Stage 1 scope review

Conversion Map - Crew

This review page proposes the research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval gates for mapping how Crew evaluators become customers. It does not yet write research/crew/conversion-map.md or research/crew/conversion-map-interview.md.

Status: review Date: 2026-07-06 Product path: research/crew/ Continuation: $conversion-map research/crew

Review Boundary

approval required

This page is a scope gate. The conversion model, evidence matrix, proposed canonical markdown, and interview artifact should be built only after the scope is approved through compiled YAML from this page.

Allowed now

Resolve Crew as the active product path, identify available inputs, propose scope, list assumptions, and prepare approval gates.

Held until approval

Synthesize final conversion claims, write canonical markdown, confirm this alignment page, or route to downstream transaction/packaging work.

Scope guard

Crew is the product path, not an ICP label. Conversion mechanics stay separate from checkout, payments, refunds, fulfillment, and receipts.

Section feedback

Source Coverage

scope evidence

The following files are available for Stage 2. Rows are source availability, not final conversion findings.

Source	Status	Conversion Questions It Can Support	Use In Stage 2
`research/crew/journey-map.md`	Available	Evaluation, decision roles, conversion trigger, timeline, first value, objections, churn risks.	Primary required base document.
`research/crew/icp.md`	Available	Platform Eng Lead primary buyer/user, Startup CTO secondary, VP Eng/CTO economic buyer, Finance influencer, Security blocker.	Buyer-role map and conversion motion split.
`research/crew/positioning.md`	Available	Read-only billing wedge, cross-tool aggregation claim, anti-positions, PLG + sales-assisted motion.	Proof and objection framing.
`research/crew/competitive-analysis.md`	Available	DIY spreadsheets, Cohrint, Requesty, DX, Worklytics, Exceeds AI, native convergence risk.	Objections, alternatives, and proof burden.
`research/crew/expansion-map.md`	Confirmed	Shared-account Crew-to-Trace cross-sell, role expansion, showback-to-chargeback governance path.	Late conversion and expansion-adjacent signals only.
`research/crew/lifecycle-metrics.md`	Confirmed	Activation-to-conversion events, `cfo_question_answered`, `aha_surprise_logged`, sales-assisted vs self-serve cycle time.	Instrumentation implications for conversion.
`alignment/onboarding-map-crew.html`	Review only	First-session activation flow if approved later.	Reference as pending context; do not treat as canonical evidence.
Monetization / pricing / GTM docs	Not found	Package names, trial limits, seat vs usage pricing, sales-assist thresholds.	Call out as open gaps; do not invent firm packaging.
Product code, analytics, feedback, specs	Not found	Observed funnel rates, real objections, checkout behavior, user feedback.	Mark as unvalidated and future instrumentation.

Source Readiness Flow

Input Group	Readiness	Stage 2 Role
Journey + ICP	Available	Base evaluation and buyer-role model.
Lifecycle + Expansion	Confirmed	Conversion events and role/scope expansion signals.
Positioning + Competition	Available	Proof burden, objections, and alternatives.
Monetization, GTM, feedback	Missing	Explicit assumptions and gaps, not firm recommendations.

Is this source coverage sufficient to start Stage 2 conversion research? Approve the listed sources and gaps. No decision-critical coverage is missing. Do not proceed until additional sources are added. Other / None of the above. Need clarification.

Section feedback

Proposed Research Scope

stage 2 plan

Area	Stage 2 Questions	Explicit Non-Goal
Evaluation path	How does a Platform Eng Lead or Startup CTO move from cross-tool reveal to paid commitment?	No homepage copy or campaign plan.
Trial / demo / PLG motion	What should be self-serve, what needs sales assist, and what proof unlocks team rollout?	No final packaging or price points without monetization research.
Buyer and decision roles	Who champions, who pays, who influences, who blocks, and what proof does each role need?	No enterprise procurement workflow beyond conversion-relevant blockers.
Conversion trigger	Which event moves evaluation to commitment: CFO question answered, aha surprise, report export, team invite, or something else?	No retention or expansion model rewrite.
Objections and proof	What will evaluators doubt: API granularity, native controls, read-only coverage, ROI linkage, security, or tool consolidation?	No live competitive teardown beyond source-plan needs.
Pricing and packaging implications	What packaging questions must be answered before paid conversion is believable?	No checkout, payment, invoicing, refunds, or receipts.
Drop-offs and recovery	Where does evaluation stall after activation, and what recovery action is appropriate?	No lifecycle email sequence build-out.

Approve this conversion-map scope and non-goals? Approve the proposed conversion-map scope. Revise the scope before Stage 2. Other / None of the above. Need clarification.

Section feedback

Assumptions And Confidence

open questions

Assumption	Confidence	What Would Change The Conversion Map
Primary conversion motion splits by persona: Platform Lead is hybrid PLG plus sales-assisted; Startup CTO is self-serve.	Medium-high from ICP and journey docs.	Customer interviews showing a different buyer or decision owner.
The paid trigger is proof of understanding and attribution, not generic savings.	Medium-high from journey and lifecycle docs.	Feedback showing evaluators only pay for hard savings or enforcement.
Packaging is unresolved; the map can name packaging implications but not final prices or plan limits.	High.	A monetization/pricing artifact or explicit user decision.
Per-developer attribution is technically feasible enough to demo value.	Medium-low until provider API validation.	Billing APIs exposing only aggregate spend, requiring a different proof model.
Native vendor budget controls remain a conversion objection, not a full substitute.	Medium; needs current verification during Stage 2 if used as a live market claim.	GitHub, Claude Code, Cursor, or Devin/Windsurf shipping cross-tool-like controls.
Onboarding activation details are pending until the onboarding page is approved.	High.	Final onboarding approval YAML or canonical onboarding docs.

Are these assumptions acceptable for Stage 2? Approve the assumptions and caveats. Do not proceed until assumptions are changed or more evidence is collected. Other / None of the above. Need clarification.

Section feedback

Stage 2 Preview

expected review format

If the gates approve scope, the next conversion-map pass should create a full Stage 2 review page and non-canonical working packet before canonical markdown is written.

Research Scope Approved status block with approved source coverage, assumptions, outputs, and open caveats.
Executive Findings with confidence labels for the conversion motion, evaluation path, trigger, and proof burden.
Evidence Matrix separating claims, source/path evidence, inference, confidence, assumptions, and decision impact.
Working Packet Review rendering the full proposed research/crew/conversion-map.md and research/crew/conversion-map-interview.md substance.
Visual diagrams for evaluator path, role map, proof ladder, objections, and conversion drop-offs.
Alternatives / Lower-Confidence Findings including native-tooling, DIY spreadsheet, pricing, and security objections.
Source Coverage & Gaps with any current external checks clearly labeled if performed.
Final Artifact Approval gate for Stage 3 canonicalization.

Expected output shape after approval:

The eventual canonical conversion map will follow the required sections: Summary, Evaluation Path, Buyer And Decision Roles, Conversion Trigger, Objections And Proof, Pricing And Packaging Implications, Drop-Offs And Recovery, Product Gaps, and Next Steps.

Section feedback

Output Paths And File Changes

destination

Stage 1 writes this review page and the alignment index. Stage 2 may write a non-canonical working packet. Stage 3, after final approval, may write the canonical conversion-map artifacts.

Path	Timing	Purpose
`alignment/conversion-map-crew.html`	Now	Stage 1 scope-review page.
`alignment/index.html`	Now	Central alignment index entry.
`research/crew/_working/preliminary-conversion-map-research.md`	After Stage 1 approval	Stage 2 non-canonical working packet, if the approved flow follows prior staged research pattern.
`research/crew/conversion-map.md`	After final Stage 3 approval	Canonical conversion map.
`research/crew/conversion-map-interview.md`	After final Stage 3 approval	Interview, evidence, prompt, and approval record.

Approve these artifact destinations and mutation boundaries? Approve the staged destinations and boundaries. Revise output paths or mutation boundaries. Other / None of the above. Need clarification.

Section feedback

Post-Approval Route

routing

While this page is in review, the next action is to review and compile YAML from this page. The route below determines what should follow after the conversion-map cycle is approved and canonicalized.

Which route should follow approved canonical conversion-map artifacts? Route to $transaction-map research/crew after conversion-map canonicalization. Route to monetization or packaging research if available. Stop after confirming the conversion map. Other / None of the above. Need clarification.

Section feedback

Compile Responses

Answer one or more gates, or select section feedback, then compile YAML. A complete response with every required gate answered with approving options and no unresolved negative feedback can be pasted back to the agent to authorize Stage 2 research.