Fine-tune the use casePick the one closest to you
A product program forteams facing
Product and Engineering agree in the meeting. Why do they build different things?
Because "agreed" meant a nod at a slide. The product manager heard a workflow, the engineer heard an endpoint, and the difference shows up at the demo. This program aligns what your product managers and engineers know, believe and do when they agree on a feature for your product, in four one-hour team sessions.
Make it for your team
Execution readinessExample scores for a team like yours. Add your website to estimate your own. Measured once your team plays. Ready at 80.
Where it usually breaks42Today93/ 100After the 4 team sessions
Ready to executeShared knowledgeHigh riskThe same feature described two ways
Shared convictionMedium riskEngineers believe the spec is Product's problem
Shared practiceHigh riskNobody writes down what "done" means before building starts
4 sessions~50 min each8–12 people per teamNo facilitatorThe gap
What you'd typically hear if five of your product people answered alone.
SESSION 1 · FILL THE GAPSAnswered alone
Finish the sentence: when we leave a planning meeting, what we have agreed to build is…MMira…written down in one paragraph that both sides would sign.
JJonas…on the slide. Everyone saw it.
AAylin…in the ticket, more or less.
TTomas…clear to me. I am not sure about the others.
RRosa…whatever the engineer decides it is.
What it costs you if nobody notices
Shared knowledgeTwo descriptions, one demoWhen Product and Engineering describe the same feature differently, the difference is discovered at the demo, when it is most expensive to fix.
Shared convictionThe spec is somebody else's jobAn engineer who believes the description belongs to Product builds the one that is easiest, and a product manager who believes the detail belongs to Engineering never checks it.
Shared practiceDone is never definedWithout a shared line for done, every feature ships twice: once as built, once as meant.
The program that closes the gap
Four one-hour sessions. Product and Engineering, one description per feature, before a line is written.
Session
Shared knowledgeShared convictionShared practice
S1Know what was agreedAgrees the way a feature is described: the user, the outcome, what is in, what is out, what done means.
Shared knowledge1Agree the exact words that describe a feature2Quiz each other on the facts behind "agreed"Shared conviction3Decide alone how a stakeholder would define 'done' for a featureShared practice4Sort real planning situations into the right response for…5Rehearse the exact moment a feature's scope turns out…
DemoS2Own the description togetherShows you whether both sides believe the description is theirs, and where each blames the other.
Shared knowledge1Quiz each other on who owns the feature descriptionShared conviction2Name what it costs when nobody owns the feature description3Decide who owns the feature descriptionShared practice4Sort real planning situations into who owns the description5Rehearse the exact moment a feature description starts to…
DemoS3Describe the same featureDescribes the same feature alone from each side, compares the gaps and aligns on one version.
Shared knowledge1Quiz each other on what "agreed" actually means for a featureShared conviction2Decide the mid-sprint gap call the way the CPO wouldShared practice3Match six mid-sprint and planning situations to the one…4Describe the same feature from each side
DemoS4Catch the gap earlyPractises the moment a gap appears: what to ask, when to stop, how to re-agree without a new meeting.
Shared knowledge1Practice spotting a gap mid-buildShared conviction2Decide how a stakeholder would really re-agree scopeShared practice3Order the steps for catching4Rehearse catching a spec gap mid build
DemoPlay it yourself · a short demo · one exercise from session 3 · Make the Call
Alone first. Then the team agrees on one answer.
This is a taste, not the whole session. “Describe the same feature” runs 4 exercises with your own team, on a call or in a room. Here is one of them, on the real screens, played with four AI teammates, so you can feel how a session works.
Describe the same feature · Make the Call00:00MJLSYouDecide the mid-sprint gap call the way the CPO would, then commit to following itOn screen: Reframe how you would handle the mid-sprint ticket versus meeting gap alone
You are playing with 4 AI teammates. Every screen opens on its briefing: read it, then tap I’m ready.
Readiness intelligence · what you'll see as teams play
Know which of your product and engineering pairs describe a feature the same way, and where you should step in, before the next demo lands wrong.
Your company › Readiness intelligence › Product and Engineering building the same thingProduct and Engineering leave the meeting with one description of what will be built
Readiness index93%Ready+51 pts25% participation + 25% progress + 50% alignment · Ready at 80
Shared knowledge48 → 88Shared conviction37 → 71Shared practice44 → 80
Participation94%169 of 180 people played at least once
Progress75%3 of 4 planned sessions completed
Alignment41% →78%562 of 720 points aligned
Failed alignment pointsWhere you should step in
The gap mid-sprintNot aligned in 14 of 36 playsShared knowledgeYour platform squads · 30 people
Is the description my job?"Not yet, we still have concerns" in 2 playsShared convictionYour backend engineers · 25 people
Your product managers and engineers could play this next week. Add your website to make it yours.
- 01 · 5 minConfirm the assumptionsCheck what we inferred about you and edit any text in place. Your edits are locked.
- 02 · 1 link per teamInvite your teamAny browser, any device. No account, nothing to install.
- 03 · after each playWatch readiness fill inYou see who played, what they agreed, and where to follow up.
Used by teams at
Free until you play live · ISO 27001 · EU data
Free until you play live · ISO 27001 · EU data