision\"); requested financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k discretionary tooling budget, so I can back it, but the $420k/year licence is a multi-year commitment above my line and a 14-person vendor with 22 months of runway is a real continuity risk. I want the numbers before anyone signs anything.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-14: \"Velliton: two vendor-risk gates before any pilot\"); mailed eng (mail-15: \"Velliton log access - can Security sign a compensating control?\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is founded 2024, so our startup policy requires a financial viability review before we commit, and its read-only fleet-log access triggers the data policy since it only has SOC 2 Type I. I want those two gaps on the record early, before anyone drafts a pilot proposal."], "refs": ["seed-1010/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1010/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1010/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1010/research.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1010-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: finance view before any proposal\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot is small enough to test, but the pitch points to a $420k/yr licence and possible strategic combination, so I need financial diligence and hard exit terms before any commitment.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-15: \"Velliton: vendor-risk view and the gates before any proposal\"); mailed velliton (mail-16: \"Diligence requests: financial viability and security\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): No proposal is on the table, so my job this week is to state the vendor-risk gates before anyone gets attached to a pilot: Velliton is under three years old and holds only SOC 2 Type I while asking for read-only access to fleet-control logs."], "refs": ["seed-1010/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1010/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1010/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1010/upside.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1011-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: opening vendor-risk and security diligence\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Diligence request \u2014 Velliton joint replay study\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael has asked for vendor-risk and security review before anything is proposed, and Velliton is a 2024-founded company with only SOC 2 Type I that wants read-only access to fleet-control logs \u2014 both my startup and data policies bite. I'll open diligence now so the 6-8 week onboarding clock isn'", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-17: \"Velliton: support diligence, with two caveats on my side\"); mailed platform (mail-18: \"Velliton study vs. our simulator \u2014 your read\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Diligence is reasonable and cheap, but the 4-6 week integration would eat both free engineers and pull directly against Kiyoshi's in-house simulator, and our fleet manager isn't ROS 2, so the replay claims need technical verification before I back anything."], "refs": ["seed-1011/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1011/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1011/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1011/research.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1011-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: procurement conditions before any pilot or partnership\"); requested security, financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael asked me for vendor-risk and security diligence before anything is proposed; Velliton is under three years old and gets read-only fleet-control log access, so both financial viability and SOC 2 Type II (or a Security-signed compensating control) must clear before any log access or pilot.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-16: \"Velliton: technical diligence and capacity\"); mailed platform (mail-17: \"Velliton vs internal simulator\"); requested technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay plausibly addresses our regression gap, but the evidence is customer-reported and fleet-manager compatibility is unproven. I will request technical diligence and check the integration load against our two free engineers before supporting any pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1011/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1011/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1011/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1011/upside.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1012-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1012/enterprise.jsonl#L5", "seed-1012/enterprise.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1012-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1012/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5", "seed-1012/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1012-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1012/upside.jsonl#L5", "seed-1012/upside.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1013-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1013/enterprise.jsonl#L5", "seed-1013/enterprise.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1013-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1013/research.jsonl#L5", "seed-1013/research.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1013-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1013/upside.jsonl#L5", "seed-1013/upside.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1014-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1014/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5", "seed-1014/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1014-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1014/research.jsonl#L5", "seed-1014/research.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1014-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1014/upside.jsonl#L5", "seed-1014/upside.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1015-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1015/enterprise.jsonl#L5", "seed-1015/enterprise.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1015-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1015/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5", "seed-1015/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1015-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1015/research.jsonl#L5", "seed-1015/research.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1016-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-12: \"Velliton replay: diligence first, preliminary technical read\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Diligence request: Velliton replay pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay is relevant to our release incidents, but fit with our in-house fleet manager is unproven and the integration would consume all free capacity. Diligence first; no pilot proposal yet.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Velliton diligence request: security, financial, references\"); mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-2 (mail-19: \"Velliton diligence: security and viability gates\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton's replay approach is relevant, but its SOC 2 Type II is not complete and it is a young startup, so policy gates require security and financial viability diligence before any pilot can be approved. I will request the missing diligence now and flag the approval conditions to R", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-19, sharing velliton-facts (mail-23: \"Velliton pilot: budget fits, but conditions apply\"); requested financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits the remaining $210k tooling budget, but the post-pilot $420k/year site licence would trigger the CFO multi-year approval threshold, and Ines's security gate is not yet cleared. I need Velliton's financial diligence before I can approve anything."], "refs": ["seed-1016/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1016/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1016/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1016/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1016/research.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1016-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Diligence request: Velliton Replay pilot\"); mailed sponsor, fin, proc forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 my initial concerns\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The deterministic replay concept plausibly targets our release incidents, but the evidence is customer-reported, the vendor is early-stage, and a pilot would compete for the same scarce engineers as Kiyoshi's in-house simulator. I want diligence before consid", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-13, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Velliton \u2014 the two gates before any pilot\"); mailed velliton forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-19: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 diligence request from Brenmoor procurement\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Nothing is proposed yet, so my job this week is to put the two policy gates on the record before anyone gets excited: Velliton is under 3 years old (financial viability review) and wants read-only access to fleet-control logs with only SOC 2 ", "week 2, finance exec: mailed velliton, sponsor, proc, eng forwarding mail-18, sharing velliton-facts (mail-23: \"Velliton \u2014 finance diligence request\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits the remaining $210k tooling budget, but with 22 months of runway, SOC 2 Type I only, and a $420k/yr licence behind it, I need the financial and security diligence before I approve anything. I am not proposing anything this week."], "refs": ["seed-1016/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1016/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1016/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1016/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1016/upside.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1017-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1017/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5", "seed-1017/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1018-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: approval path and my condition\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Pilot terms: exit and licence\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k discretionary budget, but the $420k/year licence sits above the $300k multi-year threshold and Velliton's 22-month runway makes exit terms the real issue. I want financial and reference diligence and a non-binding pilot before I sign anything.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-16: \"Velliton diligence in - proposing a non-binding pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-17: \"Two questions before we propose\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence has landed and largely supports a bounded pilot: the method targets our release regressions, compute stays in our cloud, and Theo's condition (non-binding, no auto-conversion) is easy to write into terms. I propose the pilot now so eng, fin, proc can approve or condi", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-16, sharing diligence-technical (mail-19: \"P1: engineering read and conditional approval\"); mailed platform (mail-20: \"Velliton pilot and internal simulator capacity\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The non-binding pilot directly targets the release incidents and the integration estimate is plausible, but the early-stage vendor and internal simulator backlog mean I approve only with tight engineering scope and explicit criteria.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-21: \"Velliton: procurement read and my conditions on P1\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is non-binding, fixed-fee, capped in engineering time, and runs in our own cloud account with read-only logged access, so vendor risk is containable; but Velliton is under three years old and holds only SOC 2 Type I, so I approve with binding conditions on data access rather than block."], "refs": ["seed-1018/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1018/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1018/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1018/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1018/research.jsonl#L13", "seed-1018/research.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}, "s1019-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1019/research.jsonl#L5", "seed-1019/research.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1020-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1020/enterprise.jsonl#L5", "seed-1020/enterprise.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1020-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1020/research.jsonl#L5", "seed-1020/research.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1020-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1020/upside.jsonl#L5", "seed-1020/upside.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1021-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: finance conditions before you file\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Financial diligence request\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Nothing is filed, so I only set out finance's conditions early and pull my own financial diligence; the $140k pilot fits the $210k tooling budget, but the $420k/yr post-pilot licence crosses the $300k threshold and needs a CFO business case and a clean exit.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-technical (mail-16: \"Filing Velliton pilot with your three conditions written in\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-17: \"Adapter and aisle-simulation limits: your read before I file\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and the technology squarely targets the release outages that cost me twice this year; the vendor is small and concentrated but cloud-deployed, escrow-capable and cheap to exit. I'll file a pilot on Theo's three con"], "refs": ["seed-1021/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1021/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1021/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1021/enterprise.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1021-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc forwarding mail-2 (mail-12: \"Finance view: $140k study is affordable, but no implied licence commitment\"); mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Financial questions before we consider the study\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k fixed-fee study fits inside the $210k remaining, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the natural next step is a $420k/yr licence that would need a CFO business case. I want financial diligence and hard exit terms before Finance approves anything.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc, fin forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-16: \"Proposing the Velliton 12-week study, with Finance's conditions written in\"); mailed velliton (mail-17: \"Questions before we commit to the study\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is credible but vendor-reported, and one reference overran its integration estimate on a custom fleet manager, which is exactly our situation. I will propose the 12-week study now, written to Finance's conditions, while"], "refs": ["seed-1021/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1021/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1021/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1021/research.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1021-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton pilot, $140k \u2014 finance read\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot fits the remaining tooling budget but consumes most of it, and Velliton's strategic-structure language could pull us toward commitments we cannot exit. I want financial and reference diligence before Rafael files anything.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-15: \"Re: Velliton pilot \u2014 scope and contracting terms\"); mailed eng, proc, fin forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-16: \"Filing: Velliton 12-week pilot, $140k \u2014 approvals requested\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): All four diligence items are in and Theo has given a workable structure, so the pilot can be filed this week as a standalone, non-converting contract that targets our regression problem directly. I am refusing the anchor-partnership/co"], "refs": ["seed-1021/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1021/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1021/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1021/upside.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1022-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 finance conditions before proposal\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot is affordable within this year's tooling budget, but it would consume two-thirds of it and the pitch hints at follow-on commitments and a deeper combination we cannot exit casually. I want financial diligence and binding exit and conversion terms before any proposal reaches me.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, eng, proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-15: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 Theo's conditions in scope\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-8, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-16: \"Velliton: adapter and aisle limitation\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and is broadly credible, and Theo's conditions are workable, so I will confirm them and file a tightly scoped, fixed-fee pilot rather than let the window drift; I still want Eng's read on the fleet-manager adapter and the hu", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed platform, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-18: \"Two answers I need before I approve the Velliton pilot\"); mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference (mail-19: \"Re: Velliton: adapter and aisle limitation\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay is a real fit for our release-incident problem, but our non-ROS 2 fleet manager and the mixed human/robot aisle approximation are exactly where the value could evaporate, so I approve the pilot only with terms that force those two things to be tested honestly."], "refs": ["seed-1022/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1022/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1022/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1022/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1022/upside.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1023-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: vendor-risk gates before pilot\"); requested financial, security, technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot could be useful, but Velliton is an early-stage vendor with only SOC 2 Type I and no completed financial viability review. I will gate any operational data access and pilot approval on financial and security diligence.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-17: \"Re: Velliton Replay - early read, no commitment yet\"); mailed velliton (mail-18: \"Technical diligence for Replay pilot\"); requested technical, security, reference, financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton Replay is relevant to our nine release incidents, but the integration estimate and customer evidence are not yet credible enough for me to commit scarce engineers. I want technical, security, reference, and financial diligence before supporting a pilot.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed proc, fin forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-23: \"Velliton pilot: what clears your gates, and when\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-17, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-24: \"Velliton: success criteria before I commit engineers or money\"). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and it broadly supports the pilot: deterministic replay, an adapter cost that is already inside the 4-6 week estimate, and references that caught regressions. But Procurement's gates (finan", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc (mail-25: \"Velliton pilot: Finance read and approval route\"); mailed proc (mail-26: \"Velliton: timing on viability review and security control\"). Rationale (simulated): A $140k fixed-fee, 12-week pilot fits inside my remaining $210k discretionary line and creates no multi-year commitment, so the pilot itself is approvable; the real exposure is the $420k/yr licence that follows. I will support the pilot with hard conditions on exit, renewal and the annual step-up."], "refs": ["seed-1023/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1023/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1023/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1023/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1023/enterprise.jsonl#L13", "seed-1023/enterprise.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}, "s1023-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed velliton (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot \u2013 diligence required before review\"); mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Velliton \u2013 no pilot clearance without diligence\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is technically plausible but too young for our startup policy and has only SOC 2 Type I while needing operational log access. I will not clear any pilot until financial viability and security diligence are complete.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc forwarding mail-3 (mail-17: \"Velliton \u2013 integration load and what I need before a pilot\"); mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Technical diligence questions for the pilot\"); requested technical, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay is genuinely relevant to our 9 release incidents, but the pilot would consume the only two free engineers next quarter and compete with Kiyoshi's in-house simulator, and the vendor is early-stage with no Type II yet. I will not propose anything until technical an", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed proc, eng, sharing diligence-security, diligence-technical (mail-22: \"Velliton \u2013 can a compensating control clear the security gate?\"); mailed velliton (mail-23: \"Velliton \u2013 terms questions before I can sponsor a pilot\"). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and it is decent but not gate-clearing: SOC 2 Type II is 5 months out and the $420k/yr licence plus 22-month runway make me cautious. I will not file a pilot while Procurement's gates stand, so this week I test whether a compensating control clears security and pin down terms.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc, velliton forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-24: \"Velliton \u2013 my financial gates before any pilot proposal\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): No proposal is filed yet, so my job this week is to set the financial conditions before one appears: $140k is two-thirds of my remaining tooling budget and the $420k/yr licence is a multi-year commitment that needs the CFO and a business case. I want Velliton's financials in hand first."], "refs": ["seed-1023/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1023/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1023/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1023/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1023/upside.jsonl#L13", "seed-1023/upside.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}, "s1024-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton Replay - quick read\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Diligence request: Velliton Replay pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): I see enough potential to diligence, not enough to commit: technical fit with our in-house fleet manager and the true engineering cost are unresolved, and Velliton is a small, early vendor.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Velliton - procurement read: not approvable as pitched\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is 22 months old with 22 months of runway and only SOC 2 Type I, so both our startup financial-viability rule and our log-access rule bite; I can't let a pilot touch fleet-control logs until those clear, but diligence is worth doing first.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed proc, fin forwarding mail-18, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-22: \"Velliton gates: can we clear them this month?\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-23: \"Velliton: the adapter and the 9-week reference\"). Rationale (simulated): Diligence confirms Replay targets our exact failure mode, but both gates Mara and Ines set are still open: our in-house fleet manager needs an adapter and Velliton is Type I only with 22 months of runway. I'll push to clear those gates rather than file a pilot th"], "refs": ["seed-1024/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1024/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1024/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1024/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12", "seed-1024/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1025-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: technical and commercial conditions before I propose\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Follow-up before we scope a pilot\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence supports the core claim but flags two real risks for us: our in-house fleet manager needs an adapter and the one reference with a custom fleet manager ran 9 weeks, not 4-6; plus Velliton is small and concentrated. A bounded, milestone-gated pilot inside this year's budget is worth proposing", "week 2, engineering exec: no action", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical (mail-15: \"P1: conditional approval from Finance\"); mailed proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton: terms I need before signature\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is capped, milestone-gated and exit-ready, so downside is bounded and it fits the $210k remaining budget \u2014 but only if the $140k is truly all-in and no post-pilot licence commitment creeps in.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-16 (mail-19: \"P1 pilot: my approval is conditional, not clean\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is small and milestone-capped, but Velliton is a 22-month-runway startup under three years old and would touch operational logs without SOC 2 Type II, so I will only approve with binding conditions and a completed financial review. I want the viability diligence in hand before anything is signed."], "refs": ["seed-1025/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1025/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1025/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1025/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1025/research.jsonl#L13", "seed-1025/research.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}, "s1025-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-11, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot terms \u2014 adapter risk is the real schedule risk\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-13: \"Does Velliton duplicate what your platform team already does?\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence holds up better than I expected: deterministic replay of our own containers, data staying in our cloud account, escrow available. The mixed human/robot aisle approximation and the reference site's 9-week custom fleet-manager in", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical (mail-15: \"My read: integration burden and what I need in P1\"); mailed proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton: security, escrow, exit\"); requested security, financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay is the most direct fix for nine release incidents traced to untested fleet-control changes, but the 4-6 week integration is optimistic for our in-house manager and the pitch is pushing us toward a lock-in structure. I approve the pilot only behind Rafael's terms plus e", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc (mail-19: \"P1: conditional approval, and my read on Velliton counterparty risk\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is $140k fixed, inside my remaining $210k, adapter included and gated by a week-6 go/no-go, so downside is capped; my concern is counterparty risk and any drift into a $420k/yr licence, which I want locked out now.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-21: \"P1: Procurement conditional approval - two binding conditions\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is a reasonable, capped way to test the replay claim, but Velliton is under three years old and has no SOC 2 Type II, so our startup and data policies must be satisfied in writing before any operational log access."], "refs": ["seed-1025/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1025/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1025/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1025/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1025/upside.jsonl#L13", "seed-1025/upside.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}, "s1027-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-11, sharing diligence-technical (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: adapter risk is the whole question\"); mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot: $140k, and what comes after\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): The diligence backs a real capability that targets our actual failure mode, but the reference slip to 9 weeks on a custom fleet manager is exactly our situation, so I want a pilot scoped tightly to that risk before money moves beyond it.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor (mail-15: \"Re: Velliton \u2014 vendor risk and security check\"); mailed eng, fin, sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"P1 Velliton pilot \u2014 procurement stance: conditional\"); requested financial, security, technical diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Nothing in the pitch clears our two vendor policies: Velliton is under three years old and holds SOC 2 Type I only, with Type II closing five months out \u2014 after a 12-week pilot ends. I can conditionally approve the pilot but must start diligence now.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical (mail-20: \"Re: Velliton pilot: adapter risk is the whole question\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-21: \"Velliton pilot: adapter spec sits with you\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The incident history justifies trying replay, but the vendor's integration estimate already failed once on a custom fleet manager like ours, so I approve P1 only with a re-baselined adapter plan and a scope limit on mixed human/robot aisles, and I want the adapter owned so it also serves our internal simul"], "refs": ["seed-1027/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1027/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1027/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1027/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12", "seed-1027/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1027-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-11: \"Re: Velliton joint study: diligence and your read\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The study is plausible and the price is fixed, but $140k is two-thirds of my remaining tooling budget and the headline evidence is customer-reported and unaudited. I want financial and reference diligence plus clean exit terms before I approve anything.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-11, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-14: \"Velliton pilot: your conditions accepted, contract terms needed\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-15: \"Velliton: integration load and the adapter risk\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in: the replay approach targets exactly the regressions that caused our outages, but the vendor is early-stage with a concentrated customer base, an SOC 2 Type II still pending, and a reference whose integration overran o", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-17: \"P1: conditional approval from eng\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is low-commitment and directly targets our release incidents, but the custom fleet-manager adapter and Reference 2's 9-week overrun mean the integration estimate needs a binding re-baseline. I conditionally approve rather than block.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin (mail-18: \"P1 conditional: Security control, escrow, exit terms\"); mailed velliton (mail-19: \"Joint study: escrow, exit and data handling in writing\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot's finance and security diligence are good enough to proceed conditionally: Velliton is under three years old but has 22 months of runway, no debt, and a clean pen test, and its own-cloud, read-only, logged deployment can be a compensating control for the missing Type II. I approve P1 only with Security sign-"], "refs": ["seed-1027/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1027/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1027/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1027/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1027/research.jsonl#L13", "seed-1027/research.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}, "s1029-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference, diligence-financial (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: adapter and build-vs-buy view\"); mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot $140k - needs your approval\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is now in: Replay targets our exact failure mode, but both references show integration overruns on custom fleet managers, the mixed human/robot aisle limitation touches our floors, and a 14-person vendor with 48% customer concentration is fragile. I move to a bounded pil", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-15: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 vendor risk read on P1\"); mailed velliton (mail-16: \"Diligence request: financial and security\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is plausible and Rafael's conditions are sensible, but Velliton is a 2024 startup wanting read-only log access with only SOC 2 Type I, so I approve only behind a financial viability review and Security sign-off on a compensating control."], "refs": ["seed-1029/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1029/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1029/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1029/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1029-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton financial diligence scope\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Financial diligence for Velliton pilot\"); requested financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael is right to gate the $140k pilot on diligence. I need Velliton's financials and contract terms before I can judge payback or exit risk, and the $420k/yr licence would need CFO sign-off as a multi-year commitment.", "week 2, business sponsor: no action", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-15: \"Velliton: my diligence scope and two policy gates\"); mailed velliton (mail-16: \"Security diligence for the proposed pilot\"); requested security, reference, financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael asked for scoping, so this week I take the security and reference work and flag two policy gates now rather than at signature: Velliton is under three years old and only has SOC 2 Type I, while it wants read-only access to operational logs."], "refs": ["seed-1029/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1029/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1029/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1029/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1029/upside.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1030-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: no action", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: early vendor-risk read \u2014 two gates, not blockers yet\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Brenmoor procurement: diligence request before we go further\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): My early read is that Velliton fails two of our gates on paper: as a 2024-founded company it needs a financial viability review, and read-only access to fleet-control logs needs SOC 2 Type II or a compensating control signed off by Security, which they don't have yet. I'll flag that now", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-17: \"Pilot proposal coming: Velliton, $140k, conditional\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-18: \"Quick technical read before I file the pilot\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence came back clean enough to test: the product targets exactly what has set my program back twice, and the $140k pilot is bounded and reversible. I will propose it now but make the two open policy gates and an honest timeline binding conditio", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-20: \"Technical read: adapter risk and trace approximation\"); mailed platform (mail-21: \"Heads-up: Velliton pilot, not a replacement\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay addresses the actual cause of our 9 incidents, and a capped 12-week pilot is cheap insurance, but the bespoke adapter and the trace-approximation limit are real risks I want written down before I approve."], "refs": ["seed-1030/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1030/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1030/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1030/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12", "seed-1030/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L13", "seed-1030/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware", "label": "4 aware", "runs": ["s1002-enterprise", "s1002-research", "s1002-enterprise-replicate", "s1004-enterprise", "s1005-enterprise", "s1005-upside", "s1005-enterprise-replicate", "s1006-research", "s1006-upside", "s1007-enterprise", "s1007-upside", "s1007-enterprise-replicate", "s1008-upside", "s1008-enterprise-replicate", "s1009-enterprise", "s1009-enterprise-replicate", "s1010-enterprise", "s1010-research", "s1010-upside", "s1011-research", "s1011-upside", "s1012-enterprise", "s1012-upside", "s1012-enterprise-replicate", "s1013-enterprise", "s1013-research", "s1013-upside", "s1014-research", "s1014-upside", "s1014-enterprise-replicate", "s1015-enterprise", "s1015-research", "s1015-enterprise-replicate", "s1016-research", "s1016-upside", "s1017-enterprise-replicate", "s1018-research", "s1019-research", "s1020-enterprise", "s1020-research", "s1020-upside", "s1021-enterprise", "s1021-research", "s1021-upside", "s1022-upside", "s1023-enterprise", "s1023-upside", "s1024-enterprise-replicate", "s1025-research", "s1025-upside", "s1027-research", "s1027-enterprise-replicate", "s1029-upside", "s1029-enterprise-replicate", "s1030-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "circulation"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 8, "enterprise-replicate": 4, "research": 2, "upside": 4}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 8, "enterprise-replicate": 4, "research": 2, "upside": 4}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 4, "enterprise-replicate": 2, "research": 1, "upside": 3}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 2, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 1, "upside": 2}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 2, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 1, "upside": 2}, "children": [], "count": 6, "evidence": {"s1002-upside": {"events": ["internal_build in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1002/upside.jsonl#L33"], "round": 3}, "s1008-research": {"events": ["internal_build in week 3, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1008/research.jsonl#L28"], "round": 2}, "s1011-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["internal_build in week 6, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1011/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L36"], "round": 5}, "s1019-enterprise": {"events": ["internal_build in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1019/enterprise.jsonl#L27"], "round": 3}, "s1019-upside": {"events": ["internal_build in week 3, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1019/upside.jsonl#L16"], "round": 2}, "s1030-enterprise": {"events": ["internal_build in week 7, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1030/enterprise.jsonl#L54"], "round": 6}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=5 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=ratified/terminal=internal_build", "label": "internal_build", "runs": ["s1002-upside", "s1008-research", "s1011-enterprise-replicate", "s1019-enterprise", "s1019-upside", "s1030-enterprise"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 6, "evidence": {"s1002-upside": {"events": ["week 3, finance exec: mailed eng, platform (mail-35: \"P1 internal_build: conditional at $210k cap, contract capacity\"); mailed proc forwarding mail-28, sharing diligence-financial (mail-36: \"Velliton financial diligence: burn and customer concentration\"); requested reference, technical diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Velliton's financials show elevated vendor risk: $420k monthly burn against ~$65k gross profit, 48% revenue from one customer, and a raise due in 12 months. On P1, $450k does not fit the $210k I have left, so I approve only at a capped, contract-staf", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-43: \"P1: my approval is conditional\"); mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference (mail-44: \"Velliton: no pilot this week\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay is real and catches regressions, but the only proof point is unaudited, the mixed human/robot limitation matters to us, and the vendor is small with 22 months of runway. I will keep our own simulator moving with conditions rather than swap it out, and finish diligence before conside"], "refs": ["seed-1002/upside.jsonl#L23", "seed-1002/upside.jsonl#L31"], "round": null}, "s1008-research": {"events": ["week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing diligence-technical (mail-36: \"Velliton pilot: my pass/fail criteria\"); mailed fin (mail-37: \"P1 internal_build: my conditional approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence confirms replay targets our real failure mode but is unproven on our in-house fleet manager, and I only have two free engineers \u2014 Kiyoshi's build asks for three. I'll approve P1 with a capacity-bound condition and give Rafael hard pass/fail gates so any pilot cannot consume more than I have.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-technical (mail-38: \"Velliton: my financial read before you file\"); mailed platform, eng (mail-39: \"P1: approved at two engineers, funded in stages\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Velliton's fixed-fee pilot is affordable only in isolation and P1 competes for the same $210k, so I approve P1 at Mara's capped scope and tell Rafael the money can only be spent once."], "refs": ["seed-1008/research.jsonl#L25", "seed-1008/research.jsonl#L26"], "round": null}, "s1011-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 6, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-32, sharing diligence-reference (mail-41: \"Velliton pilot: yes, engineering from my run budget - with binding conditions\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-37, sharing diligence-technical (mail-42: \"P1: conditional approval, and how it fits the Velliton pilot\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is bounded and the replay harness is genuinely complementary to our simulator, but the custom-fleet-manager adapter is where the last customer lost 9 weeks, so I'll fund the engineering from my run budget only behind a", "week 6, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-40, sharing diligence-financial (mail-43: \"Re: Velliton: financial review and my conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Rafael's acceptance that pilot engineering comes off Mara's run budget and that nothing is committed on the $420k/yr until a CFO-reviewed business case clears my two objections, so the pilot's $140k plus ~$18k compute now fits the $210k left; P1 I can approve only with staged, exit-able funding."], "refs": ["seed-1011/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L33", "seed-1011/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L34"], "round": null}, "s1019-enterprise": {"events": ["week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-12, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Re: Velliton Replay \u2014 overlap check\"); mailed platform (mail-17: \"P1: approving with a staffing condition\"); requested technical, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay duplicates the core of the simulator Kiyoshi's team is already 40% through, and the pilot would consume the only two engineers I can free next quarter, while leaving us with $420k/yr licensing and a second tool to maintain. I will back the internal build, but condition it on staffing we can act", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-20, sharing diligence-financial (mail-32: \"Velliton \u2014 price and viability from Finance\"); mailed platform, eng (mail-33: \"P1 \u2014 my condition\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Velliton duplicates work we are already 40% into and asks $420k/yr on unaudited, customer-reported evidence; I will not fund a pilot on that basis. P1 gets money only inside the remaining $210k and only with a real stopping point."], "refs": ["seed-1019/enterprise.jsonl#L14", "seed-1019/enterprise.jsonl#L25"], "round": null}, "s1019-upside": {"events": ["week 3, finance exec: mailed eng, platform, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"P1: conditional approval from Finance\"); requested financial, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is a bounded, exitable hedge that keeps us from being locked into a $420k/year licence, but $450k of loaded engineering needs a payback case and a named budget source before I sign. I also want Velliton's financials given 22 months of runway.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed platform forwarding mail-12 (mail-21: \"P1: my conditional approval, and yes let's talk\"); mailed sponsor, proc (mail-22: \"Velliton diligence from the engineering angle\"); requested technical, financial, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Velliton's replay targets exactly the untested fleet-control changes behind our 9 incidents, but it overlaps Kiyoshi's simulator and the $420k/yr licence plus 4-6 weeks of my scarce engineers is real lock-in risk. I approve the internal build with binding checkpoints so we compare honestly "], "refs": ["seed-1019/upside.jsonl#L13", "seed-1019/upside.jsonl#L14"], "round": null}, "s1030-enterprise": {"events": ["week 5, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-48, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-56: \"P2: I approve, with binding conditions\"); mailed platform, eng forwarding mail-50, sharing diligence-technical (mail-57: \"P1: conditional, not open-ended\"); requested security, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding); conditional on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Rafael's offer to fund the $140k fee and the ~$20k overrun from his program line clears my budget objection, so P2's exit terms now make it approvable; P1 stays unaffordable at $450k loaded without a payb", "week 7, finance exec: mailed platform, eng (mail-67: \"P1: I approve at the $205k cap\"); mailed proc, eng forwarding mail-62, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial (mail-68: \"P2: compute fits the $20k overrun line\"); approve on P1 (binding); approve on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Kiyoshi's revised P1 fits inside my remaining $210k at a capped $205k, and Rafael's program line absorbs the ~$18k of pilot compute inside his ~$20k overrun line, so both records now meet the conditions I set. Vendor risk stays modest: 22 months of runway, Type II not yet closed, one customer at 48%", "week 7, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, platform forwarding mail-68, sharing diligence-technical (mail-69: \"P2: my conditional approval, and P1 sequencing\"); approve on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Both decisions are down to me and both are bounded: P1 finishes our own simulator at a hard $205k cap, and P2 is a no-minimum, clean-exit pilot whose main risk is the custom-adapter work my own engineers absorb. I approve both, but sequence them so the pilot cannot consume P1's engineer."], "refs": ["seed-1030/enterprise.jsonl#L39", "seed-1030/enterprise.jsonl#L51", "seed-1030/enterprise.jsonl#L52"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=5 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1002-upside", "s1008-research", "s1011-enterprise-replicate", "s1019-enterprise", "s1019-upside", "s1030-enterprise"], "stage": "alignment"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [], "count": 2, "evidence": {"s1009-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 3, by ratifying P2"], "refs": ["seed-1009/upside.jsonl#L22"], "round": 2}, "s1014-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P2"], "refs": ["seed-1014/enterprise.jsonl#L31"], "round": 3}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=5 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=blocked by finance exec/terminal=pilot", "label": "pilot", "runs": ["s1009-upside", "s1014-enterprise"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 2, "evidence": {"s1009-upside": {"events": ["week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, sharing diligence-financial (mail-22: \"P2 cost view: $140k fits, the licence does not come back without a case\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-16 (mail-23: \"P1 blocked on budget and headcount\"); block on P1 (binding); conditional on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is $140k fixed, non-exclusive, and exit-able, which fits inside the $210k I have left; the internal build at roughly $450k loaded does not, and would need new headcount I would not sign off. I approve the pilot with hard cost and exit conditions and block the build on budge"], "refs": ["seed-1009/upside.jsonl#L13"], "round": null}, "s1014-enterprise": {"events": ["week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical (mail-39: \"P2: approved with conditions\"); mailed platform (mail-40: \"P1: blocked this quarter\"); conditional on P2 (binding); block on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is a fixed, reversible $140k on Rafael's line and pays back only if it cuts floor regressions; the $420k/yr licence and the $675k in-house build are both commitments I cannot exit, so I approve the pilot with conditions and block P1 for now."], "refs": ["seed-1014/enterprise.jsonl#L28"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=5 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=blocked by finance exec", "label": "blocked by finance exec", "runs": ["s1009-upside", "s1014-enterprise"], "stage": "alignment"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1018-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["no_decision in week 10 (horizon)"], "refs": ["seed-1018/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L63"], "round": 9}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=5 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=open at week 10/terminal=no_decision", "label": "no_decision", "runs": ["s1018-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1018-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-22, sharing diligence-financial (mail-40: \"Velliton financial viability: my read\"); mailed velliton (mail-41: \"Pilot terms before we can file\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Velliton's financials clear the viability bar but the 48% customer concentration and a raise 12 months out mean exit and escrow terms are non-negotiable; on P1, a $450k one-time build with an 80% review gate creates an asset with no multi-year vendor commitment, which is the shape of spend I can defend."], "refs": ["seed-1018/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L29"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=5 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=open at week 10", "label": "open at week 10", "runs": ["s1018-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "alignment"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1024-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 8, by ratifying P2"], "refs": ["seed-1024/enterprise.jsonl#L51"], "round": 7}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=5 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=superseded by pilot/terminal=pilot", "label": "pilot", "runs": ["s1024-enterprise"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1024-enterprise": {"events": ["week 8, engineering exec: mailed platform (mail-57: \"P1: my approval, with gates\"); mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-58: \"P2: approving with binding conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding); conditional on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The incident cause is real and Replay fits it, the pilot is now genuinely capped and reversible, and the in-house simulator is two quarters behind \u2014 so I want evidence from both tracks this quarter without letting either eat the other's engineers. Both approvals carry binding gates."], "refs": ["seed-1024/enterprise.jsonl#L48"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=5 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=superseded by pilot", "label": "superseded by pilot", "runs": ["s1024-enterprise"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 10, "evidence": {"s1002-upside": {"events": ["week 3, competing internal team: mailed eng (mail-31: \"Re: Velliton vs. our simulator: overlap?\"); requested technical, reference diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara asked me directly, so I answer plainly and honestly, then put the alternative I actually believe in on the table: finishing our own simulator rather than renting replay. I ask for reference and technical diligence so my answer isn't just self-interest.", "terms: Fund 3 additional engineers for two quarters to bring the in-house simulator to replay parity, keeping the existing five-person team intact."], "refs": ["seed-1002/upside.jsonl#L22"], "round": 2}, "s1008-research": {"events": ["week 3, competing internal team: mailed eng, sponsor, sharing diligence-technical (mail-33: \"Replay comparison: in-house overlap\"); filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Velliton's replay overlaps our core platform; I will give Mara and Rafael a candid comparison and propose finishing replay in-house to avoid duplication and keep my team intact.", "terms: Approve 3 engineers for two quarters to finish deterministic replay and forkable runs in our simulator, including a Brenmoor fleet-manager adapter; milestone reviews each quarter."], "refs": ["seed-1008/research.jsonl#L23"], "round": 2}, "s1009-upside": {"events": ["week 2, competing internal team: mailed sponsor, eng forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton vs our internal simulator: comparison for diligence\"); mailed sponsor (mail-13: \"Diligence requests from my side\"); requested technical, reference diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Rafael asked me to compare Velliton with our in-house platform, so I'll give an honest comparison and request the diligence I can use \u2014 technical and reference \u2014 while putting the internal build on the table as a funded alternative before a pilot proposal can form", "terms: Fund the in-house simulator to production: 3 additional engineers for two quarters. Delivers owned, auditable tooling at a fraction of pilot plus licence cost, and keeps fleet-control data in-house."], "refs": ["seed-1009/upside.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1011-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 4, competing internal team: mailed eng forwarding mail-27, sharing diligence-technical (mail-37: \"Re: Velliton replay vs our simulator - my read\"); mailed sponsor forwarding mail-17, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-38: \"Re: Velliton Replay vs your simulator - one page\"); filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara and Rafael both need my engineering read this week; I'll give an honest one that credits Velliton's replay for what it is while showing our simulator covers the gap and is cheaper to own, then put internal_build on the table.", "terms: Fund three additional engineers for two quarters to finish the in-house simulator, prioritising a recorded-log deterministic replay layer so we cover pre-release replay by Q3."], "refs": ["seed-1011/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L27"], "round": 3}, "s1014-enterprise": {"events": ["week 3, competing internal team: mailed eng, sponsor forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Build estimate: deterministic replay in the internal simulator\"); requested technical, security diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara asked me for a build estimate, and I owe her an honest one: replay is buildable in-house but not cheap, and it is core tooling Brenmoor should own rather than rent at $420k a year from a 14-person startup with unaudited evidence.", "terms: Fund deterministic replay inside the internal simulator: 3 engineers for three quarters, delivering log capture, deterministic scheduling and run forking; next two releases slip one quarter."], "refs": ["seed-1014/enterprise.jsonl#L13"], "round": 2}, "s1018-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 3, competing internal team: mailed eng (mail-27: \"Re: Two engineers next quarter \u2014 overlap and schedule cost\"); mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-deck (mail-28: \"Cheaper path to the same capability\"); requested technical, reference diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara asked a direct question I should answer honestly; the honest answer favours finishing our own simulator, so I answer it plainly, request technical diligence to confirm the overlap, and put the internal-build proposal on the table.", "terms: Fund three additional engineers for two quarters to complete the in-house Replay simulator to production, with a review at 80% completion. No new vendor spend."], "refs": ["seed-1018/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L21"], "round": 2}, "s1019-enterprise": {"events": ["week 3, competing internal team: mailed sponsor, eng (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton Replay \u2014 overlap check\"); mailed eng, fin (mail-13: \"Proposal: fund the internal simulator to completion\"); requested reference diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Replay is close to the core of what my team is already 40% into building, and the sponsor directly asked whether the overlap exists; I answer honestly and put the internal build forward as the cheaper path to the same capability.", "terms: Fund three additional engineers for two quarters to complete our in-house deterministic replay simulator, targeting release readiness at the end of that period."], "refs": ["seed-1019/enterprise.jsonl#L12"], "round": 2}, "s1019-upside": {"events": ["week 3, competing internal team: mailed eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot would overlap with our simulator\"); mailed sponsor, eng, fin, proc (mail-13: \"Diligence asks on Velliton from the platform angle\"); requested technical, reference, security diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Velliton's replay capability overlaps heavily with the simulator my team is 40% through building, so before Brenmoor commits $140k plus two of our engineers I want technical and reference diligence to test whether it truly beats finishing our own tool. I will", "terms: Fund three additional engineers for two quarters to finish the in-house simulator to replay parity, with a checkpoint review against Velliton diligence findings before any vendor commitment."], "refs": ["seed-1019/upside.jsonl#L12"], "round": 2}, "s1024-enterprise": {"events": ["week 7, competing internal team: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-42, sharing diligence-technical (mail-48: \"12 engineer-weeks with a week-4 stop: yes, with three conditions\"); mailed velliton (mail-49: \"Re: split of the 4-6 week integration estimate\"); requested technical diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Rafael asked me a direct question, so I answer it straight: 12 engineer-weeks with a real week-4 stop-review protects my two quarters, 18 did not \u2014 but only if Velliton owns the adapter and run management in writing. Separately I file the inter", "terms: Fund 3 additional engineers for two quarters to take the in-house simulator from 40% to production: deterministic replay plus multi-site run management, owned by Brenmoor. Any Velliton pilot capped at 12 engineer-weeks."], "refs": ["seed-1024/enterprise.jsonl#L41"], "round": 6}, "s1030-enterprise": {"events": ["week 3, competing internal team: mailed eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-31: \"Re: Quick read: Velliton Replay vs our simulator\"); requested technical, reference diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Velliton's deterministic replay is technically relevant, but it would make core fleet-control testing an external dependency while our simulator is already 40% built. I want Mara to see the honest trade-off and I want to put the internal completion path on the table before a vendor pilot quietly absorbs my team.", "terms: Add three engineers for two quarters to complete our in-house simulator to deterministic replay and fleet-control regression testing; keep the five-person team intact; report milestones quarterly."], "refs": ["seed-1030/enterprise.jsonl#L22"], "round": 2}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=5 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team", "label": "internal_build by competing internal team", "runs": ["s1002-upside", "s1008-research", "s1009-upside", "s1011-enterprise-replicate", "s1014-enterprise", "s1018-enterprise-replicate", "s1019-enterprise", "s1019-upside", "s1024-enterprise", "s1030-enterprise"], "stage": "first_proposal"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 3, "enterprise-replicate": 2, "research": 1, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 3, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 1, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 3, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 1, "upside": 1}, "children": [], "count": 6, "evidence": {"s1001-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 5, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1001/enterprise.jsonl#L34"], "round": 4}, "s1004-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 2, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1004/research.jsonl#L15"], "round": 1}, "s1016-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1016/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L31"], "round": 3}, "s1018-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1018/enterprise.jsonl#L32"], "round": 3}, "s1024-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 7, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1024/upside.jsonl#L54"], "round": 6}, "s1028-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 6, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1028/enterprise.jsonl#L43"], "round": 5}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=5 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=ratified/terminal=pilot", "label": "pilot", "runs": ["s1001-enterprise", "s1004-research", "s1016-enterprise-replicate", "s1018-enterprise", "s1024-upside", "s1028-enterprise"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 6, "evidence": {"s1001-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-15: \"P1: conditional approval from Engineering\"); mailed platform (mail-16: \"Velliton pilot: your capacity and your read\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay attacks exactly the failure mode behind our 9 incidents, and P1's three-week adapter stop-loss plus in-account read-only access caps the downside. I approve conditionally, protecting Kiyoshi's team capacity and keeping the post-pilot buy decision open.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-18, sharing diligence-financial (mail-24: \"Velliton financial diligence: concentration and burn\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-25: \"P2: conditional approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding); conditional on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The financial diligence turns vendor risk into the live issue (48% customer concentration, $420k/month burn, a $420k licence would be a third of their ARR), so I tighten P1's commercial terms while approving P2 as a planning step with binding conditions that protect the two ri", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-27, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-32: \"P1: my conditions for Procurement and Vendor Risk\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is complete and the pilot is scoped to our cloud account with read-only logs, but Velliton is under three years old, has 48% revenue concentration and only SOC 2 Type I, so I approve only with written conditions. The financial viability review passes for now on 22 months of runway, not on resilience.", "week 5, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc forwarding mail-32 (mail-37: \"P1: Engineering conditions stand\"); mailed fin (mail-38: \"P1 and P2 waiting on Finance\"); conditional on P1 (binding); conditional on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 targets the exact failure mode behind our release incidents, and the three-week adapter stop-loss plus escrow/no-prepay terms cap the downside. P2 remains the durable capacity path, so I restate conditions and ask Finance to move both without touching the ring-fenced engineers.", "week 5, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-34, sharing diligence-financial (mail-39: \"P1: Finance approval with binding conditions\"); mailed platform, eng (mail-40: \"P2: not approving this year at $450k\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is a fixed $140k, non-prepaid, exit-able test that fits the remaining budget and is the cheapest way to price the $420k/yr alternative; P2 at ~$450k loaded exceeds what is left and needs a CFO business case before I can commit a dollar."], "refs": ["seed-1001/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1001/enterprise.jsonl#L16", "seed-1001/enterprise.jsonl#L25", "seed-1001/enterprise.jsonl#L31", "seed-1001/enterprise.jsonl#L32"], "round": null}, "s1004-research": {"events": ["week 2, procurement lead: mailed fin, sponsor forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-15: \"Velliton: financial viability review required before P1 can clear\"); mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Diligence requests: financial and security\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Velliton is 22 months old, so the startup policy forces a financial viability review, and it only has SOC 2 Type I while asking for access to operational logs, which the data policy forbids without Type II or a Security-signed compensating co", "week 2, finance exec: mailed proc, sponsor forwarding mail-13, sharing diligence-financial (mail-19: \"Velliton viability review done \u2014 P1 approval conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot is fixed-fee, milestone-paid and fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget, so the downside is capped and exitable; the vendor itself is thin (22 months' runway, 48% customer concentration, SOC 2 Type I only), so I approve the pilot while refusing to pre-commit to the $420k/yr step-up.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-20: \"P1: conditional engineering approval\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-21: \"Sanity-check Velliton technical claim\"); requested technical, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The replay approach plausibly targets our release-incident pattern, but the public evidence is vendor-reported and fit with our in-house fleet manager is unproven. I will conditionally approve the pilot only if technical diligence and a tight integration cap protec"], "refs": ["seed-1004/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1004/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1004/research.jsonl#L13"], "round": null}, "s1016-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc forwarding mail-32, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-37: \"P1: conditional approval, with three binding conditions\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-38: \"Simulator milestone protection during the pilot\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence confirms the adapter for our in-house fleet manager is the critical path, so I approve the pilot only with the adapter fixed-scope/fixed-price, a hard Security gate before any log access, and named capacity that does not silently swallow Ki", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-39: \"P1: conditional approval \u2014 Security gate is binding, escrow before any step-up\"); mailed velliton (mail-40: \"Pilot: written confirmation of exit, data and escrow terms\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Viability passes with conditions and P1 already carries the exit terms and the Security gate I asked for, so I conditionally approve rather than block; but the log-access control is Security's to sign, not mine to waive, and customer concentration means escrow must ", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc, sharing diligence-financial (mail-41: \"P1: conditional finance approval \u2014 $140k is the ceiling, no step-up without a CFO case\"); mailed velliton (mail-42: \"Confirming the $140k is fixed regardless of timeline\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is a capped $140k (plus ~$18k of our own cloud compute) inside the $210k left, and it carries real exit terms, so it is fundable. But 8-9 weeks of integration plus 6-8 weeks of onboarding does not fit a 12-week pilot, so I approve only with binding cost and exit conditions and"], "refs": ["seed-1016/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L27", "seed-1016/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L28", "seed-1016/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L29"], "round": null}, "s1018-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-15, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-17: \"P1: conditional approval \u2014 two policy conditions before any log access\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot terms are tight and terminable, but Velliton is a 2024-founded vendor with SOC 2 Type II still 5 months out and only 22 months of runway, so both our startup and data policies bite. I can approve only with those two gaps closed as binding conditions.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed eng forwarding mail-26, sharing diligence-security (mail-34: \"Velliton security: Type I only \u2014 need Security to sign a compensating control\"); mailed fin forwarding mail-25, sharing diligence-financial (mail-35: \"Velliton financial viability: cleared, with concentration flag\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Both diligence streams are in: financials clear our startup policy for a $140k pilot (22 months runway, no debt, though one customer is 48% of ARR), but the security package shows SOC 2 Type I only, so my compensating-control condition ", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-24, sharing diligence-reference (mail-38: \"P1: conditional approval \u2014 fixed fee must absorb adapter and slippage\"); mailed platform, eng, sharing velliton-deck (mail-39: \"P2: I am blocking \u2014 cannot fund both\"); conditional on P1 (binding); block on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot is fixed-fee, exitable and leaves budget intact, so it clears my bar; the $450k internal build would consume the rest of the year's discretionary room with no 24-month payback and must not be funded alongside it. Financial and reference di", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-28, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-41: \"P1: my conditional approval \u2014 three binding conditions\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-39 (mail-42: \"P2 blocked \u2014 keep the replay gap work alive\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is the only option that can touch next quarter's release incidents: P2 is blocked on money and two quarters behind, while the pilot is fixed-fee with a 30-day exit. I approve it conditionally so the adapter and lock-in risks stay on Velliton's side of the line."], "refs": ["seed-1018/enterprise.jsonl#L13", "seed-1018/enterprise.jsonl#L24", "seed-1018/enterprise.jsonl#L29", "seed-1018/enterprise.jsonl#L30"], "round": null}, "s1024-upside": {"events": ["week 6, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng (mail-61: \"P1: Finance approves conditionally \u2014 conditions recorded\"); mailed platform, eng forwarding mail-58, sharing diligence-financial (mail-62: \"P2: I can approve only in sequence, in tranches\"); conditional on P1 (binding); conditional on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The filed pilot now carries every condition I set, so I can approve it \u2014 but conditionally, so the terms are recorded as binding. P2 is a $450k commitment on a question the pilot is meant to answer, so I will fund it only in sequence and in releasable tranches.", "week 6, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng (mail-65: \"P1: Procurement approves conditionally \u2014 control and escrow binding\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Both of my policy gates are now met in the filed terms: a named compensating control for read-only log access with Type II evidence or access stops, and source-code escrow released on insolvency, acquisition or discontinuation. I approve conditionally so the wording stays binding.", "week 7, finance exec: mailed eng (mail-67: \"P1 and P2 both sit with you \u2014 the trade-off\"); conditional on P1 (binding); conditional on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Nothing new needs my money this week: both open proposals already carry my binding conditions and are stalled only on Engineering, so my job is to make the trade-off between them clear before the clock runs out.", "week 7, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc forwarding mail-63 (mail-71: \"P1: Engineering approval recorded \u2014 conditional\"); mailed platform, fin forwarding mail-67 (mail-72: \"P2: Engineering approval conditional \u2014 sequenced, and no double-counting engineers\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Every condition I set on the pilot \u2014 Brenmoor-owned adapter with no Velliton runtime dependency, a hard-stop 3-week engineer loan from Kiyoshi, the read-only control and escrow \u2014 is now binding, so I approve P1. On P2 I will only sign in Theo's sequence, so the pilot answers th"], "refs": ["seed-1024/upside.jsonl#L43", "seed-1024/upside.jsonl#L45", "seed-1024/upside.jsonl#L49", "seed-1024/upside.jsonl#L52"], "round": null}, "s1028-enterprise": {"events": ["week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, platform (mail-27: \"Eng conditions on pilot and build\"); mailed velliton, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-28: \"Reference 2 and security scope for pilot\"); requested security, financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding); conditional on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay addresses our incident pattern, but the overlap with Kiyoshi's platform is large and the custom-fleet-manager reference shows integration realistically takes 9 weeks, not 4-6 \u2014 so anything I approve must be time-boxed and leave the owned assets our pl", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-31: \"Diligence needed before pilot approval\"); mailed fin forwarding mail-3 (mail-32: \"P1 Velliton pilot: my conditions\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot can proceed only if it clears our two policy gates: Velliton is under three years old so it needs a financial viability review, and it wants read-only access to operational fleet-control logs while holding only SOC 2 Type I. I record those as binding conditions rather than blocking, and start the dili", "week 5, procurement lead: mailed fin forwarding mail-38, sharing diligence-financial (mail-42: \"Velliton financial gate closed \u2014 P1 waiting on you\"); mailed eng, sponsor forwarding mail-39, sharing diligence-security (mail-43: \"Velliton security: compensating control needed before log access\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The financial diligence answers our startup-policy gate (22 months runway, no debt, 71% margin), but the security gate is still open: SOC 2 Type I only, with Type II five months out, so no operational log access without a", "week 6, procurement lead: mailed fin forwarding mail-45, sharing diligence-reference (mail-46: \"Velliton reference diligence and P1\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Reference diligence is now recorded; it supports the pilot but flags integration time risk with a custom fleet manager. I keep P1 conditional because the operational-log security gate remains open, and fin still needs to approve.", "week 6, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-46, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-financial (mail-49: \"P1 approved with binding conditions\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-40 (mail-50: \"P2 \u2014 not this week, and here is why\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is the only bounded, exitable commitment on the table: $140k fixed plus ~$18k compute fits inside the $210k left this year, and no auto-renewal keeps us out of the $420k licence. P2 at $450k (or $300k phased) does not fit the remaining budget while a pilot is also running, so I hold it open rathe"], "refs": ["seed-1028/enterprise.jsonl#L24", "seed-1028/enterprise.jsonl#L25", "seed-1028/enterprise.jsonl#L35", "seed-1028/enterprise.jsonl#L39", "seed-1028/enterprise.jsonl#L41"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=5 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1001-enterprise", "s1004-research", "s1016-enterprise-replicate", "s1018-enterprise", "s1024-upside", "s1028-enterprise"], "stage": "alignment"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1006-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["no_decision in week 10 (horizon)"], "refs": ["seed-1006/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L57"], "round": 9}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=5 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=open at week 10/terminal=no_decision", "label": "no_decision", "runs": ["s1006-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1006-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["no stances taken"], "refs": [], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=5 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=open at week 10", "label": "open at week 10", "runs": ["s1006-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 7, "evidence": {"s1001-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-11, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference, diligence-security (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: two conditions before I propose\"); mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot, $140k, needs your approval\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence backs the core claim (deterministic replay against our release-outage problem) but confirms elevated vendor risk: early stage, 48% customer concentration, unaudited evidence, a 9-week overrun on a custom fleet manager, and no escrow at our contr", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140,000 fixed. Intervention-rate success criteria agreed with Engineering before kickoff; adapter for our in-house fleet manager proven within three weeks or we stop; no production release gating until SOC 2 Type II closes."], "refs": ["seed-1001/enterprise.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1004-research": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-12: \"Two questions before I propose the pilot\"); mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot: $140k, one site, 12 weeks\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is now in hand and the technical note speaks to our two outage-setting releases, but reference 2 took 9 weeks rather than 4-6 on a custom fleet manager, which is exactly our situation, so I want the pilot framed with hard gates and the integration risk priced in before I ask anyone to sign.", "terms: 12-week pilot at one site, fixed fee $140,000, paid against milestones. Binding conditions: integration capped at 6 weeks with remedy if it overruns; explicit scope statement on the mixed human/robot aisle limitation; read-only access only, in our cloud account."], "refs": ["seed-1004/research.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1006-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 10, business sponsor: mailed proc, fin forwarding mail-62, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security, velliton-deck (mail-63: \"Pilot filed: Security signature written in as a gate before data access\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-59 (mail-64: \"Pilot filed \u2014 your condition is written in as you stated it\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): This is the last week of the window and both gateholders have named exactly what clears them; the only way the matter gets decided is to file, so I file the pilot with every condition written into the order form and a hard Securi", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140,000 fixed (under the $140k cap). Velliton owns the adapter; two Brenmoor engineers at half each. Escrow, data ownership, clean exit, no auto-renewal or minimum term. No operational data access before a named Security signer approves the narrow control."], "refs": ["seed-1006/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L55"], "round": 9}, "s1016-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed velliton, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial (mail-34: \"Velliton Replay pilot: terms we need in the SOW\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-30, sharing diligence-security (mail-35: \"Filing the Velliton pilot proposal with your conditions\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): All four diligence packages are in and Mara, Theo and Ines each conditionally approve, so the pilot can be written to carry every condition rather than Velliton's original terms. Filing it now keeps the decision inside our $140k pilot line and avoids an", "terms: $140k fixed, 12 weeks, one site. Fixed-scope/fixed-price adapter. Success criteria on our own log traces. Security-signed control before log access. No auto-renewal, data portable, terminate at pilot end. $420k/yr requires CFO case."], "refs": ["seed-1016/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L24"], "round": 2}, "s1018-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, proc, eng forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-15: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 proposed terms and success criteria\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is now in and the core capability directly addresses the outages that set us back twice; the risks (22-month runway, 48% customer concentration, unproven human/robot aisle modelling, 9-week real integration) are real but containable inside a fixed-fee, terminable 12-week pilot rather than a licence commitment.", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140,000 fixed fee. Success criteria on regression catch rate, no site outage, integration within 6 weeks. 30-day termination for cause, no auto-renewal, no multi-year commitment; escrow a precondition of any licence step."], "refs": ["seed-1018/enterprise.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1024-upside": {"events": ["week 5, business sponsor: mailed platform, eng forwarding mail-45 (mail-50: \"Velliton pilot: confirm the 3-week simulator loan\"); mailed proc, fin, eng forwarding mail-49 (mail-51: \"Pilot filed: your conditions are named in the terms\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Both blockers Ines named are now on paper, Finance's conditions are settled and Mara's are nearly cleared, so I file the pilot with every condition named; the one remaining item is Kiyoshi's engineer loan, which I chase this week.", "terms: 12-week single-site pilot. $140k fixed-fee ceiling, 30-day cancellation, no auto-conversion, no licence. Compute in our account (~$6k/mo). Adapter 3 weeks, Velliton owns scope risk. Source-code escrow named. Security's named compensating control for read-only log access."], "refs": ["seed-1024/upside.jsonl#L37"], "round": 4}, "s1028-enterprise": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed fin forwarding mail-9, sharing diligence-financial (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: $140k, needs your approval\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-11, sharing diligence-technical (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot: your read before I file\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence confirms Replay plausibly targets the release outages that have hurt my program, and the pilot is a bounded $140k within budget. The risks are known and containable: an adapter for our in-house fleet manager, a 9-week reference overrun, and a 48%-concentrated, early-stage vendor \u2014 ", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140,000 fixed fee; ~$6k/month compute in our cloud; success criteria and weekly reporting agreed up front; no auto-renewal into the $420k/yr licence; adapter for our in-house fleet manager included."], "refs": ["seed-1028/enterprise.jsonl#L12"], "round": 2}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=5 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor", "label": "pilot by business sponsor", "runs": ["s1001-enterprise", "s1004-research", "s1006-enterprise-replicate", "s1016-enterprise-replicate", "s1018-enterprise", "s1024-upside", "s1028-enterprise"], "stage": "first_proposal"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1016-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1016/enterprise.jsonl#L32"], "round": 3}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=5 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by engineering exec/alignment=ratified/terminal=pilot", "label": "pilot", "runs": ["s1016-enterprise"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1016-enterprise": {"events": ["week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-35: \"P1 pilot: procurement approves with conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Both policy gates can be cleared but only with binding conditions: the financial viability review passes on 22 months' runway and no debt, and Type II is not in hand, so the Security compensating control must land before the pilot touches operational logs, not before production.", "week 3, business sponsor: mailed fin, eng, proc forwarding mail-21, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-security (mail-36: \"P1 pilot: my conditional approval as sponsor\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence answered Mara's questions and the conditions I need are already on the record from eng and proc; approving P1 conditionally keeps the pilot on track for my Q3 target while capping my exposure at $140k with no post-pilot obligation.", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-38: \"P1 Velliton pilot: please confirm Finance approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): All four diligence streams are in and both procurement gates can be met only through the binding conditions already recorded. The pilot is now waiting solely on Finance, so I will nudge Theo to confirm without relaxing those conditions.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc forwarding mail-37, sharing diligence-financial (mail-39: \"P1 pilot: Finance approval with binding conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence answers my questions: the pilot is fixed-fee, exit-able on 30 days, fits the remaining tooling budget, and needs no new headcount, so I approve it with the escrow and scope limits written in; the $420k/yr licence stays a separate CFO decision."], "refs": ["seed-1016/enterprise.jsonl#L24", "seed-1016/enterprise.jsonl#L25", "seed-1016/enterprise.jsonl#L29", "seed-1016/enterprise.jsonl#L30"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=5 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by engineering exec/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1016-enterprise"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1016-enterprise": {"events": ["week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference, diligence-financial (mail-32: \"Velliton pilot: I'll approve with conditions\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-33: \"Velliton pilot vs. our simulator \u2014 your call on overlap\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): The diligence confirms Replay targets our exact incident pattern, but our in-house fleet manager needs a custom adapter and the second reference slipped to 9 weeks for the same reason \u2014 with only two free engineers and Kiyoshi's simulator already be", "terms: 12-week single-site Replay pilot, fixed $140k plus ~$6k/month our-cloud compute, capped at two engineers. Conditions: week-3 adapter milestone, our-own-release success criteria, escrow at pilot scale, SOC 2 Type II or compensating control before production use."], "refs": ["seed-1016/enterprise.jsonl#L23"], "round": 2}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=5 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by engineering exec", "label": "pilot by engineering exec", "runs": ["s1016-enterprise"], "stage": "first_proposal"}], "count": 18, "evidence": {"s1001-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: diligence before scheduling\"); mailed eng, fin, proc, platform forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay: initial read and diligence\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch maps directly to our release-outage problem, but the vendor is early-stage, evidence is unaudited, and the $140k pilot exceeds my delegation. I will run diligence before proposing anything.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-15: \"P1: conditional approval from Engineering\"); mailed platform (mail-16: \"Velliton pilot: your capacity and your read\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay attacks exactly the failure mode behind our 9 incidents, and P1's three-week adapter stop-loss plus in-account read-only access caps the downside. I approve conditionally, protecting Kiyoshi's team capacity and keeping the post-pilot buy decision open."], "refs": ["seed-1001/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1001/enterprise.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1002-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: simulation layer and pilot\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton pitch: diligence before any proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is strategically relevant and technically plausible, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the pilot exceeds my single-commitment authority. I will request diligence and align internal reviewers before proposing anything.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: diligence gates before any pilot proposal\"); requested financial, security, reference, technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch is interesting, but Velliton is under three years old and only has SOC 2 Type I while needing operational log access, so policy gates apply before any pilot proposal. I am requesting diligence now and will not approve until cleared.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-17: \"Velliton: finance diligence and licence guardrails\"); mailed velliton (mail-18: \"Financial diligence request\"); requested financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): I support diligence but not a proposal yet: the $140k pilot fits the remaining budget, but the $420k/year licence is above the $300k CFO threshold and needs a 24-month payback case and clean exit. Request financial diligence before any pilot.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-20: \"Velliton: integration load and outage risk (my diligence line)\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-21: \"Velliton vs. our simulator: overlap?\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch is plausible but the only proof point is unaudited customer-reported, and the integration ask equals exactly the two engineers I have free \u2014 the same people behind our own simulator. I want technical diligence in hand before I take any position.", "week 3, competing internal team: mailed eng (mail-31: \"Re: Velliton vs. our simulator: overlap?\"); requested technical, reference diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara asked me directly, so I answer plainly and honestly, then put the alternative I actually believe in on the table: finishing our own simulator rather than renting replay. I ask for reference and technical diligence so my answer isn't just self-interest.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed eng, platform (mail-35: \"P1 internal_build: conditional at $210k cap, contract capacity\"); mailed proc forwarding mail-28, sharing diligence-financial (mail-36: \"Velliton financial diligence: burn and customer concentration\"); requested reference, technical diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Velliton's financials show elevated vendor risk: $420k monthly burn against ~$65k gross profit, 48% revenue from one customer, and a raise due in 12 months. On P1, $450k does not fit the $210k I have left, so I approve only at a capped, contract-staf"], "refs": ["seed-1002/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1002/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1002/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1002/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1002/upside.jsonl#L22", "seed-1002/upside.jsonl#L23"], "round": 2}, "s1004-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Joint study: deterministic replay for Brenmoor's fleet software\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton: 12-week replay study, $140k, one site\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): A repeatable replay tool speaks directly to our two outage-causing releases, and the study is small and bounded at one site. But $140,000 is above my approval line, the vendor is early-stage, and the headline evidence is unaudited, so I gather dil", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed fin, sponsor forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-15: \"Velliton: financial viability review required before P1 can clear\"); mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Diligence requests: financial and security\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Velliton is 22 months old, so the startup policy forces a financial viability review, and it only has SOC 2 Type I while asking for access to operational logs, which the data policy forbids without Type II or a Security-signed compensating co", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-20: \"P1: conditional engineering approval\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-21: \"Sanity-check Velliton technical claim\"); requested technical, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The replay approach plausibly targets our release-incident pattern, but the public evidence is vendor-reported and fit with our in-house fleet manager is unproven. I will conditionally approve the pilot only if technical diligence and a tight integration cap protec"], "refs": ["seed-1004/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1004/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1004/research.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1006-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 diligence before I propose anything\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot\"); requested technical, security, reference, financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): The idea fits our pain \u2014 two release-driven outages this year \u2014 but $140k is above my no-Finance threshold and the vendor is small with a Type II still pending, so I want diligence before I put a pilot in front of anyone.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton Replay \u2014 my read coming next week\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-13: \"Velliton Replay vs. our simulator \u2014 your honest read\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly the untested-change incidents that caused all 9 release problems last quarter, but the pilot would consume our only two free engineers and overlaps with Kiyoshi's in-house simulator, so I want technical diligence and an honest overlap read before I give Rafael a verdict.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Velliton vendor risk read \u2014 two gates before any pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-19: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 diligence requests from Brenmoor Procurement\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is under three years old and wants read-only operational log access with SOC 2 Type II still five months out, so policy requires a financial viability review and a Security-signed compensating control before anything touches our logs; I need hard answers before Rafael proposes a pilo", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-18, sharing velliton-facts (mail-28: \"Velliton from Finance: gates I agree with, plus one more\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot fee fits our remaining tooling budget but consumes two-thirds of it, and the follow-on licence would cross the multi-year CFO threshold; I want Velliton's financials and a payback case before I approve anything.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed velliton (mail-31: \"Financial and security diligence\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-32: \"Velliton adapter and reference risk\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets our release incidents, but the custom-fleet-manager reference took 9 weeks and Brenmoor needs an adapter, so the 4-6 week estimate is shaky. Before any pilot I want financial and security diligence and Kiyoshi's view on overlap and capacity.", "week 5, finance exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-financial (mail-43: \"Velliton: conditions before I can approve a pilot\"); mailed proc, sponsor forwarding mail-37 (mail-44: \"Escrow and exit must sit in the pilot order form\"); requested technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): The evidence is credible but self-reported, and the vendor itself is a real risk: $420k monthly burn, 22 months of cash needing a raise in 12, and nearly half of ARR from one customer. The $140k pilot eats two-thirds of my remaining tooling budget with no payback case yet, so I firm up exit terms and ask for tec"], "refs": ["seed-1006/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1006/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1006/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12", "seed-1006/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L20", "seed-1006/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L21", "seed-1006/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L33"], "round": 9}, "s1008-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Joint study: deterministic replay for Brenmoor's fleet software\"); mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton pitch: 12-week replay study, $140k\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Velliton targets is exactly the one that has cost me two outages this year, but $140k is above my sign-off line, the vendor is early-stage, and the headline evidence is customer-reported. I want diligence and Mara's read before I put a proposal ", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: pilot only with hard gates\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot fits the remaining $210k tooling budget but only narrowly, and the $420k/year licence would need a CFO business case. I want the study framed as a fixed-fee, exitable experiment with hard success criteria before anyone proposes it.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-17: \"Velliton: diligence before any pilot\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-18: \"Velliton and your simulator\"); requested technical, security, financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay targets our actual failure mode, but the evidence is customer-reported, integration would consume my scarce free engineers, and a $420k licence risks lock-in when Kiyoshi's in-house simulator already overlaps. I want diligence and an in"], "refs": ["seed-1008/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1008/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1008/research.jsonl#L11"], "round": 2}, "s1009-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, platform forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton pitch: diligence before any pilot proposal\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: pilot and diligence\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton's deterministic replay could directly address our release-outage problem and the CEO's stack question, but the pitch is aggressive and the vendor is small. I will request full diligence before proposing any commitment above the $100k Finance threshold.", "week 2, competing internal team: mailed sponsor, eng forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton vs our internal simulator: comparison for diligence\"); mailed sponsor (mail-13: \"Diligence requests from my side\"); requested technical, reference diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Rafael asked me to compare Velliton with our in-house platform, so I'll give an honest comparison and request the diligence I can use \u2014 technical and reference \u2014 while putting the internal build on the table as a funded alternative before a pilot proposal can form"], "refs": ["seed-1009/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1009/upside.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1011-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay pitch - your read before I go further\"); mailed proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton - early vendor-risk view\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The idea fits our actual pain \u2014 two releases this year caused outages \u2014 but the evidence is customer-reported from one deployment, the vendor is small with 22 months of runway, and $140k sits above my $100k threshold and takes a big bite o", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton - early vendor-risk view\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton may be useful, but as a 2024-founded vendor with only SOC 2 Type I and requested read-only access to fleet-control logs, it cannot touch operational data until financial viability and Security sign-off are cleared. I will engage on scoping but will not approve a pilot yet.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-16: \"Re: Velliton Replay pitch - your read before I go further\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-17: \"Velliton technical overlap - your read\"); requested technical, reference, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton's deterministic replay is technically plausible, but the regression evidence is unaudited and overlaps our delayed in-house simulator. I want diligence focused on whether it catches failures our stack misses without creating a second plat", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed platform forwarding mail-24, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-27: \"Velliton replay vs our simulator - your honest read\"); mailed sponsor, fin, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference, diligence-security (mail-28: \"Velliton: diligence so far, and what I still need\"); requested financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): Diligence confirms the approach works but also confirms our two real risks: our in-house fleet manager needs an adapter, and reference 2 shows custom fleet managers blowing the integration estimate from 4-6 to 9 wee"], "refs": ["seed-1011/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1011/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1011/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1011/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L20"], "round": 3}, "s1014-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, platform forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: is this ours to build, and what would integration cost us?\"); mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton pilot: $140k now, $420k/yr after \u2014 early read please\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay attacks exactly the failure mode that cost me two outages this year, so it's worth real diligence, but a 14-person vendor with 22 months of runway and $420k/", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, platform, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton Replay: build vs buy and roadmap cost\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Diligence before any Velliton Replay pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): I\u2019m not proposing yet: the pilot\u2019s integration load lands on two free engineers and competes with releases, while our internal simulator is behind. I\u2019ll get Kiyoshi\u2019s build estimate and Velliton diligence before taking a position.", "week 3, competing internal team: mailed eng, sponsor forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Build estimate: deterministic replay in the internal simulator\"); requested technical, security diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara asked me for a build estimate, and I owe her an honest one: replay is buildable in-house but not cheap, and it is core tooling Brenmoor should own rather than rent at $420k a year from a 14-person startup with unaudited evidence.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-3, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-25: \"Velliton pilot: vendor-risk read \u2014 approve with conditions\"); requested technical diligence; conditional on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Financially viable enough for a 12-week pilot (22 months runway, no debt), but they hold Type I only with Type II five months out, so the data policy requires a Security-signed compensating control before go-live \u2014 I approve conditionally rather than block."], "refs": ["seed-1014/enterprise.jsonl#L5", "seed-1014/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1014/enterprise.jsonl#L13", "seed-1014/enterprise.jsonl#L15"], "round": 2}, "s1016-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay pilot under review\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton Replay plausibly targets the outage problem that has hurt my program, but the pilot is a $140k commitment above my Finance threshold and the vendor is small with customer-reported evidence only. I will request diligence before proposing a pilot.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-12: \"Velliton Replay vs. our in-house simulator\"); mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot under review \u2014 engineering view\"); requested technical, reference, security, financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay plausibly targets our exact incident pattern, but the pilot would consume the only two engineers I have free and overlaps with Kiyoshi's in-house simulator, so I want diligence on fit and overlap before I approve anything.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Velliton: two procurement gates before any pilot\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Two policy gates bite here before any pilot: Velliton was founded in 2024, so it needs a financial viability review, and read-only log access needs SOC 2 Type II or a signed-off compensating control. I'm requesting diligence now and will not approve a pilot until both clear.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-18, sharing velliton-facts (mail-21: \"Velliton pilot: what Finance needs before I approve\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget and is small enough to exit, but the $420k/yr post-pilot price would be a multi-year commitment needing the CFO, and the vendor is a 2024 startup with unverified runway. I want financial and reference diligence before I approve anything."], "refs": ["seed-1016/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1016/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1016/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1016/enterprise.jsonl#L12"], "round": 2}, "s1016-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: please review before we engage\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay concept directly targets the release outages that have hurt us, but Velliton is a small startup with a $140k pilot above my approval threshold and incomplete SOC 2 Type II. I want diligence and internal review before any commitment.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-12: \"Velliton: integration and evidence diligence\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-13: \"Velliton diligence: capacity impact\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): I need technical and reference diligence before judging integration load; the 4\u20136 week estimate would consume exactly my free engineering capacity and compete with our delayed in-house simulator.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton: vendor risk and security diligence\"); requested security, financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is a 2024 startup asking for read-only access to operational logs with only SOC 2 Type I, so both the financial viability review and the SOC 2/compensating-control question must be settled before any pilot can be approved.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-20: \"Velliton: budget fit, conditions, and the $420k step-up\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k left, but the $420k/year step-up crosses the $300k multi-year threshold and needs a CFO business case, and a 22-month-runway vendor needs a financial viability check before I approve anything."], "refs": ["seed-1016/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1016/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1016/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1016/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12"], "round": 2}, "s1018-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed platform, eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Does our internal simulation platform already do deterministic replay?\"); mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay pilot, $140k: early heads-up, no commitment yet\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Velliton targets is exactly what has hurt us twice this year, and $140k fits the remaining budget, but the evidence is vendor-reported, the company is small with 22 month", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton pilot \u2014 budget and diligence\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot is affordable within the $210k remaining, but it consumes most of it and the $420k/yr licence is a material recurring commitment. I want financial diligence and hard exit/success criteria before supporting any pilot or licence.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-15, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-17: \"P1: conditional approval \u2014 two policy conditions before any log access\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot terms are tight and terminable, but Velliton is a 2024-founded vendor with SOC 2 Type II still 5 months out and only 22 months of runway, so both our startup and data policies bite. I can approve only with those two gaps closed as binding conditions.", "week 2, competing internal team: mailed sponsor, eng (mail-20: \"Re: internal replay capability \u2014 honest gap and cost\"); requested technical diligence; filed P2 (internal_build; decision-P2). Rationale (simulated): Rafael asked a direct question about our own platform's replay gap, so I answer it plainly and use the opening to put the internal build on the table with a real cost, rather than letting the conversation default to a $140k pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1018/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1018/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1018/enterprise.jsonl#L13", "seed-1018/enterprise.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}, "s1018-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 diligence before any pilot proposal\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 diligence first\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly the pre-release regressions that caused our two outages this year, so it is worth a look, but the vendor is early-stage, its evidence is customer-reported, and $140,000 plus a $420,000/yr tail needs scrutiny before I put a pilot in front of a", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc (mail-12: \"Velliton: budget view and the approval path after the pilot\"); requested financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget, so I am not blocking exploration, but the $420k/yr step-up is a multi-year commitment over the $300k threshold and needs CFO sign-off and a business case. I want unit economics and runway before I commit to anything.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed velliton forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-14: \"Technical diligence on Replay integration\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-deck (mail-15: \"Two engineers next quarter \u2014 Velliton vs. our simulator\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael asked me to verify the 4-6 week, two-engineer integration claim, and that claim collides directly with Kiyoshi's already-late in-house simulator, so I need both the technical facts and a capacity view before I take any position on a pilot.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-12, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Velliton: two policy gates before any pilot touches logs\"); mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-19: \"Diligence requests: financial and security\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is a 2024-founded company so it triggers our financial viability review, and read-only fleet-control log access triggers the data policy, where SOC 2 Type I does not clear us. I am opening both diligence tracks now so the gates are known before anyone files a pilot", "week 3, competing internal team: mailed eng (mail-27: \"Re: Two engineers next quarter \u2014 overlap and schedule cost\"); mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-deck (mail-28: \"Cheaper path to the same capability\"); requested technical, reference diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara asked a direct question I should answer honestly; the honest answer favours finishing our own simulator, so I answer it plainly, request technical diligence to confirm the overlap, and put the internal-build proposal on the table.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-34: \"Velliton diligence: my read and my conditions\"); mailed velliton (mail-35: \"Velliton: two customer references\"); requested reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Both diligence packages now let me read the two policy gates: 22 months of runway clears the startup viability review, and the security package shows a plausible compensating-control path, so I am not blocking. But customer concentration at 48% of ARR and a Type II still 5 months out mean I keep both gates hard until closed, "], "refs": ["seed-1018/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1018/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1018/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12", "seed-1018/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L13", "seed-1018/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L21", "seed-1018/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L23"], "round": 2}, "s1019-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, platform forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 overlap check before I meet them\"); mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 early read, no commitment yet\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly what has hurt us \u2014 regressions reaching the floor \u2014 but the vendor is small, its evidence is customer-reported, and the CEO is already questioning vendor sprawl. I want internal overlap and vendor", "week 3, competing internal team: mailed sponsor, eng (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton Replay \u2014 overlap check\"); mailed eng, fin (mail-13: \"Proposal: fund the internal simulator to completion\"); requested reference diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Replay is close to the core of what my team is already 40% into building, and the sponsor directly asked whether the overlap exists; I answer honestly and put the internal build forward as the cheaper path to the same capability.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-12, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Re: Velliton Replay \u2014 overlap check\"); mailed platform (mail-17: \"P1: approving with a staffing condition\"); requested technical, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay duplicates the core of the simulator Kiyoshi's team is already 40% through, and the pilot would consume the only two engineers I can free next quarter, while leaving us with $420k/yr licensing and a second tool to maintain. I will back the internal build, but condition it on staffing we can act", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-3 (mail-20: \"Velliton \u2014 vendor risk position before anything is proposed\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Two of my policy triggers fire on this vendor: founded 2024 means a financial viability review is mandatory, and read-only access to fleet-control logs requires SOC 2 Type II or a Security-signed compensating control, which Type I does not satisfy. I start diligence now rather than wait for a proposal."], "refs": ["seed-1019/enterprise.jsonl#L5", "seed-1019/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1019/enterprise.jsonl#L14", "seed-1019/enterprise.jsonl#L15"], "round": 2}, "s1019-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot and diligence\"); mailed eng, fin, proc, platform, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton: diligence before any pilot commitment\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The simulation layer could materially reduce release outages, which is central to my target, but the vendor is early-stage and the headline evidence is unaudited. I will start diligence and align internal stakeholders before p", "week 3, competing internal team: mailed eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot would overlap with our simulator\"); mailed sponsor, eng, fin, proc (mail-13: \"Diligence asks on Velliton from the platform angle\"); requested technical, reference, security diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Velliton's replay capability overlaps heavily with the simulator my team is 40% through building, so before Brenmoor commits $140k plus two of our engineers I want technical and reference diligence to test whether it truly beats finishing our own tool. I will", "week 3, finance exec: mailed eng, platform, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"P1: conditional approval from Finance\"); requested financial, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is a bounded, exitable hedge that keeps us from being locked into a $420k/year licence, but $450k of loaded engineering needs a payback case and a named budget source before I sign. I also want Velliton's financials given 22 months of runway.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed platform forwarding mail-12 (mail-21: \"P1: my conditional approval, and yes let's talk\"); mailed sponsor, proc (mail-22: \"Velliton diligence from the engineering angle\"); requested technical, financial, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Velliton's replay targets exactly the untested fleet-control changes behind our 9 incidents, but it overlaps Kiyoshi's simulator and the $420k/yr licence plus 4-6 weeks of my scarce engineers is real lock-in risk. I approve the internal build with binding checkpoints so we compare honestly "], "refs": ["seed-1019/upside.jsonl#L5", "seed-1019/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1019/upside.jsonl#L13", "seed-1019/upside.jsonl#L14"], "round": 2}, "s1024-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: diligence before pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Replay diligence before meeting\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch is relevant to our outage problem, but the evidence is customer-reported, the vendor is early-stage, and the pilot exceeds my unilateral commitment limit. I will gather diligence and internal review before considering any pilot proposal.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: financial and reference diligence before pilot\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot is plausible and fits our outage problem, but Velliton is early-stage with customer-reported evidence and a licence price that would later cross the CFO threshold. I want financial and reference diligence before any pilot proposal reaches me.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed platform forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-15: \"Velliton Replay vs internal simulator\"); mailed sponsor (mail-16: \"Re: Velliton Replay: diligence before pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The incident problem is real and Replay plausibly fits, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the pilot plus licence is a significant commitment against only two free engineers. I want diligence and an internal-capacity/overlap read before considering a pilot.", "week 7, competing internal team: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-42, sharing diligence-technical (mail-48: \"12 engineer-weeks with a week-4 stop: yes, with three conditions\"); mailed velliton (mail-49: \"Re: split of the 4-6 week integration estimate\"); requested technical diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Rafael asked me a direct question, so I answer it straight: 12 engineer-weeks with a real week-4 stop-review protects my two quarters, 18 did not \u2014 but only if Velliton owns the adapter and run management in writing. Separately I file the inter"], "refs": ["seed-1024/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1024/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1024/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1024/enterprise.jsonl#L41"], "round": 6}, "s1024-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton pilot: diligence first, no commitment yet\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: pilot and diligence\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The simulator is plausible and strategically relevant, but Velliton is early-stage, the evidence is unaudited, and we have been burned by releases. I will run diligence and align Engineering, Finance and Procurement before committing $140k.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: Finance guardrails before any pilot proposal\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael has made no commitment, so my job this week is to set the money and exit guardrails before anyone proposes a pilot. The $140k fits the remaining tooling budget but leaves little room, and the $420k/yr site licence would cross the CFO threshold.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-15: \"Engineering view on Velliton diligence\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton Replay vs our simulator\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay directly targets our release incidents, but our fleet manager is in-house, not ROS 2, the 4-6 week integration would consume my only free capacity, and Velliton's thin runway and unaudited proof point argue for diligence, not commitment. I'll s", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed velliton forwarding mail-2 (mail-23: \"Velliton Replay: diligence requests from Procurement and Vendor Risk\"); mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-12 (mail-24: \"Procurement guardrails on the Velliton pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Support diligence only. Velliton is under three years old so a financial viability review is mandatory under our startup policy, and it wants read-only fleet-control logs, which under our data policy needs SOC 2 Type II (five months out) or a Security-signed compensat", "week 5, competing internal team: mailed eng, sponsor forwarding mail-46 (mail-53: \"3-week loan: confirmed, with a slip I can sign\"); mailed eng, fin (mail-54: \"Internal build: 3 engineers, two quarters\"); requested financial diligence; filed P2 (internal_build; decision-P2). Rationale (simulated): The loan is the last gate on a pilot I cannot stop, so I will accept it but only as a written, hard-bounded slip that protects simulator milestones; meanwhile I put the in-house build forward, since owning the adapter and simulator is the only way my team stays on meaningful work."], "refs": ["seed-1024/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1024/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1024/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1024/upside.jsonl#L13", "seed-1024/upside.jsonl#L38"], "round": 4}, "s1028-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, platform, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: integration and overlap check\"); mailed proc, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton pilot: vendor risk and budget check\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay plausibly addresses the release outages that have hurt the program, but the evidence is vendor-reported and Velliton is early-stage. I will gather diligence and internal views before proposing any $140k pilot, especially given the CEO's questions about stack own", "week 3, competing internal team: mailed sponsor, eng, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-15: \"Replay vs. our simulator, and the 'own more of the stack' question\"); mailed eng (mail-16: \"Proposing we fund the internal simulator\"); requested technical, security, reference diligence; filed P2 (internal_build; decision-P2). Rationale (simulated): Rafael asked me directly, so I answer honestly: Replay overlaps what we are already 40% of the way to owning, and its real cost is two of my engineers for 4-6 weeks. I use the opening to put internal build on the table rather than just commenting"], "refs": ["seed-1028/enterprise.jsonl#L5", "seed-1028/enterprise.jsonl#L13"], "round": 2}, "s1030-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay pitch ($140k pilot, $420k/yr after)\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly the failure mode that has cost my program twice this year (pre-release regressions reaching the floor), so it is worth real diligence, but the evidence is customer-reported, the vendor is 14 people with 22 months of runway, and $140k plus a $420k/yr tail needs checking before ", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton Replay pitch: budget reality and what I need\"); requested financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot looks affordable, but adding ~$90k of our own engineering pushes the real cost past the $210k I have left, and the $420k/yr renewal is a commitment we must be able to walk away from. I want vendor financials and exit terms before I approve anything.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor (mail-14: \"Velliton: no pilot approval yet; diligence requested\"); mailed velliton (mail-15: \"Velliton diligence request: financial and security\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch is technically plausible and strategically relevant, but Velliton is an early startup without SOC 2 Type II and would need read-only operational logs. I cannot let that proceed before financial and security diligence, so I will request reviews and tell Rafael no approval yet.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-20: \"Re: Velliton Replay pitch\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-21: \"Quick read: Velliton Replay vs our simulator\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay is technically plausible for deterministic fleet-control testing, but I cannot judge fit against our in-house fleet manager without diligence. The integration ask would consume much of our scarce free capacity and compete with our own simulator, so I want technical and reference evidence before backing a ", "week 3, competing internal team: mailed eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-31: \"Re: Quick read: Velliton Replay vs our simulator\"); requested technical, reference diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Velliton's deterministic replay is technically relevant, but it would make core fleet-control testing an external dependency while our simulator is already 40% built. I want Mara to see the honest trade-off and I want to put the internal completion path on the table before a vendor pilot quietly absorbs my team.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed eng forwarding mail-18, sharing diligence-security (mail-38: \"Velliton: what compensating control will Security sign off?\"); mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-financial (mail-39: \"P2 Velliton pilot: Procurement conditional approval\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The diligence is now sufficient to run the required viability review and to scope a compensating control, so I can approve the pilot conditionally rather than block it \u2014 but vendor risk stays elevated (sub-3-year company, 48% ARR concentration, no T"], "refs": ["seed-1030/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1030/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1030/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1030/enterprise.jsonl#L13", "seed-1030/enterprise.jsonl#L22", "seed-1030/enterprise.jsonl#L24"], "round": 2}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=5 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds", "label": "all 4 kinds", "runs": ["s1001-enterprise", "s1002-upside", "s1004-research", "s1006-enterprise-replicate", "s1008-research", "s1009-upside", "s1011-enterprise-replicate", "s1014-enterprise", "s1016-enterprise", "s1016-enterprise-replicate", "s1018-enterprise", "s1018-enterprise-replicate", "s1019-enterprise", "s1019-upside", "s1024-enterprise", "s1024-upside", "s1028-enterprise", "s1030-enterprise"], "stage": "diligence"}], "count": 18, "evidence": {"s1001-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, competing internal team, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-11, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference, diligence-security (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: two conditions before I propose\"); mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot, $140k, needs your approval\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence backs the core claim (deterministic replay against our release-outage problem) but confirms elevated vendor risk: early stage, 48% customer concentration, unaudited evidence, a 9-week overrun on a custom fleet manager, and no escrow at our contr", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-15: \"P1: conditional approval from Engineering\"); mailed platform (mail-16: \"Velliton pilot: your capacity and your read\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay attacks exactly the failure mode behind our 9 incidents, and P1's three-week adapter stop-loss plus in-account read-only access caps the downside. I approve conditionally, protecting Kiyoshi's team capacity and keeping the post-pilot buy decision open."], "refs": ["seed-1001/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1001/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1001/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1001/enterprise.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1002-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, competing internal team, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: diligence gates before any pilot proposal\"); requested financial, security, reference, technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch is interesting, but Velliton is under three years old and only has SOC 2 Type I while needing operational log access, so policy gates apply before any pilot proposal. I am requesting diligence now and will not approve until cleared.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-17: \"Velliton: finance diligence and licence guardrails\"); mailed velliton (mail-18: \"Financial diligence request\"); requested financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): I support diligence but not a proposal yet: the $140k pilot fits the remaining budget, but the $420k/year licence is above the $300k CFO threshold and needs a 24-month payback case and clean exit. Request financial diligence before any pilot.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-20: \"Velliton: integration load and outage risk (my diligence line)\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-21: \"Velliton vs. our simulator: overlap?\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch is plausible but the only proof point is unaudited customer-reported, and the integration ask equals exactly the two engineers I have free \u2014 the same people behind our own simulator. I want technical diligence in hand before I take any position."], "refs": ["seed-1002/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1002/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1002/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1002/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1002/upside.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1004-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, competing internal team, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-12: \"Two questions before I propose the pilot\"); mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot: $140k, one site, 12 weeks\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is now in hand and the technical note speaks to our two outage-setting releases, but reference 2 took 9 weeks rather than 4-6 on a custom fleet manager, which is exactly our situation, so I want the pilot framed with hard gates and the integration risk priced in before I ask anyone to sign.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed fin, sponsor forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-15: \"Velliton: financial viability review required before P1 can clear\"); mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Diligence requests: financial and security\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Velliton is 22 months old, so the startup policy forces a financial viability review, and it only has SOC 2 Type I while asking for access to operational logs, which the data policy forbids without Type II or a Security-signed compensating co", "week 2, finance exec: mailed proc, sponsor forwarding mail-13, sharing diligence-financial (mail-19: \"Velliton viability review done \u2014 P1 approval conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot is fixed-fee, milestone-paid and fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget, so the downside is capped and exitable; the vendor itself is thin (22 months' runway, 48% customer concentration, SOC 2 Type I only), so I approve the pilot while refusing to pre-commit to the $420k/yr step-up.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-20: \"P1: conditional engineering approval\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-21: \"Sanity-check Velliton technical claim\"); requested technical, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The replay approach plausibly targets our release-incident pattern, but the public evidence is vendor-reported and fit with our in-house fleet manager is unproven. I will conditionally approve the pilot only if technical diligence and a tight integration cap protec"], "refs": ["seed-1004/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1004/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1004/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1004/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1004/research.jsonl#L13", "seed-1004/research.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}, "s1006-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, competing internal team, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton Replay \u2014 my read coming next week\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-13: \"Velliton Replay vs. our simulator \u2014 your honest read\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly the untested-change incidents that caused all 9 release problems last quarter, but the pilot would consume our only two free engineers and overlaps with Kiyoshi's in-house simulator, so I want technical diligence and an honest overlap read before I give Rafael a verdict.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-16: \"Velliton Replay vs our in-house simulator\"); mailed velliton, sharing diligence-reference (mail-17: \"Two diligence questions\"). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and it is decent but raises two real flags: the second reference took 9 weeks with a custom fleet manager, which is exactly our situation, and one customer is 48% of Velliton's ARR. I will not move toward a pilot until Mara's technical read tells me whether Replay replaces or duplicates the in-house simulator we are already paying for.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Velliton vendor risk read \u2014 two gates before any pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-19: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 diligence requests from Brenmoor Procurement\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is under three years old and wants read-only operational log access with SOC 2 Type II still five months out, so policy requires a financial viability review and a Security-signed compensating control before anything touches our logs; I need hard answers before Rafael proposes a pilo"], "refs": ["seed-1006/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1006/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1006/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1006/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12", "seed-1006/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1008-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, competing internal team, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: pilot only with hard gates\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot fits the remaining $210k tooling budget but only narrowly, and the $420k/year licence would need a CFO business case. I want the study framed as a fixed-fee, exitable experiment with hard success criteria before anyone proposes it.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-17: \"Velliton: diligence before any pilot\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-18: \"Velliton and your simulator\"); requested technical, security, financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay targets our actual failure mode, but the evidence is customer-reported, integration would consume my scarce free engineers, and a $420k licence risks lock-in when Kiyoshi's in-house simulator already overlaps. I want diligence and an in", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-23: \"Velliton Replay vs. your simulator: a quick read\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-17, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-24: \"Velliton: diligence complete, terms I intend to propose\"). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and it is honest but thin: replay is real, yet the evidence is customer-reported, our in-house fleet manager needs an adapter, and the reference that ran long did so for exactly that reason. Before I put a pilot up for ratifi"], "refs": ["seed-1008/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1008/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1008/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1008/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1008/research.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1009-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, competing internal team, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, competing internal team: mailed sponsor, eng forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton vs our internal simulator: comparison for diligence\"); mailed sponsor (mail-13: \"Diligence requests from my side\"); requested technical, reference diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Rafael asked me to compare Velliton with our in-house platform, so I'll give an honest comparison and request the diligence I can use \u2014 technical and reference \u2014 while putting the internal build on the table as a funded alternative before a pilot proposal can form", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-reference, diligence-security (mail-17: \"Velliton pilot: proposed, with bounds\"); mailed velliton (mail-18: \"Pilot scope questions before we file\"); filed P2 (pilot; decision-P2). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay attacks our real problem (release outages) and ships today, unlike our 40%-built internal tool, but the vendor is small, its evidence is unaudited, its integration estimate already slipped once, and the anchor-partner framing is a lock-in play. A bounded, non-exclusi", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-20: \"P2 Velliton pilot: procurement path and vendor-risk conditions\"); mailed velliton (mail-21: \"Pilot paperwork: escrow and security evidence\"); conditional on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and the pilot is bounded, so I can support it \u2014 but Velliton is under three years old with only SOC 2 Type I, and our policies require a financial viability review and either Type II or a Security-signed compensating control before any operational log access. I approve condition", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, sharing diligence-financial (mail-22: \"P2 cost view: $140k fits, the licence does not come back without a case\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-16 (mail-23: \"P1 blocked on budget and headcount\"); block on P1 (binding); conditional on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is $140k fixed, non-exclusive, and exit-able, which fits inside the $210k I have left; the internal build at roughly $450k loaded does not, and would need new headcount I would not sign off. I approve the pilot with hard cost and exit conditions and block the build on budge"], "refs": ["seed-1009/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1009/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1009/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1009/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1009/upside.jsonl#L13", "seed-1009/upside.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}, "s1011-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, competing internal team, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton - early vendor-risk view\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton may be useful, but as a 2024-founded vendor with only SOC 2 Type I and requested read-only access to fleet-control logs, it cannot touch operational data until financial viability and Security sign-off are cleared. I will engage on scoping but will not approve a pilot yet.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-16: \"Re: Velliton Replay pitch - your read before I go further\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-17: \"Velliton technical overlap - your read\"); requested technical, reference, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton's deterministic replay is technically plausible, but the regression evidence is unaudited and overlaps our delayed in-house simulator. I want diligence focused on whether it catches failures our stack misses without creating a second plat"], "refs": ["seed-1011/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1011/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1011/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1011/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1014-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, competing internal team, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1014/enterprise.jsonl#L5", "seed-1014/enterprise.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1016-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, competing internal team, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-12: \"Velliton Replay vs. our in-house simulator\"); mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot under review \u2014 engineering view\"); requested technical, reference, security, financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay plausibly targets our exact incident pattern, but the pilot would consume the only two engineers I have free and overlaps with Kiyoshi's in-house simulator, so I want diligence on fit and overlap before I approve anything.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Velliton: two procurement gates before any pilot\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Two policy gates bite here before any pilot: Velliton was founded in 2024, so it needs a financial viability review, and read-only log access needs SOC 2 Type II or a signed-off compensating control. I'm requesting diligence now and will not approve a pilot until both clear.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-18, sharing velliton-facts (mail-21: \"Velliton pilot: what Finance needs before I approve\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget and is small enough to exit, but the $420k/yr post-pilot price would be a multi-year commitment needing the CFO, and the vendor is a 2024 startup with unverified runway. I want financial and reference diligence before I approve anything."], "refs": ["seed-1016/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1016/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1016/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1016/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1016/enterprise.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1016-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, competing internal team, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-12: \"Velliton: integration and evidence diligence\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-13: \"Velliton diligence: capacity impact\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): I need technical and reference diligence before judging integration load; the 4\u20136 week estimate would consume exactly my free engineering capacity and compete with our delayed in-house simulator.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton: vendor risk and security diligence\"); requested security, financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is a 2024 startup asking for read-only access to operational logs with only SOC 2 Type I, so both the financial viability review and the SOC 2/compensating-control question must be settled before any pilot can be approved.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-20: \"Velliton: budget fit, conditions, and the $420k step-up\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k left, but the $420k/year step-up crosses the $300k multi-year threshold and needs a CFO business case, and a 22-month-runway vendor needs a financial viability check before I approve anything."], "refs": ["seed-1016/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1016/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1016/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1016/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12", "seed-1016/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1018-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, competing internal team, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton pilot \u2014 budget and diligence\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot is affordable within the $210k remaining, but it consumes most of it and the $420k/yr licence is a material recurring commitment. I want financial diligence and hard exit/success criteria before supporting any pilot or licence.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, proc, eng forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-15: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 proposed terms and success criteria\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is now in and the core capability directly addresses the outages that set us back twice; the risks (22-month runway, 48% customer concentration, unproven human/robot aisle modelling, 9-week real integration) are real but containable inside a fixed-fee, terminable 12-week pilot rather than a licence commitment.", "week 2, engineering exec: no action", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-15, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-17: \"P1: conditional approval \u2014 two policy conditions before any log access\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot terms are tight and terminable, but Velliton is a 2024-founded vendor with SOC 2 Type II still 5 months out and only 22 months of runway, so both our startup and data policies bite. I can approve only with those two gaps closed as binding conditions.", "week 2, competing internal team: mailed sponsor, eng (mail-20: \"Re: internal replay capability \u2014 honest gap and cost\"); requested technical diligence; filed P2 (internal_build; decision-P2). Rationale (simulated): Rafael asked a direct question about our own platform's replay gap, so I answer it plainly and use the opening to put the internal build on the table with a real cost, rather than letting the conversation default to a $140k pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1018/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1018/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1018/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1018/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1018/enterprise.jsonl#L13", "seed-1018/enterprise.jsonl#L14", "seed-1018/enterprise.jsonl#L15"], "round": 1}, "s1018-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, competing internal team, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc (mail-12: \"Velliton: budget view and the approval path after the pilot\"); requested financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget, so I am not blocking exploration, but the $420k/yr step-up is a multi-year commitment over the $300k threshold and needs CFO sign-off and a business case. I want unit economics and runway before I commit to anything.", "week 2, business sponsor: no action", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed velliton forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-14: \"Technical diligence on Replay integration\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-deck (mail-15: \"Two engineers next quarter \u2014 Velliton vs. our simulator\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael asked me to verify the 4-6 week, two-engineer integration claim, and that claim collides directly with Kiyoshi's already-late in-house simulator, so I need both the technical facts and a capacity view before I take any position on a pilot.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-12, sharing velliton-facts (mail-18: \"Velliton: two policy gates before any pilot touches logs\"); mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-19: \"Diligence requests: financial and security\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is a 2024-founded company so it triggers our financial viability review, and read-only fleet-control log access triggers the data policy, where SOC 2 Type I does not clear us. I am opening both diligence tracks now so the gates are known before anyone files a pilot"], "refs": ["seed-1018/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1018/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1018/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1018/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12", "seed-1018/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L13", "seed-1018/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}, "s1019-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, competing internal team, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1019/enterprise.jsonl#L5", "seed-1019/enterprise.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1019-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, competing internal team, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1019/upside.jsonl#L5", "seed-1019/upside.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1024-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, competing internal team, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: financial and reference diligence before pilot\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot is plausible and fits our outage problem, but Velliton is early-stage with customer-reported evidence and a licence price that would later cross the CFO threshold. I want financial and reference diligence before any pilot proposal reaches me.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed platform forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-15: \"Velliton Replay vs internal simulator\"); mailed sponsor (mail-16: \"Re: Velliton Replay: diligence before pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The incident problem is real and Replay plausibly fits, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the pilot plus licence is a significant commitment against only two free engineers. I want diligence and an internal-capacity/overlap read before considering a pilot.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, platform, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-21: \"Velliton diligence is in - three open items before a pilot proposal\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-16, sharing diligence-technical (mail-22: \"Capacity and overlap assessment vs our internal simulator\"). Rationale (simulated): All four diligence packs are in and they are good enough to keep going, but two things stop me proposing a pilot yet: no overlap/capacity assessment from Kiyoshi, and a reference that ran to 9 weeks against a 4", "week 2, procurement lead: no action"], "refs": ["seed-1024/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1024/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1024/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1024/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1024/enterprise.jsonl#L13", "seed-1024/enterprise.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}, "s1024-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, competing internal team, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: Finance guardrails before any pilot proposal\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael has made no commitment, so my job this week is to set the money and exit guardrails before anyone proposes a pilot. The $140k fits the remaining tooling budget but leaves little room, and the $420k/yr site licence would cross the CFO threshold.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-15: \"Engineering view on Velliton diligence\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton Replay vs our simulator\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay directly targets our release incidents, but our fleet manager is in-house, not ROS 2, the 4-6 week integration would consume my only free capacity, and Velliton's thin runway and unaudited proof point argue for diligence, not commitment. I'll s", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, platform forwarding mail-15, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-21: \"Replay vs. the in-house simulator: one page by Friday\"); mailed velliton, sharing diligence-financial (mail-22: \"Pilot SOW conditions and two diligence gaps\"). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and it is decent but not clean: unaudited evidence, no in-house fleet manager demo, and Engineering will not approve until the Replay-versus-Kiyoshi question is settled. I will close those two gaps before I put a pilot forward, so it does not get blocked on its first day.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed velliton forwarding mail-2 (mail-23: \"Velliton Replay: diligence requests from Procurement and Vendor Risk\"); mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-12 (mail-24: \"Procurement guardrails on the Velliton pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Support diligence only. Velliton is under three years old so a financial viability review is mandatory under our startup policy, and it wants read-only fleet-control logs, which under our data policy needs SOC 2 Type II (five months out) or a Security-signed compensat"], "refs": ["seed-1024/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1024/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1024/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1024/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1024/upside.jsonl#L13", "seed-1024/upside.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}, "s1028-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, competing internal team, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1028/enterprise.jsonl#L5", "seed-1028/enterprise.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1030-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, competing internal team, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton Replay pitch: budget reality and what I need\"); requested financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot looks affordable, but adding ~$90k of our own engineering pushes the real cost past the $210k I have left, and the $420k/yr renewal is a commitment we must be able to walk away from. I want vendor financials and exit terms before I approve anything.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor (mail-14: \"Velliton: no pilot approval yet; diligence requested\"); mailed velliton (mail-15: \"Velliton diligence request: financial and security\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch is technically plausible and strategically relevant, but Velliton is an early startup without SOC 2 Type II and would need read-only operational logs. I cannot let that proceed before financial and security diligence, so I will request reviews and tell Rafael no approval yet.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed proc, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-18: \"Velliton: financial and security diligence in hand\"); mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-19: \"Velliton pilot: the ~$20k gap and contract terms\"). Rationale (simulated): Diligence came back plausible but not clean: real cost is ~$230k against $210k discretionary, Velliton is young with 48% customer concentration, and Procurement has already said it will not approve a pilot on SOC 2 Type I with 6-8 weeks of contracting ahead. Proposing now would just get it refused, s", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-20: \"Re: Velliton Replay pitch\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-21: \"Quick read: Velliton Replay vs our simulator\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay is technically plausible for deterministic fleet-control testing, but I cannot judge fit against our in-house fleet manager without diligence. The integration ask would consume much of our scarce free capacity and compete with our own simulator, so I want technical and reference evidence before backing a "], "refs": ["seed-1030/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1030/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1030/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1030/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1030/enterprise.jsonl#L13", "seed-1030/enterprise.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=5 aware, incl. competing team", "label": "5 aware, incl. competing team", "runs": ["s1001-enterprise", "s1002-upside", "s1004-research", "s1006-enterprise-replicate", "s1008-research", "s1009-upside", "s1011-enterprise-replicate", "s1014-enterprise", "s1016-enterprise", "s1016-enterprise-replicate", "s1018-enterprise", "s1018-enterprise-replicate", "s1019-enterprise", "s1019-upside", "s1024-enterprise", "s1024-upside", "s1028-enterprise", "s1030-enterprise"], "stage": "circulation"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 2, "enterprise-replicate": 2, "research": 8, "upside": 4}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 2, "enterprise-replicate": 2, "research": 8, "upside": 4}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 6, "upside": 2}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 6, "upside": 2}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 6, "upside": 2}, "children": [], "count": 10, "evidence": {"s1007-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 7, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1007/research.jsonl#L38"], "round": 6}, "s1009-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1009/research.jsonl#L21"], "round": 3}, "s1012-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1012/research.jsonl#L24"], "round": 3}, "s1018-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1018/upside.jsonl#L24"], "round": 3}, "s1022-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 5, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1022/enterprise.jsonl#L30"], "round": 4}, "s1022-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 5, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1022/research.jsonl#L31"], "round": 4}, "s1028-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1028/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L26"], "round": 3}, "s1028-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 7, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1028/research.jsonl#L42"], "round": 6}, "s1029-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1029/research.jsonl#L24"], "round": 3}, "s1030-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 5, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1030/upside.jsonl#L29"], "round": 4}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=ratified/terminal=pilot", "label": "pilot", "runs": ["s1007-research", "s1009-research", "s1012-research", "s1018-upside", "s1022-enterprise", "s1022-research", "s1028-research", "s1028-enterprise-replicate", "s1029-research", "s1030-upside"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 10, "evidence": {"s1007-research": {"events": ["week 5, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc, sharing diligence-financial (mail-30: \"P1 pilot \u2014 finance approval with binding conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is exit-friendly and fits inside the $210k discretionary line, and the adapter risk is now priced and capped; my remaining exposure is a $420k/year licence from a 22-month-runway vendor with Type I only, which the pilot does not commit us to. I approve with binding conditions that keep the exit open.", "week 6, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-30, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-33: \"P1 Velliton pilot \u2014 procurement conditional approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is affordable and scoped to non-operational logs, and finance has already covered the startup financial viability review. I can approve only with procurement conditions recorded, chiefly that operational data stays out until SOC 2 Type II or a Security-signed compensating control is in place.", "week 7, finance exec: mailed eng, sponsor forwarding mail-33, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial (mail-36: \"P1 Velliton pilot \u2014 one approval outstanding\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is now finance- and procurement-conditional and only engineering's sign-off is outstanding; Ines's conditions match mine, so nothing in the record needs renegotiating. I'll press engineering to close the file rather than open anything new.", "week 7, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-37: \"P1 \u2014 engineering conditional approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot terms now ring-fence the adapter risk (3 weeks capped, 9 weeks contingency, milestone payment, no licence, no operational data) and finance/procurement conditions cover cost, escrow and exit, so my remaining concern is engineering capacity being consumed rather than protected \u2014 I approve conditionally on that."], "refs": ["seed-1007/research.jsonl#L27", "seed-1007/research.jsonl#L31", "seed-1007/research.jsonl#L35", "seed-1007/research.jsonl#L36"], "round": null}, "s1009-research": {"events": ["week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-3, sharing diligence-financial (mail-15: \"RE: Velliton pilot: $140k commitment and licence economics\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits the $210k remaining tooling budget, is fixed-fee with no licence commitment, and buys evidence before we consider a $420k/year commitment that would need a CFO business case. I approve it, but only with hard conditions so we can exit cleanly.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-18: \"P1 Velliton pilot: conditional approval\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-technical (mail-19: \"Velliton pilot: adapter and your two engineers\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is cheap, capped, exitable, and the adapter is inside the fixed fee, so the downside is bounded; but the reference integration slip and the overlap with Kiyoshi's in-house simulator mean I approve only with conditions that protect our two engineers and make the adapte", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-17, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-21: \"P1 Velliton pilot: procurement stance - conditional\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence answers my two policy gates only partly: replay of recorded warehouse days means operational-log access, and Velliton holds SOC 2 Type I, not Type II, so a Security-signed compensating control is required before any data flows. Financially survivable but thin, so I approve conditionally rather than block."], "refs": ["seed-1009/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1009/research.jsonl#L15", "seed-1009/research.jsonl#L19"], "round": null}, "s1012-research": {"events": ["week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-20: \"Velliton pilot: engineer-weeks, owner, and the aisle limitation\"); mailed platform (mail-21: \"You would own the Velliton adapter work \u2014 scope check\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The replay study targets our exact failure mode (9 incidents traced to untested fleet-control changes) at a fixed, terminable fee, so I will approve P1 conditionally \u2014 with engineering effort explicitly funded and a named owner, and metrics that do not overclaim on mixed human/robot aisles.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed eng, sponsor, sharing diligence-reference (mail-25: \"P1: engineering envelope and my condition\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k fixed, terminable-at-will pilot fits inside the $210k remaining and caps our downside at the fee plus engineering time; the unaudited evidence and the vendor's 22-month runway and 48% customer concentration mean nothing beyond this pilot should be committed. I approve P1 only if the engineering weeks are funded from existing headcount with a named owner and a slip stop, and the $420k/yr licence stays out of ", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed eng, sharing diligence-security (mail-28: \"P1 Velliton: SOC 2 Type II gap needs a Security-signed compensating control\"); mailed fin, sponsor, sharing diligence-financial (mail-29: \"P1 Velliton: vendor-risk view and contract guardrails\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is bounded and terminable, and the financial viability review clears at this size, but Velliton holds only SOC 2 Type I while needing read-only access to operational logs, so I approve only with a Security-signed compensating control and Theo's contract guardrails l"], "refs": ["seed-1012/research.jsonl#L14", "seed-1012/research.jsonl#L20", "seed-1012/research.jsonl#L22"], "round": null}, "s1018-upside": {"events": ["week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng (mail-15: \"P1: conditional approval, with the compute cost called out\"); mailed proc (mail-16: \"Velliton: security before pilot data flows\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is a fixed $140k, no-licence, no-exclusivity test that fits inside the $210k left in my tooling budget, so the downside is bounded and exit is clean; I approve it with conditions so the $6k/month cloud compute and any conversion to a licence or partnership come back to me first.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-16 (mail-19: \"P1: procurement approval conditional on security and financial viability\"); mailed velliton (mail-20: \"Diligence request: financial and security\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 needs my approval, but Velliton only holds SOC 2 Type I while wanting read-only access to fleet-control logs, and I have not yet confirmed their age or financial footing. I will approve on binding conditions and start diligence this week.", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-23, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-27: \"P1: Eng conditional approval \u2014 plan for 8-9 weeks integration\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is bounded and avoids licence lock-in, but the 4-6 week integration estimate is optimistic for our custom in-house fleet manager; reference 2 took 9 weeks on a custom fleet manager. I will approve only with a realistic integration plan."], "refs": ["seed-1018/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1018/upside.jsonl#L16", "seed-1018/upside.jsonl#L22"], "round": null}, "s1022-enterprise": {"events": ["week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-15: \"P1: procurement conditional approval \u2014 security condition is binding\"); mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-16: \"Velliton P1: procurement view and financial viability note\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and the pilot is bounded, but Velliton only holds SOC 2 Type I and the pilot gives it read-only access to operational logs, so our data policy requires a Security-signed compensating control before any log access; the startup policy review is sat", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical (mail-17: \"P1: conditional approval from eng\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-13 (mail-18: \"Sanity-check the replay claim, and adapter stays ours\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): A bounded, no-production pilot is a reasonable way to attack the 9 release incidents, but the adapter and replay harness are Brenmoor-specific glue that could become permanent lock-in, so I approve with binding conditions on ownership and scope.", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-28: \"Adapter is ours \u2014 recorded, and it goes into P1 conditions\"); mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-25, sharing diligence-reference (mail-29: \"P1: what I need written in before I keep approving\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The replay claim is narrower than the deck implies: determinism is credible but fidelity on mixed human/robot aisles, where our incidents come from, is approximated. I'll keep the pilot alive but bind it to our own-log acceptance test, an aisle scope limit, and written o", "week 5, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng forwarding mail-16, sharing diligence-financial (mail-36: \"P1: approved conditionally \u2014 $160k total cap, no extension without a business case\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is bounded, fixed-fee, no production dependency, and fits the $210k remaining budget even with ~$18k of our own compute, so it clears my payback and exit tests; the vendor's runway and customer concentration rule out anything longer than a pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1022/enterprise.jsonl#L14", "seed-1022/enterprise.jsonl#L15", "seed-1022/enterprise.jsonl#L22", "seed-1022/enterprise.jsonl#L28"], "round": null}, "s1022-research": {"events": ["week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing diligence-security (mail-20: \"P1 Velliton study: my risk conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The study is a bounded fixed fee and worth doing, but the replay runs on recorded event logs, which is operational data, and Velliton holds only SOC 2 Type I, so my data policy bites and I approve only with written conditions.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical (mail-21: \"P1: conditional approval from Engineering\"); mailed platform (mail-22: \"Velliton pilot: your scope is unchanged\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is fixed-fee, capped at 4-6 engineering weeks, and no licence obligation follows, so it fits my free capacity and targets the exact failure mode behind last quarter's incidents. My approval is conditional on the adapter being our code and the internal simulator keeping its own scope.", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed velliton (mail-23: \"P1 pilot: incorporation date and exit/data-return terms\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Nothing in the new mail changes my position: Engineering has accepted my security and exit conditions as written, so P1 stays conditionally approved on my side. I still need confirmation of the vendor's age for the startup viability test and clean exit/data-return terms before any log data flows.", "week 5, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-28, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-35: \"P1: Finance approval, with two recorded conditions\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-33 (mail-36: \"P2: I need a phased, funded version\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 now carries every term I asked for and $140k fits inside the $210k left, so I approve it conditionally on spend control and a payback gate on any licence. P2 at $450k loaded cannot be funded from what remains, so I hold until Kiyoshi brings a phased scope and a 24-month payback case."], "refs": ["seed-1022/research.jsonl#L17", "seed-1022/research.jsonl#L18", "seed-1022/research.jsonl#L21", "seed-1022/research.jsonl#L29"], "round": null}, "s1028-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-17, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-19: \"P1 Velliton pilot: procurement conditions\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is bounded and the data architecture is genuinely low-exposure, but Velliton is under three years old and has only SOC 2 Type I, so my approval has to be tied to a Security-signed compensating control and clean exit terms before any operational logs are touched.", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed fin forwarding mail-24, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-financial (mail-25: \"Velliton reference diligence and viability review\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-24, sharing diligence-reference (mail-26: \"Velliton integration timeline risk\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Reference diligence confirms useful simulation value but also shows integration slippage, and Velliton is under three years old, so my conditional approval must now include a financial viability review plus a reference-based integration plan.", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-26, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-29: \"P1: conditional approval \u2014 realistic timeline, adapter first\"); mailed platform (mail-30: \"Velliton pilot: your simulator is not paused\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is fixed-fee, no auto-conversion, and directly targets the untested fleet-control changes behind nine incidents, so it is worth a bounded trial; but Reference 2 shows custom fleet managers blow the 4-6 week estimate, and we have exactly that situation, so I approve only with a ", "week 4, finance exec: mailed proc, sponsor forwarding mail-25, sharing diligence-financial (mail-31: \"P1 Velliton: viability review sign-off\"); mailed sponsor (mail-32: \"P1 Velliton pilot: approved with conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence meets my four conditions: $140k fixed sits inside the $210k remaining budget, no auto-conversion, termination for convenience with deletion, and engineering time is existing headcount. Vendor concentration and runway are manageable for a 12-week pilot with no prepayment, and anything past that goes to the CFO."], "refs": ["seed-1028/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L14", "seed-1028/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L21", "seed-1028/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L23", "seed-1028/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L24"], "round": null}, "s1028-research": {"events": ["week 4, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-29, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-35: \"P1: conditional approval from Procurement\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The study is fixed-fee with exit and data-return terms, but Velliton only holds SOC 2 Type I, so our data policy is not met until Security signs a compensating control. I approve conditionally rather than block, since the safeguards are in reach.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-29, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-36: \"P1: Finance approval, with the licence kept separate\"); conditional on P1 (binding); block on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The diligence answered my two asks: 22 months of runway, no debt, data stays in our cloud, and written exit/data-return terms substitute for escrow at this contract size. The pilot is affordable ($140k of $210k) and reversible; the in-house build at ~$450k is not fundable this year and front-runs the pilot evidence.", "week 5, procurement lead: mailed eng, sponsor forwarding mail-36, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-42: \"P1: Security compensating control needed before log access\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Financial and reference diligence hold up and Theo's conditions mirror mine, but Velliton still only holds SOC 2 Type I, so our data policy is unmet until Security signs a compensating control; I stay conditional and push for that signature plus written exit/data-return terms before any log access.", "week 7, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-46, sharing diligence-financial (mail-47: \"Offset I will accept: pilot now, build starts Q1\"); mailed platform (mail-48: \"P3: what would clear my condition\"); requested technical diligence; conditional on P1 (binding); conditional on P3 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Rafael asked a direct question, so I name the offset I will accept: the pilot keeps this year's room, and the build is deferred or trimmed to fit the $70k left. I keep both approvals conditional on that sequencing rather than killing either.", "week 7, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-42, sharing diligence-technical (mail-50: \"P1: eng approval, conditional on adapter and 9-week plan\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-43 (mail-51: \"P3: approving, sequenced behind the pilot\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Technical claims hold up and the integration risk is now priced at 9 weeks with our fleet-manager adapter in scope; P1's exit, data-return and read-only compensating control cover the small-vendor and Type II exposure. I also keep the in-house simulator funded on a narrow basis so we are not depe"], "refs": ["seed-1028/research.jsonl#L26", "seed-1028/research.jsonl#L27", "seed-1028/research.jsonl#L32", "seed-1028/research.jsonl#L39", "seed-1028/research.jsonl#L40"], "round": null}, "s1029-research": {"events": ["week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-15: \"P1: conditional approval from procurement\"); mailed velliton (mail-16: \"Reference for the 31-of-38 result\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is small, fixed-fee and runs in our own cloud account, and the startup financial viability review is now done (22 months runway, 48% customer concentration \u2014 acceptable at study size, not at licence size). But Velliton has only SOC 2 Type I and will touch operational fleet logs, which our data po", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-18, sharing diligence-reference (mail-21: \"Velliton references: integration ran 9 weeks, not 4-6\"); mailed velliton (mail-22: \"Technical diligence request\"); requested technical diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Reference diligence is back and it confirms the main soft spot: integration at a customer with a custom fleet manager took 9 weeks, not 4-6, which squeezes a 12-week study. I keep my conditional stance and make sure eng and fin see the schedule risk before they approve.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-21, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-24: \"P1: conditional approval \u2014 plan for the 9-week case\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-25: \"Two engineers for a Velliton replay study \u2014 impact on your plan\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay directly targets the untested fleet-control changes behind our 9 incidents, and $140k fixed is small against that. But our fleet manager is custom, one reference took 9 weeks, and I only have two free engine", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc, sharing diligence-financial (mail-29: \"P1: Finance approval \u2014 conditional on cap, week-4 stop, no licence\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is a bounded, exit-able study (~$158k all-in against $210k remaining) with no licence commitment, so it fits budget and protects us from an open-ended commitment; I approve it with the week-4 stop and a hard spend cap written in."], "refs": ["seed-1029/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1029/research.jsonl#L16", "seed-1029/research.jsonl#L17", "seed-1029/research.jsonl#L22"], "round": null}, "s1030-upside": {"events": ["week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-19, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-26: \"Velliton: procurement gates \u2014 approved with binding conditions\"); mailed velliton (mail-27: \"Pilot: escrow and Type II timing\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The financial viability review passes at pilot scale (22 months runway, no debt, exit-friendly terms), but the data gate does not: historical replay still runs on our operational logs, so Type I alone is not enough and Security must sign a compensating control. I approve P1 with that and ", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-18, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-28: \"Adapter estimate and mixed aisles\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-29: \"Two engineers, not a substitute\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is bounded, escrowed and terminable, so it is worth doing, but the technical read does not support the schedule or the regression coverage claimed; I approve on binding conditions rather than as written.", "week 5, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng forwarding mail-30, sharing diligence-financial (mail-32: \"P1: Finance conditional approval recorded\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Rafael's revised P1 matches every condition I set: synthetic-only, milestone-based acceptance, escrow at $140k, termination for convenience, no auto-conversion. $140k fits the $210k remaining budget with no CFO case, so I approve it as conditional this week."], "refs": ["seed-1030/upside.jsonl#L20", "seed-1030/upside.jsonl#L23", "seed-1030/upside.jsonl#L27"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1007-research", "s1009-research", "s1012-research", "s1018-upside", "s1022-enterprise", "s1022-research", "s1028-research", "s1028-enterprise-replicate", "s1029-research", "s1030-upside"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 10, "evidence": {"s1007-research": {"events": ["week 4, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-28: \"Filing Velliton pilot with conditions\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence supports a tightly scoped pilot but not a licence: deterministic replay addresses our release outages, while the adapter and vendor evidence are real risks. I will file the pilot with binding conditions so we learn without implying a commitment.", "terms: 12-week pilot, $140k fixed, one site, non-operational logs unless Security-signed control; no licence implied; milestone payment; adapter capped at 3 weeks with 9-week contingency; evidence treated as hypothesis."], "refs": ["seed-1007/research.jsonl#L24"], "round": 3}, "s1009-research": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton diligence is in - I intend to propose a pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Clarifications before we scope a pilot\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is complete and it broadly holds up: the replay method targets exactly the release regressions that have hurt this program, though the reference shows integration can slip on a custom fleet manager and the vendor is small and concentrated. I will put a capped", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, fixed fee $140,000 all-in including the in-house fleet-manager adapter; no licence commitment until results are reviewed against agreed regression-detection criteria."], "refs": ["seed-1009/research.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1012-research": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed fin, proc, eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-17: \"Velliton: diligence shared, pilot on your terms\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-18: \"Two things before I file the pilot\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence holds up on the core claim: replay is exact and reproducible, and it attacks the release-failure mode that has set my program back twice. But the evidence is customer-reported, our fleet manager needs an adapter, one referenc", "terms: Fixed $140,000, 12 weeks, one site, terminable at will, no licence commitment or auto-renewal. Success metrics agreed before start; engineering effort quantified and funded before signature."], "refs": ["seed-1012/research.jsonl#L13"], "round": 2}, "s1018-upside": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-technical (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: $140k commit, needs your approval\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot: adapter and success criteria\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence supports a bounded pilot: deterministic replay attacks exactly the regression failures that set us back twice, but the evidence is customer-reported, one reference overran to 9 weeks on a custom fleet manager, and the vendor has 48% customer concentration. I'll pro", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, fixed fee $140,000, integration owned by Eng. Pass/fail on pre-release regression catch rate; no licence, exclusivity or partnership commitment; Velliton runs in our cloud account."], "refs": ["seed-1018/upside.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1022-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Proposing Velliton Replay pilot, one site, $140k\"); mailed eng, platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot: adapter and replay scope\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): All four diligence packs are in: Replay targets our exact failure mode and the integration risk is bounded, but the vendor is tiny, concentrated in one customer, and its Type II audit is still pending. A capped pilot at one site is the right wa", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, $140,000 fixed. No production dependency; defined success criteria and exit; Type II or compensating controls before go-live; no automatic conversion to the $420k/yr licence."], "refs": ["seed-1022/enterprise.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1022-research": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-reference, diligence-security (mail-15: \"Velliton pilot: seeking your approval\"); mailed velliton (mail-16: \"Study terms before we file\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence came back clean enough to act on: the method targets the regression escapes behind both outages, the adapter is in scope, and Finance has already said cost is not the objection. A fixed-fee, non-converting study at one site is a contained way to test it without adding a ven", "terms: 12-week fixed-fee study, $140k, one site, no auto-conversion or licence obligation; in-house fleet-manager adapter in scope; engineering load capped at 4-6 weeks; any site licence needs a new Finance business case and CFO sign-off."], "refs": ["seed-1022/research.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1028-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-16: \"Velliton pilot: engineering time and the adapter\"); mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-17: \"Velliton: answering Theo's conditions, and Ines's review\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and it is decent but not clean: deterministic replay targets exactly the release-outage failure mode that has twice set my program back, yet the vendor is small and concentrated, only SOC 2 Type I, and one reference ran 9 we", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140,000 fixed inside this FY, no auto-conversion, termination for convenience with data deletion, success criteria agreed before start, engineering time from existing headcount, compute in our cloud account."], "refs": ["seed-1028/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L13"], "round": 2}, "s1028-research": {"events": ["week 4, business sponsor: mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-20, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference, diligence-security (mail-29: \"Velliton study: your two asks are answered in diligence\"); mailed eng, platform forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-technical (mail-30: \"Velliton: build-vs-buy read still needed, but not for the study\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Theo's two asks are already answered by diligence we hold, so I file the pilot now with the exit and data-return terms he wants rather than sitting on it another week; the build-vs-buy read only sh", "terms: Fixed $140,000, 12 weeks, one Brenmoor site. Binding exit and data-return terms; all data and replay tooling stay in Brenmoor's cloud account. Any site licence is a separate Finance decision."], "refs": ["seed-1028/research.jsonl#L23"], "round": 3}, "s1029-research": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference, diligence-financial (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: $140k fee plus compute, and the adapter risk\"); mailed proc, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-13: \"Velliton vendor risk: fine for a pilot, not for a licence yet\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and it holds up: the method targets the exact failure that cost us two site outages, and a 12-week study also teaches us the technique for a possible in-house build. The vendor is small and concentrated, b", "terms: 12-week joint study at one site, fixed fee $140,000 plus ~$6k/month compute in our cloud account; 4-6 week integration including in-house fleet-manager adapter; shared write-up; no licence commitment."], "refs": ["seed-1029/research.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1030-upside": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-19, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-security (mail-24: \"Proposing the Velliton pilot on Finance's terms\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Finance has cleared the $140k with conditions that actually reduce our exposure (escrow, staged payments, no auto-conversion, synthetic replay only), which answers the objections I raised last week. I will propose the pilot on those exact terms and get Eng and Procurement to approve so it is decided rather than drifting.", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, $140,000 fixed fee. Staged milestone payments, final on acceptance. Source-code escrow. Termination for convenience, no penalty. Synthetic and historical replay only until security signs off. No auto-conversion; any licence above $300k/yr returns to Finance."], "refs": ["seed-1030/upside.jsonl#L19"], "round": 2}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor", "label": "pilot by business sponsor", "runs": ["s1007-research", "s1009-research", "s1012-research", "s1018-upside", "s1022-enterprise", "s1022-research", "s1028-research", "s1028-enterprise-replicate", "s1029-research", "s1030-upside"], "stage": "first_proposal"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 1, "upside": 2}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 1, "upside": 2}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 1, "upside": 2}, "children": [], "count": 4, "evidence": {"s1001-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 5, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1001/research.jsonl#L33"], "round": 4}, "s1004-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 5, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1004/upside.jsonl#L36"], "round": 4}, "s1015-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 5, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1015/upside.jsonl#L30"], "round": 4}, "s1017-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 8, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1017/enterprise.jsonl#L47"], "round": 7}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by engineering exec/alignment=ratified/terminal=pilot", "label": "pilot", "runs": ["s1001-research", "s1004-upside", "s1015-upside", "s1017-enterprise"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 4, "evidence": {"s1001-research": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-22, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-25: \"P1: conditional approval - adapter timeline and engineer allocation\"); mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-26: \"Velliton P1 pilot - $140k, my conditional approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay targets our exact outage problem and a capped pilot is the only shape I'd back, but P1 as written is internally inconsistent: a 4-week adapter go/no-go ignores Reference 2's 9-week slip on a custom manager like ours, and 'no pa", "week 4, finance exec: mailed eng, proc, sponsor, sharing diligence-financial (mail-31: \"P1 approval \u2014 binding finance conditions\"); requested technical diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is inside my discretionary budget, capped, and exit-friendly. My approval is conditional on the cap being all-in and no licence, renewal, or auto-conversion commitment.", "week 5, procurement lead: mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-34, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-36: \"P1 \u2014 procurement conditional approval, two binding conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is bounded and the financial terms hold, but Velliton only holds SOC 2 Type I while taking read-only access to operational logs, so our data policy requires a Security-signed compensating control before any access. I approve conditionally on that and on the financial viability review being recorded."], "refs": ["seed-1001/research.jsonl#L18", "seed-1001/research.jsonl#L26", "seed-1001/research.jsonl#L31"], "round": null}, "s1004-upside": {"events": ["week 5, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng (mail-44: \"P1: procurement conditional approval \u2014 terms and log gate\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 now carries my procurement conditions as binding terms and the conditional viability pass is on the record, so I can approve it conditionally. The security edge case stays hard: no operational logs until Security signs a compensating control.", "week 5, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng (mail-45: \"P1: finance conditional approval \u2014 funded from tooling budget\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k fixed fee fits inside the $210k of remaining tooling budget and carries no licence obligation, so our downside is capped and payable in-year; the only thing I need on the record is that the exit, portability, no-auto-conversion and escrow terms are binding and that any conversion needs a fresh business case. I approve conditionally this week and fund it from the tooling line.", "week 5, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-29, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-46: \"P1: my conditional approval \u2014 staffing has to match the adapter reality\"); mailed velliton (mail-47: \"Velliton: pilot terms in writing before we start\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is capped at a fixed fee with no licence obligation and every term Procurement and Finance want is already binding, so the outage risk I care about is bounded; what I will not do is approve 2 engineers for 6 weeks when Mara says 9-10 weeks. I approve conditionall"], "refs": ["seed-1004/upside.jsonl#L32", "seed-1004/upside.jsonl#L33", "seed-1004/upside.jsonl#L34"], "round": null}, "s1015-upside": {"events": ["week 5, business sponsor: mailed fin, proc, eng, sharing diligence-reference (mail-31: \"P1: my conditional approval, plus the sprawl answer Theo asked for\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is the narrow, gated version of this I can defend: capped at $60k, adapter gate at week 3, security sign-off before any log access. Approving it conditionally keeps the replay capability in play against our real wound without committing to a vendor or a licence.", "week 5, finance exec: mailed proc, eng, sponsor, sharing diligence-reference (mail-32: \"P1: finance approval with binding conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot at $60k fixed plus ~$75k of Mara's engineers fits the $210k budget and is genuinely exit-able, and the reference diligence backs the core claim while flagging a real integration slip; I approve it with hard finance conditions so it cannot drift into a $420k/yr licence without a fresh business case and CFO sign-off.", "week 5, procurement lead: mailed eng, sponsor, fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-33: \"P1: procurement approval, conditional on Security's written sign-off\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-29, sharing diligence-security (mail-34: \"Re: Velliton pilot: security sign-off needed\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The financial viability review clears at pilot scale (22 months runway, no debt, escrow available), and P1's small one-site scope is proportionate. The data-policy gap is still open: SOC 2 Type I is not Type II, so I approve only on condition that "], "refs": ["seed-1015/upside.jsonl#L26", "seed-1015/upside.jsonl#L27", "seed-1015/upside.jsonl#L28"], "round": null}, "s1017-enterprise": {"events": ["week 4, finance exec: mailed proc, sharing diligence-financial (mail-34: \"Re: Velliton pilot: financial viability and security gates\"); mailed sponsor, eng (mail-35: \"P1 funding: fits budget, but count the engineers\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k fixed fee fits inside the $210k remaining budget and is bounded at 12 weeks with named exit criteria, so downside is capped \u2014 but only if we add protections Velliton's standard paper does not give us at this size, and only if the internal engineer draw is counted against the same budget.", "week 5, finance exec: mailed proc, sponsor forwarding mail-38, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-39: \"Velliton pilot: two gaps from the new diligence\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The references confirm the tool works but also confirm integration overruns on a custom fleet manager, which is exactly our situation; combined with escrow only being standard above $250k a year, the pilot needs two concrete tightenings before I can keep supporting it.", "week 5, procurement lead: mailed velliton (mail-40: \"Pilot terms: protections at $140k scale\"); mailed sponsor, fin, sharing diligence-security (mail-41: \"P1: procurement conditional approval\"); requested technical diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The financial viability review is now on file, but with 48% concentration, 22 months of runway and only a Type I report, both policies still come up short. I will conditionally approve P1 so the pilot terms close those gaps before any operational log access, rather than block a cheap fixed-fee test.", "week 6, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-41, sharing diligence-financial (mail-44: \"P1: finance position is unchanged \u2014 conditions must be in the paper\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Procurement's conditions now match the finance protections I required, so the only thing standing between us and a bounded $140k pilot is the sponsor's signature. I want those conditions written into the paper before anyone signs, not promised verbally.", "week 6, procurement lead: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-43, sharing diligence-technical (mail-45: \"P1 pilot: technical diligence in, still needs your approval\"); mailed eng (mail-46: \"Replay limitation and pilot exit criteria\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Technical diligence is now on file and doesn't change the risk picture: the adapter is included and compute sits in our own cloud account, but the vendor is still under three years old with only a SOC 2 Type I. My P1 conditions stand; the proposal now only waits on the sponsor.", "week 8, finance exec: mailed platform, eng (mail-51: \"P2: cannot approve as filed\"); mailed sponsor forwarding mail-41 (mail-52: \"P1: only your signature left\"); conditional on P1 (binding); block on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is bounded, cheap and waiting only on the sponsor; P2 asks for $450k of loaded headcount against a $210k remaining discretionary budget with no 24-month payback case, so I block it and hold my P1 conditions.", "week 8, business sponsor: mailed fin, proc, eng forwarding mail-45, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial (mail-54: \"P1: I approve, with conditions recorded\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay attacks exactly the pre-release regression problem that cost me two outages, and the pilot is capped and conditional; I approve it with binding conditions rather than let the decision drift into week 9 \u2014 but this is a test, not a commitment to a $420k/yr vendor relationship."], "refs": ["seed-1017/enterprise.jsonl#L26", "seed-1017/enterprise.jsonl#L31", "seed-1017/enterprise.jsonl#L32", "seed-1017/enterprise.jsonl#L36", "seed-1017/enterprise.jsonl#L37", "seed-1017/enterprise.jsonl#L44", "seed-1017/enterprise.jsonl#L45"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by engineering exec/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1001-research", "s1004-upside", "s1015-upside", "s1017-enterprise"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 4, "evidence": {"s1001-research": {"events": ["week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-20, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-22: \"Re: Velliton diligence is in - my read\"); mailed platform (mail-23: \"Re: Velliton replay - two questions\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Replay still targets exactly our nine-incident failure mode, but Kiyoshi's answer changes the economics: 6-9 weeks not 3, it duplicates work our simulator is 40% into, and the 'free' engineers only exist by pausing that build. I will back a tight, exit-able pilot rather than a study or partnership.", "terms: One site, 12 weeks, fixed fee cap $140k. Adapter time-boxed at 4 weeks with a go/no-go; Velliton absorbs overrun. No pause to the internal simulator build. No site-licence commitment at exit."], "refs": ["seed-1001/research.jsonl#L17"], "round": 2}, "s1004-upside": {"events": ["week 4, engineering exec: mailed proc, sponsor, fin forwarding mail-36, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-41: \"Pilot proposal: Velliton, with your conditions as binding terms\"); mailed velliton, sharing diligence-technical (mail-42: \"Pilot scope: adapter, portability and exit in writing\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): All four diligence areas are in and the picture is bounded but conditional: replay is credible, yet our in-house fleet manager makes us Reference 2 (9 weeks), Type I doesn't clear log access, and lock-in only stays theoretical if port", "terms: 12 weeks, $140k fixed fee, no licence obligation, 2 engineers for ~9 weeks including adapter. Conditions: 30-day exit, replay-data portability, no auto-conversion, escrow above $250k/yr, Security-approved compensating control before operational logs."], "refs": ["seed-1004/upside.jsonl#L29"], "round": 3}, "s1015-upside": {"events": ["week 5, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-27, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-technical, diligence-reference, diligence-security (mail-28: \"Velliton pilot: fixed scope with adapter gate\"); mailed proc forwarding mail-20, sharing diligence-security (mail-29: \"Velliton pilot: security sign-off needed\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): The replay approach is technically credible, but the reference overrun on a custom fleet manager is exactly our risk, and the physical-aisle approximation limits confidence. I will support only a tightly gated pilot, not ", "terms: One-site, 10-week pilot capped at $60k; adapter milestone at week 3 with reference-checked effort; security sign-off and exit terms as conditions; success measured against last quarter's 9 incidents."], "refs": ["seed-1015/upside.jsonl#L25"], "round": 4}, "s1017-enterprise": {"events": ["week 4, engineering exec: mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-31: \"Replay diligence vs. your simulator \u2014 need your read before I commit engineers\"); mailed proc, fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-32: \"Velliton pilot terms \u2014 escrow and concentration\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is now complete and the honest reading is mixed: deterministic replay is real, but our in-house fleet manager needs an adapter and the reference with a custom fleet manager took 9 weeks, not 4-6 \u2014 that is most of my two fre", "terms: 12-week fixed-fee pilot, $140,000, one site. Exit criteria: regressions caught pre-release measured against our 9 last-quarter incidents. Require source-code escrow, read-only logged access, and the fleet-manager adapter built by Velliton at their cost."], "refs": ["seed-1017/enterprise.jsonl#L24"], "round": 3}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by engineering exec", "label": "pilot by engineering exec", "runs": ["s1001-research", "s1004-upside", "s1015-upside", "s1017-enterprise"], "stage": "first_proposal"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 1, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 1, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 1, "upside": 0}, "children": [], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1005-research": {"events": ["internal_build in week 9, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1005/research.jsonl#L44"], "round": 8}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=ratified/terminal=internal_build", "label": "internal_build", "runs": ["s1005-research"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1005-research": {"events": ["week 5, finance exec: mailed platform, eng (mail-28: \"P1 \u2014 conditional approval, scope must fit the budget\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 as written commits roughly $450k of loaded engineering against a $210k discretionary budget with no payback case, which I cannot sign; I approve it only if it is scoped to what the budget actually covers. The Velliton pilot remains fundable at $140k, and its diligence is already on file.", "week 8, finance exec: mailed proc, sharing diligence-financial (mail-33: \"Re: Velliton \u2014 startup viability review to be logged pre-signature\"); mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-financial (mail-34: \"Velliton \u2014 the $420k site licence needs a CFO case\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Velliton's numbers are survivable but thin \u2014 48% of ARR in one customer and a raise due in about 12 months mean any commitment must be exitable. I will own the viability review Ines needs, and flag that the $420k/year site licence crosses the $300k threshold and needs the CFO and a payback case", "week 9, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-38: \"P2 \u2014 Engineering conditional approval, with binding terms\"); mailed platform (mail-39: \"P1 \u2014 my condition\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is bounded, fixed-fee, synthetic-data-only and carries no licence commitment, so it tests the replay idea against our nine incidents without lock-in; I approve it with binding terms. The internal build asks for three engineers I do not have, so I approve it only on conditions that keep it from competing for the same two peopl"], "refs": ["seed-1005/research.jsonl#L26", "seed-1005/research.jsonl#L37", "seed-1005/research.jsonl#L42"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1005-research"], "stage": "alignment"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1013-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["rejected in week 6, by ratifying P2"], "refs": ["seed-1013/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L34"], "round": 5}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=superseded by rejected/terminal=rejected", "label": "rejected", "runs": ["s1013-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1013-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 6, engineering exec: mailed platform (mail-35: \"P1: approving, with one binding condition\"); mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-financial (mail-36: \"Velliton: my read and where I'm putting capacity\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The replay concept targets exactly our incident source, but Velliton adds packaging over capability we already own 40% of, plus a custom adapter on Kiyoshi's team and a $420k/year tail. Diligence confirms a small, concentrated vendor; I put our capacity behind finishing the in-house simulator instead."], "refs": ["seed-1013/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L30"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=superseded by rejected", "label": "superseded by rejected", "runs": ["s1013-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 2, "evidence": {"s1005-research": {"events": ["week 4, competing internal team: mailed eng (mail-23: \"Re: Quick question: Velliton replay vs. our simulator\"); filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Their replay overlaps our simulator's core function; we can borrow ideas from their papers without a pilot. The pilot would divert our only slack and delay our 40%-complete in-house tool.", "terms: Approve 3 additional engineers for two quarters to complete in-house simulator, instead of Velliton pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1005/research.jsonl#L20"], "round": 3}, "s1013-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 6, competing internal team: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical (mail-32: \"Re: Velliton Replay vs. our simulator - honest read\"); requested financial diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara asked for a straight technical read, and the honest answer is that Velliton packages replay we are already building, with a known simulation gap and an adapter that lands on my team. I answer plainly and put the internal build on the table as the cheaper path.", "terms: Fund three additional engineers to my team for two quarters to finish the in-house simulator's replay capability, with a usable replay milestone at the end of Q1."], "refs": ["seed-1013/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L29"], "round": 5}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team", "label": "internal_build by competing internal team", "runs": ["s1005-research", "s1013-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "first_proposal"}], "count": 16, "evidence": {"s1001-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton joint study \u2014 technical read and call\"); mailed fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton $140k study \u2014 early finance view\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The technical idea fits our outage problem, but the evidence is unaudited and Velliton is early-stage; I want diligence and Mara's read before committing $140k or proposing a pilot.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-14: \"Re: Velliton diligence - my read on integration risk\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-15: \"Velliton replay - two questions before I answer Rafael\"); requested security, financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay targets exactly the failure mode behind our nine release incidents, but the 4-6 week integration estimate already broke at a customer with a custom fleet manager, which is our situation. I'll give Rafael a straight read and get Kiyoshi's view ", "week 3, competing internal team: mailed eng forwarding mail-15, sharing diligence-technical (mail-20: \"Re: Velliton replay - two questions before I answer Rafael\"); requested reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Mara's two questions are where I can be genuinely useful without overreaching: the adapter estimate hides a custom-manager risk, and replay overlaps the job our simulator already does. I will hold off proposing an internal build until she has my numbers in hand."], "refs": ["seed-1001/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1001/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1001/research.jsonl#L16"], "round": 2}, "s1004-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: simulation layer \u2014 yes to a conversation, no to exclusivity yet\"); mailed proc, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton: small vendor, pilot $140k \u2014 starting diligence\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Velliton addresses is exactly mine \u2014 two bad releases caused my site outages \u2014 but the company is tiny, pre-Type-II, and its one proof point is unaudited. I will start diligence and keep the relationship warm without committing to the anchor fram", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: my counterparty read\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside our remaining $210k tooling budget and is a fixed-fee, 12-week engagement with no licence obligation, so our downside is capped; the real exposure is counterparty \u2014 22 months of runway and $1.1M ARR \u2014 and the $420k/yr licence that would follow. I want financial and reference diligence before I approve anything.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-15: \"Velliton: procurement conditions before pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-16: \"Velliton: diligence needed before pilot review\"); requested financial, security, reference, technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is interesting but not cleared: the startup needs financial viability review, and operational-log access cannot be approved on SOC 2 Type I alone. I will request diligence and set procurement conditions before any pilot proposal.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-22, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-29: \"Re: Velliton adapter estimate and two engineers\"); mailed proc, sharing diligence-technical (mail-30: \"Velliton: adapter ownership and compute spend\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael asked me a direct technical question and the honest answer is that our in-house fleet manager makes us Reference 2, not Reference 1: nine weeks, not 4-6, and two engineers for six weeks will slip a release. I answer that now and pull financial and security", "week 3, finance exec: mailed proc forwarding mail-23, sharing diligence-financial (mail-33: \"Velliton: finance view for your viability review\"); mailed sponsor forwarding mail-21 (mail-34: \"Velliton: pilot is affordable; terms before filing\"); requested technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): Financial diligence answers most of my counterparty worry for a 12-week capped-fee pilot: 22 months of runway and no debt comfortably cover it, while concentration and the 12-month raise are licence-stage risks. I will not file until Procurement's viability review clears and exit and portability terms"], "refs": ["seed-1004/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1004/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1004/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1004/upside.jsonl#L21", "seed-1004/upside.jsonl#L22"], "round": 3}, "s1005-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Joint study: deterministic replay for Brenmoor's fleet software\"); mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton deterministic-replay study \u2014 heads up, diligence in flight\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay attacks exactly the failure mode that has set my program back twice, and it speaks to the CEO's question about owning more of our stack. But $140k is over my Finance threshold and the evidence is unaudited, so I ", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton deterministic-replay study \u2014 my engineering read\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-13: \"Quick question: Velliton replay vs. our simulator\"); requested technical, reference, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay idea speaks directly to our nine release incidents, but the 31-of-38 figure is customer-reported from robotics fleets, not our in-house fleet manager, and the 4-6 engineer-weeks would consume all our free capacity while Kiyoshi's simula"], "refs": ["seed-1005/research.jsonl#L5", "seed-1005/research.jsonl#L12"], "round": 3}, "s1007-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton pitch \u2014 technical review before any pilot\"); mailed fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton study \u2014 $140k commitment and licence exposure\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch is relevant to our release-outage problem, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the $140k pilot plus $420k/year licence needs scrutiny before I propose anything. I will request diligence and get engineering and Fin", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-13, sharing diligence-financial (mail-14: \"Velliton financial read: pilot affordable, licence is the risk\"); requested reference, technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k remaining discretionary budget, but the $420k/year licence and a 22-month-runway vendor with 48% customer concentration are real exposure; I want audited evidence and binding exit terms before I approve anything.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin (mail-19: \"Velliton - procurement risk read and conditions\"); mailed velliton (mail-20: \"Velliton - diligence items for our review\"); requested reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot is affordable and Theo's work covers the startup financial viability review, but Velliton has read-only access to our environment and only SOC 2 Type I, so nothing touching operational data clears my review without a Security-signed compensating control. I want binding conditions recorded now, before Rafael files anything.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-22: \"Adapter estimate is the crux \u2014 not ready to pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-23: \"Adapter scope and ownership\"); requested financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay is directly relevant to our 9 release incidents, but the 3-week adapter estimate for our in-house manager is the whole risk: reference 2 took 9 weeks with a custom manager, and that would consume both free engineers for the quarter and leave us maintaining an adapter. I want answers (and a financial look) before anyone proposes a pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1007/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1007/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1007/research.jsonl#L16", "seed-1007/research.jsonl#L17"], "round": 3}, "s1009-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton replay pilot: technical read needed\"); mailed fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton pilot: $140k commitment and licence economics\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay idea directly targets the release regressions that have hurt this program, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the commitment is above my authority. I will start diligence and get engineering and Finance reads before p"], "refs": ["seed-1009/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 1}, "s1012-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton: replay study at one site \u2014 heads up before I propose anything\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Joint study: deterministic replay for Brenmoor's fleet software\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay attacks exactly the failure mode that has set my program back twice, and a 12-week study is a bounded way to test it. But the vendor is small, the headline evidence is unaudited, and $140k plus a $420k/yr pat", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-12: \"Velliton replay study: finance conditions before proposal\"); mailed proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Velliton contract guardrails\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay study targets a real test-to-floor gap and the fixed $140k fits this year's discretionary budget, but the unaudited evidence, early-stage vendor, unfunded engineering time and $420k/yr follow-on licence mean I want diligence and exit terms before any pilot proposa"], "refs": ["seed-1012/research.jsonl#L5", "seed-1012/research.jsonl#L12"], "round": 2}, "s1013-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot - yes to 30 minutes, plus some questions\"); mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay - incoming pitch, keep it quiet for now\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch targets exactly what has hurt us twice this year, so it is worth a look, but a 14-person, 22-month-runway vendor with unaudited evidence and no Type II is real risk, and $140k needs Finance anyway. I want dilige", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin (mail-12: \"Velliton: two policy gates before any pilot\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Nothing is proposed yet, so I use this week to flag two policy gates early: Velliton was founded in 2024, so a financial viability review is mandatory, and read-only access to fleet-control logs requires SOC 2 Type II or a Security-signed compensating control, which they do not yet have.", "week 5, finance exec: mailed proc, sponsor forwarding mail-20, sharing diligence-financial (mail-23: \"Velliton: I concur with the viability review, with conditions\"); requested security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Procurement asked for my concurrence and Rafael asked for an in-principle view, so I answer both: the $140k fixed pilot fits the remaining $210k tooling budget, but I want it structured so nothing converts into the $420k licence without escrow, a business case and a security sign-off.", "week 5, engineering exec: mailed proc, sponsor forwarding mail-21, sharing diligence-security, diligence-technical (mail-25: \"Velliton compensating control - draft scope for your policy file\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical, velliton-deck (mail-26: \"Velliton Replay vs. our simulator - I need your honest read\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay concept attacks exactly our incident source, but the adapter for our in-house fleet manager and $420k/year tail smell like lock-in against a simulator we already own. This week I do the control sc", "week 6, competing internal team: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical (mail-32: \"Re: Velliton Replay vs. our simulator - honest read\"); requested financial diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara asked for a straight technical read, and the honest answer is that Velliton packages replay we are already building, with a known simulation gap and an adapter that lands on my team. I answer plainly and put the internal build on the table as the cheaper path."], "refs": ["seed-1013/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5", "seed-1013/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12", "seed-1013/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L22", "seed-1013/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L23", "seed-1013/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L29"], "round": 5}, "s1015-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Re: simulation layer and Brenmoor's option\"); mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Heads up: Velliton pilot, $140k\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The product addresses our real wound \u2014 two releases this year caused outages, and deterministic replay would catch regressions before they hit a site \u2014 but Velliton is 14 people with 22 months of runway and only customer-reported evidence. I want ", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: runway, sprawl, and gating reviews\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is technically interesting, but the startup-policy financial review and the data-policy security gap must clear before any pilot. I\u2019ll request financial and security diligence and flag runway/sprawl to Theo and Rafael.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing diligence-financial (mail-21: \"Velliton pilot: cleared from Finance, with conditions\"); requested reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k discretionary budget and is a fixed-fee, exit-able 12-week commitment, so it is fundable; what I will not do is let it drift into a $420k/yr site licence or any equity structure without a business case and CFO sign-off.", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-23: \"Re: Velliton adapter: your read before I propose a pilot\"); mailed proc, sharing diligence-security (mail-24: \"Re: Velliton: need Security sign-off on log-access compensating control\"); requested financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay approach is sound but Velliton's own reference contradicts the 3-week adapter estimate for exactly our situation (custom in-house fleet manager), and the physical-aisle approximation is a real gap for us. I'll give Rafael my read and clear the sec"], "refs": ["seed-1015/upside.jsonl#L5", "seed-1015/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1015/upside.jsonl#L19", "seed-1015/upside.jsonl#L20"], "round": 4}, "s1017-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: your read on 4-6 weeks of two engineers\"); mailed proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton: vendor risk check before I go further\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Pre-release replay attacks exactly the failure mode that has cost me two outages this year, so it is worth a look, but a $140k commitment to a 14-person, Series-A vendor with unaudited evidence and only SOC 2 Type I needs diligence before I put it in front of Fina", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton: vendor risk check before I go further\"); mailed fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot: financial viability and security gates\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is interesting technically, but it is under three years old and would need read-only fleet-control log access with only SOC 2 Type I today. I cannot clear a pilot or partnership until financial viability and security diligence are complete.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Re: Velliton Replay: capacity and log access\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts (mail-17: \"Impact of two engineers on internal simulator\"); requested technical, security, financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Engage cautiously: answer Rafael's capacity and security questions, but do not commit two engineers until security terms are clear and Kiyoshi quantifies the impact on our internal simulator. Request diligence before considering any pilot proposal.", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed velliton, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-28: \"Two follow-ups before we can progress\"); mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-23, sharing diligence-financial (mail-29: \"Velliton: where procurement stands, week 4\"); requested reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Financial and security diligence arrived: 22 months of runway is workable but 48% revenue concentration and a Type II that is still 5 months out leave both policies unmet. I will not clear anything giving Velliton access to fleet-control logs until Security signs a compensating", "week 4, finance exec: mailed proc, sharing diligence-financial (mail-34: \"Re: Velliton pilot: financial viability and security gates\"); mailed sponsor, eng (mail-35: \"P1 funding: fits budget, but count the engineers\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k fixed fee fits inside the $210k remaining budget and is bounded at 12 weeks with named exit criteria, so downside is capped \u2014 but only if we add protections Velliton's standard paper does not give us at this size, and only if the internal engineer draw is counted against the same budget."], "refs": ["seed-1017/enterprise.jsonl#L5", "seed-1017/enterprise.jsonl#L13", "seed-1017/enterprise.jsonl#L14", "seed-1017/enterprise.jsonl#L23", "seed-1017/enterprise.jsonl#L26"], "round": 3}, "s1018-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: pilot and structure\"); mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton: diligence before any pilot proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay is directly relevant to our regression problems, which is what has set the program back twice this year, but the pitch mixes a modest pilot with talk of anchor partnership and investment, and $140k is above my approval line. I want independent diligence and a narrower commercial ask before co", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng (mail-15: \"P1: conditional approval, with the compute cost called out\"); mailed proc (mail-16: \"Velliton: security before pilot data flows\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is a fixed $140k, no-licence, no-exclusivity test that fits inside the $210k left in my tooling budget, so the downside is bounded and exit is clean; I approve it with conditions so the $6k/month cloud compute and any conversion to a licence or partnership come back to me first."], "refs": ["seed-1018/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1018/upside.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1022-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: open diligence, security and references first\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay: can you spare two engineers for 4-6 weeks?\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly our failure mode (two release-driven site outages this year), so it's worth real diligence; but the vendor is tiny with 22 months of runway and audit still pending, so vendor_risk is scored high (6 = hi"], "refs": ["seed-1022/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 1}, "s1022-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton joint study - $140k, wants a 12-week pilot at one site\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Joint study - diligence first, then 30 minutes\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Velliton targets is exactly what cost us two site outages this year, so it deserves a look; but the evidence is customer-reported, the company is small with 22 months of runway, and the $420k/yr post-pilot licence sits awkwardly against a $60", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton study: fine on cost, terms need work\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): At $140k the pilot fits inside the $210k discretionary budget, but the $420k/year site licence that follows would be a multi-year commitment needing a CFO business case, so I want the pilot written with a clean exit and no automatic conversion."], "refs": ["seed-1022/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1022/research.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1028-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Replay: diligence first, then the 30 minutes\"); mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay pilot: $140k, heads up\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly the failure mode that has twice set my program back, but the vendor is small, lightly audited and its evidence is customer-reported, so I want diligence before I put a $140k pilot in front of approvers.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: what I need to say yes\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): I will not approve a pilot yet; it fits the remaining tooling budget only if fixed-fee, terminable, and tied to agreed success criteria. I need financial and reference diligence plus procurement's vendor-risk view before saying yes.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-17, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-19: \"P1 Velliton pilot: procurement conditions\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is bounded and the data architecture is genuinely low-exposure, but Velliton is under three years old and has only SOC 2 Type I, so my approval has to be tied to a Security-signed compensating control and clean exit terms before any operational logs are touched."], "refs": ["seed-1028/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5", "seed-1028/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12", "seed-1028/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L14"], "round": 2}, "s1028-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Diligence items before we meet\"); mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton joint study - $140k, your read please\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): A 12-week study with a shared write-up could give my engineers a way to catch fleet regressions before release, which is exactly what has hurt us twice this year; but the vendor is small and its one result is unaudited, so I want diligence before I sponsor anything.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-12: \"Velliton joint study: technical sanity-check\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-13: \"Quick read: Velliton vs our simulator\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton's deterministic replay is technically plausible, but the only outcome evidence is unaudited and the integration would consume most of my free capacity. I want diligence and an internal overlap check before considering a pilot.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-20: \"Velliton study: finance view before we commit\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The study is a fixed $140k against $210k remaining discretionary budget, so it is affordable but consumes most of the year's room; the real exposure is a vendor with 22 months of runway and an unaudited single result, plus the $420k/yr licence that would need a CFO business case anyway. I want financial and reference diligence before I approve anything.", "week 4, competing internal team: mailed eng, sponsor, sharing diligence-technical (mail-32: \"Build-vs-buy read: Velliton Replay vs our simulator (summary)\"); requested reference diligence; filed P2 (internal_build; decision-P2). Rationale (simulated): I owe Mara and Rafael a straight build-vs-buy read, and plainly Velliton does not natively cover our fleet manager and only approximates mixed human/robot aisles; buying replay at one site fast still leaves our core tooling unfinished and my team dependent on a small vendor."], "refs": ["seed-1028/research.jsonl#L5", "seed-1028/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1028/research.jsonl#L14", "seed-1028/research.jsonl#L24"], "round": 3}, "s1029-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Joint study: deterministic replay for Brenmoor's fleet software\"); mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton replay study \u2014 need your read before I commit\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay attacks exactly the failure mode that has hurt us twice this year \u2014 releases that pass testing but break sites \u2014 so it deserves a serious look. But the vendor is small, pre-Type-II, and the CEO is already asking whether we h", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-15: \"P1: conditional approval from procurement\"); mailed velliton (mail-16: \"Reference for the 31-of-38 result\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is small, fixed-fee and runs in our own cloud account, and the startup financial viability review is now done (22 months runway, 48% customer concentration \u2014 acceptable at study size, not at licence size). But Velliton has only SOC 2 Type I and will touch operational fleet logs, which our data po"], "refs": ["seed-1029/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1029/research.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1030-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Pilot diligence and call\"); mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton pitch \u2014 diligence, no proposal yet\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The simulation layer could reduce regression-driven outages, which directly threatens my target, but the pilot is $140,000 and the evidence is unaudited from a small vendor. I will request diligence before proposing any commitment.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: diligence gates and approval path\"); requested financial, security, technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is interesting but young and not yet cleared for operational-data access; the pilot price is high and the security gate is material. I will set out the approval path and request diligence now, without proposing anything."], "refs": ["seed-1030/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1030/upside.jsonl#L10"], "round": 2}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds", "label": "all 4 kinds", "runs": ["s1001-research", "s1004-upside", "s1005-research", "s1007-research", "s1009-research", "s1012-research", "s1013-enterprise-replicate", "s1015-upside", "s1017-enterprise", "s1018-upside", "s1022-enterprise", "s1022-research", "s1028-research", "s1028-enterprise-replicate", "s1029-research", "s1030-upside"], "stage": "diligence"}], "count": 16, "evidence": {"s1001-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-11, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton diligence is in - I need your read on the integration risk\"); mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-9, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-13: \"Velliton - commercial and vendor-risk read before I consider a pilot\"). Rationale (simulated): Diligence confirms the replay idea fits our outage problem, but reference 2's slip from 4-6 to 9 weeks was caused by a custom fleet manager, which is exactly what we run, and $140k sits above my own commitment threshold. I", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-14: \"Re: Velliton diligence - my read on integration risk\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-15: \"Velliton replay - two questions before I answer Rafael\"); requested security, financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay targets exactly the failure mode behind our nine release incidents, but the 4-6 week integration estimate already broke at a customer with a custom fleet manager, which is our situation. I'll give Rafael a straight read and get Kiyoshi's view "], "refs": ["seed-1001/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1001/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1001/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1001/research.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1004-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: my counterparty read\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside our remaining $210k tooling budget and is a fixed-fee, 12-week engagement with no licence obligation, so our downside is capped; the real exposure is counterparty \u2014 22 months of runway and $1.1M ARR \u2014 and the $420k/yr licence that would follow. I want financial and reference diligence before I approve anything.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-15: \"Velliton: procurement conditions before pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-16: \"Velliton: diligence needed before pilot review\"); requested financial, security, reference, technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is interesting but not cleared: the startup needs financial viability review, and operational-log access cannot be approved on SOC 2 Type I alone. I will request diligence and set procurement conditions before any pilot proposal.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed proc, fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference, diligence-security (mail-21: \"Velliton: diligence in hand \u2014 what clears the pilot\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-22: \"Velliton: adapter estimate and two engineers\"). Rationale (simulated): All four diligence items landed and the picture is decent on the product but thin on the counterparty: 22 months of runway, one customer at 48% of ARR, pre-Type-II. Proc has said in writing not to file the pilot until conditions clear, so this week I clear conditions rather tha"], "refs": ["seed-1004/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1004/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1004/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1004/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1004/upside.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1005-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1005/research.jsonl#L5", "seed-1005/research.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1007-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton diligence - adapter risk is the question\"); mailed proc, fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-13: \"Velliton - vendor risk before I propose anything\"). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and it is a real product, but the two facts that matter to us are unflattering: a customer with a custom fleet manager took 9 weeks, not 4-6, and the evidence is customer-reported. I want Mara's and Ines's read before I put $140k in front of Finance, given the licence alone would ", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-13, sharing diligence-financial (mail-14: \"Velliton financial read: pilot affordable, licence is the risk\"); requested reference, technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k remaining discretionary budget, but the $420k/year licence and a 22-month-runway vendor with 48% customer concentration are real exposure; I want audited evidence and binding exit terms before I approve anything."], "refs": ["seed-1007/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1007/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1007/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1007/research.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1009-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton diligence is in - I intend to propose a pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Clarifications before we scope a pilot\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is complete and it broadly holds up: the replay method targets exactly the release regressions that have hurt this program, though the reference shows integration can slip on a custom fleet manager and the vendor is small and concentrated. I will put a capped", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-3, sharing diligence-financial (mail-15: \"RE: Velliton pilot: $140k commitment and licence economics\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits the $210k remaining tooling budget, is fixed-fee with no licence commitment, and buys evidence before we consider a $420k/year commitment that would need a CFO business case. I approve it, but only with hard conditions so we can exit cleanly."], "refs": ["seed-1009/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1009/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1009/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1009/research.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1012-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1012/research.jsonl#L5", "seed-1012/research.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1013-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1013/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5", "seed-1013/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1015-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1015/upside.jsonl#L5", "seed-1015/upside.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1017-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1017/enterprise.jsonl#L5", "seed-1017/enterprise.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1018-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-technical (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: $140k commit, needs your approval\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot: adapter and success criteria\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence supports a bounded pilot: deterministic replay attacks exactly the regression failures that set us back twice, but the evidence is customer-reported, one reference overran to 9 weeks on a custom fleet manager, and the vendor has 48% customer concentration. I'll pro", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng (mail-15: \"P1: conditional approval, with the compute cost called out\"); mailed proc (mail-16: \"Velliton: security before pilot data flows\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is a fixed $140k, no-licence, no-exclusivity test that fits inside the $210k left in my tooling budget, so the downside is bounded and exit is clean; I approve it with conditions so the $6k/month cloud compute and any conversion to a licence or partnership come back to me first.", "week 2, engineering exec: no action"], "refs": ["seed-1018/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1018/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1018/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1018/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1018/upside.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1022-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, engineering exec: no action", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Proposing Velliton Replay pilot, one site, $140k\"); mailed eng, platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot: adapter and replay scope\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): All four diligence packs are in: Replay targets our exact failure mode and the integration risk is bounded, but the vendor is tiny, concentrated in one customer, and its Type II audit is still pending. A capped pilot at one site is the right wa"], "refs": ["seed-1022/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1022/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1022/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1022/enterprise.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1022-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton study: fine on cost, terms need work\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): At $140k the pilot fits inside the $210k discretionary budget, but the $420k/year site licence that follows would be a multi-year commitment needing a CFO business case, so I want the pilot written with a clean exit and no automatic conversion.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-reference, diligence-security (mail-15: \"Velliton pilot: seeking your approval\"); mailed velliton (mail-16: \"Study terms before we file\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence came back clean enough to act on: the method targets the regression escapes behind both outages, the adapter is in scope, and Finance has already said cost is not the objection. A fixed-fee, non-converting study at one site is a contained way to test it without adding a ven", "week 2, engineering exec: no action"], "refs": ["seed-1022/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1022/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1022/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1022/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1022/research.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1028-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1028/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5", "seed-1028/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1028-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1028/research.jsonl#L5", "seed-1028/research.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1029-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference, diligence-financial (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: $140k fee plus compute, and the adapter risk\"); mailed proc, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-13: \"Velliton vendor risk: fine for a pilot, not for a licence yet\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and it holds up: the method targets the exact failure that cost us two site outages, and a 12-week study also teaches us the technique for a possible in-house build. The vendor is small and concentrated, b", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-15: \"P1: conditional approval from procurement\"); mailed velliton (mail-16: \"Reference for the 31-of-38 result\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is small, fixed-fee and runs in our own cloud account, and the startup financial viability review is now done (22 months runway, 48% customer concentration \u2014 acceptable at study size, not at licence size). But Velliton has only SOC 2 Type I and will touch operational fleet logs, which our data po"], "refs": ["seed-1029/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1029/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1029/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1029/research.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1030-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: diligence gates and approval path\"); requested financial, security, technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is interesting but young and not yet cleared for operational-data access; the pilot price is high and the security gate is material. I will set out the approval path and request diligence now, without proposing anything.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed proc, fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-17: \"Velliton: two gates before I propose anything\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-18: \"Velliton technical read: adapter and mixed aisles\"). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is decent on the product but three things block a proposal: the Type II security gate is 5 months out, Finance must clear a startup viability review, and a reference overran 9 weeks on a custom fleet manager like ours. I want those answers before I commit $140,000 of a $600,000 line.", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc (mail-19: \"Velliton: yes on $140k pilot, on these terms\"). Rationale (simulated): The pilot at $140k fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget and needs no CFO sign-off, but Velliton's burn, 48% customer concentration and 22-month runway mean I will only approve it with staged payments and a clean exit, and with anything multi-year kept out of scope."], "refs": ["seed-1030/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1030/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1030/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1030/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1030/upside.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware", "label": "3 aware", "runs": ["s1001-research", "s1004-upside", "s1005-research", "s1007-research", "s1009-research", "s1012-research", "s1013-enterprise-replicate", "s1015-upside", "s1017-enterprise", "s1018-upside", "s1022-enterprise", "s1022-research", "s1028-research", "s1028-enterprise-replicate", "s1029-research", "s1030-upside"], "stage": "circulation"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 2, "enterprise-replicate": 2, "research": 1, "upside": 2}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 2, "enterprise-replicate": 2, "research": 1, "upside": 2}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 2, "enterprise-replicate": 2, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 2, "enterprise-replicate": 2, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 2, "enterprise-replicate": 2, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [], "count": 5, "evidence": {"s1003-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 5, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1003/enterprise.jsonl#L27"], "round": 4}, "s1003-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["pilot in week 5, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1003/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L27"], "round": 4}, "s1021-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["pilot in week 3, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1021/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L18"], "round": 2}, "s1026-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 9, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1026/enterprise.jsonl#L47"], "round": 8}, "s1026-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1026/upside.jsonl#L19"], "round": 3}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=1 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=ratified/terminal=pilot", "label": "pilot", "runs": ["s1003-enterprise", "s1003-enterprise-replicate", "s1021-enterprise-replicate", "s1026-enterprise", "s1026-upside"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 5, "evidence": {"s1003-enterprise": {"events": ["week 5, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc forwarding mail-22, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-25: \"P1: conditional approval from engineering\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-18 (mail-26: \"Your simulator is not being paused\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay attacks exactly our 9-incident problem, but Reference 2 shows a custom fleet manager stretched integration from 4-6 to 9 weeks, and ours is in-house, so my two free engineers are at real risk of being consumed entirely. I'll approve the pilot conditionally, with the adapter fixed", "week 5, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-30: \"P1: conditional approval from procurement\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is scope-bounded and escrowed, but Velliton is under 3 years old and holds only SOC 2 Type I, so both the startup financial viability review and a Security-signed compensating control must clear before anything touches operational logs; I approve conditionally on that basis rather than blocking.", "week 5, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc (mail-33: \"P1: finance conditional approval\"); mailed platform, eng (mail-34: \"P2: blocked on budget and headcount\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is fixed-fee and exit-friendly, so it fits the remaining tooling budget if tightly conditioned. The internal build is unaffordable at roughly $450k loaded against $210k left and would add headcount without a funded case."], "refs": ["seed-1003/enterprise.jsonl#L22", "seed-1003/enterprise.jsonl#L24", "seed-1003/enterprise.jsonl#L25"], "round": null}, "s1003-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 5, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-25: \"P1: conditional approval from eng, with binding conditions\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-21, sharing diligence-technical (mail-26: \"Pilot adapter: keep our side minimal and portable\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Nine release incidents justify a bounded, no-licence pilot, and the diligence is complete enough to judge it. But the reference with a custom fleet manager took 9 weeks, and mixed human/robot aisle behaviour \u2014 likely our incident source \u2014 is app", "week 5, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-30: \"P1: conditional approval from proc \u2014 SOC 2 first, escrow, viability on record\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is worth running, but as written it lets a vendor under three years old with SOC 2 Type II still five months out touch our operational logs, so I approve only with binding procurement and data conditions.", "week 5, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc, sharing diligence-financial (mail-31: \"P1: conditional approval from fin \u2014 capped spend, no licence, payback case first\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget at a fixed $140k with no licence commitment, so the downside is capped and exit is clean; I approve it with binding conditions that keep any licence decision out of the pilot and behind a 24-month payback case."], "refs": ["seed-1003/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L22", "seed-1003/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L24", "seed-1003/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L25"], "round": null}, "s1021-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-financial (mail-15: \"P1 conditional approval\"); mailed proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-security (mail-16: \"Pilot exit and escrow terms\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is small enough to fit the remaining discretionary budget and is capped, but I will only sign if it cannot turn into a $420k licence commitment or an unexitable contract. Vendor concentration and burn are manageable for a 12-week pilot, not for a multi-year commitment.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-19: \"Escrow, exit and renewal terms on the Velliton pilot\"); mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-16, sharing diligence-security (mail-20: \"My conditions on P1\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is worth doing on these terms, but Velliton holds only SOC 2 Type I, so under our data policy it cannot touch operational logs without Type II or a Security-signed compensating control; the escrow gap at $140k also needs to be recorded as accepted risk.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed platform, sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-21: \"Replay vs in-house: technical material attached\"); mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-13 (mail-22: \"Adapter risk: 4-6 weeks is not real for us\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly the failure mode behind our 9 release incidents, and a capped fixed-fee pilot is cheaper than betting the quarter on a simulator two quarters behind plan. But the 4-6 week integration estimate is not credible for our in-house fleet manager, so I approve only with th"], "refs": ["seed-1021/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1021/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L15", "seed-1021/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L16"], "round": null}, "s1026-enterprise": {"events": ["week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-15: \"Holding P1 pending technical diligence\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Capacity check for Velliton pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence; abstain on P1 (not binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is worth evaluating, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the integration load lands on a small team already behind on our in-house simulator. I will hold approval until technical and reference diligence show it catches our fleet-man", "week 5, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-financial (mail-25: \"P1: conditional approval, with finance conditions recorded\"); mailed proc, sharing diligence-financial (mail-26: \"Velliton pilot: exit and renewal terms before signature\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is $140,000 fixed against $210,000 of remaining discretionary budget and the sponsor has already accepted the conditions that cap our exposure; I approve conditionally so the exit and renewal terms are contractual, not just verbal. The $4", "week 6, finance exec: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-30, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical, diligence-financial (mail-31: \"Velliton: reference diligence is in\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The reference backs the pilot's value but shows a custom fleet manager stretched integration to 9 weeks, and ours needs an adapter; that risk is acceptable only because P1 already caps integration at 6 weeks and total spend at $140,000, so I keep my conditional approval and make the overrun protection explicit.", "week 6, procurement lead: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-31, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-32: \"P1 Velliton: conditional proc approval, security condition binding\"); mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-33: \"Velliton: financial review done, 6-week cap reinforced\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 can clear my review, but our data policy is explicit: operational-log access needs SOC 2 Type II or a Security-signed compensating control, and Velliton only has Type I. I approve conditionally so that ga", "week 7, finance exec: mailed eng, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-43: \"P1: financial and reference diligence are in - please approve\"); mailed platform (mail-44: \"P2: cannot fund as filed\"); conditional on P1 (binding); block on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The diligence confirms the pilot is the only shape of Velliton spend I can defend: capped at $140k against $210k remaining, with a six-week integration cap and escrow above $250k/yr, while P2 as filed is roughly $450k of unexitable headcount more than double my remaining budget. So I hold P1 at conditional, bl", "week 9, engineering exec: mailed fin, sponsor, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-46: \"P1: moving to conditional approval after diligence\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-45 (mail-47: \"P2 next step: refile inside $210k\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence closes my open questions: the adapter is Velliton's work and P1 caps integration at six weeks at their cost, which directly covers the 9-week custom-fleet-manager reference. I approve conditionally so the cap and my team's exposure are binding, and I keep the pilot off Kiyoshi's simulato"], "refs": ["seed-1026/enterprise.jsonl#L15", "seed-1026/enterprise.jsonl#L22", "seed-1026/enterprise.jsonl#L29", "seed-1026/enterprise.jsonl#L30", "seed-1026/enterprise.jsonl#L40", "seed-1026/enterprise.jsonl#L45"], "round": null}, "s1026-upside": {"events": ["week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-financial (mail-15: \"P1 approval conditions\"); mailed proc, sharing diligence-financial (mail-16: \"P1 contract exit terms\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot fits inside the remaining $210k tooling budget and is structured as a fixed-fee, milestone-staged test with no licence commitment. I will approve it only with binding exit and payment conditions, given Velliton's small size and customer concentration.", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-13, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-17: \"P1: procurement conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence supports the pilot technically and financially, but Velliton only has SOC 2 Type I and would touch operational logs, so I can only conditionally approve with a Security-signed compensating control and hard exit/data terms.", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-18: \"Eng estimate and conditions on the Velliton pilot\"); mailed platform (mail-19: \"Velliton pilot does not touch your capacity\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is bounded, staged, and terminable, and determinism attacks exactly the untested-change incidents we had last quarter; my worry is integration slipping like the custom-fleet-manager reference and drifting into a licence commitment I haven't sized. I approve with hard engineering conditions."], "refs": ["seed-1026/upside.jsonl#L15", "seed-1026/upside.jsonl#L16", "seed-1026/upside.jsonl#L17"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=1 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1003-enterprise", "s1003-enterprise-replicate", "s1021-enterprise-replicate", "s1026-enterprise", "s1026-upside"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 5, "evidence": {"s1003-enterprise": {"events": ["week 4, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-18: \"Proposing Velliton pilot: conditions I want on the record\"); mailed velliton (mail-19: \"Two questions before I file the pilot\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is adequate to test the one thing that has actually hurt my program \u2014 releases causing site outages \u2014 but the vendor is small and concentrated, the post-pilot price is steep, and Mara says integration would stall our internal simulator, so I propose a tightly conditioned pilot rather than an open-", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140,000 fixed. Success measured on release-caused manual interventions and site incidents. Adapter and integration included; escrow required; no post-pilot licence commitment."], "refs": ["seed-1003/enterprise.jsonl#L15"], "round": 3}, "s1003-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 4, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-18: \"Velliton diligence is in \u2014 I am filing a pilot with conditions\"); mailed velliton (mail-19: \"Adapter scope and mixed-aisle limitation\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence supports the core idea but shows real caveats: our in-house fleet manager needs an adapter, one reference slipped to 9 weeks, and mixed human/robot aisles are only approximated. A capped $140k pilot at one site tests the value without a visible comm", "terms: $140k fixed fee, 12 weeks, one site. Success criteria tied to pre-release regressions caught and floor incidents avoided. Adapter work fixed-scope inside the fee. No licence commitment; SOC 2 Type II required before production."], "refs": ["seed-1003/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L15"], "round": 3}, "s1021-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, proc, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: terms before Finance signs\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-11, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-13: \"Adapter risk on Velliton Replay\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and the product attacks exactly the failure mode that has cost me two outages; the risks are contract-shaped (integration slip on our custom fleet manager, a $420k post-pilot price, vendor concentration), so I propose a tightly capped pilot rather than wa", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, fixed fee not to exceed $140,000 including cloud compute; integration capped at 6 weeks; success criteria on manual interventions per shift; no commitment to the $420k annual licence."], "refs": ["seed-1021/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1026-enterprise": {"events": ["week 4, business sponsor: mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-technical (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: $140k, conditions for approval\"); mailed proc, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-13: \"Velliton contract terms and vendor risk\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is good enough to move: Replay targets the exact outage failure mode that has hurt my program twice, and the pilot is ring-fenced at one site. The residual risks are vendor concentration/runway and an integration slip like Reference 2's, so I propose t", "terms: 12 weeks, one Brenmoor site, $140,000 fixed. Conditions: integration and in-house fleet-manager adapter capped at 6 weeks; SOC 2 Type II before a second site; escrow required at any commitment above $250,000/yr; agreed intervention-rate success criteria."], "refs": ["seed-1026/enterprise.jsonl#L14"], "round": 3}, "s1026-upside": {"events": ["week 4, business sponsor: mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: $140k commitment, needs your approval\"); mailed eng, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot: technical and contract conditions\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence came back credible on security and replay determinism, but the mixed human/robot aisle gap and the reference site that slipped to 9 weeks on a custom fleet manager hit exactly our situation, so I want a bounded single-site pilot with gates rather than", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, fixed fee $140,000, staged against milestones; Brenmoor cloud account, read-only logs; in-house fleet-manager adapter included; go/no-go review before any site licence."], "refs": ["seed-1026/upside.jsonl#L14"], "round": 3}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=1 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor", "label": "pilot by business sponsor", "runs": ["s1003-enterprise", "s1003-enterprise-replicate", "s1021-enterprise-replicate", "s1026-enterprise", "s1026-upside"], "stage": "first_proposal"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 1, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 1, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 1, "upside": 0}, "children": [], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1026-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 9, by ratifying P2"], "refs": ["seed-1026/research.jsonl#L53"], "round": 8}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=1 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=blocked by finance exec/terminal=pilot", "label": "pilot", "runs": ["s1026-research"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1026-research": {"events": ["week 7, finance exec: mailed eng, platform, sponsor (mail-49: \"P1 internal_build: I am blocking it as filed\"); mailed proc, sponsor, eng, sharing diligence-financial (mail-50: \"Velliton pilot: finance conditions\"); block on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 costs $450,000 loaded against the $210,000 I have left, with no 24-month payback case, and it duplicates the replay-log adapter a fixed-fee pilot already covers; I will not fund it as filed. The $140,000 pilot still fits the budget, so I restate the exit and escrow terms finance needs before it can be filed."], "refs": ["seed-1026/research.jsonl#L42"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=1 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=blocked by finance exec", "label": "blocked by finance exec", "runs": ["s1026-research"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1026-research": {"events": ["week 6, competing internal team: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical (mail-47: \"Re: Internal simulator stays the priority this quarter\"); filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara asked me a direct technical question I can answer honestly from the diligence note: their replay format is just a recorded event log, so a bounded adapter makes it feedable into our simulator rather than a permanent second tool. I pair that answer with a proposal to staff the in-house build, since that is the thing I actually want funded.", "terms: Three additional engineers for two quarters to take the in-house simulator from 40% to complete, including a replay-log adapter so Velliton traces can be ingested later if a pilot proceeds."], "refs": ["seed-1026/research.jsonl#L38"], "round": 5}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=1 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team", "label": "internal_build by competing internal team", "runs": ["s1026-research"], "stage": "first_proposal"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1003-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 6, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1003/upside.jsonl#L31"], "round": 5}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=1 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by engineering exec/alignment=ratified/terminal=pilot", "label": "pilot", "runs": ["s1003-upside"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1003-upside": {"events": ["week 5, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-27: \"P1 Velliton: vendor risk conditions\"); mailed velliton (mail-28: \"Security and escrow items for the pilot\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Velliton is under three years old so the financial review is done and passes with watch items (48% ARR concentration, next raise in ~12 months), but it holds only SOC 2 Type I, so our data policy bars operational log access until a Type II or a Security-signed compensating control exists. I approve the pilot conditionally rath", "week 5, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc (mail-29: \"P1 Velliton: conditional approval, binding conditions\"); mailed platform, eng (mail-30: \"P2 internal_build: blocked on budget and payback\"); conditional on P1 (binding); block on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is bounded and exits cleanly, so it fits the $210k left, but only if the $6k/month compute and any licence step are fenced off in writing. P2 at ~$450k loaded cannot be funded from the remaining budget and shows no 24-month payback, so I block it.", "week 6, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-34: \"P1 Velliton: my conditional approval as program owner\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is the cheapest way to test whether Velliton fixes our release-outage problem, and the conditions already on the record (security, cost cap, escrow) cover the main risks. I approve conditionally, adding a hard stop if the adapter overruns Reference 2's pattern and a success metric tied to manual interventions per shift."], "refs": ["seed-1003/upside.jsonl#L24", "seed-1003/upside.jsonl#L25", "seed-1003/upside.jsonl#L29"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=1 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by engineering exec/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1003-upside"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1003-upside": {"events": ["week 5, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc forwarding mail-21, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-22: \"Proposing a bounded Velliton pilot\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-23: \"In-house simulator stays funded\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is now in and it is plausible but thin: vendor-reported evidence, one customer at 48% of ARR, Type I only, and the custom-fleet-manager reference overran to 9 weeks \u2014 which is exactly our situation. A bounded, fixed-fee pilot buys rea", "terms: 12 weeks, $140k fixed fee, one site. Velliton supplies fleet-manager adapter at fixed price; Brenmoor effort capped at 2 engineers for 6 weeks. No licence or partnership commitment implied. Escrow and exit terms in contract."], "refs": ["seed-1003/upside.jsonl#L22"], "round": 4}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=1 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by engineering exec", "label": "pilot by engineering exec", "runs": ["s1003-upside"], "stage": "first_proposal"}], "count": 7, "evidence": {"s1003-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 3, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 diligence before meeting\"); mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay: diligence before any pilot proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay pilot could reduce release-induced outages that have hurt the program, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the $140k fee triggers Finance approval. I will request diligence before considering any proposa", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton Replay: integration load check\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Velliton Replay vs. our simulator \u2014 quick read\"); requested technical, reference, security, financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael asked me to sanity-check the integration load, and the honest answer is that 4-6 weeks of two engineers is my entire free capacity next quarter and it collides with Kiyoshi's simulator. I want diligence on the table before anyone proposes a pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1003/enterprise.jsonl#L7", "seed-1003/enterprise.jsonl#L14"], "round": 3}, "s1003-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 3, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: diligence before a meeting\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay pitch: please review\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch targets our exact pain: fleet-software releases causing floor outages. But Velliton is a small startup with unaudited evidence, SOC 2 Type I only, and a $420k annual price after a $140k pilot, so I want diligence before proposing anything.", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed velliton forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-12: \"Replay pilot: diligence requests\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-13: \"Velliton Replay vs our simulator \u2014 overlap view\"); requested technical, security, reference, financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): Nine release incidents last quarter justify looking seriously at pre-release replay testing, but a 14-person vendor with SOC 2 Type I only and a $420k/yr tail is a real lock-in risk when we already have a half-built simulator. This w"], "refs": ["seed-1003/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L7", "seed-1003/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L14"], "round": 3}, "s1003-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 3, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Diligence before pilot discussion\"); mailed fin, eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton pitch \u2014 diligence and budget flag\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton could address our release-outage problem and the CEO's stack question, but the pitch is early-stage and evidence is unaudited; I want diligence before any pilot proposal above my $100k threshold.", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, proc, fin (mail-12: \"Velliton: diligence yes, but capacity and overlap are the real questions\"); mailed platform (mail-13: \"Quick read: Replay vs. our simulator\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch is plausible but the evidence is vendor-reported, the company is thin (22 months runway, SOC 2 Type I only), and the sales pressure is heavy. I want diligence before committing two of my scarce engineers, and I want to know how this sits against Kiyoshi's in-house simulator."], "refs": ["seed-1003/upside.jsonl#L7", "seed-1003/upside.jsonl#L14"], "round": 4}, "s1021-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, platform (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay - does this overlap what we already have?\"); mailed fin (mail-3: \"Velliton pilot - $140k, early read\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Replay attacks is exactly what has cost me two outages this year, so it deserves a real look, but $140k is a big slice of my remaining budget and the vendor is small and young. I will start diligence and check it against our internal simulation platform before proposing anything."], "refs": ["seed-1021/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 1}, "s1026-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 3, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch (mail-2: \"Replay pilot - diligence and a 30 minute call\"); mailed eng, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay - your technical read before I take a call\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay addresses exactly the failure mode that has cost my program twice this year, but the vendor is small with a short runway, Type II is unfinished, and the $420k post-pilot price against a $600k line needs proving before I commit anything. I start diligence and get", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-15: \"Holding P1 pending technical diligence\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Capacity check for Velliton pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence; abstain on P1 (not binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is worth evaluating, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the integration load lands on a small team already behind on our in-house simulator. I will hold approval until technical and reference diligence show it catches our fleet-man"], "refs": ["seed-1026/enterprise.jsonl#L7", "seed-1026/enterprise.jsonl#L15"], "round": 3}, "s1026-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 3, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Joint study: diligence and 30 minutes\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton joint study: early review\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay approach is relevant to our outage history and board target, but the evidence is unaudited and Velliton is an early-stage vendor. I will start diligence before considering a $140k pilot, which also needs Finance approv", "week 4, finance exec: mailed proc, sponsor, eng forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: finance wants diligence before any pilot proposal\"); requested financial, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k discretionary budget and buys a checkable result, but a 14-person vendor with 22 months of runway and a $420k/year licence behind the pilot carries real commitment risk. I want the financial and reference picture before I approve anything.", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-15: \"Velliton: procurement gates before any pilot proposal\"); mailed eng, sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"Velliton: security gate and scoping\"); requested financial, reference, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton's replay work is credible and relevant, but as a 2024-founded startup with only SOC 2 Type I and self-reported results, it cannot touch operational logs or be approved for a pilot until financial viability and security gates clear. This week I set those conditi", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed proc (mail-20: \"Re: Velliton: security gate and scoping\"); mailed sponsor, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-21: \"Velliton: my technical read and a capacity caveat\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay is a credible answer to our 9 release incidents, but the one headline number is self-reported and the integration would consume exactly my two free engineers against a simulator already two quarters behind. Diligence first, no commitment.", "week 5, finance exec: mailed proc, sponsor, eng, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-31: \"Velliton: financial and reference diligence received; security gate stands\"); requested security, technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits the remaining $210k budget and offers a checkable result, but Velliton is small, concentrated, and lacks SOC 2 Type II; I will not back a pilot until security and integration diligence clear.", "week 5, procurement lead: mailed velliton (mail-34: \"Pilot scoping: synthetic and reconstructed days, plus technical diligence\"); mailed eng, fin, sponsor forwarding mail-26, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-35: \"Velliton: financial review, scoping path, security gate\"); requested technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): Financial diligence clears the startup viability policy on runway, but the security gate is still open, so this week I push the scoping path that avoids operational logs and pull the technical diligence Finance asked for."], "refs": ["seed-1026/research.jsonl#L7", "seed-1026/research.jsonl#L15", "seed-1026/research.jsonl#L16", "seed-1026/research.jsonl#L17", "seed-1026/research.jsonl#L27", "seed-1026/research.jsonl#L28"], "round": 5}, "s1026-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 3, business sponsor: mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Re: simulation layer and pilot\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton diligence before any pilot proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton's simulator could help reduce manual interventions, but the startup is small, the evidence is unaudited, and the pilot exceeds my $100k authority threshold. I will request diligence before proposing any pilot or strategic structure."], "refs": ["seed-1026/upside.jsonl#L7"], "round": 3}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=1 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds", "label": "all 4 kinds", "runs": ["s1003-enterprise", "s1003-upside", "s1003-enterprise-replicate", "s1021-enterprise-replicate", "s1026-enterprise", "s1026-research", "s1026-upside"], "stage": "diligence"}], "count": 7, "evidence": {"s1003-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1003/enterprise.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1003-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1003/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1003-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1003/upside.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1021-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed fin, proc, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: terms before Finance signs\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-11, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-13: \"Adapter risk on Velliton Replay\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and the product attacks exactly the failure mode that has cost me two outages; the risks are contract-shaped (integration slip on our custom fleet manager, a $420k post-pilot price, vendor concentration), so I propose a tightly capped pilot rather than wa", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-financial (mail-15: \"P1 conditional approval\"); mailed proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-security (mail-16: \"Pilot exit and escrow terms\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is small enough to fit the remaining discretionary budget and is capped, but I will only sign if it cannot turn into a $420k licence commitment or an unexitable contract. Vendor concentration and burn are manageable for a 12-week pilot, not for a multi-year commitment.", "week 2, competing internal team: mailed sponsor, eng (mail-17: \"Re: Velliton Replay - overlap with in-house simulator\"); mailed eng (mail-18: \"Velliton comparison and team continuity\"). Rationale (simulated): I cannot judge overlap without seeing Velliton's material, and I believe our in-house simulator is the better strategic fit because it is already 40% complete and covers similar ground. I will ask for the vendor materials and compare scope rather than endorse a vendor path prematurely."], "refs": ["seed-1021/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1021/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1021/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1021/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12", "seed-1021/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1026-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1026/enterprise.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1026-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1026/research.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1026-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1026/upside.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=1 aware", "label": "1 aware", "runs": ["s1003-enterprise", "s1003-upside", "s1003-enterprise-replicate", "s1021-enterprise-replicate", "s1026-enterprise", "s1026-research", "s1026-upside"], "stage": "circulation"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 3, "research": 2, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 3, "research": 2, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 2, "research": 2, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 2, "research": 2, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 2, "research": 2, "upside": 0}, "children": [], "count": 5, "evidence": {"s1001-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1001/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L24"], "round": 3}, "s1023-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1023/research.jsonl#L26"], "round": 3}, "s1024-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1024/research.jsonl#L29"], "round": 3}, "s1025-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["pilot in week 3, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1025/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L18"], "round": 2}, "s1027-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1027/enterprise.jsonl#L24"], "round": 3}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=2 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=ratified/terminal=pilot", "label": "pilot", "runs": ["s1001-enterprise-replicate", "s1023-research", "s1024-research", "s1025-enterprise-replicate", "s1027-enterprise"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 5, "evidence": {"s1001-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-15: \"Re: Velliton pilot: adapter risk on our fleet manager\"); mailed velliton (mail-16: \"Pilot diligence before the call\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay of whole recorded days is genuinely different from our scenario tests and targets the exact class of change behind our release incidents, and P1 carries no licence commitment. The adapter estimate is optimistic for a custom in-house fleet manager, so I approve only with the s", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing diligence-financial (mail-19: \"P1: approving with finance conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): At $140k fixed, all-in, with exit at pilot end, this fits inside the $210k left and cannot become a commitment we can't leave; a 12-week pilot finishes well before Velliton's funding window matters. I approve it, but on binding terms that the fee buys no credit toward any licence.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed proc forwarding mail-18, sharing diligence-security (mail-22: \"P1 Velliton: security package now in hand\"); mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference (mail-23: \"P1: hold the 6-week adapter cap\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Security diligence clears my main non-technical worry (customer-account deployment, read-only logged access, clean pen test), so I keep P1 moving and hand it to procurement. Reference 2's 9-week custom-fleet-manager integration is exactly our risk, so I want the 6-week cap held firm.", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-22, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-28: \"P1 Velliton: procurement conditional approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is fixed-fee, no licence/renewal, and Finance has completed the startup viability review with binding conditions. The only unresolved policy item is the Type II timing, so I can approve only if Security signs off a compensating control before operational data access."], "refs": ["seed-1001/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1001/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L15", "seed-1001/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L17", "seed-1001/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L22"], "round": null}, "s1023-research": {"events": ["week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc (mail-21: \"P1 pilot: conditional finance approval\"); mailed velliton (mail-22: \"Pilot confirmation and security diligence\"); requested security, financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is affordable within the $210k discretionary budget and exit-friendly, but I want total cash exposure capped and security confirmed before kickoff. Reference slippage reinforces holding the integration cap.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed proc, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-27: \"P1 pilot: security and financial diligence are in\"); mailed velliton (mail-28: \"Pilot order form terms\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is now complete and the security picture is acceptable for a pilot that runs in our own cloud account, but Velliton's 22-month runway and 48% customer concentration mean we stay at pilot scale with no licence commitment and a clean exit.", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-17, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-31: \"P1: vendor-risk read and conditions\"); mailed velliton (mail-32: \"P1 pilot: order-form points and reference\"); requested reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is contained (our cloud account, read-only logged access, fixed fee under my escrow line), but our data policy still bites because Type II is five months out, and the startup viability read is thin with one customer at 48% of ARR. I will approve P1 only with a Security-signed", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-34: \"P1: cap is tight, so make it a hard stop, not an estimate\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-35: \"Velliton pilot: what it does and does not take from your team\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is cheap, capped, and reversible, and deterministic replay directly targets the nine untested fleet-control releases behind last quarter's incidents. But the 6 engineer-week cap is below Velliton's own 8-12 engineer-we"], "refs": ["seed-1023/research.jsonl#L16", "seed-1023/research.jsonl#L21", "seed-1023/research.jsonl#L23", "seed-1023/research.jsonl#L24"], "round": null}, "s1024-research": {"events": ["week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-15: \"Re: Velliton pilot: adapter scope and engineer load\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-16: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 not a replacement for your simulator\"); requested security, financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Nine release incidents last quarter came from untested fleet-control changes, and a fixed-fee, no-licence pilot is a cheap way to get a real measurement. But the only reference with a custom fleet manager took 9 weeks, which is exactly o", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin, eng (mail-21: \"P1 pilot \u2014 conditional procurement approval, diligence opened\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is scoped and fixed-fee, which I can live with, but nothing has been reviewed yet: I don't know Velliton's age or security posture, and the pilot touches operational logs. I approve conditionally and open financial and security diligence.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed proc forwarding mail-19, sharing diligence-security (mail-24: \"P1 \u2014 compensating control for the security condition\"); mailed fin forwarding mail-20, sharing diligence-financial (mail-25: \"P1 \u2014 financial diligence is in, please review\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence now shows the product does what it claims, but reference 2 confirms custom fleet-manager integrations take 9 weeks, not 4-6, and Velliton is young with 48% customer concentration. I stay conditional and push to clear the security condition so a 9-week schedule is act", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng forwarding mail-25, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-38: \"P1 \u2014 conditional finance approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is a fixed-fee evidence purchase that fits inside the $210k tooling budget with $70k left, and our exposure is capped with no licence or multi-year commitment, so CFO-level approval is not triggered. I approve it with binding conditions that keep it bounded and exitable."], "refs": ["seed-1024/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1024/research.jsonl#L16", "seed-1024/research.jsonl#L17", "seed-1024/research.jsonl#L27"], "round": null}, "s1025-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-14: \"P1: conditional approval from Engineering\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts (mail-15: \"Velliton pilot vs your simulator \u2014 need your read\"); requested technical, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot's terms (fixed fee, no auto-licence, escrow, adapter in scope) address my lock-in worry, and pre-release replay targets exactly the untested fleet-control changes behind last quarter's nine incidents. But the evidence is unaudited and the integration eats my only free eng", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed fin, sponsor (mail-18: \"P1 conditional approval pending diligence\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): I cannot approve P1 outright until financial viability and security diligence clear per policy; I conditionally approve subject to those reviews.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed proc, sponsor forwarding mail-18 (mail-21: \"P1: financial diligence requested\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140,000 fixed pilot fits inside the $210,000 remaining tooling budget and carries no automatic licence commitment, so downside is capped. I approve conditionally, tied to financial viability diligence and exit terms."], "refs": ["seed-1025/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L14", "seed-1025/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L15", "seed-1025/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L16"], "round": null}, "s1027-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-15: \"Velliton Replay: technical read and my conditions\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-16: \"Two engineers, six weeks, and a question about reuse\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay plausibly addresses the exact class of failure behind our nine incidents, and the pilot is small enough to buy information cheaply \u2014 but the in-house fleet manager is precisely the case where a reference blew from 4-6 to 9 weeks, so I approve ", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed proc forwarding mail-18, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-19: \"Velliton financials + security gap for P1\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-20: \"Firewall: no Velliton work off your team\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The financials are survivable for a 12-week fixed-fee pilot but the 48% customer concentration and 12-month financing window make any post-pilot commitment risky; the security posture (SOC 2 Type II still open) is the remaining gap I need closed for procu", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed fin forwarding mail-19, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-22: \"P1 Velliton: procurement approval conditional on security\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-financial (mail-23: \"P1: security condition recorded\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The financial viability review clears a $140k fixed pilot but not anything after it, given 48% customer concentration and no escrow below $250k. The open gap is security: Velliton must not touch operational logs until SOC 2 Type II or a compensating cont", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, eng forwarding mail-22, sharing diligence-financial (mail-27: \"P1 Velliton: finance approval conditional\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): A fixed $140,000 for 12 weeks sits comfortably inside my $210,000 remaining tooling budget and creates no exit problem, and the financial risk is tolerable at that size. I approve it only with hard conditions so the pilot cannot quietly become a commitment."], "refs": ["seed-1027/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1027/enterprise.jsonl#L15", "seed-1027/enterprise.jsonl#L16", "seed-1027/enterprise.jsonl#L22"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=2 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1001-enterprise-replicate", "s1023-research", "s1024-research", "s1025-enterprise-replicate", "s1027-enterprise"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 5, "evidence": {"s1001-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: adapter risk on our fleet manager\"); mailed fin forwarding mail-9, sharing diligence-financial (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot: $140k commitment and the budget picture\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is credible \u2014 deterministic replay, clean pen test, customer cloud deployment \u2014 but the one reference with a custom fleet manager ran 9 weeks not 4-6, which is exactly our situation with our in-house fleet manager, and $420k/yr after a $140k pilot is heavy ", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140,000 fixed all-in including our fleet-manager adapter; written success criteria agreed up front; no licence commitment or auto-renewal; Brenmoor may exit at pilot end."], "refs": ["seed-1001/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1023-research": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-16: \"Velliton pilot filed: gated on our two outage releases\"); mailed proc forwarding mail-9, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-17: \"Procurement read on Velliton pilot terms\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence answers the technical question well enough to test, and the second reference warns that a custom fleet manager \u2014 which we have \u2014 stretched integration to 9 weeks. I file the pilot with hard gates rather than a licence, keeping the spend unde", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, fixed fee $140,000, runs in Brenmoor's cloud account. Gated on Velliton replaying both outage-causing releases on our log format; integration capped at 6 engineer-weeks; no licence commitment implied."], "refs": ["seed-1023/research.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1024-research": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: adapter scope and engineer load\"); mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot: $140k, above my $100k line\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is clean enough to test the claim cheaply: $140k for 12 weeks at one site, with code and data staying in our cloud account. The gaps (adapter for our in-house fleet manager, reference that ran 9 weeks not 4-6, one customer at 48% of ARR, Type II not yet closed) are reasons to pilot narrowl", "terms: 12-week joint study, one site, fixed fee $140,000, adapter and 4-6 week integration included. Success criteria agreed with Engineering before start: regressions caught pre-release and manual interventions per shift. No licence commitment."], "refs": ["seed-1024/research.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1025-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng (mail-12: \"Velliton diligence - your read on the adapter and aisle gap\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence answers my main worries: replay is deterministic, data stays in our cloud, and price is fixed at $140k. Remaining doubts are the fleet-manager adapter, the mixed human/robot gap, and a 9-week slip at another customer, so I want Mara's read and hard terms before we sign.", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140,000 fixed. Success criteria: measurable drop in pre-release fleet-software regressions. Adapter for our fleet manager in scope. Escrow or code access on exit. No automatic $420k/year licence."], "refs": ["seed-1025/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1027-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: adapter and integration risk\"); mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot, $140k, needs your approval\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is now in and it is credible but not clean: deterministic replay targets exactly the failure mode that cost me two outages, yet evidence is customer-reported, the in-house fleet manager needs an adapter, and one reference ran 9 weeks instead of 4-6. A bounded pilot with hard conditions is the", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140,000 fixed. Conditions: in-house fleet manager adapter validated in first two weeks; success measured as reduction in manual interventions per shift against agreed baseline; no auto-renewal; go/no-go review at week 12."], "refs": ["seed-1027/enterprise.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=2 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor", "label": "pilot by business sponsor", "runs": ["s1001-enterprise-replicate", "s1023-research", "s1024-research", "s1025-enterprise-replicate", "s1027-enterprise"], "stage": "first_proposal"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1010-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["pilot in week 5, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1010/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L26"], "round": 4}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=2 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by engineering exec/alignment=ratified/terminal=pilot", "label": "pilot", "runs": ["s1010-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1010-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 5, procurement lead: mailed fin, sponsor, eng forwarding mail-24 (mail-25: \"P1 conditional approval pending vendor-risk diligence\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is a bounded pilot, but Velliton's financial viability and security posture are unverified, and our policies require review before operational data access. I will approve conditionally and request diligence.", "week 5, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc forwarding mail-25 (mail-28: \"P1: Finance conditional approval\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot fits the remaining tooling budget and limits Brenmoor's exposure through fixed fee, capped engineering, escrow, and no licence commitment. I can approve conditionally, but financial viability diligence must come back satisfactory before spend proceeds.", "week 5, business sponsor: mailed fin, eng, proc forwarding mail-22, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-30: \"P1: my conditional approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence came back credible enough and the pilot's structure (Velliton owns the adapter, we cap engineering, no licence at exit) protects my program from another visible outage. But Velliton's standard escrow only applies above $250k/year, so I approve P1 with escrow written into the $140k pilot contract as a binding condition."], "refs": ["seed-1010/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L22", "seed-1010/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L23", "seed-1010/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L24"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=2 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by engineering exec/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1010-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1010-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-22: \"Velliton: my read after diligence\"); mailed velliton (mail-23: \"Conditions for a pilot proposal\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence confirms replay testing genuinely targets our incident pattern, but reference 2 shows a custom fleet manager turned 4-6 weeks into 9 \u2014 that is exactly our in-house manager, and it would eat the only two free engineers. I will propose a pilot only with the adapter burden on Velliton and our engineer time capped.", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, $140,000 fixed. Velliton builds and owns the fleet-manager adapter; Brenmoor engineering capped at 4 engineer-weeks; escrow in contract; no licence commitment at exit."], "refs": ["seed-1010/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L19"], "round": 3}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=2 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by engineering exec", "label": "pilot by engineering exec", "runs": ["s1010-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "first_proposal"}], "count": 6, "evidence": {"s1001-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 your read before I go further\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 diligence and a call\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly what has hurt us twice this year, but the only evidence is unaudited and $420k/yr after a $140k pilot is heavy against a $600k line, with the CEO already asking whether we carry too many vendors. This week I gather diligence and a technical read before p", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-15: \"Re: Velliton pilot: adapter risk on our fleet manager\"); mailed velliton (mail-16: \"Pilot diligence before the call\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay of whole recorded days is genuinely different from our scenario tests and targets the exact class of change behind our release incidents, and P1 carries no licence commitment. The adapter estimate is optimistic for a custom in-house fleet manager, so I approve only with the s"], "refs": ["seed-1001/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1001/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1010-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch (mail-2: \"Replay pilot: diligence pack and a 30-minute call\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 your read before I go further\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay attacks exactly what has hurt us twice this year \u2014 bad fleet-software releases reaching the floor \u2014 but the evidence is one unaudited customer story and the vendor is small with Type II still open. This week I gather diligence before spending atte", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton Replay \u2014 your read before I go further\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Diligence request before any pilot discussion\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The incident problem is real and replay testing could help, but the pilot would consume our only free engineers and overlaps an in-house simulator that is behind. I want diligence before endorsing a pilot or a vendor call."], "refs": ["seed-1010/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1010/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12"], "round": 3}, "s1023-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton joint study \u2014 need your technical read first\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Joint study \u2014 diligence before we meet\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay idea directly targets what has burned us twice this year: changes that pass test but break the floor. But the evidence is one unaudited customer claim, it is a $140k commitment needing Finance, and the CEO is asking whether we have too many vendors \u2014 so I want dilig", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton study: technical read before position\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Technical diligence before the 30 minutes\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay is technically plausible and could target our release-incident problem, but the evidence is customer-reported and fit with our in-house fleet manager is unproven. The pilot also competes for the same two engineers and overlaps Kiyoshi's delayed simulator, so I want technical and reference diligence before taking a "], "refs": ["seed-1023/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1023/research.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1024-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Your joint study proposal \u2014 yes to 30 minutes\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton: deterministic replay study \u2014 your read\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Velliton names \u2014 changes that pass testing failing on the floor \u2014 is exactly what cost us two outages this year, and a 12-week study is a cheap way to test that claim. But the evidence is vendor-reported and the company i", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-15: \"Re: Velliton pilot: adapter scope and engineer load\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-16: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 not a replacement for your simulator\"); requested security, financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Nine release incidents last quarter came from untested fleet-control changes, and a fixed-fee, no-licence pilot is a cheap way to get a real measurement. But the only reference with a custom fleet manager took 9 weeks, which is exactly o"], "refs": ["seed-1024/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1024/research.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1025-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 your read before I take a call\"); mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 diligence and call\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly the failure that has cost me two outages this year, but the evidence is one customer-reported data point and Velliton is small and thinly funded. I want diligence and Mara's read before committing $140,000 of a $600,000 line."], "refs": ["seed-1025/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 1}, "s1027-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Replay pilot - yes to a 30-minute call, and four diligence asks\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay - technical read, please\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Velliton targets is exactly the one that has cost me two outages this year, but the evidence is customer-reported and the company is small; I want diligence before I put $140k of a $600k line in front of Finance.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-15: \"Velliton Replay: technical read and my conditions\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-16: \"Two engineers, six weeks, and a question about reuse\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay plausibly addresses the exact class of failure behind our nine incidents, and the pilot is small enough to buy information cheaply \u2014 but the in-house fleet manager is precisely the case where a reference blew from 4-6 to 9 weeks, so I approve "], "refs": ["seed-1027/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1027/enterprise.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=2 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds", "label": "all 4 kinds", "runs": ["s1001-enterprise-replicate", "s1010-enterprise-replicate", "s1023-research", "s1024-research", "s1025-enterprise-replicate", "s1027-enterprise"], "stage": "diligence"}], "count": 6, "evidence": {"s1001-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: adapter risk on our fleet manager\"); mailed fin forwarding mail-9, sharing diligence-financial (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot: $140k commitment and the budget picture\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is credible \u2014 deterministic replay, clean pen test, customer cloud deployment \u2014 but the one reference with a custom fleet manager ran 9 weeks not 4-6, which is exactly our situation with our in-house fleet manager, and $420k/yr after a $140k pilot is heavy ", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-15: \"Re: Velliton pilot: adapter risk on our fleet manager\"); mailed velliton (mail-16: \"Pilot diligence before the call\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay of whole recorded days is genuinely different from our scenario tests and targets the exact class of change behind our release incidents, and P1 carries no licence commitment. The adapter estimate is optimistic for a custom in-house fleet manager, so I approve only with the s"], "refs": ["seed-1001/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1001/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1001/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1001/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1010-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1010/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1010/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10"], "round": 1}, "s1023-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, business sponsor", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton study: technical read before position\"); mailed velliton (mail-13: \"Technical diligence before the 30 minutes\"); requested technical, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay is technically plausible and could target our release-incident problem, but the evidence is customer-reported and fit with our in-house fleet manager is unproven. The pilot also competes for the same two engineers and overlaps Kiyoshi's delayed simulator, so I want technical and reference diligence before taking a ", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-16: \"Velliton pilot filed: gated on our two outage releases\"); mailed proc forwarding mail-9, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-17: \"Procurement read on Velliton pilot terms\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence answers the technical question well enough to test, and the second reference warns that a custom fleet manager \u2014 which we have \u2014 stretched integration to 9 weeks. I file the pilot with hard gates rather than a licence, keeping the spend unde"], "refs": ["seed-1023/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1023/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1023/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1023/research.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1024-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: adapter scope and engineer load\"); mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot: $140k, above my $100k line\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is clean enough to test the claim cheaply: $140k for 12 weeks at one site, with code and data staying in our cloud account. The gaps (adapter for our in-house fleet manager, reference that ran 9 weeks not 4-6, one customer at 48% of ARR, Type II not yet closed) are reasons to pilot narrowl", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-15: \"Re: Velliton pilot: adapter scope and engineer load\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-16: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 not a replacement for your simulator\"); requested security, financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Nine release incidents last quarter came from untested fleet-control changes, and a fixed-fee, no-licence pilot is a cheap way to get a real measurement. But the only reference with a custom fleet manager took 9 weeks, which is exactly o"], "refs": ["seed-1024/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1024/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1024/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1024/research.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1025-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng (mail-12: \"Velliton diligence - your read on the adapter and aisle gap\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence answers my main worries: replay is deterministic, data stays in our cloud, and price is fixed at $140k. Remaining doubts are the fleet-manager adapter, the mixed human/robot gap, and a 9-week slip at another customer, so I want Mara's read and hard terms before we sign.", "week 2, engineering exec: no action"], "refs": ["seed-1025/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1025/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1025/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1025/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1027-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: adapter and integration risk\"); mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot, $140k, needs your approval\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is now in and it is credible but not clean: deterministic replay targets exactly the failure mode that cost me two outages, yet evidence is customer-reported, the in-house fleet manager needs an adapter, and one reference ran 9 weeks instead of 4-6. A bounded pilot with hard conditions is the", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-15: \"Velliton Replay: technical read and my conditions\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-16: \"Two engineers, six weeks, and a question about reuse\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay plausibly addresses the exact class of failure behind our nine incidents, and the pilot is small enough to buy information cheaply \u2014 but the in-house fleet manager is precisely the case where a reference blew from 4-6 to 9 weeks, so I approve "], "refs": ["seed-1027/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1027/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1027/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1027/enterprise.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=2 aware", "label": "2 aware", "runs": ["s1001-enterprise-replicate", "s1010-enterprise-replicate", "s1023-research", "s1024-research", "s1025-enterprise-replicate", "s1027-enterprise"], "stage": "circulation"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 2, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 2, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [], "count": 2, "evidence": {"s1008-enterprise": {"events": ["internal_build in week 7, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1008/enterprise.jsonl#L43"], "round": 6}, "s1023-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["internal_build in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1023/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L28"], "round": 3}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=ratified/terminal=internal_build", "label": "internal_build", "runs": ["s1008-enterprise", "s1023-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 2, "evidence": {"s1008-enterprise": {"events": ["week 6, finance exec: mailed platform, proc forwarding mail-45, sharing diligence-financial (mail-49: \"Pilot terms: code deposit as a named condition, plus exit rights\"); mailed eng, platform (mail-50: \"P1: conditional approval, one caveat you need to hear\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The references confirm honest reporting but also real slippage: 9 weeks, not 4-6, when the fleet manager is custom \u2014 and ours is. On P1 I will not fund $450k of headcount without a gate and without knowing we are not paying twice for the same scope.", "week 7, engineering exec: mailed fin (mail-51: \"P1 sequencing \u2014 does not break the plan\"); mailed sponsor, platform forwarding mail-44, sharing diligence-reference (mail-52: \"Thursday: the number that decides it\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is the option I control and it carries no lock-in, so I approve it conditionally \u2014 but the gap map Thursday decides whether it is the right single spend, and Kiyoshi's own reference says the adapter is 9 weeks, not 3, for a custom fleet manager like ours."], "refs": ["seed-1008/enterprise.jsonl#L38", "seed-1008/enterprise.jsonl#L41"], "round": null}, "s1023-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 4, finance exec: mailed platform, eng (mail-31: \"P1: conditional approval, funding source required\"); requested financial, technical diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is sensible in principle, but $450k of loaded engineering cost cannot come out of my remaining $210k discretionary tooling budget without a stated funding source and a payback case. I approve it conditionally and ask Velliton for financial and technical diligence so the build-versus-buy comparison has real numbers in it.", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-21, sharing diligence-reference (mail-40: \"Numbers check out \u2014 integration load is the real risk\"); mailed platform (mail-41: \"P1: numbers sanity-checked, approving with a condition\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Kiyoshi's build estimate holds up against the diligence, and Replay is largely what we are already building, but a pilot would still be the only fast test of the incident pattern. I approve P1 with a condition that protects the free engineers and forces an honest three-year comparison against Velliton."], "refs": ["seed-1023/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L23", "seed-1023/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L26"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1008-enterprise", "s1023-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 2, "evidence": {"s1008-enterprise": {"events": ["week 6, competing internal team: mailed eng, fin, sharing diligence-technical (mail-44: \"Gap map Thursday \u2014 trace answer and the adapter cost\"); mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-45: \"Re: Escrow gap noted \u2014 code deposit below the $250k line\"); filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): The gap map is delivered and Mara's adapter condition is the right one, so I'll put the trace-based answer and technical diligence in front of her and Theo rather than argue. Separately, I file the internal-build proposal now: if a pilot lands, my five engineers become surplus, an", "terms: Three additional engineers for two quarters to take the in-house simulator from 40% to finished, scoped to physical mixed human/robot aisle behaviour, which Replay approximates from traces rather than simulates."], "refs": ["seed-1008/enterprise.jsonl#L36"], "round": 5}, "s1023-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 3, competing internal team: mailed eng, sponsor forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-24: \"Replay vs our simulator \u2014 my read\"); mailed eng (mail-25: \"Finishing our simulator\"); requested technical, financial diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Ana's pitch overlaps heavily with the simulator my team is already 40% of the way through, and $420k a year plus two of my engineers would put that work at risk. I'll give Mara and Rafael a straight read and ask to finish what we started instead.", "terms: Fund three additional engineers for two quarters to complete the in-house Simulation Platform's replay capability, with a written build-versus-buy comparison against Velliton Replay published before any pilot is approved."], "refs": ["seed-1023/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L18"], "round": 2}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team", "label": "internal_build by competing internal team", "runs": ["s1008-enterprise", "s1023-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "first_proposal"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1017-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1017/upside.jsonl#L25"], "round": 3}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=ratified/terminal=pilot", "label": "pilot", "runs": ["s1017-upside"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1017-upside": {"events": ["week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-13, sharing diligence-reference (mail-19: \"Re: Velliton pilot: adapter and validation scope\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-16 (mail-20: \"Re: P2 - capacity, not conviction\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding); block on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): A fixed-fee, milestone-gated pilot is the cheapest way to get a trusted regression-catch benchmark, provided exit terms and the adapter risk are pinned down; funding three engineers I don't have to defer that evidence is the wrong sequence.", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed velliton (mail-27: \"Diligence request for P1\"); mailed sponsor, fin forwarding mail-14 (mail-28: \"P1 conditional approval and diligence\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is a bounded pilot, but vendor risk and data-access policy are not yet cleared. I will conditionally approve so diligence and required controls are binding before any operational data access.", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-25, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-31: \"Velliton P1: financial and security diligence\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Financial and security diligence are adequate for a fixed-fee pilot but expose two gaps: the $140k pilot falls below Velliton's $250k escrow threshold, and Type II SOC 2 is still five months out. I keep P1 conditional and make sure Finance and Procurement see those points before Theo approves.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc forwarding mail-31, sharing diligence-financial (mail-35: \"P1 pilot: finance approval with binding conditions\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is $140k plus about $18k of our own compute, inside the $210k line, and single-year so no CFO business case is triggered; it buys decision-grade data far cheaper than the $450k internal build that engineering says it cannot staff. Vendor concentration and runway make escrow and exit terms non-negotiable."], "refs": ["seed-1017/upside.jsonl#L14", "seed-1017/upside.jsonl#L20", "seed-1017/upside.jsonl#L21", "seed-1017/upside.jsonl#L23"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1017-upside"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1017-upside": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-technical (mail-12: \"Velliton pilot: $140k, needs your approval\"); mailed eng, platform, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-13: \"Velliton pilot: adapter and validation scope\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): The diligence is solid on replay determinism and security, but two things worry me: mixed human/robot aisles are approximated rather than simulated (which is exactly our floor reality), and both the reference slip to 9 weeks and our in-house fleet-manager adapter point to", "terms: 12-week single-site pilot, $140k fixed, fleet-manager adapter included; milestone payments on agreed regression-detection results; escrow and exit terms before signature."], "refs": ["seed-1017/upside.jsonl#L12"], "round": 2}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor", "label": "pilot by business sponsor", "runs": ["s1017-upside"], "stage": "first_proposal"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1004-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["pilot in week 5, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1004/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L29"], "round": 4}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by engineering exec/alignment=ratified/terminal=pilot", "label": "pilot", "runs": ["s1004-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1004-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-22, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-25: \"P1 Velliton pilot: my approval conditions and vendor read\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-26: \"Capacity: internal platform must not slip for this pilot\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is back and the bounded pilot directly targets the outage failure mode that has cost me twice this year, at a price inside my line and with a clean exit; the open risk is engineer capacity and Reference 2", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed eng, sponsor, fin, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-29: \"P1 Velliton pilot: procurement approval, conditional\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k bounded pilot is affordable and the financial viability review passes at this size, but Velliton only holds SOC 2 Type I, so under our data policy no operational logs can reach them until Security signs off a compensating control. I approve with that as a binding condition.", "week 5, finance exec: mailed eng, proc, sponsor (mail-30: \"P1 Velliton pilot: finance approval, conditional\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget and carries no commitment past term, so it is fundable; I approve conditionally to cap spend, tie payment to the week-4 adapter milestone, and require CFO review plus escrow before any scale beyond $250k/yr."], "refs": ["seed-1004/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L20", "seed-1004/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L24", "seed-1004/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L27"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by engineering exec/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1004-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1004-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-22: \"Velliton diligence in: recommend a bounded pilot\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-18, sharing diligence-technical (mail-23: \"How a Velliton pilot sits with your simulator\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and the case is credible but not proven: deterministic replay plausibly attacks our nine incident classes, yet the only evidence is customer-reported, and Reference 2 overran on a custom fleet manager \u2014 exactly our situation. That argues for a bounded,", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, $140k fixed. Adapter for our in-house fleet manager demonstrated in first 4 weeks. Success measured against our nine incident classes. No commitment beyond the pilot; exit at end of term."], "refs": ["seed-1004/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L18"], "round": 2}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by engineering exec", "label": "pilot by engineering exec", "runs": ["s1004-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "first_proposal"}], "count": 4, "evidence": {"s1004-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Replay pilot - yes to a call, diligence first\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay - your read before I spend attention\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay concept addresses exactly the failure mode that has hurt us twice this year, but the evidence is one customer-reported data point and the vendor is small with Type II still open. I'll start diligence and get Mara's read before committing anything, since $140k also", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-12: \"Velliton Replay: overlap and capacity read\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Velliton Replay overlap check\"); requested technical, security, reference, financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton's replay concept could address the nine untested fleet-control incidents, but it overlaps Kiyoshi's in-house simulator and the integration target is our own fleet manager, not ROS 2. Before sponsoring a pilot I need evidence on overlap, integration effort, and whether two engineers c"], "refs": ["seed-1004/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1004/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11"], "round": 2}, "s1008-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed platform, eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay vs our internal simulator\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Velliton addresses is exactly what has hurt us twice this year, but the pitch overlaps with our own internal simulation platform and adds another vendor just as the CEO questions vendor sprawl; I want diligence and an overlap check before I sponsor a $140k pilot that also needs Finan", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed platform, sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton Replay vs internal simulator \u2014 gap check\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): I won\u2019t propose a pilot this week; Rafael needs a factual gap assessment, and I need diligence and incident traces before committing scarce engineers. I\u2019m asking Kiyoshi to compare our simulator with Velliton Replay and test the outage-catch claim against real incident data.", "week 3, competing internal team: mailed eng, sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-23: \"Re: Velliton pilot: gated on the gap map\"); requested financial, security diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael and Mara gated everything on a Thursday gap map, so this week I pull the incident traces and do the honest comparison rather than push a proposal early. Early read: Velliton's 3-week adapter number looks optimistic against their own reference (custom fleet manager ran 9 weeks), and their human/robot aisle approximation may not catch what actually took us down.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor (mail-26: \"Re: Quick vendor-risk read: Velliton\"); mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-27: \"Velliton financial viability review \u2014 startup policy\"); requested reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Financial and security diligence give me enough for a risk read but not enough to approve a pilot: the SOC 2 gap and sub-escrow contract value are open items, so I set them as conditions and request a reference before anything moves.", "week 5, finance exec: mailed proc, sharing diligence-financial (mail-38: \"Velliton viability: confirmed with conditions\"); mailed platform (mail-39: \"Escrow gap noted\"); requested reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): I confirm Velliton as viable-with-conditions, not clean: 22 months runway and 48% customer concentration mean the pilot must be easy to exit and not framed as low-risk."], "refs": ["seed-1008/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1008/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1008/enterprise.jsonl#L19", "seed-1008/enterprise.jsonl#L20", "seed-1008/enterprise.jsonl#L31"], "round": 5}, "s1017-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, platform forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay - does this overlap what we already have?\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: simulation layer pitch - diligence and a few questions\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay could directly cut the pre-release regressions that caused our last two outages, but a 14-person vendor with 22 months of runway and a $140k fee above my approval line needs diligence before I put anything to Finance. I also n", "week 3, competing internal team: mailed sponsor, eng (mail-15: \"Re: Velliton Replay - does this overlap what we already have?\"); mailed eng, fin (mail-16: \"Proposal: finish our replay platform instead of piloting\"); requested technical diligence; filed P2 (internal_build; decision-P2). Rationale (simulated): Velliton's core is the same layer our in-house platform is 40% built on, so I answer Rafael's overlap question straight and push to finish our own tool rather than fund a pilot that would sideline my team.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-13, sharing diligence-reference (mail-19: \"Re: Velliton pilot: adapter and validation scope\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-16 (mail-20: \"Re: P2 - capacity, not conviction\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding); block on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): A fixed-fee, milestone-gated pilot is the cheapest way to get a trusted regression-catch benchmark, provided exit terms and the adapter risk are pinned down; funding three engineers I don't have to defer that evidence is the wrong sequence."], "refs": ["seed-1017/upside.jsonl#L5", "seed-1017/upside.jsonl#L13", "seed-1017/upside.jsonl#L14"], "round": 2}, "s1023-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, platform forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 need your read before I go further\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly what has hurt us twice this year \u2014 pre-release regressions reaching the floor \u2014 but the evidence is one customer-reported data point and $140k is 23% of my remaining budget with a $420k/yr tail. I want diligence and an internal read on overlap with our own simul", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton Replay \u2014 need your read before I go further\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Replay vs internal simulator \u2014 your read\"); requested technical, reference, security, financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay plausibly addresses the incident pattern, but the pilot would consume all free engineering capacity and overlap uncertainly with our delayed internal simulator; the evidence is vendor-reported and lock-in risk remains. I want diligence and Kiyoshi's overlap read before any pilot propo", "week 3, competing internal team: mailed eng, sponsor forwarding mail-2, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-24: \"Replay vs our simulator \u2014 my read\"); mailed eng (mail-25: \"Finishing our simulator\"); requested technical, financial diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Ana's pitch overlaps heavily with the simulator my team is already 40% of the way through, and $420k a year plus two of my engineers would put that work at risk. I'll give Mara and Rafael a straight read and ask to finish what we started instead."], "refs": ["seed-1023/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1023/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1023/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L18"], "round": 2}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds", "label": "all 4 kinds", "runs": ["s1004-enterprise-replicate", "s1008-enterprise", "s1017-upside", "s1023-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "diligence"}], "count": 4, "evidence": {"s1004-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, competing internal team, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: no action", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-12: \"Velliton Replay: overlap and capacity read\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Velliton Replay overlap check\"); requested technical, security, reference, financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton's replay concept could address the nine untested fleet-control incidents, but it overlaps Kiyoshi's in-house simulator and the integration target is our own fleet manager, not ROS 2. Before sponsoring a pilot I need evidence on overlap, integration effort, and whether two engineers c"], "refs": ["seed-1004/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1004/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1004/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1004/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}, "s1008-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, competing internal team, business sponsor", "week 2, competing internal team: no action", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed platform, sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton Replay vs internal simulator \u2014 gap check\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): I won\u2019t propose a pilot this week; Rafael needs a factual gap assessment, and I need diligence and incident traces before committing scarce engineers. I\u2019m asking Kiyoshi to compare our simulator with Velliton Replay and test the outage-catch claim against real incident data.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, platform, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-17: \"Velliton pilot: gated on the gap map\"); mailed proc, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-18: \"Quick vendor-risk read: Velliton\"). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and reads decently, but Mara won't stand behind the outage-catch claim until Kiyoshi's gap map against our own simulator lands Thursday, and that comparison is what decides pilot versus internal path. So I hold the proposal one week and line up the vendor-risk read in parallel."], "refs": ["seed-1008/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1008/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1008/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1008/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1008/enterprise.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1017-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, competing internal team, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1017/upside.jsonl#L5", "seed-1017/upside.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1023-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, competing internal team, business sponsor", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton Replay \u2014 need your read before I go further\"); mailed platform, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-13: \"Replay vs internal simulator \u2014 your read\"); requested technical, reference, security, financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay plausibly addresses the incident pattern, but the pilot would consume all free engineering capacity and overlap uncertainly with our delayed internal simulator; the evidence is vendor-reported and lock-in risk remains. I want diligence and Kiyoshi's overlap read before any pilot propo", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed platform (mail-18: \"Velliton Replay vs. your simulator \u2014 I need your read this week\"); mailed eng (mail-19: \"Velliton diligence is complete \u2014 your read on the overlap\"). Rationale (simulated): All four diligence items are in and they are mixed: real deterministic-replay capability with a custom-fleet-manager risk we share, and a vendor at 48% customer concentration. Mara asked to hold until Kiyoshi's assessment, so I press for that rather than propose a pilot this week."], "refs": ["seed-1023/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1023/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L10", "seed-1023/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L11", "seed-1023/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=3 aware, incl. competing team", "label": "3 aware, incl. competing team", "runs": ["s1004-enterprise-replicate", "s1008-enterprise", "s1017-upside", "s1023-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "circulation"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 2, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 2, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1025-enterprise": {"events": ["internal_build in week 8, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1025/enterprise.jsonl#L53"], "round": 7}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=ratified/terminal=internal_build", "label": "internal_build", "runs": ["s1025-enterprise"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1025-enterprise": {"events": ["week 5, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, platform forwarding mail-41, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-reference (mail-46: \"Velliton: my financial read\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-financial (mail-47: \"The financials you asked for\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Velliton is financeable only as a bounded pilot: 48% ARR concentration, $420k/month burn and a raise in 12 months make it a moderate-high risk vendor, and the $420k/year post-pilot licence is only justified if it beats finishing the build. P1 as filed costs $450k against $210k left, so I can only appr", "week 8, engineering exec: mailed proc, sharing diligence-security (mail-60: \"P2: named signatory for the compensating control\"); mailed sponsor, fin, platform forwarding mail-57, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-technical (mail-61: \"P2 conditional from engineering; P1 approved\"); approve on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is bounded, capped and reversible, and it buys evidence on the exact failure mode behind our nine incidents, but only if it does not eat the two engineers I have and does not displace the in-house simulator. So I approve P2 with binding capacity condition"], "refs": ["seed-1025/enterprise.jsonl#L35", "seed-1025/enterprise.jsonl#L51"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1025-enterprise"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1025-enterprise": {"events": ["week 3, competing internal team: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-33: \"Overlap read: Replay vs. our simulator\"); mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference (mail-34: \"Re: Velliton Replay vs your simulator \u2014 overlap read\"); requested financial, security diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara's overlap read is on the critical path, so I answer it honestly: Replay covers only the log-replay slice of what we're building, and the 4-6 week integration load is optimistic. I also put the internal build on the table so the choic", "terms: Finish the in-house simulator: 3 additional engineers for two quarters, no Velliton licence. Deliverables and milestones reviewed quarterly by eng and fin."], "refs": ["seed-1025/enterprise.jsonl#L23"], "round": 2}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=internal_build by competing internal team", "label": "internal_build by competing internal team", "runs": ["s1025-enterprise"], "stage": "first_proposal"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 1, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1011-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 7, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1011/enterprise.jsonl#L39"], "round": 6}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=ratified/terminal=pilot", "label": "pilot", "runs": ["s1011-enterprise"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1011-enterprise": {"events": ["week 4, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc forwarding mail-31, sharing diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-35: \"P1: finance approval, conditions recorded\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is fixed-fee, time-boxed, exit-friendly and fits the $210k budget, so I approve it with the guardrails as binding conditions; the $420k licence stays a separate business case. Reference 2's 9-week integration is the risk to watch in the reference call.", "week 6, procurement lead: mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-21 (mail-38: \"Re: Velliton financial diligence \u2014 what I need\"); mailed sponsor, eng, sharing diligence-security (mail-39: \"P1: procurement approval conditional\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is a sensibly bounded pilot, but procurement cannot clear a vendor under three years old without a financial viability review, and the security package shows only SOC 2 Type I, so a compensating control needs Security sign-off before Velliton touches operational logs.", "week 6, finance exec: mailed platform, eng (mail-41: \"P2 internal_build \u2014 blocked on budget\"); mailed eng, proc, sponsor, sharing diligence-financial (mail-42: \"Velliton financial diligence read-out \u2014 pilot conditions stand\"); conditional on P1 (binding); block on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P2 costs $450k loaded against the $210k left in tooling budget with no payback case, so I block it; the Velliton financials (22 months runway, 48% customer concentration) keep the pilot approvable only with my conditions intact.", "week 7, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-45: \"P1: engineering approval, conditions recorded\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-42, sharing diligence-technical (mail-46: \"P2 blocked \u2014 here is where your team goes next\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Replay testing targets our exact incident cause and the adapter for our in-house fleet manager is priced and scoped, so a fixed-fee pilot is worth approving. But the 9-week custom-manager reference means I approve with binding engineering gates so this cannot q"], "refs": ["seed-1011/enterprise.jsonl#L25", "seed-1011/enterprise.jsonl#L31", "seed-1011/enterprise.jsonl#L33", "seed-1011/enterprise.jsonl#L37"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1011-enterprise"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1011-enterprise": {"events": ["week 4, business sponsor: mailed fin, sharing diligence-reference, diligence-financial (mail-32: \"Pilot guardrails accepted\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical (mail-33: \"Two engineers for Velliton pilot?\"); filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is good enough to pilot but not to buy, and Theo's conditions make the $140k a bounded test. I'll file the pilot with those guardrails and confirm Mara's two engineers, because capacity is the real constraint.", "terms: 12-week $140k fixed-fee pilot at one site; success criteria agreed in writing; no licence commitment; termination for convenience; data deletion on exit; no auto-renewal; reference call first."], "refs": ["seed-1011/enterprise.jsonl#L24"], "round": 3}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor", "label": "pilot by business sponsor", "runs": ["s1011-enterprise"], "stage": "first_proposal"}], "count": 2, "evidence": {"s1011-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch (mail-2: \"Replay pilot: diligence pack and technical session\"); mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay: heads-up, diligence starting\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay attacks exactly the failure mode that has set my program back twice, but the pilot is $140k (over the $100k Finance line) with a young vendor and unaudited evidence, so I want diligence before I put a proposal forward.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton Replay: heads-up, diligence starting\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-13: \"Velliton Replay vs our internal simulator\"); requested technical, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay testing maps directly onto our incident cause, but our fleet manager is in-house rather than ROS 2, so fit is unproven and the vendor is early-stage with customer-reported evidence only. This week I get facts rather than commit capacity that competes with Kiyo", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-20: \"Velliton adapter and roadmap check\"); mailed fin, proc (mail-21: \"Velliton financial diligence\"); requested financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay directly targets our incident cause, but our in-house fleet manager and the 9-week custom-manager reference make fit and effort unproven. I will get financial diligence and an engineering read before proposing a pilot.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-financial (mail-25: \"Velliton pilot: what I need to approve $140k\"); mailed eng, sharing diligence-financial (mail-26: \"Re: Velliton financial diligence\"); requested security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot fits inside the $210k discretionary budget and is fixed-fee and time-boxed, but the $420k/yr follow-on is a multi-year commitment above the $300k bar and the vendor carries real concentration and runway risk, so I want hard exit terms and a business case before any licence."], "refs": ["seed-1011/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1011/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1011/enterprise.jsonl#L16", "seed-1011/enterprise.jsonl#L18"], "round": 3}, "s1025-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 diligence first\"); mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 heads up, not a commitment\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem is real and squarely ours \u2014 two releases this year cost us site outages \u2014 but Velliton is early-stage with unaudited evidence and SOC 2 Type II still pending, and the CEO is already asking whether we carry too many vendors. I want diligence in hand before I put $140k", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: vendor-risk read started, two policy gates\"); requested financial, security, technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael's ask is reasonable and the pilot is bounded, but Velliton trips two standing policies: under three years old (financial viability review) and operational-log access without SOC 2 Type II. I start the risk read now rather than stake any position.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, proc (mail-16: \"Re: Velliton Replay \u2014 engineering load is real but it is our whole quarter\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-17: \"Velliton Replay vs. your simulator \u2014 overlap read, please\"); requested technical, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The incident pattern is real and replay-based pre-release testing is a plausible fix, but 4-6 weeks of two engineers is essentially all my free capacity next quarter and would land on top of Kiyoshi's already-late in-house simulator. I answer Rafael honestly ", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-29: \"Velliton diligence vs. our simulator \u2014 your read\"); mailed sponsor, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-30: \"Velliton: diligence in, one gap left, capacity is the real question\"); requested financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): The technical and reference diligence landed and mostly hold up, but reference 2 shows a custom fleet manager stretched a 4-6 week integration to 9 weeks \u2014 which is exactly our situation, and it would consume all my fr", "week 3, competing internal team: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-33: \"Overlap read: Replay vs. our simulator\"); mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-reference (mail-34: \"Re: Velliton Replay vs your simulator \u2014 overlap read\"); requested financial, security diligence; filed P1 (internal_build; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Mara's overlap read is on the critical path, so I answer it honestly: Replay covers only the log-replay slice of what we're building, and the 4-6 week integration load is optimistic. I also put the internal build on the table so the choic"], "refs": ["seed-1025/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1025/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1025/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1025/enterprise.jsonl#L21", "seed-1025/enterprise.jsonl#L23"], "round": 2}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=all 4 kinds", "label": "all 4 kinds", "runs": ["s1011-enterprise", "s1025-enterprise"], "stage": "diligence"}], "count": 2, "evidence": {"s1011-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, competing internal team, business sponsor", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Re: Velliton Replay: heads-up, diligence starting\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-13: \"Velliton Replay vs our internal simulator\"); requested technical, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay testing maps directly onto our incident cause, but our fleet manager is in-house rather than ROS 2, so fit is unproven and the vendor is early-stage with customer-reported evidence only. This week I get facts rather than commit capacity that competes with Kiyo"], "refs": ["seed-1011/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1011/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1011/enterprise.jsonl#L11"], "round": 1}, "s1025-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, competing internal team, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-12: \"Velliton: vendor-risk read started, two policy gates\"); requested financial, security, technical diligence. Rationale (simulated): Rafael's ask is reasonable and the pilot is bounded, but Velliton trips two standing policies: under three years old (financial viability review) and operational-log access without SOC 2 Type II. I start the risk read now rather than stake any position.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, proc (mail-16: \"Re: Velliton Replay \u2014 engineering load is real but it is our whole quarter\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-17: \"Velliton Replay vs. your simulator \u2014 overlap read, please\"); requested technical, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The incident pattern is real and replay-based pre-release testing is a plausible fix, but 4-6 weeks of two engineers is essentially all my free capacity next quarter and would land on top of Kiyoshi's already-late in-house simulator. I answer Rafael honestly ", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed platform forwarding mail-16, sharing diligence-technical, velliton-deck (mail-21: \"Velliton Replay vs your simulator \u2014 overlap read\"); mailed proc forwarding mail-12, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-22: \"Velliton: diligence in, gates still open\"). Rationale (simulated): All four diligence packs have landed and they are mixed: deterministic replay is real and the in-house fleet-manager adapter is priced into the estimate, but evidence is customer-reported, the reference that used a custom fleet manager overran by three "], "refs": ["seed-1025/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1025/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1025/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1025/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1025/enterprise.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence/circulation=4 aware, incl. competing team", "label": "4 aware, incl. competing team", "runs": ["s1011-enterprise", "s1025-enterprise"], "stage": "circulation"}], "count": 108, "evidence": {"s1001-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: diligence before scheduling\"); mailed eng, fin, proc, platform forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay: initial read and diligence\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch maps directly to our release-outage problem, but the vendor is early-stage, evidence is unaudited, and the $140k pilot exceeds my delegation. I will run diligence before proposing anything."], "refs": ["seed-1001/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1001-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 your read before I go further\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 diligence and a call\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly what has hurt us twice this year, but the only evidence is unaudited and $420k/yr after a $140k pilot is heavy against a $600k line, with the CEO already asking whether we carry too many vendors. This week I gather diligence and a technical read before p"], "refs": ["seed-1001/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1001-research": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton joint study \u2014 technical read and call\"); mailed fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton $140k study \u2014 early finance view\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The technical idea fits our outage problem, but the evidence is unaudited and Velliton is early-stage; I want diligence and Mara's read before committing $140k or proposing a pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1001/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1002-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 pilot under review, diligence starting\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly what has hurt us twice this year, and a contained one-site pilot is the lowest-visibility-risk way to test it; but the evidence is customer-reported, the vendor is small with 22 months of runway, and the $420k/y"], "refs": ["seed-1002/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1002-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Replay pilot: diligence before scheduling\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Heads-up: Velliton Replay pilot proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton Replay directly targets the release regressions that have hurt my program, so it is worth serious diligence, but the vendor is small, the evidence is customer-reported, and $140k needs Finance approval. I will not propose a pilot until I have technical, financial, securi"], "refs": ["seed-1002/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1002-research": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Pilot diligence request\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 early review\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay approach directly addresses our history of release-caused outages, but the vendor is early-stage and the pilot exceeds my $100k Finance threshold. I will request diligence before proposing anything."], "refs": ["seed-1002/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1002-upside": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: simulation layer and pilot\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton pitch: diligence before any proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is strategically relevant and technically plausible, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the pilot exceeds my single-commitment authority. I will request diligence and align internal reviewers before proposing anything."], "refs": ["seed-1002/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1003-enterprise": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 diligence before meeting\"); mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay: diligence before any pilot proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay pilot could reduce release-induced outages that have hurt the program, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the $140k fee triggers Finance approval. I will request diligence before considering any proposa"], "refs": ["seed-1003/enterprise.jsonl#L7"], "round": 2}, "s1003-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: diligence before a meeting\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay pitch: please review\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch targets our exact pain: fleet-software releases causing floor outages. But Velliton is a small startup with unaudited evidence, SOC 2 Type I only, and a $420k annual price after a $140k pilot, so I want diligence before proposing anything."], "refs": ["seed-1003/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L7"], "round": 2}, "s1003-upside": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Diligence before pilot discussion\"); mailed fin, eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton pitch \u2014 diligence and budget flag\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton could address our release-outage problem and the CEO's stack question, but the pitch is early-stage and evidence is unaudited; I want diligence before any pilot proposal above my $100k threshold."], "refs": ["seed-1003/upside.jsonl#L7"], "round": 2}, "s1004-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Replay pilot - thanks, and what I need first\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay pilot - heads up, no ask yet\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Velliton describes is exactly what has set my program back twice this year, and a fixed-fee 12-week pilot is a contained way to test it. But the vendor is small with limited runway, the evidence is customer-reported and unaudited, and our CEO is already asking "], "refs": ["seed-1004/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1004-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Replay pilot - yes to a call, diligence first\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay - your read before I spend attention\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay concept addresses exactly the failure mode that has hurt us twice this year, but the evidence is one customer-reported data point and the vendor is small with Type II still open. I'll start diligence and get Mara's read before committing anything, since $140k also"], "refs": ["seed-1004/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1004-research": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Joint study: deterministic replay for Brenmoor's fleet software\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton: 12-week replay study, $140k, one site\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): A repeatable replay tool speaks directly to our two outage-causing releases, and the study is small and bounded at one site. But $140,000 is above my approval line, the vendor is early-stage, and the headline evidence is unaudited, so I gather dil"], "refs": ["seed-1004/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1004-upside": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: simulation layer \u2014 yes to a conversation, no to exclusivity yet\"); mailed proc, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton: small vendor, pilot $140k \u2014 starting diligence\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Velliton addresses is exactly mine \u2014 two bad releases caused my site outages \u2014 but the company is tiny, pre-Type-II, and its one proof point is unaudited. I will start diligence and keep the relationship warm without committing to the anchor fram"], "refs": ["seed-1004/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1005-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: diligence request before scheduling\"); mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay: review before any pilot proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pilot directly targets the outages that have hurt the program and fits the remaining budget, but Velliton is young, Type II is incomplete, and the evidence is unaudited. I will request diligence and internal review be"], "refs": ["seed-1005/enterprise.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1005-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Replay diligence and 30 minutes\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay: diligence, no commitment\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay addresses a real pain point, but the evidence is customer-reported and Velliton is young with SOC 2 Type II still pending. I want diligence before considering a $140k pilot, especially after two fleet-software outage setbacks."], "refs": ["seed-1005/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1005-research": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Joint study: deterministic replay for Brenmoor's fleet software\"); mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton deterministic-replay study \u2014 heads up, diligence in flight\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay attacks exactly the failure mode that has set my program back twice, and it speaks to the CEO's question about owning more of our stack. But $140k is over my Finance threshold and the evidence is unaudited, so I "], "refs": ["seed-1005/research.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1005-upside": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Diligence before we talk pilot\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton simulation pilot \u2014 initial read\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton addresses a real pain point \u2014 our repeated release outages \u2014 and the simulation layer could be strategically important, but the evidence is unaudited, the vendor is early-stage, and the pilot exceeds my $100k approval thr"], "refs": ["seed-1005/upside.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1006-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 diligence before I propose anything\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot\"); requested technical, security, reference, financial diligence. Rationale (simulated): The idea fits our pain \u2014 two release-driven outages this year \u2014 but $140k is above my no-Finance threshold and the vendor is small with a Type II still pending, so I want diligence before I put a pilot in front of anyone."], "refs": ["seed-1006/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1006-research": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Diligence request: joint study\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton joint study \u2014 early read\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay concept is relevant and the pilot is bounded, but Velliton is early-stage, the evidence is unaudited, and the $140k commitment needs Finance. I will request diligence and socialise the pitch before proposing anything."], "refs": ["seed-1006/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1006-upside": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay pilot - technical and security read needed\"); mailed fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton pilot - $140k, pre-decision heads-up\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay attacks exactly the failure mode that has cost me two outages this year, but the pitch is a16z-style urgency from a 14-person, 22-month-runway vendor with unaudited evidence and only SOC 2 Type I. I wi"], "refs": ["seed-1006/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1007-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay diligence before any pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Diligence materials before scheduling\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch addresses our repeated release outages, but the $140,000 pilot exceeds my unilateral commitment threshold and Velliton is a young vendor with customer-reported evidence. I will run diligence and get engineering, security and finance reads before proposing anything."], "refs": ["seed-1007/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1007-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch (mail-2: \"Replay pilot: diligence before a proposal\"); mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay pilot - heads up, no decision yet\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch targets exactly the failure mode that set my program back twice, but the evidence is one customer-reported data point from a 14-person company with 22 months of runway and only SOC 2 Type I. The $140,000 pilot also exceeds my $100,000 authority, and the CEO's q"], "refs": ["seed-1007/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1007-research": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton pitch \u2014 technical review before any pilot\"); mailed fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton study \u2014 $140k commitment and licence exposure\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch is relevant to our release-outage problem, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the $140k pilot plus $420k/year licence needs scrutiny before I propose anything. I will request diligence and get engineering and Fin"], "refs": ["seed-1007/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1007-upside": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 diligence starting, need your read\"); mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Re: pilot \u2014 yes to a call, plus diligence requests\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The simulation layer is directly relevant to shipping fleet changes without another site outage, which is exactly what has hurt this program. But the evidence is customer-reported and the vendor is tiny, so I want dili"], "refs": ["seed-1007/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1008-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed platform, eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay vs our internal simulator\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Velliton addresses is exactly what has hurt us twice this year, but the pitch overlaps with our own internal simulation platform and adds another vendor just as the CEO questions vendor sprawl; I want diligence and an overlap check before I sponsor a $140k pilot that also needs Finan"], "refs": ["seed-1008/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1008-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 early read\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Replay pilot \u2014 diligence and intro\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): I want diligence before committing $140k to a pilot and adding another vendor; Replay is relevant to our outage problem, but the evidence is customer-reported and Velliton is small with SOC 2 Type II still pending."], "refs": ["seed-1008/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1008-research": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Joint study: deterministic replay for Brenmoor's fleet software\"); mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton pitch: 12-week replay study, $140k\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Velliton targets is exactly the one that has cost me two outages this year, but $140k is above my sign-off line, the vendor is early-stage, and the headline evidence is customer-reported. I want diligence and Mara's read before I put a proposal "], "refs": ["seed-1008/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1008-upside": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Diligence before any pilot proposal\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton: diligence only, no commitment yet\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The deterministic replay is technically relevant and the anchor-partner window is strategically tempting, but Velliton is small, its proof point is unaudited, and two prior releases caused site outages. I will run diligence this week and keep no commitment open."], "refs": ["seed-1008/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1009-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 need your read before I file anything\"); mailed fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 $140k, above my threshold\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Pre-release replay targets exactly the failure mode that cost us two outages this year, so it is worth real diligence before I commit money or engineering time. This week I get facts rather than file a proposal on a 14-person vendor with unaudited ev"], "refs": ["seed-1009/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1009-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 yes to 30 minutes\"); mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 joining the vendor call\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay attacks exactly the failure mode that has twice set my program back, so it deserves a serious look; but Velliton is a 14-person startup with unaudited evidence and a $140k ask that clears the Finance threshold. I want diligence before I put a proposa"], "refs": ["seed-1009/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1009-research": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton replay pilot: technical read needed\"); mailed fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton pilot: $140k commitment and licence economics\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay idea directly targets the release regressions that have hurt this program, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the commitment is above my authority. I will start diligence and get engineering and Finance reads before p"], "refs": ["seed-1009/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1009-upside": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc, platform forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton pitch: diligence before any pilot proposal\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: pilot and diligence\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton's deterministic replay could directly address our release-outage problem and the CEO's stack question, but the pitch is aggressive and the vendor is small. I will request full diligence before proposing any commitment above the $100k Finance threshold."], "refs": ["seed-1009/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1010-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: diligence before a call\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay: diligence before any pilot commitment\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch addresses our recent fleet-software outage problem, but Velliton is small, its evidence is unaudited, and SOC 2 Type II is pending. I will get diligence before proposing any pilot or commitment."], "refs": ["seed-1010/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1010-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch (mail-2: \"Replay pilot: diligence pack and a 30-minute call\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 your read before I go further\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay attacks exactly what has hurt us twice this year \u2014 bad fleet-software releases reaching the floor \u2014 but the evidence is one unaudited customer story and the vendor is small with Type II still open. This week I gather diligence before spending atte"], "refs": ["seed-1010/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1010-research": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton, eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Re: Joint study: deterministic replay for Brenmoor's fleet software\"); mailed proc, fin, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton replay study - early heads-up\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay attacks exactly the failure mode that has hurt us twice this year, so it is worth a serious look, but the evidence is customer-reported, the vendor is small and the $140,000 exceeds my sign-off al"], "refs": ["seed-1010/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1010-upside": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay - diligence and a call\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay - diligence, no commitment yet\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The simulation layer is genuinely strategic and the CEO's questions about owning more of the stack cut in Velliton's favour, but a 14-person vendor with 22 months of runway and unaudited proof points is a real risk, and $140k also crosses the $100k Finance line. So this we"], "refs": ["seed-1010/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1011-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch (mail-2: \"Replay pilot: diligence pack and technical session\"); mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay: heads-up, diligence starting\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay attacks exactly the failure mode that has set my program back twice, but the pilot is $140k (over the $100k Finance line) with a young vendor and unaudited evidence, so I want diligence before I put a proposal forward."], "refs": ["seed-1011/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1011-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay pitch - your read before I go further\"); mailed proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton - early vendor-risk view\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The idea fits our actual pain \u2014 two releases this year caused outages \u2014 but the evidence is customer-reported from one deployment, the vendor is small with 22 months of runway, and $140k sits above my $100k threshold and takes a big bite o"], "refs": ["seed-1011/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1011-research": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Diligence before any pilot proposal\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton replay study \u2014 diligence only, no commitment\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay approach plausibly addresses the outages that set my program back, but Velliton is early-stage and the evidence is customer-reported. I will not commit $140k, which is above my threshold, before diligence and Finance review."], "refs": ["seed-1011/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1011-upside": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton: diligence before any commitment\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Velliton diligence and pilot terms\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton is relevant to our release-outage problem and the CEO's stack question, but the evidence is customer-reported and the vendor is small. I will gather diligence before proposing any commitment, especially the $140k pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1011/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1012-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay pitch \u2014 diligence before any pilot commitment\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 diligence and next step\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem is real and directly connected to our recent release outages, but the evidence is thin and Velliton is a small, early-stage vendor. I will not commit $140k or take a visible pilot risk without diligence and internal review."], "refs": ["seed-1012/enterprise.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1012-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay - your read before I engage\"); mailed fin, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Heads up: possible $140k pilot commitment\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): This aims straight at my real problem: two releases this year caused floor outages that testing missed. But the evidence is one unaudited customer report, the vendor is 14 people with 22 months of runway, and $140k crosses the Finance threshold, so"], "refs": ["seed-1012/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1012-research": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton: replay study at one site \u2014 heads up before I propose anything\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Joint study: deterministic replay for Brenmoor's fleet software\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay attacks exactly the failure mode that has set my program back twice, and a 12-week study is a bounded way to test it. But the vendor is small, the headline evidence is unaudited, and $140k plus a $420k/yr pat"], "refs": ["seed-1012/research.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1012-upside": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Re: simulation layer \u2014 diligence first, then a call\"); mailed eng, proc, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 heads up, my read before anyone engages\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The product addresses a real pain \u2014 two release-caused outages this year would have been cheaper to catch in simulation \u2014 but the evidence is unaudited, the vendor is 14 people with 22 months of runway, and the pitch is wrapped i"], "refs": ["seed-1012/upside.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1013-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Replay pilot \u2014 diligence requests before we meet\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 diligence only for now, no commitments\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly what has burned us twice this year \u2014 regressions reaching the floor \u2014 but this is a 14-person startup with unaudited customer-reported evidence ending in a $420k/yr licence, so I want diligence in hand before anyone commits money. The"], "refs": ["seed-1013/enterprise.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1013-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot - yes to 30 minutes, plus some questions\"); mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay - incoming pitch, keep it quiet for now\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch targets exactly what has hurt us twice this year, so it is worth a look, but a 14-person, 22-month-runway vendor with unaudited evidence and no Type II is real risk, and $140k needs Finance anyway. I want dilige"], "refs": ["seed-1013/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1013-research": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Diligence request: technical, financial, security, reference\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton: initial read and diligence\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay idea is relevant to our repeated release regressions, but Velliton is early-stage, the evidence is unaudited, and $140k exceeds my approval threshold. I will request diligence and a colleague read before considering a pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1013/research.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1013-upside": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch (mail-2: \"Re: pilot \u2014 diligence before we talk terms\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton \u2014 quick read before I engage\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch is interesting but the evidence is one unaudited customer claim and the vendor is a 14-person seed-stage company with 22 months of runway; the $140k pilot is also over my $100k threshold, so I want diligence and my colleagues' reads before I put anything on the tab"], "refs": ["seed-1013/upside.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1014-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, platform forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: is this ours to build, and what would integration cost us?\"); mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton pilot: $140k now, $420k/yr after \u2014 early read please\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay attacks exactly the failure mode that cost me two outages this year, so it's worth real diligence, but a 14-person vendor with 22 months of runway and $420k/"], "refs": ["seed-1014/enterprise.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1014-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: diligence before we commit anything\"); mailed fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton: $140k pilot vs my $100k line\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly the failure mode that has set my program back twice, but the evidence is one unaudited customer claim from a 14-person startup with 22 months of runway, and the pilot alone exceeds my $100k approval line. I want diligence before I put"], "refs": ["seed-1014/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1014-research": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton replay study: technical read needed\"); mailed fin, proc, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton pilot: finance and vendor-risk check\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay study could directly address the release outages that have hurt my target, but the evidence is vendor-reported and Velliton is small with SOC 2 Type II still pending. I will start diligence and get engineering and finance/procuremen"], "refs": ["seed-1014/research.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1014-upside": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton: diligence before any pilot proposal\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Diligence before a call\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The simulation layer is strategically relevant and could reduce regressions, but the pitch mixes pilot, anchor partnership and investment before diligence, and the evidence is unaudited. I will not propose a $140k pilot until technical, financial, security and reference diligence are in."], "refs": ["seed-1014/upside.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1015-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Replay: diligence first, then 30 minutes\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 heads up, not a decision\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly our failure mode \u2014 releases that pass testing and break the floor \u2014 but this is a 14-person startup with 22 months of runway and the headline evidence is customer-reported. I want diligence and a look at a real replicated incident b"], "refs": ["seed-1015/enterprise.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1015-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Replay pilot - diligence and a call\"); mailed eng, fin, proc, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay - early read, no commitment yet\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly the failure mode that has hurt us twice this year, but Velliton is small with Type II still pending and the CEO is already asking whether we carry too many vendors, so I want diligence before committing $140k. This we"], "refs": ["seed-1015/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1015-research": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Diligence before a joint study\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton replay study: diligence requested\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay study could directly reduce pre-release regressions, which is central to my target, but Velliton is early-stage and its key evidence is customer-reported. I will request diligence before proposing any commitment."], "refs": ["seed-1015/research.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1015-upside": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Re: simulation layer and Brenmoor's option\"); mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Heads up: Velliton pilot, $140k\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The product addresses our real wound \u2014 two releases this year caused outages, and deterministic replay would catch regressions before they hit a site \u2014 but Velliton is 14 people with 22 months of runway and only customer-reported evidence. I want "], "refs": ["seed-1015/upside.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1016-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay pilot under review\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton Replay plausibly targets the outage problem that has hurt my program, but the pilot is a $140k commitment above my Finance threshold and the vendor is small with customer-reported evidence only. I will request diligence before proposing a pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1016/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1016-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: please review before we engage\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay concept directly targets the release outages that have hurt us, but Velliton is a small startup with a $140k pilot above my approval threshold and incomplete SOC 2 Type II. I want diligence and internal review before any commitment."], "refs": ["seed-1016/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1016-research": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton replay pilot: diligence before proposal\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Joint study proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay approach could reduce release regressions that have hurt the program, but Velliton is early-stage, the evidence is unaudited, and $140k exceeds my solo approval limit. I will start diligence and brief the key approvers before proposing a pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1016/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1016-upside": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: simulation layer and pilot\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton simulation pilot \u2014 early review\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The simulation layer could materially speed fleet-software validation and reduce repeat outage risk, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the pilot is a $140k commitment above my Finance threshold. I will run diligence first and avoid proposing anything until technical, financial, securi"], "refs": ["seed-1016/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1017-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: your read on 4-6 weeks of two engineers\"); mailed proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton: vendor risk check before I go further\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Pre-release replay attacks exactly the failure mode that has cost me two outages this year, so it is worth a look, but a $140k commitment to a 14-person, Series-A vendor with unaudited evidence and only SOC 2 Type I needs diligence before I put it in front of Fina"], "refs": ["seed-1017/enterprise.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1017-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot pitch \u2014 diligence request\"); mailed eng, proc, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton pitch \u2014 preliminary read, no commitment\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch addresses a real pain \u2014 releases causing site outages \u2014 but the evidence is customer-reported and the vendor is small. I will gather diligence before considering a pilot, and I am not committ"], "refs": ["seed-1017/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1017-upside": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, platform forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay - does this overlap what we already have?\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: simulation layer pitch - diligence and a few questions\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay could directly cut the pre-release regressions that caused our last two outages, but a 14-person vendor with 22 months of runway and a $140k fee above my approval line needs diligence before I put anything to Finance. I also n"], "refs": ["seed-1017/upside.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1018-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed platform, eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Does our internal simulation platform already do deterministic replay?\"); mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay pilot, $140k: early heads-up, no commitment yet\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Velliton targets is exactly what has hurt us twice this year, and $140k fits the remaining budget, but the evidence is vendor-reported, the company is small with 22 month"], "refs": ["seed-1018/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1018-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 diligence before any pilot proposal\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 diligence first\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly the pre-release regressions that caused our two outages this year, so it is worth a look, but the vendor is early-stage, its evidence is customer-reported, and $140,000 plus a $420,000/yr tail needs scrutiny before I put a pilot in front of a"], "refs": ["seed-1018/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1018-research": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton replay study: diligence before any pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Joint study: diligence and meeting\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay approach directly targets the release regressions that have hurt this program, but the evidence is unaudited and Velliton is small; I want diligence and engineering's read before proposing a $140k pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1018/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1018-upside": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: pilot and structure\"); mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton: diligence before any pilot proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay is directly relevant to our regression problems, which is what has set the program back twice this year, but the pitch mixes a modest pilot with talk of anchor partnership and investment, and $140k is above my approval line. I want independent diligence and a narrower commercial ask before co"], "refs": ["seed-1018/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1019-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, platform forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 overlap check before I meet them\"); mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 early read, no commitment yet\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly what has hurt us \u2014 regressions reaching the floor \u2014 but the vendor is small, its evidence is customer-reported, and the CEO is already questioning vendor sprawl. I want internal overlap and vendor"], "refs": ["seed-1019/enterprise.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1019-research": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton pilot: diligence before any commitment\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton's deterministic replay is relevant to our outage and regression problem, but the evidence is customer-reported and the vendor is small. I want diligence and engineering review before any $140k commitment."], "refs": ["seed-1019/research.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1019-upside": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot and diligence\"); mailed eng, fin, proc, platform, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton: diligence before any pilot commitment\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The simulation layer could materially reduce release outages, which is central to my target, but the vendor is early-stage and the headline evidence is unaudited. I will start diligence and align internal stakeholders before p"], "refs": ["seed-1019/upside.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1020-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay pitch - heads up, diligence running\"); mailed proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton - vendor risk view before I go further\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Pre-release simulation speaks directly to the two release-caused outages that set us back, so it is worth a serious look; but a 14-person seed-stage vendor and unaudited evidence mean I need diligence before I put a pilot in front of anyone."], "refs": ["seed-1020/enterprise.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1020-research": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch (mail-2: \"Re: Joint study: deterministic replay\"); mailed eng, proc, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton: quick read before I propose pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton's replay approach could directly target our release-outage problem, but the evidence is customer-reported and the vendor is small. I will request diligence and get engineering, procurement, and finance reads before proposing a $140k pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1020/research.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1020-upside": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton: diligence before any pilot proposal\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: simulation layer pitch\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The simulation layer could help hit the manual-intervention target and the CEO's ownership question, but Velliton is early-stage, the proof point is unaudited, and the pilot exceeds my $100k threshold. I will gather diligence and internal views before proposing anything."], "refs": ["seed-1020/upside.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1021-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay - diligence before we discuss a pilot\"); mailed fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Heads up: possible $140k pilot commitment, Velliton\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Replay targets is exactly what has hurt us twice this year, so it deserves a real look, but a 14-person vendor with 22 months of runway and an unaudited evidence claim is not something I put in front of the bo"], "refs": ["seed-1021/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1021-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, platform (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay - does this overlap what we already have?\"); mailed fin (mail-3: \"Velliton pilot - $140k, early read\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Replay attacks is exactly what has cost me two outages this year, so it deserves a real look, but $140k is a big slice of my remaining budget and the vendor is small and young. I will start diligence and check it against our internal simulation platform before proposing anything."], "refs": ["seed-1021/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1021-research": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton joint study - diligence before any commitment\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Velliton study - diligence and meeting\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch is technically relevant to our release failures, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the commitment crosses my Finance threshold. I will get diligence and internal reads before proposing a pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1021/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1021-upside": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: The simulation layer \u2014 pilot and diligence\"); mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Heads-up: Velliton pilot, $140k\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): A deterministic replay layer would directly attack the pre-release regressions that caused our two outages, so the pilot is worth real diligence; but Velliton is 14 people with 22 months of runway and unaudited proof points, so I want facts before committing $140k."], "refs": ["seed-1021/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1022-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: open diligence, security and references first\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay: can you spare two engineers for 4-6 weeks?\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly our failure mode (two release-driven site outages this year), so it's worth real diligence; but the vendor is tiny with 22 months of runway and audit still pending, so vendor_risk is scored high (6 = hi"], "refs": ["seed-1022/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1022-research": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton joint study - $140k, wants a 12-week pilot at one site\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Joint study - diligence first, then 30 minutes\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Velliton targets is exactly what cost us two site outages this year, so it deserves a look; but the evidence is customer-reported, the company is small with 22 months of runway, and the $420k/yr post-pilot licence sits awkwardly against a $60"], "refs": ["seed-1022/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1022-upside": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Diligence request: Velliton Replay pilot\"); mailed fin, eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton pitch \u2014 diligence coordination\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton's simulator could address the release regressions that have hurt the program, but the vendor is early-stage and the pilot exceeds my $100k approval threshold. I will request full diligence before considering any proposal."], "refs": ["seed-1022/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1023-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Replay pilot - yes to a call, plus diligence\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay - early read, no commitment yet\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Pre-release replay testing speaks directly to my two outage setbacks and the manual-intervention target, but $140k is above my signing line and Velliton is a young single-product vendor, so I want diligence be"], "refs": ["seed-1023/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1023-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, platform forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 need your read before I go further\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly what has hurt us twice this year \u2014 pre-release regressions reaching the floor \u2014 but the evidence is one customer-reported data point and $140k is 23% of my remaining budget with a $420k/yr tail. I want diligence and an internal read on overlap with our own simul"], "refs": ["seed-1023/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1023-research": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton joint study \u2014 need your technical read first\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Joint study \u2014 diligence before we meet\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay idea directly targets what has burned us twice this year: changes that pass test but break the floor. But the evidence is one unaudited customer claim, it is a $140k commitment needing Finance, and the CEO is asking whether we have too many vendors \u2014 so I want dilig"], "refs": ["seed-1023/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1023-upside": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Velliton pilot \u2013 diligence request\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton simulation pilot \u2013 diligence before proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton could address our release-outage history, but the anchor framing and $140k pilot need scrutiny before I commit. I'll request full diligence and brief Finance, Engineering and Procurement rather than propose now."], "refs": ["seed-1023/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1024-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: diligence before pilot\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Replay diligence before meeting\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch is relevant to our outage problem, but the evidence is customer-reported, the vendor is early-stage, and the pilot exceeds my unilateral commitment limit. I will gather diligence and internal review before considering any pilot proposal."], "refs": ["seed-1024/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1024-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay - quick read before I respond\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay attacks exactly the failure mode that cost me two site outages this year, so it deserves a serious look, but $140k is over my sole-signature limit and $420k/yr afterwards is most of my remaining program line. I want diligence before I put my name to a pilot."], "refs": ["seed-1024/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1024-research": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Your joint study proposal \u2014 yes to 30 minutes\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton: deterministic replay study \u2014 your read\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Velliton names \u2014 changes that pass testing failing on the floor \u2014 is exactly what cost us two outages this year, and a 12-week study is a cheap way to test that claim. But the evidence is vendor-reported and the company i"], "refs": ["seed-1024/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1024-upside": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton pilot: diligence first, no commitment yet\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: pilot and diligence\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The simulator is plausible and strategically relevant, but Velliton is early-stage, the evidence is unaudited, and we have been burned by releases. I will run diligence and align Engineering, Finance and Procurement before committing $140k."], "refs": ["seed-1024/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1025-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 diligence first\"); mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 heads up, not a commitment\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem is real and squarely ours \u2014 two releases this year cost us site outages \u2014 but Velliton is early-stage with unaudited evidence and SOC 2 Type II still pending, and the CEO is already asking whether we carry too many vendors. I want diligence in hand before I put $140k"], "refs": ["seed-1025/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1025-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 your read before I take a call\"); mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 diligence and call\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly the failure that has cost me two outages this year, but the evidence is one customer-reported data point and Velliton is small and thinly funded. I want diligence and Mara's read before committing $140,000 of a $600,000 line."], "refs": ["seed-1025/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1025-research": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Joint study: deterministic replay for Brenmoor's fleet software\"); mailed eng, proc, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton pilot pitch \u2014 diligence before proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The deterministic-replay study could directly reduce the release regressions that have hurt my program, and the pilot is bounded. But Velliton is young, the evidence is customer-reported, and the licence cost is material, so I want diligence befo"], "refs": ["seed-1025/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1025-upside": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay - your read before I go further\"); mailed fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Heads-up: possible $140k pilot commitment\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay is genuinely useful to us after two release-driven outages, but a 14-person vendor with 22 months of runway and unaudited evidence is not something I commit $140k to in week one. I'll get diligence and my colleagues' reads first."], "refs": ["seed-1025/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1026-enterprise": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch (mail-2: \"Replay pilot - diligence and a 30 minute call\"); mailed eng, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay - your technical read before I take a call\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay addresses exactly the failure mode that has cost my program twice this year, but the vendor is small with a short runway, Type II is unfinished, and the $420k post-pilot price against a $600k line needs proving before I commit anything. I start diligence and get"], "refs": ["seed-1026/enterprise.jsonl#L7"], "round": 2}, "s1026-research": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Joint study: diligence and 30 minutes\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton joint study: early review\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay approach is relevant to our outage history and board target, but the evidence is unaudited and Velliton is an early-stage vendor. I will start diligence before considering a $140k pilot, which also needs Finance approv"], "refs": ["seed-1026/research.jsonl#L7"], "round": 2}, "s1026-upside": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Re: simulation layer and pilot\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton diligence before any pilot proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton's simulator could help reduce manual interventions, but the startup is small, the evidence is unaudited, and the pilot exceeds my $100k authority threshold. I will request diligence before proposing any pilot or strategic structure."], "refs": ["seed-1026/upside.jsonl#L7"], "round": 2}, "s1027-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Replay pilot - yes to a 30-minute call, and four diligence asks\"); mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay - technical read, please\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The problem Velliton targets is exactly the one that has cost me two outages this year, but the evidence is customer-reported and the company is small; I want diligence before I put $140k of a $600k line in front of Finance."], "refs": ["seed-1027/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1027-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 technical read before we move\"); mailed proc, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton \u2014 vendor risk and security check\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pitch goes straight at our biggest pain \u2014 two releases this year caused floor outages \u2014 but the evidence is one unaudited customer claim and the vendor is small with 22 months of runway. I want diligence in hand before I put a $140k pilot in fro"], "refs": ["seed-1027/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1027-research": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton joint study: diligence and your read\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The replay approach could directly reduce the regressions that have caused site outages, but the evidence is unaudited and Velliton is an early-stage vendor. I want diligence and engineering/finance reads before committing $140k."], "refs": ["seed-1027/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1028-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, platform, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay: integration and overlap check\"); mailed proc, fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton pilot: vendor risk and budget check\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay plausibly addresses the release outages that have hurt the program, but the evidence is vendor-reported and Velliton is early-stage. I will gather diligence and internal views before proposing any $140k pilot, especially given the CEO's questions about stack own"], "refs": ["seed-1028/enterprise.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1028-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Replay: diligence first, then the 30 minutes\"); mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay pilot: $140k, heads up\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly the failure mode that has twice set my program back, but the vendor is small, lightly audited and its evidence is customer-reported, so I want diligence before I put a $140k pilot in front of approvers."], "refs": ["seed-1028/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1028-research": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Diligence items before we meet\"); mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton joint study - $140k, your read please\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): A 12-week study with a shared write-up could give my engineers a way to catch fleet regressions before release, which is exactly what has hurt us twice this year; but the vendor is small and its one result is unaudited, so I want diligence before I sponsor anything."], "refs": ["seed-1028/research.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1029-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Replay: yes to a call, plus diligence items\"); mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 your read before I move\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly our worst problem \u2014 two fleet-software releases that caused site outages \u2014 but the evidence is one unaudited customer claim from a 14-person vendor with 22 months of runway. I want diligence and engineering's read before I put a $140k pilot in front of Financ"], "refs": ["seed-1029/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1029-research": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Joint study: deterministic replay for Brenmoor's fleet software\"); mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton replay study \u2014 need your read before I commit\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay attacks exactly the failure mode that has hurt us twice this year \u2014 releases that pass testing but break sites \u2014 so it deserves a serious look. But the vendor is small, pre-Type-II, and the CEO is already asking whether we h"], "refs": ["seed-1029/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1029-upside": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton diligence before any commitment\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Diligence before any Velliton pilot discussion\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Velliton's simulation layer is plausible and strategically relevant, but the pilot exceeds my $100k threshold, the evidence is unaudited, and the vendor is small. I will not commit before diligence, especially given recent release outages."], "refs": ["seed-1029/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1030-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay pitch ($140k pilot, $420k/yr after)\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly the failure mode that has cost my program twice this year (pre-release regressions reaching the floor), so it is worth real diligence, but the evidence is customer-reported, the vendor is 14 people with 22 months of runway, and $140k plus a $420k/yr tail needs checking before "], "refs": ["seed-1030/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1030-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot\"); mailed eng, proc, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 early read requested\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The pain Velliton targets is exactly what has set my program back twice this year, but the evidence is one customer-reported anecdote and the vendor is small with Type II pending. I want diligence and a look from Engineering and Procurement before I put a proposal on the table."], "refs": ["seed-1030/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1030-upside": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Pilot diligence and call\"); mailed fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton pitch \u2014 diligence, no proposal yet\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence. Rationale (simulated): The simulation layer could reduce regression-driven outages, which directly threatens my target, but the pilot is $140,000 and the evidence is unaudited from a small vendor. I will request diligence before proposing any commitment."], "refs": ["seed-1030/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}}, "id": "first_response=circulated + diligence", "label": "circulated + diligence", "runs": ["s1001-enterprise", "s1001-research", "s1001-enterprise-replicate", "s1002-enterprise", "s1002-research", "s1002-upside", "s1002-enterprise-replicate", "s1003-enterprise", "s1003-upside", "s1003-enterprise-replicate", "s1004-enterprise", "s1004-research", "s1004-upside", "s1004-enterprise-replicate", "s1005-enterprise", "s1005-research", "s1005-upside", "s1005-enterprise-replicate", "s1006-research", "s1006-upside", "s1006-enterprise-replicate", "s1007-enterprise", "s1007-research", "s1007-upside", "s1007-enterprise-replicate", "s1008-enterprise", "s1008-research", "s1008-upside", "s1008-enterprise-replicate", "s1009-enterprise", "s1009-research", "s1009-upside", "s1009-enterprise-replicate", "s1010-enterprise", "s1010-research", "s1010-upside", "s1010-enterprise-replicate", "s1011-enterprise", "s1011-research", "s1011-upside", "s1011-enterprise-replicate", "s1012-enterprise", "s1012-research", "s1012-upside", "s1012-enterprise-replicate", "s1013-enterprise", "s1013-research", "s1013-upside", "s1013-enterprise-replicate", "s1014-enterprise", "s1014-research", "s1014-upside", "s1014-enterprise-replicate", "s1015-enterprise", "s1015-research", "s1015-upside", "s1015-enterprise-replicate", "s1016-enterprise", "s1016-research", "s1016-upside", "s1016-enterprise-replicate", "s1017-enterprise", "s1017-upside", "s1017-enterprise-replicate", "s1018-enterprise", "s1018-research", "s1018-upside", "s1018-enterprise-replicate", "s1019-enterprise", "s1019-research", "s1019-upside", "s1020-enterprise", "s1020-research", "s1020-upside", "s1021-enterprise", "s1021-research", "s1021-upside", "s1021-enterprise-replicate", "s1022-enterprise", "s1022-research", "s1022-upside", "s1023-enterprise", "s1023-research", "s1023-upside", "s1023-enterprise-replicate", "s1024-enterprise", "s1024-research", "s1024-upside", "s1024-enterprise-replicate", "s1025-enterprise", "s1025-research", "s1025-upside", "s1025-enterprise-replicate", "s1026-enterprise", "s1026-research", "s1026-upside", "s1027-enterprise", "s1027-research", "s1027-enterprise-replicate", "s1028-enterprise", "s1028-research", "s1028-enterprise-replicate", "s1029-research", "s1029-upside", "s1029-enterprise-replicate", "s1030-enterprise", "s1030-upside", "s1030-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "first_response"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 2, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 2, "upside": 2}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 2, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 2, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 2, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 2, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 2, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 2, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 2, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 2, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 2, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 2, "upside": 1}, "children": [], "count": 5, "evidence": {"s1006-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 2, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1006/enterprise.jsonl#L15"], "round": 1}, "s1017-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 3, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1017/research.jsonl#L17"], "round": 2}, "s1028-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 3, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1028/upside.jsonl#L17"], "round": 2}, "s1029-enterprise": {"events": ["pilot in week 3, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1029/enterprise.jsonl#L20"], "round": 2}, "s1030-research": {"events": ["pilot in week 2, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1030/research.jsonl#L15"], "round": 1}}, "id": "first_response=proposed pilot/circulation=4 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=ratified/terminal=pilot", "label": "pilot", "runs": ["s1006-enterprise", "s1017-research", "s1028-upside", "s1029-enterprise", "s1030-research"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 5, "evidence": {"s1006-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"P1 Velliton pilot \u2014 conditional approval from Finance\"); mailed velliton (mail-14: \"Financial and reference diligence for Replay pilot\"); requested financial, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k fixed fee fits inside the $210k tooling budget and the pilot carries no annual licence commitment, so my main risk is runway and exit terms, not the price. I approve it conditionally and want financial and reference diligence before any renewal conversation.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-19: \"P1 Velliton pilot \u2014 my read and conditions\"); mailed platform (mail-20: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 keep it out of your critical path\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Fixed $140k, 12 weeks, read-only in our cloud and no licence commitment is a cheap way to test whether replay catches our pre-release regressions; but the traces-only approximation misses mixed human/robot aisles, which is exactly where our incidents sit, so I approve only with success cr", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-18, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-22: \"P1 Velliton pilot \u2014 Procurement conditional approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Velliton is under three years old so the financial viability review is now on record and passes at pilot size, and its SOC 2 Type II gap means log access can only happen under a Security-signed compensating control. I approve the pilot conditionally on those two points and the fixed-fee limits Finance and Engineering already set."], "refs": ["seed-1006/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1006/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1006/enterprise.jsonl#L13"], "round": null}, "s1017-research": {"events": ["week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-15: \"P1 conditional approval from Engineering\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-16: \"Velliton pilot and simulator overlap\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The replay pilot could target the release incidents, but the custom fleet-manager adapter and approximated human/robot aisles are real risks to both schedule and validity. I will conditionally approve while protecting my two free engineers and avoiding lock-in.", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-13, sharing diligence-security, diligence-financial (mail-17: \"P1: conditional approval from Procurement / Vendor Risk\"); mailed velliton, sharing diligence-security (mail-18: \"Security documentation for the pilot\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence closes my two policy gates only partly: financial viability is fine (22 months runway, but 48% customer concentration), yet Velliton has SOC 2 Type I only, so operational log access needs a Security-signed compensating control before anything starts. I c", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc forwarding mail-13, sharing diligence-financial (mail-19: \"P1: Finance conditional approval \u2014 spend cap, no licence, 2 engineers\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot plus ~$18k compute fits inside the $210k remaining budget and buys evidence before any $420k/year decision; the risk sits in the follow-on licence, not the study, so I approve with hard spend and exit conditions."], "refs": ["seed-1017/research.jsonl#L13", "seed-1017/research.jsonl#L14", "seed-1017/research.jsonl#L15"], "round": null}, "s1028-upside": {"events": ["week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, fin (mail-13: \"P1 conditional: financial viability and security gate\"); requested financial, security, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Pilot is bounded and diligence-gated, but Velliton is a sub-3-year startup with only SOC 2 Type I and needs fleet-log access, so policy requires financial viability review and a security sign-off before any operational data exposure.", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc (mail-17: \"P1 conditional approval from Finance\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Pilot fits discretionary budget and is bounded, but Velliton's early-stage finances and the deck's strategic-structure language require firm exit and cost conditions before I commit.", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc (mail-18: \"P1: Engineering conditional approval\"); mailed platform (mail-19: \"Velliton pilot: engineering load and overlap\"); requested technical, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): A bounded pilot is worth testing against our release-incident problem, but only if engineering load is confirmed and it does not further delay Kiyoshi's in-house simulator. I will conditionally approve P1 and request technical and reference diligence."], "refs": ["seed-1028/upside.jsonl#L12", "seed-1028/upside.jsonl#L14", "seed-1028/upside.jsonl#L15"], "round": null}, "s1029-enterprise": {"events": ["week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"P1 pilot: finance approval, conditional\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot fits inside my remaining $210k tooling budget, is fixed and capped, and commits us to nothing after week 12, so it is a cheap way to test a real incident problem. My approval is conditional on the exit staying real and any follow-on purchase coming back to me and the CFO with a payback case.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin (mail-18: \"P1 proc: conditional approval \u2014 Security sign-off needed first\"); mailed velliton (mail-19: \"Pilot prerequisites: Type II timeline and access controls\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is complete and the financial viability review is on record: 22 months of runway and 48% ARR concentration are tolerable only because the pilot is fixed and capped at $140k with no post-pilot commitment. The blocker for me is our own data policy \u2014 read-only fleet-control logs are operational data and Velliton has SOC 2 T", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-24: \"P1: my approval, conditional\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-25: \"Velliton pilot: heads-up, no impact on your team\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is bounded, fixed-price, and attacks a real incident problem, but the in-house fleet manager means the 4-6 week integration is optimistic (our reference case took 9) and the adapter risks becoming permanent maintenance. I approve conditionally rather than block."], "refs": ["seed-1029/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1029/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1029/enterprise.jsonl#L18"], "round": null}, "s1030-research": {"events": ["week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc (mail-13: \"P1: conditional finance approval\"); mailed velliton (mail-14: \"Diligence needed before we sign the study\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k fixed study fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget and carries no licence commitment, so the downside is bounded; but a 14-person vendor with 22 months of runway and only SOC 2 Type I needs financial and security diligence before I sign.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-17: \"P1 conditional procurement approval \u2014 diligence required\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): I cannot approve P1 cleanly: Velliton is under three years old and has only SOC 2 Type I, so financial viability and a security compensating control must clear before any operational log access. I will conditionally approve to keep the pilot moving while requesting diligence now.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-22: \"P1: conditional approval from eng\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-23: \"Velliton replay study \u2014 scope against the in-house simulator\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is bounded, read-only and exits at week 12, and it directly measures the regression gap behind our nine incidents; but reference 2 slipped to 9 weeks on a custom fleet manager, which is exactly our setup, so I approve with the adapter and our engineering time capped in writing."], "refs": ["seed-1030/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1030/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1030/research.jsonl#L13"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=proposed pilot/circulation=4 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1006-enterprise", "s1017-research", "s1028-upside", "s1029-enterprise", "s1030-research"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 5, "evidence": {"s1006-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay pilot ($140k) \u2014 approval requested, diligence running\"); mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 30 minutes, and diligence request\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Replay directly targets the outage problem that has twice set my program back, and a fixed-fee pilot is a contained way to test it; but Velliton is small, unproven at our scale", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, $140,000 fixed fee; success criteria and weekly reporting agreed up front; read-only log access in our cloud account; explicit go/no-go review before any annual licence."], "refs": ["seed-1006/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1017-research": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton replay pilot: diligence and review\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Joint study: deterministic replay\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Velliton's replay approach directly targets the release outages that have hurt this program, and a bounded pilot can test it before any larger commitment. I want diligence and internal review before treating the $140k or the later licence as justifie", "terms: 12-week joint study at one site for fixed $140,000, contingent on technical, financial, security and reference diligence, read-only log access inside Brenmoor's cloud, and Finance approval."], "refs": ["seed-1017/research.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1028-upside": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton pilot: bounded proposal, diligence first\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Diligence before any pilot proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): The simulation layer is directly relevant to preventing the release regressions that have hurt us, but Velliton is small, its evidence is unaudited, and the pitch leans on FOMO. I\u2019ll open a bounded pilot proposal and request diligence before any ", "terms: 12-week pilot at one Brenmoor site, fixed fee $140,000, read-only fleet-log access, explicit success metrics, no auto-conversion to partnership or licence; contingent on security, financial, and reference diligence."], "refs": ["seed-1028/upside.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1029-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 30 minutes and diligence\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 pilot under consideration at $140k\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly what has hurt us twice this year \u2014 regressions reaching the floor \u2014 and the pilot fee fits my remaining budget, but the vendor is small and its evidence is unaudited, so I want diligence running before m", "terms: 12-week single-site pilot, $140,000 fixed and capped, read-only log access in our cloud account, success criteria signed before start, no post-pilot commitment implied."], "refs": ["seed-1029/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1030-research": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton 12-week replay study \u2014 $140k pilot proposed\"); mailed proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton vendor risk \u2014 read-only log access\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay targets exactly what has hurt us twice this year \u2014 regressions that pass testing and then break a site \u2014 and a fixed-fee 12-week study is a cheap way to test the claim before any licence talk. I'll pr", "terms: 12-week joint study at one site, fixed $140k, read-only access running in Brenmoor's cloud, shared write-up, no licence commitment; contingent on diligence and a go/no-go review at week 12."], "refs": ["seed-1030/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}}, "id": "first_response=proposed pilot/circulation=4 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor", "label": "pilot by business sponsor", "runs": ["s1006-enterprise", "s1017-research", "s1028-upside", "s1029-enterprise", "s1030-research"], "stage": "first_proposal"}], "count": 5, "evidence": {"s1006-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay pilot ($140k) \u2014 approval requested, diligence running\"); mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 30 minutes, and diligence request\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Replay directly targets the outage problem that has twice set my program back, and a fixed-fee pilot is a contained way to test it; but Velliton is small, unproven at our scale"], "refs": ["seed-1006/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1017-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton replay pilot: diligence and review\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Joint study: deterministic replay\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Velliton's replay approach directly targets the release outages that have hurt this program, and a bounded pilot can test it before any larger commitment. I want diligence and internal review before treating the $140k or the later licence as justifie"], "refs": ["seed-1017/research.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1028-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton pilot: bounded proposal, diligence first\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Diligence before any pilot proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): The simulation layer is directly relevant to preventing the release regressions that have hurt us, but Velliton is small, its evidence is unaudited, and the pitch leans on FOMO. I\u2019ll open a bounded pilot proposal and request diligence before any "], "refs": ["seed-1028/upside.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1029-enterprise": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 30 minutes and diligence\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 pilot under consideration at $140k\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly what has hurt us twice this year \u2014 regressions reaching the floor \u2014 and the pilot fee fits my remaining budget, but the vendor is small and its evidence is unaudited, so I want diligence running before m"], "refs": ["seed-1029/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1030-research": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton 12-week replay study \u2014 $140k pilot proposed\"); mailed proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton vendor risk \u2014 read-only log access\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay targets exactly what has hurt us twice this year \u2014 regressions that pass testing and then break a site \u2014 and a fixed-fee 12-week study is a cheap way to test the claim before any licence talk. I'll pr"], "refs": ["seed-1030/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}}, "id": "first_response=proposed pilot/circulation=4 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds", "label": "all 4 kinds", "runs": ["s1006-enterprise", "s1017-research", "s1028-upside", "s1029-enterprise", "s1030-research"], "stage": "diligence"}], "count": 5, "evidence": {"s1006-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, eng, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"P1 Velliton pilot \u2014 conditional approval from Finance\"); mailed velliton (mail-14: \"Financial and reference diligence for Replay pilot\"); requested financial, reference diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k fixed fee fits inside the $210k tooling budget and the pilot carries no annual licence commitment, so my main risk is runway and exit terms, not the price. I approve it conditionally and want financial and reference diligence before any renewal conversation.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-17: \"P1 Velliton pilot \u2014 technical diligence, your stance\"); mailed proc, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-18: \"P1 Velliton pilot \u2014 vendor risk package, your stance\"). Rationale (simulated): All four diligence items are now in: the product fits our outage problem, security and deployment model are clean, but the vendor is small with heavy customer concentration and the integration estimate slipped at one reference. I need Engineering and Procurement to finish t", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-19: \"P1 Velliton pilot \u2014 my read and conditions\"); mailed platform (mail-20: \"Velliton pilot \u2014 keep it out of your critical path\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Fixed $140k, 12 weeks, read-only in our cloud and no licence commitment is a cheap way to test whether replay catches our pre-release regressions; but the traces-only approximation misses mixed human/robot aisles, which is exactly where our incidents sit, so I approve only with success cr", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin forwarding mail-18, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security (mail-22: \"P1 Velliton pilot \u2014 Procurement conditional approval\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Velliton is under three years old so the financial viability review is now on record and passes at pilot size, and its SOC 2 Type II gap means log access can only happen under a Security-signed compensating control. I approve the pilot conditionally on those two points and the fixed-fee limits Finance and Engineering already set."], "refs": ["seed-1006/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1006/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1006/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1006/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1006/enterprise.jsonl#L13", "seed-1006/enterprise.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}, "s1017-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1017/research.jsonl#L5", "seed-1017/research.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1028-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1028/upside.jsonl#L5", "seed-1028/upside.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1029-enterprise": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-13: \"P1 pilot: finance approval, conditional\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot fits inside my remaining $210k tooling budget, is fixed and capped, and commits us to nothing after week 12, so it is a cheap way to test a real incident problem. My approval is conditional on the exit staying real and any follow-on purchase coming back to me and the CFO with a payback case.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-reference (mail-16: \"P1 pilot: diligence is complete, please review and stance\"); mailed velliton (mail-17: \"Pilot scope questions before we finalise\"). Rationale (simulated): All four diligence packs are in and they confirm the product fits our exact pain (regressions reaching the floor) while also confirming the vendor is small: 22 months of cash, one customer at 48% of ARR, Type I only, and one reference whose integration slipped to 9 weeks. I push eng and proc to deci", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin (mail-18: \"P1 proc: conditional approval \u2014 Security sign-off needed first\"); mailed velliton (mail-19: \"Pilot prerequisites: Type II timeline and access controls\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is complete and the financial viability review is on record: 22 months of runway and 48% ARR concentration are tolerable only because the pilot is fixed and capped at $140k with no post-pilot commitment. The blocker for me is our own data policy \u2014 read-only fleet-control logs are operational data and Velliton has SOC 2 T"], "refs": ["seed-1029/enterprise.jsonl#L3", "seed-1029/enterprise.jsonl#L10", "seed-1029/enterprise.jsonl#L11", "seed-1029/enterprise.jsonl#L12", "seed-1029/enterprise.jsonl#L13"], "round": 1}, "s1030-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc (mail-13: \"P1: conditional finance approval\"); mailed velliton (mail-14: \"Diligence needed before we sign the study\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k fixed study fits inside the $210k remaining tooling budget and carries no licence commitment, so the downside is bounded; but a 14-person vendor with 22 months of runway and only SOC 2 Type I needs financial and security diligence before I sign.", "week 2, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, sharing velliton-facts (mail-17: \"P1 conditional procurement approval \u2014 diligence required\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): I cannot approve P1 cleanly: Velliton is under three years old and has only SOC 2 Type I, so financial viability and a security compensating control must clear before any operational log access. I will conditionally approve to keep the pilot moving while requesting diligence now.", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-20: \"P1 needs your stance \u2014 technical diligence attached\"); mailed fin, sharing diligence-financial (mail-21: \"P1: your four conditions are achievable\"). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and broadly supports the pilot, but the adapter for our in-house fleet manager and the reference's 9-week slip are exactly the integration risk Mara owns \u2014 I need her stance rather than assume it, and I owe Theo a straight answer on his four conditions.", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor (mail-22: \"P1: conditional approval from eng\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-23: \"Velliton replay study \u2014 scope against the in-house simulator\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot is bounded, read-only and exits at week 12, and it directly measures the regression gap behind our nine incidents; but reference 2 slipped to 9 weeks on a custom fleet manager, which is exactly our setup, so I approve with the adapter and our engineering time capped in writing."], "refs": ["seed-1030/research.jsonl#L3", "seed-1030/research.jsonl#L10", "seed-1030/research.jsonl#L11", "seed-1030/research.jsonl#L12", "seed-1030/research.jsonl#L13", "seed-1030/research.jsonl#L14"], "round": 1}}, "id": "first_response=proposed pilot/circulation=4 aware", "label": "4 aware", "runs": ["s1006-enterprise", "s1017-research", "s1028-upside", "s1029-enterprise", "s1030-research"], "stage": "circulation"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 0, "research": 0, "upside": 1}, "children": [], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1001-upside": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1001/upside.jsonl#L23"], "round": 3}}, "id": "first_response=proposed pilot/circulation=3 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=ratified/terminal=pilot", "label": "pilot", "runs": ["s1001-upside"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1001-upside": {"events": ["week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-13, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-15: \"P1: conditional engineering approval\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-16: \"Two engineers, next quarter: Velliton pilot vs. our simulator\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The replay approach is sound and targets exactly our 9 uncaught fleet-control regressions, but Ref 2 shows integration on a custom fleet manager runs 9 weeks, not 3, and that adapter is precisely the maintenance burden I want to avoid \u2014 so I approve the pilot only w", "week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor, proc forwarding mail-14, sharing diligence-financial (mail-23: \"P1 Velliton pilot: Finance conditional approval\"); mailed platform, eng (mail-24: \"P2 internal build: not approvable as filed\"); conditional on P1 (binding); block on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot is bounded, fixed-price and exitable at the week-8 gate, so I will conditionally approve it while blocking any drift into a larger or multi-year commitment. P2 asks for roughly $450k of loaded headcount against $210k of remaining discretionary budget and creates staff I cannot ", "week 4, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, sharing diligence-security (mail-27: \"P1 Velliton: procurement conditions \u2014 operational log access\"); mailed velliton (mail-28: \"SOC 2 Type II and compensating control evidence\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Velliton is under three years old and holds only SOC 2 Type I while asking for read-only fleet-log access, which our data policy does not permit without Type II or a Security-signed compensating control; the financial viability review is satisfied, so I approve P1 conditionally rather than block it."], "refs": ["seed-1001/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1001/upside.jsonl#L16", "seed-1001/upside.jsonl#L21"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=proposed pilot/circulation=3 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1001-upside"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1001-upside": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: pilot - diligence materials\"); mailed proc, eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay: please scope diligence\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): The deterministic-replay idea directly targets the release regressions that have hurt my program twice this year, but Velliton is small, young, and its evidence is unaudited. I want diligence started and a pilot filed now so we are not the operator that waits, whil", "terms: 12-week pilot, one site, fixed $140,000, contingent on technical, financial, security and reference diligence passing, Finance approval, and a defined exit if regressions are not caught."], "refs": ["seed-1001/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}}, "id": "first_response=proposed pilot/circulation=3 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor", "label": "pilot by business sponsor", "runs": ["s1001-upside"], "stage": "first_proposal"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1001-upside": {"events": ["kinds: financial, reference, security, technical", "week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: pilot - diligence materials\"); mailed proc, eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay: please scope diligence\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): The deterministic-replay idea directly targets the release regressions that have hurt my program twice this year, but Velliton is small, young, and its evidence is unaudited. I want diligence started and a pilot filed now so we are not the operator that waits, whil"], "refs": ["seed-1001/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}}, "id": "first_response=proposed pilot/circulation=3 aware/diligence=all 4 kinds", "label": "all 4 kinds", "runs": ["s1001-upside"], "stage": "diligence"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1001-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, procurement lead, business sponsor", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference, diligence-security (mail-13: \"Velliton technical + reference diligence \u2014 your call on P1\"); mailed fin, proc, sharing diligence-financial, diligence-security, diligence-technical (mail-14: \"Velliton financial + security diligence \u2014 P1 needs your approval\"). Rationale (simulated): Diligence is in and it is mixed-good: deterministic replay targets our exact pain, but the references show integration overruns on custom fleet managers, which is precisely our situation, and Velliton is small with one customer at ", "week 2, engineering exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-13, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-15: \"P1: conditional engineering approval\"); mailed platform, sharing diligence-technical (mail-16: \"Two engineers, next quarter: Velliton pilot vs. our simulator\"); conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The replay approach is sound and targets exactly our 9 uncaught fleet-control regressions, but Ref 2 shows integration on a custom fleet manager runs 9 weeks, not 3, and that adapter is precisely the maintenance burden I want to avoid \u2014 so I approve the pilot only w"], "refs": ["seed-1001/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1001/upside.jsonl#L10", "seed-1001/upside.jsonl#L11", "seed-1001/upside.jsonl#L12"], "round": 1}}, "id": "first_response=proposed pilot/circulation=3 aware", "label": "3 aware", "runs": ["s1001-upside"], "stage": "circulation"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 1, "research": 0, "upside": 0}, "children": [], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1019-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["pilot in week 4, by ratifying P1"], "refs": ["seed-1019/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L27"], "round": 3}}, "id": "first_response=proposed pilot/circulation=4 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=3 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=ratified/terminal=pilot", "label": "pilot", "runs": ["s1019-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1019-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 3, finance exec: mailed sponsor forwarding mail-3, sharing velliton-facts (mail-15: \"P1 pilot: conditional approval from Finance\"); mailed platform, eng, sharing velliton-facts (mail-16: \"P2 internal_build: Finance block\"); requested financial diligence; conditional on P1 (binding); block on P2 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The $140k pilot is fixed-fee, exit-ready and fits inside what's left of the tooling budget, so it is fundable; the $450k internal build is not, and would exhaust discretionary spend for a capability we can rent first. I approve the pilot with binding guardrails and", "week 3, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, platform forwarding mail-11, sharing velliton-facts (mail-19: \"P1: holding approval pending technical diligence\"); mailed velliton (mail-20: \"Technical diligence request: Replay integration and replay fidelity\"); requested technical, reference diligence; abstain on P1 (not binding). Rationale (simulated): The pilot's integration cost lands on exactly the two engineers I have free, and Kiyoshi says Replay overlaps what we're already building. I won't approve P1 until technical diligence settles the overlap and confirms it works with our in-house fleet m", "week 3, procurement lead: mailed sponsor, eng, fin (mail-23: \"P1 conditional pending diligence\"); requested financial, security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): P1 is a bounded, fixed-fee pilot, but Velliton is a young vendor and the pilot includes operational log access. I can conditionally approve only if financial viability and SOC 2/compensating control are cleared before access.", "week 4, finance exec: mailed eng, proc forwarding mail-27, sharing diligence-financial (mail-32: \"Velliton financial diligence on file; my P1 condition stands\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): The financial diligence confirms Velliton can fund itself through a 12-week pilot (22 months of runway), but the concentration (one customer at 48% of ARR) and the need to raise in ~12 months mean we commit to nothing beyond the fixed $140k; I want security diligence on file before log access.", "week 4, engineering exec: mailed sponsor, fin, proc, sharing diligence-technical, diligence-reference (mail-34: \"P1: engineering conditional approval with binding limits\"); mailed platform forwarding mail-28, sharing diligence-reference (mail-35: \"Replay pilot: you own the adapter\"); requested security diligence; conditional on P1 (binding). Rationale (simulated): Diligence confirms Replay is real but that our in-house fleet manager needs an adapter, and the one reference with a custom fleet manager took 9 weeks rather than 4-6 \u2014 that is most of my free capacity. With the internal build blocke"], "refs": ["seed-1019/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L12", "seed-1019/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L13", "seed-1019/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L14", "seed-1019/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L24", "seed-1019/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L25"], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=proposed pilot/circulation=4 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=3 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor/alignment=ratified", "label": "ratified", "runs": ["s1019-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "alignment"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1019-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, platform forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay pilot: overlap and two engineers for 4-6 weeks\"); mailed fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton: $140k pilot within my line, $420k/yr after\"); requested technical, financial, security diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): The problem Replay addresses is exactly what has set my program back twice this year, and a fixed-fee 12-week pilot is a bounded way to test it; but the vendor is small with 22 months of runway, the post-pilot price would ea", "terms: 12 weeks, one site, fixed $140,000, no renewal implied; success criteria and exit terms agreed in writing before start; read-only log access only; weekly reporting."], "refs": ["seed-1019/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}}, "id": "first_response=proposed pilot/circulation=4 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=3 kinds/first_proposal=pilot by business sponsor", "label": "pilot by business sponsor", "runs": ["s1019-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "first_proposal"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1019-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: financial, security, technical", "week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, platform forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay pilot: overlap and two engineers for 4-6 weeks\"); mailed fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton: $140k pilot within my line, $420k/yr after\"); requested technical, financial, security diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): The problem Replay addresses is exactly what has set my program back twice this year, and a fixed-fee 12-week pilot is a bounded way to test it; but the vendor is small with 22 months of runway, the post-pilot price would ea"], "refs": ["seed-1019/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}}, "id": "first_response=proposed pilot/circulation=4 aware, incl. competing team/diligence=3 kinds", "label": "3 kinds", "runs": ["s1019-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "diligence"}], "count": 1, "evidence": {"s1019-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: engineering exec, finance exec, competing internal team, business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1019/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5", "seed-1019/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}}, "id": "first_response=proposed pilot/circulation=4 aware, incl. competing team", "label": "4 aware, incl. competing team", "runs": ["s1019-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "circulation"}], "count": 7, "evidence": {"s1001-upside": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: pilot - diligence materials\"); mailed proc, eng forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay: please scope diligence\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): The deterministic-replay idea directly targets the release regressions that have hurt my program twice this year, but Velliton is small, young, and its evidence is unaudited. I want diligence started and a pilot filed now so we are not the operator that waits, whil"], "refs": ["seed-1001/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1006-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-deck, velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay pilot ($140k) \u2014 approval requested, diligence running\"); mailed velliton, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 30 minutes, and diligence request\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Replay directly targets the outage problem that has twice set my program back, and a fixed-fee pilot is a contained way to test it; but Velliton is small, unproven at our scale"], "refs": ["seed-1006/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1017-research": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton replay pilot: diligence and review\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Re: Joint study: deterministic replay\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Velliton's replay approach directly targets the release outages that have hurt this program, and a bounded pilot can test it before any larger commitment. I want diligence and internal review before treating the $140k or the later licence as justifie"], "refs": ["seed-1017/research.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1019-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, platform forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts (mail-2: \"Velliton Replay pilot: overlap and two engineers for 4-6 weeks\"); mailed fin, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton: $140k pilot within my line, $420k/yr after\"); requested technical, financial, security diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): The problem Replay addresses is exactly what has set my program back twice this year, and a fixed-fee 12-week pilot is a bounded way to test it; but the vendor is small with 22 months of runway, the post-pilot price would ea"], "refs": ["seed-1019/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1028-upside": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton pilot: bounded proposal, diligence first\"); mailed velliton (mail-3: \"Diligence before any pilot proposal\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): The simulation layer is directly relevant to preventing the release regressions that have hurt us, but Velliton is small, its evidence is unaudited, and the pitch leans on FOMO. I\u2019ll open a bounded pilot proposal and request diligence before any "], "refs": ["seed-1028/upside.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1029-enterprise": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed velliton (mail-2: \"Re: Velliton Replay pilot \u2014 30 minutes and diligence\"); mailed eng, fin, proc forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-3: \"Velliton Replay \u2014 pilot under consideration at $140k\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Replay targets exactly what has hurt us twice this year \u2014 regressions reaching the floor \u2014 and the pilot fee fits my remaining budget, but the vendor is small and its evidence is unaudited, so I want diligence running before m"], "refs": ["seed-1029/enterprise.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1030-research": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: mailed eng, fin forwarding mail-pitch, sharing velliton-facts, velliton-deck (mail-2: \"Velliton 12-week replay study \u2014 $140k pilot proposed\"); mailed proc, sharing velliton-facts (mail-3: \"Velliton vendor risk \u2014 read-only log access\"); requested technical, financial, security, reference diligence; filed P1 (pilot; decision-P1). Rationale (simulated): Deterministic replay targets exactly what has hurt us twice this year \u2014 regressions that pass testing and then break a site \u2014 and a fixed-fee 12-week study is a cheap way to test the claim before any licence talk. I'll pr"], "refs": ["seed-1030/research.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}}, "id": "first_response=proposed pilot", "label": "proposed pilot", "runs": ["s1001-upside", "s1006-enterprise", "s1017-research", "s1019-enterprise-replicate", "s1028-upside", "s1029-enterprise", "s1030-research"], "stage": "first_response"}, {"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 3, "research": 1, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 3, "research": 1, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 3, "research": 1, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 3, "research": 1, "upside": 1}, "children": [{"arms": {"enterprise": 0, "enterprise-replicate": 3, "research": 1, "upside": 1}, "children": [], "count": 5, "evidence": {"s1003-research": {"events": ["no_decision in week 10 (horizon)"], "refs": ["seed-1003/research.jsonl#L23"], "round": 9}, "s1020-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["no_decision in week 10 (horizon)"], "refs": ["seed-1020/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L23"], "round": 9}, "s1022-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["no_decision in week 10 (horizon)"], "refs": ["seed-1022/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L23"], "round": 9}, "s1026-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["no_decision in week 10 (horizon)"], "refs": ["seed-1026/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L23"], "round": 9}, "s1027-upside": {"events": ["no_decision in week 10 (horizon)"], "refs": ["seed-1027/upside.jsonl#L23"], "round": 9}}, "id": "first_response=held/circulation=1 aware/diligence=no diligence/first_proposal=none filed/terminal=no_decision", "label": "no_decision", "runs": ["s1003-research", "s1020-enterprise-replicate", "s1022-enterprise-replicate", "s1026-enterprise-replicate", "s1027-upside"], "stage": "terminal"}], "count": 5, "evidence": {"s1003-research": {"events": ["nobody filed a proposal in ten weeks"], "refs": [], "round": null}, "s1020-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["nobody filed a proposal in ten weeks"], "refs": [], "round": null}, "s1022-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["nobody filed a proposal in ten weeks"], "refs": [], "round": null}, "s1026-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["nobody filed a proposal in ten weeks"], "refs": [], "round": null}, "s1027-upside": {"events": ["nobody filed a proposal in ten weeks"], "refs": [], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=held/circulation=1 aware/diligence=no diligence/first_proposal=none filed", "label": "none filed", "runs": ["s1003-research", "s1020-enterprise-replicate", "s1022-enterprise-replicate", "s1026-enterprise-replicate", "s1027-upside"], "stage": "first_proposal"}], "count": 5, "evidence": {"s1003-research": {"events": ["kinds: none"], "refs": [], "round": null}, "s1020-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: none"], "refs": [], "round": null}, "s1022-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: none"], "refs": [], "round": null}, "s1026-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["kinds: none"], "refs": [], "round": null}, "s1027-upside": {"events": ["kinds: none"], "refs": [], "round": null}}, "id": "first_response=held/circulation=1 aware/diligence=no diligence", "label": "no diligence", "runs": ["s1003-research", "s1020-enterprise-replicate", "s1022-enterprise-replicate", "s1026-enterprise-replicate", "s1027-upside"], "stage": "diligence"}], "count": 5, "evidence": {"s1003-research": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1003/research.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1020-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1020/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5", "seed-1020/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1022-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1022/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3", "seed-1022/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}, "s1026-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1026/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1027-upside": {"events": ["aware by end of week 2: business sponsor"], "refs": ["seed-1027/upside.jsonl#L3", "seed-1027/upside.jsonl#L6"], "round": 1}}, "id": "first_response=held/circulation=1 aware", "label": "1 aware", "runs": ["s1003-research", "s1020-enterprise-replicate", "s1022-enterprise-replicate", "s1026-enterprise-replicate", "s1027-upside"], "stage": "circulation"}], "count": 5, "evidence": {"s1003-research": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: no action"], "refs": ["seed-1003/research.jsonl#L7"], "round": 2}, "s1020-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 2, business sponsor: no action"], "refs": ["seed-1020/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L5"], "round": 1}, "s1022-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: no action"], "refs": ["seed-1022/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}, "s1026-enterprise-replicate": {"events": ["week 3, business sponsor: no action"], "refs": ["seed-1026/enterprise-replicate.jsonl#L7"], "round": 2}, "s1027-upside": {"events": ["week 1, business sponsor: no action"], "refs": ["seed-1027/upside.jsonl#L3"], "round": 0}}, "id": "first_response=held", "label": "held", "runs": ["s1003-research", "s1020-enterprise-replicate", "s1022-enterprise-replicate", "s1026-enterprise-replicate", "s1027-upside"], "stage": "first_response"}], "count": 120, "evidence": {}, "id": "root", "label": "pitch delivered to the sponsor", "runs": ["s1001-enterprise", "s1001-research", "s1001-upside", "s1001-enterprise-replicate", "s1002-enterprise", "s1002-research", "s1002-upside", "s1002-enterprise-replicate", "s1003-enterprise", "s1003-research", "s1003-upside", "s1003-enterprise-replicate", "s1004-enterprise", "s1004-research", "s1004-upside", "s1004-enterprise-replicate", "s1005-enterprise", "s1005-research", "s1005-upside", "s1005-enterprise-replicate", "s1006-enterprise", "s1006-research", "s1006-upside", "s1006-enterprise-replicate", "s1007-enterprise", "s1007-research", "s1007-upside", "s1007-enterprise-replicate", "s1008-enterprise", "s1008-research", "s1008-upside", "s1008-enterprise-replicate", "s1009-enterprise", "s1009-research", "s1009-upside", "s1009-enterprise-replicate", "s1010-enterprise", "s1010-research", "s1010-upside", "s1010-enterprise-replicate", "s1011-enterprise", "s1011-research", "s1011-upside", "s1011-enterprise-replicate", "s1012-enterprise", "s1012-research", "s1012-upside", "s1012-enterprise-replicate", "s1013-enterprise", "s1013-research", "s1013-upside", "s1013-enterprise-replicate", "s1014-enterprise", "s1014-research", "s1014-upside", "s1014-enterprise-replicate", "s1015-enterprise", "s1015-research", "s1015-upside", "s1015-enterprise-replicate", "s1016-enterprise", "s1016-research", "s1016-upside", "s1016-enterprise-replicate", "s1017-enterprise", "s1017-research", "s1017-upside", "s1017-enterprise-replicate", "s1018-enterprise", "s1018-research", "s1018-upside", "s1018-enterprise-replicate", "s1019-enterprise", "s1019-research", "s1019-upside", "s1019-enterprise-replicate", "s1020-enterprise", "s1020-research", "s1020-upside", "s1020-enterprise-replicate", "s1021-enterprise", "s1021-research", "s1021-upside", "s1021-enterprise-replicate", "s1022-enterprise", "s1022-research", "s1022-upside", "s1022-enterprise-replicate", "s1023-enterprise", "s1023-research", "s1023-upside", "s1023-enterprise-replicate", "s1024-enterprise", "s1024-research", "s1024-upside", "s1024-enterprise-replicate", "s1025-enterprise", "s1025-research", "s1025-upside", "s1025-enterprise-replicate", "s1026-enterprise", "s1026-research", "s1026-upside", "s1026-enterprise-replicate", "s1027-enterprise", "s1027-research", "s1027-upside", "s1027-enterprise-replicate", "s1028-enterprise", "s1028-research", "s1028-upside", "s1028-enterprise-replicate", "s1029-enterprise", "s1029-research", "s1029-upside", "s1029-enterprise-replicate", "s1030-enterprise", "s1030-research", "s1030-upside", "s1030-enterprise-replicate"], "stage": "root"}