Shareable build reports for publisher stakeholders
Do not build. Validate demand across 5 more indie leads before considering.E-09
Five stages, in the order they ran: what Juno planned to find out, what it retrieved, what it concluded, what it checked before showing you anything, and only then the recommendation itself.
- Identify customer evidence
1 customer interviews retrieved and read.
- Review support trends
No support tickets matched this theme.
- Review sales feedback
No sales note references this theme.
- Review engineering feasibility
No engineering estimate on file; technical risk is scored from comparable work.
- Compare against strategic goals
No stated goal covers publisher-facing reporting.
- Name what is still unknown
1 gaps recorded with an owner and a discovery question.
- Check for conflicting stakeholder input
No stakeholder disagreement found in the retrieved artifacts.
- Evidence threshold met
1 artifacts across 1 source types. Threshold is 2 artifacts across 2 source types.
Guardrail: Never recommend without retrieved evidence - Every claim cited
1 findings, each linked to the artifacts it came from.
Guardrail: Always cite supporting evidence - Conflicting evidence reviewed
No stakeholder disagreement found.
Guardrail: Flag conflicting stakeholder input - Evidence separated from assumptions
1 assumption(s) labelled as assumptions rather than presented as findings.
Guardrail: Distinguish evidence from assumptions - Recommendation supported
Evidence is single-sourced, so Juno recommends discovery instead of a priority change.
Guardrail: Escalate insufficient evidence - Strategic alignment confirmed
Strategic alignment scored 35 against the current quarterly goals.
Guardrail: Require Product Manager approval before decisions
- E-091 artifact
Shareable build reports would unblock a publisher-facing workflow for indie studios.
No deal, expansion, or renewal references this workflow.
Painful for the one studio that raised it; reach is unknown.
No stated goal covers publisher-facing reporting.
- Building on a single voice risks shipping a feature only one studio uses.
- Workflow generalizes beyond one studio.
Ranks low because a single interview is the only supporting artifact and no revenue is attached.
One indie studio lead reports needing to export PDFs to share build reports with a publisher. No corroborating signal yet.
Ranks low: single-source (Low Confidence) and no revenue attached.
Recommendation quality
How well supported this recommendation is, measured against the evidence Juno could actually retrieve.
1 of 6 enterprise source types contributed at least one artifact.
Customer Interview
Retrieved stakeholders agree on the problem statement.
Whether every section of the brief could be filled from retrieved evidence.
No recommendation advances to the roadmap without an explicit decision.
Findings resting on one artifact are held at lower strength rather than stated with certainty.
Supporting evidence
Evidence strength reflects how many independent artifacts support this recommendation and how varied they are, not how certain the model sounds.
| Finding | Artifact | Severity | Corroboration |
|---|---|---|---|
E-09Opinion Shareable build reports would unblock a publisher-facing workflow for indie studios. | Customer Interview Interview: Devon, Studio Lead (indie) | Med severity | Low confidence 1 artifact |
Transparent scoring model
Risks
- Building on a single voice risks shipping a feature only one studio uses.
Not raised in deals.
Would touch reporting layer; medium effort.
No signal.
Additional discovery recommended
Juno names what it does not know, who can answer it, and how to ask, so limited confidence turns into a discovery step rather than a dead end.
Why it matters: One corroborating account would move this from opinion to a validated pattern.
- Do any other indie studios share this workflow?
Recommended next step
5-interview validation with indie leads
Hypothesis: ≥3 of 5 indie leads share build reports externally today.
Juno proposes this step because it would close the largest gap listed above. You decide whether to run it.
Decision required. Juno recommends, you decide, and nothing reaches the roadmap without you.
Final prioritization decisions remain the responsibility of the Product Manager.