Week 0
Before day one
Kairos was approved in principle on 31 July, by both of the people whose approval it needed, and it is not signed. Work starts Monday 10 August. This page will arrive every Friday from now on, and this first one arrives before a single hour has been billed, so that the format is established by something other than good news. It carries what is decided, what is still open, and the four decisions the 31 July call ran out of time to reach.
What we did
- Prepared and held the 31 July governance call: the proposal presented as seventeen slides, so Gitanas and Paulius could read it cold and still judge it.
- Published the research map and thirteen evidence rooms, each claim carrying what it rests on and what it does not prove.
- Published a technical note on the shared-workspace question after Robertas proposed hosting it on his own server, at /infrastructure.
- Wrote the process for handling a large opportunity if Kairos finds one, so the rules exist before there is anything to argue about.
- Built this page and the mechanism that produces it every Friday.
What we found
- Reported Both decision-makers approve of Kairos in principle. Nothing is signed, and the commercial terms have not been formally accepted.
- Verified The call converged before four slides were reached: the cost ceiling, the rules for handling a large opportunity, the four decisions, and the close. Approval therefore covers the idea, not yet the number. The number is on this page below, and it is our own ceiling, not a quote.
- Reported The intention was raised in the room to connect the whole team to the way of working we brought, once three people have proved it. We agree with the sequence, and the uncomfortable part is worth saying out loud: the tool chosen casually for three people is the tool thirty people inherit, because nobody re-opens that decision later. Ten minutes now, or a migration later.
- Inference There is no single place where Mysterium's operational data lands — each function's numbers live with whoever owns them. One question settles it, and we would like to ask it on Friday: where does someone at Mysterium go today to find last month's numbers for a function they do not own? If there is an answer, this inference is dead and we drop it.
- Hypothesis The most useful first question about any Mysterium function is not whether it performs, but what standard it is measured against. Marketing is where we would test that first, because Paulius raised it unprompted and because a budget is already being spent there. The test is cheap: name the reference model for a subscription business of this size, then measure the gap.
What we changed our mind about
- We wrote that the room approved before hearing the price. That was wrong about Robertas, who had already been through the commercial slides on the earlier call. The accurate version is narrower: the ceiling was not put in front of everyone in the room, which is why it is stated on this page.
- We read Robertas's offer of an MB as a possible operating vehicle for Kairos. It is the paying side. Our own contracting structure is ours to sort out, and we are sorting it out before the tenth.
Next week
- Days one to seven, as set out in the plan: draw the economic perimeter — which entity earns what, which costs sit against it, and what a month actually looks like when the lines are separated.
- Bring one written page on how we classify a live test before we fire it: which tests touch a product that customers are using, and which do not. The ones that do need a named person inside. We would rather agree that before the first test than during it.
- Settle our own contracting side, so the first invoice has somewhere to come from.
What we need from you
- Robertas — the contracting entity, the authorised signer, and the date of the first invoice — by Friday's call.
- Robertas — whether the three months are committed spend or cancellable month to month. Either works. It only has to be written down — by Friday's call.
- Robertas — four names: executive sponsor, data owner, implementer, budget owner. The implementer is the one that decides whether findings become changes, and it is the same person a product-touching test would need — by Wednesday 12 August.
- Robertas — twenty minutes on the upside rules you asked for on 24 July: how a large opportunity gets registered, owned and shared, agreed before there is anything to share — by Friday's call.
- Gitanas — confirmation that the terms are accepted as read: €50 per hour per person before tax, up to 200 combined hours a month, a €10,000 monthly maximum, and roughly €30,900 across the proposed three months — by Friday's call.
- Paulius — the one marketing question you would most want answered first, so that week one aims at the real one rather than our guess at it — by Wednesday 12 August.
Hours and money
| This week | Cumulative | Against the ceiling |
|---|---|---|
| 0 h Linas 0 · Šarūnas 0 €0 | 0 h €0 invoiced to date | 0 of 200 h monthly maximum €10 000 €10 000 of this month's ceiling unused |
Every figure on this row is computed from the logged hours, not typed. €50 per hour per person, pre-tax, 200 combined hours a month.
Notes
Nothing before 10 August is billed. The preparation, the deck, the research rooms, the infrastructure note and this page are ours, done at our own cost, and they stay that way.
You asked whether AI makes work generic. It does, when nobody is accountable for what it produces. Every claim on this page carries its status, every correction we make to ourselves is printed next to the finding it corrects, and nothing reaches you without a person's name on it. That is the whole mechanism, and it is why this page is boring in the right places.