Navigation

Supporting Materials

Lead Facilitator Briefing

Lead Facilitator Briefing#

Purpose and Exercise Hypotheses#

Project Threshold is a strategic stress-test designed to surface near-term (2026-2030) economic implications of different AI adoption timelines and capability types. The exercise is not a prediction; it is a structured scenario exploration that forces decision-makers to grapple with real trade-offs, uncertainty, and strategic consequences.

Core Hypotheses Being Tested:

Industry divergence is inevitable. AI benefits will accrue unevenly across the eleven industries based on technical feasibility, regulatory tolerance, and business model fit. Finance, Consulting, Big Tech, and SaaS will move faster than Healthcare Provider, Manufacturing, and Law.
Market concentration may accelerate. Large, well-capitalized players with data, talent, and capital will capture disproportionate value from AI. Mid-market players face strategic risk if they cannot execute speed-to-market.
Labor displacement is structural, not cyclical. Unlike previous technology cycles where displaced workers could transition to new roles over a decade, AI displacement is occurring faster (1-3 years) and in roles that do not have obvious retraining paths. Junior roles in Consulting, Law, and Finance are particularly exposed.
Regulatory bifurcation is likely. Policy will not be uniform. Some jurisdictions will embrace aggressive AI deployment; others will impose strict safeguards. Firms must operate across this patchwork. Law faces unique complexity with 50+ state bar jurisdictions.
Plausible catastrophic tail risks exist. A major incident (AI system causing patient harm, financial system manipulation, or market disruption) could trigger severe regulatory backlash and broader market disruption.
Organizational execution matters more than technology. Firms that combine AI deployment with disciplined change management, workforce transition planning, and customer communication will succeed. Those that treat AI as a "tool drop" will underperform.
Professional services business models face existential pressure. Consulting and Law face unique disruption: AI compresses the work that junior talent performs, undermining the leverage model that drives profitability. Pricing models (billable hours, per-consultant fees) are under direct threat.

What Makes a Good V7.4 Facilitator?#

Tone and Energy#

High-Energy Engagement Without Hype: Maintain enthusiasm for the scenario while signaling that this is serious strategic work. Avoid breathless "AI will change everything" language; instead emphasize "AI will force hard choices."

Intellectual Humility: You are not predicting the future. You are exploring one plausible future. When participants challenge assumptions, acknowledge the validity. Say: "That's a fair point. Regulation could move slower than we've modeled, which would shift outcomes. That's exactly the kind of assumption we should examine."

Authentic Interest in Participant Reasoning: When a participant presents a decision, ask follow-up questions that probe their logic. "Why did you choose aggressive automation over gradual deployment?" Listen to their reasoning. Score accordingly, but also show that you understand the tension.

Controlled Urgency: Participants should feel time pressure, but not panic. Create artificial urgency through inject timing and decision deadlines, but don't make it feel arbitrary. Say: "You have 12 minutes to decide. The market is moving fast in this scenario. What's your call?"

Decision-Making Style#

Principle-Based, Not Arbitrary: Your role is to adjudicate based on transparent criteria (Strategic Fit, Execution Risk, Tail Risk). Explain your scoring publicly so participants understand the logic. If a participant challenges a score, acknowledge the challenge and explain your reasoning.

Firm but Fair on Plausibility: Some participants will propose ideas that are technologically implausible or organizationally infeasible. Your job is to enforce the bounds of the scenario without being pedantic. If a participant says "We will deploy fully autonomous systems with zero human oversight in 6 months," push back: "Regulators require human oversight. That's non-negotiable in this scenario. But you could deploy a system where AI makes 80% of routine decisions autonomously and flags exceptions for human review. That's plausible." Don't shut down creativity; redirect it.

Transparency on Tradeoffs: When adjudicating, make clear that every decision involves tradeoffs. Aggressive AI deployment = speed and efficiency, but also labor risk and regulatory risk. Defensive moves = safety, but also competitive disadvantage. Help participants see the tradeoff matrix, even if they choose poorly.

Common Facilitator Mistakes to Avoid#

1. Over-Explaining

Mistake: Spending 10 minutes explaining round setup when 3 minutes suffices.
Fix: Read the situation scenario aloud concisely. Trust the materials. If participants have questions, answer them, but don't pre-answer every possible question.

2. Participants Don't Fully Engage

Mistake: An industry representative doesn't think critically about their own position. Decisions feel flat or defaulted.
Fix: Ask probing questions one-on-one during processing time. "What assumption would need to be true for your industry to move faster?" Draw out genuine thinking.

3. Not Enforcing Time Discipline

Mistake: Industry representatives get 15 minutes to decide, but you don't stop them at 15 minutes. Exercises run long and lose impact.
Fix: Use a visible timer. Announce "2 minutes remaining" at 13 minutes. Call time at 15 minutes. Say: "Pens down. What's your decision?" If they're still deliberating, say: "You have 60 seconds to decide: aggressive or conservative?" Force a choice.

4. Being Too Lenient on Implausible Strategies

Mistake: A participant proposes something that violates the scenario bounds, and you allow it because "it's interesting."
Fix: Maintain scenario boundaries. If a participant proposes AGI-level capabilities in 2026, say: "That's outside our scenario. We're modeling incremental AI progress, not discontinuous breakthroughs. What's a plausible version of your strategy?"

5. Not Creating Urgency

Mistake: Participants feel they have unlimited time to think. Discussions become academic and lose energy.
Fix: Announce timing upfront. Use injects to force decisions. Say: "Markets are moving. Your competitor just announced a major move. Do you respond or stick with your plan? You have 5 minutes to decide."

6. Treating Debrief as Afterthought

Mistake: Rushing through the final debrief because time is running out.
Fix: Protect debrief time. The debrief is where participants make sense of what they learned. Allocate 60 minutes minimum (non-negotiable). Ask: "What surprised you?" "What assumptions did we test?" "What policy questions remain unresolved?"

7. Not Managing Cross-Industry Discussion with Larger Groups

Mistake: With 11 industry participants, discussion becomes unwieldy or dominated by 2–3 voices.
Fix: Use structured facilitation. Call on specific industries: "Healthcare Provider, how does Finance's decision affect you?" Rotate who speaks first each round. Use the "popcorn" method — each participant responds briefly, then deeper discussion follows.

Industry Selection Facilitation (When Running Fewer Than 11)#

When participant count is below 11, the facilitator must select which industries are in play. Guidance:

5 participants (minimum viable): Select one industry per industry cluster to maximize cross-industry diversity:

Retail, Healthcare Provider, Finance, Manufacturing, Big Tech

7 participants: Add Consulting and SaaS for professional services and software depth. These two industries create rich cross-industry dynamics (Consulting advises all others; SaaS sells to all others).

9 participants: Add CPG, Healthcare Payer, and Logistics for broader coverage and intra-group tension (Provider vs. Payer, Retail vs. CPG).

11 participants: Full roster. Maximum cross-industry richness.

Collective Bonus scales naturally: The Collective Bonus is available every round regardless of participant count. With 5 participants, consensus is easier to reach; with 11, agreement among 3+ participants is more common and multiple industries may be nominated.

When to Increase Pressure vs. Give Breathing Room#

Signal	Context	Facilitator Move
Participants are disengaged or passive	Industry rep is waiting for facilitator guidance instead of making proactive decisions	Increase pressure: Deploy injects. "Your competitor just announced a major move. Do you match their move or differentiate?"
Participants are pursuing obviously implausible strategies	A participant wants to "ignore AI and focus on human excellence" despite aggressive competitor moves in the scenario	Increase pressure: Push back directly. "That's a defensible posture, but the scenario assumes aggressive competitor moves. How do you compete if your rival has 30% cost advantage from automation?"
Participants are over-analyzing and under-deciding	Analysis paralysis — participant says "I need more data before deciding"	Increase pressure: Force a call. "The market doesn't wait for perfect information. Make a decision with the data you have. What's your call?"
Late rounds and endgame positioning	Round 3-4; participants should feel the weight of their cumulative decisions	Increase pressure: Force final strategic bets. Tighten timelines, deploy high-stakes injects.
A participant is working through a genuinely hard tradeoff	Participant is wrestling with labor vs. efficiency or risk vs. return — real tensions	Give breathing room: Let them deliberate. These tensions are the heart of the exercise.
A major inject has just hit and participants are reacting	Disruptive inject landed; participants need time to absorb	Give breathing room: Allow 2-3 extra minutes to process before requiring a decision.
Early rounds (Practice Round, R1) — participants are learning the format	Participants are still settling into the rhythm	Give breathing room: Let them learn the mechanics before ramping pressure.
A participant has made a bold, well-reasoned move	Participant took a risk but backed it with strong reasoning	Give breathing room: Acknowledge good reasoning even if you disagree with the strategic choice. Reward careful thinking.

The Practice Micro-Round (9:00–9:10, Pre-Round 1)#

V7.4 includes a brief practice round (9:00–9:10) before Round 1 proper. This is crucial for:

Familiarizing individual industry representatives with decision format and scoring
Testing tech and materials
Building confidence before high-stakes rounds
Surfacing questions about rules and procedures

Facilitator Guidance:

Keep it short (10 minutes total including decision + feedback)
Make decisions low-stakes (small point values)
Provide immediate scoring feedback so participants understand the rubric
Use this round to correct misunderstandings about process
Tell participants explicitly: "This is practice. Use it to learn the format."

Running Collective Bonus (Optional, Every Round, R1-R4)#

Each round includes an optional Collective Bonus opportunity during the cross-industry discussion period (~4 minutes within the 27-minute discussion block). Participation is not mandatory; it represents an organic peer signal on strategy quality.

Collective Bonus Mechanics:

Open nomination. Facilitator opens the floor: "Does anyone want to recognize an especially strong strategy this round, or flag one that seems particularly risky?" Participants who wish to respond name one industry as a strong strategy and/or one as a risky strategy. Participants cannot nominate their own industry.
Consensus threshold. If 3+ participants agree on the same industry: +2 (strong strategy) or -2 (risky strategy) applied to cumulative score. Maximum one +2 and one -2 per round. If no consensus or no one speaks up, no bonus applied.
Use Collective Bonus to create cascades. Collective Bonus results have ripple effects: a +2 bonus signals peer confidence and may embolden that industry's next move; a -2 penalty signals peer concern and may prompt a strategic pivot. Call these out: "Three participants flagged Manufacturing as risky this round. Manufacturing, does that change your approach next round? Logistics, does your supply chain partner's low credibility affect your plans?"
Debrief Collective Bonus patterns. In final debrief, ask: "Who consistently received peer recognition? Who was consistently flagged as risky? Did the group's collective judgment track with scoring outcomes, or diverge?"

Running Facilitator Market Shock (Round 2 Only)#

In Round 2, the facilitator imposes a Market Shock — selecting 2-3 industries and imposing one constraint each from the standard constraint menu. This replaces the former IC Constraint Imposition action.

Facilitator Responsibilities:

Select 2-3 target industries. Choose based on Round 1 outcomes, strategic positioning, or to create interesting cross-industry dynamics. Any industry can be hit.
Impose one constraint per target industry from the standard constraint menu: Regulatory Halt, Labor Cost Surge, Capital Tightening, Reputational Pressure, Competitive Response, Litigation Risk.
Announce publicly. Read the constraints aloud: "Market Shock: Finance faces Capital Tightening. Healthcare Provider faces Regulatory Halt. Consulting faces Competitive Response." Allow ~3 minutes for this action.
Create cascades. Market Shock constraints force strategy pivots and create cross-industry ripple effects. Call these out: "Finance just got hit with Capital Tightening. Consulting, does that affect your clients' advisory budgets? SaaS, does reduced financial sector spending hit your pipeline?"

Private Cards (Rounds 1-3 Only)#

In V7.4, private cards are distributed only in Rounds 1-3 from the separate Private Cards folder. Round 4 has no private information.

Facilitator Guidance:

Protect information: When distributing a private card to a Retail participant, ensure it's not visible to other industries. Read it aloud (so facilitator can control framing) or hand directly to participant.
Timing matters: Distribute private cards during inject processing time, not during decision preparation. This gives participants time to absorb before deciding.
Selective revelation: If a private card is shared across multiple industries, coordinate revelation timing. Example: "Finance gets this market data card 2 minutes before Consulting does, so Finance has a brief information advantage."
Round 4 transparency: Remind participants in Round 4 that there are no private cards. All information is shared. This creates a different dynamic: participants are operating on equal information.

Simplified Staffing Model (1 Facilitator + 1 Helper)#

V7.4 is optimized for minimal staffing: 1 lead facilitator + 1 support person (note-taker or tech support). Minimum viable exercise: 5 industry representatives + 1 facilitator + 1 helper = 7 people.

Scaling Note: With 11 industry participants, consider adding a second scorer to handle the increased decision volume within the scoring block.

Responsibility Split:

Lead Facilitator:

Stands at podium or control station
Reads situation updates and injects aloud
Manages timer visibly
Adjudicates decisions in real-time
Conducts Collective Bonus during cross-industry discussion (all rounds)
Executes Facilitator Market Shock (Round 2)
Leads debrief
Maintains energy and urgency

Support Person:

Manages tech (projector, timer display, backup materials)
Takes notes on key decisions and industry dynamics
Distributes private cards (from Private Cards) and materials
Handles contingencies (projector fails, missing worksheet, etc.)
Posts scores on display board

Time-Saving Tips:

Pre-print all materials (no improvisation)
Have backup copies of everything
Use a simple scoring sheet (not complex digital system)
Minimize breakout consultations (only if industry representative is stuck)

Pre-Exercise Setup Checklist#

Logistics & Tech (1 week before)

Confirm room booking and layout (5–11 industry positions, round-table or seminar seating, central projection, breakout areas)
Confirm which industries are in play; prepare only those materials
Test projector, timer display, WiFi
Print all industry cards, decision worksheets, scoring sheets, scenario packets (minimum 20% extra copies)
Print private cards from Private Cards for selected industries only
Arrange for backup power, backup projector, backup materials
Set up timer display (visible to all participants)

Participant Prep (1 week before)

Distribute pre-exercise diagnostic survey (optional but recommended)
Send primer document: "Project Threshold Overview & Your Industry"
Distribute industry-specific AI Adoption Arc from AI Adoption Arcs
Request pre-reading: Facilitator briefing overview and relevant industry background
Confirm attendance and accessibility needs

Materials Distribution (Day of exercise, 30 min before start)

At each position: 1 set of industry cards
At each position: Decision worksheets and scoring reference
At each position: Pens, notepads, scenario packets
Central projection: Round situation cards, inject deck
Facilitator station: Master copy of all materials, injections, scoring rubrics

Facilitator Prep (Day of exercise, 1 hour before)

Review participant list and industry assignments
Confirm timing for practice round and Rounds 1-4
Pre-read all injects for practice round and Round 1
Test all tech (projector, timer, WiFi, audio)
Prepare scorecard to track industry scores across rounds
Identify which injects to use (tailor to emphasis)

8-Hour Full-Day Format (V7.4 Standard)#

Target Audience: Mixed organizational levels; full immersion in decision scenarios

Structure: Practice micro-round + Rounds 1-4; all injects deployed; cross-industry discussion emphasis; full debrief

Minute-by-Minute Timeline

Time	Duration	Activity	Notes
8:30	15 min	Arrival & Setup	Materials distribution, name badges, seating by industry
8:45	15 min	Welcome & Exercise Overview	Opening remarks, objectives, explain rounds 1–4, participant introductions
9:00	10 min	PRACTICE MICRO-ROUND	Simple scenario; low-stakes decision; facilitator scores live; Q&A
9:10	5 min	ROUND 1: Situation Update	Project slide; read injects
9:15	3 min	ROUND 1: Inject + Private Card	Distribute private cards from Private Cards
9:18	15 min	ROUND 1: Individual Decision Prep	Each industry rep prepares alone
9:33	3 min	ROUND 1: Decision Submission	Each rep submits worksheet
9:36	12 min	ROUND 1: Facilitator Scoring	Score all submitted decisions
9:48	27 min	ROUND 1: Cross-Industry Discussion & Results	Scores posted; Collective Bonus (Optional); cross-industry dynamics
10:15	15 min	Break	Coffee, restrooms
10:30	5 min	ROUND 2: Situation Update	Project slide; read injects
10:35	3 min	ROUND 2: Inject + Private Card	Distribute Round 2 private cards
10:38	15 min	ROUND 2: Individual Decision Prep	Each rep prepares
10:53	3 min	ROUND 2: Decision Submission	Each rep submits
10:56	12 min	ROUND 2: Facilitator Scoring	Score decisions; apply Facilitator Market Shock (~3 min within this block)
11:08	27 min	ROUND 2: Cross-Industry Discussion & Results	Scores + Market Shock announced; Collective Bonus (Optional); IHS conditions
11:35	40 min	Lunch	Informal reflection encouraged
12:15	5 min	ROUND 3: Situation Update	Project slide; read injects
12:20	3 min	ROUND 3: Inject + Private Card	Distribute Round 3 private cards
12:23	15 min	ROUND 3: Individual Decision Prep	Each rep prepares
12:38	3 min	ROUND 3: Decision Submission	Each rep submits
12:41	12 min	ROUND 3: Facilitator Scoring	Score decisions
12:53	27 min	ROUND 3: Cross-Industry Discussion & Results	Scores posted; Collective Bonus (Optional); IHS conditions
1:20	15 min	Break	Restrooms, energy reset
1:35	5 min	ROUND 4: Situation Update	Project slide; read final injects
1:40	3 min	ROUND 4: Inject Distribution	Final market conditions; no private cards R4
1:43	15 min	ROUND 4: Final Individual Decision	Each rep makes final decision
1:58	3 min	ROUND 4: Decision Submission	Each rep submits
2:01	12 min	ROUND 4: Facilitator Scoring	Score final decisions
2:13	27 min	ROUND 4: Cross-Industry Discussion & Results	Final discussion; Collective Bonus (Optional)
2:40	10 min	Break + Facilitator Prep	Consolidate scores, prepare debrief
2:50	15 min	Individual Reflections	Each rep shares 1–2 min highlights
3:05	25 min	Cross-Industry Dynamics Discussion	Facilitator-led; inter-industry dependencies
3:30	20 min	No-Regrets Actions & Takeaways	Consolidate actions; each rep states key takeaway
3:50	40 min	Wrap-Up & Close	Feedback surveys, closing remarks, synthesis memo scheduling

Debrief Facilitation (2:50–3:50, 60 minutes, non-negotiable)#

After Round 4 and final adjudication, you have 60 minutes for debrief (2:50–3:50). This is where learning consolidates. Debrief is protected time and should not be shortened.

Debrief Structure:

Individual Reflections (15 min): Each industry representative shares highlights. With 5 participants, allow 2–3 min each. With 11 participants, keep to 1–1.5 min each. Rotations: Who am I? What surprised me? What would I do differently?

Cross-Industry Dynamics (25 min): Facilitator-led discussion of inter-industry dependencies and spillovers discovered during the exercise. Push on tensions and patterns. With 11 industries, there are richer dynamics to explore — use that.

No-Regrets Actions & Takeaways (20 min): Consolidate actions that make sense regardless of scenario. Each rep states one key takeaway.

Debrief Questions (Use as needed):

Question	Purpose
"What surprised you?"	Opens reflection. Not "What happened?" but "What violated your expectations?" Best used first to set a reflective tone.
"Which assumptions did the scenario challenge?"	Surfaces hidden beliefs (regulation would be light, clients would trust AI, your industry would move faster). Use after participants have warmed up.
"What would you do differently if you ran the scenario again?"	Reflects on decision quality and hindsight learning. Effective mid-debrief when participants can see their full arc.
"What policy questions remain unresolved?"	By Round 4, participants see gaps. Draws out real-world regulatory and governance uncertainty. Use to transition toward takeaways.
"What would your actual leadership take away from this?"	Bridges the exercise back to real organizations and decisions. Best used near the end to ground the discussion.
"How did dynamics between related industries play out?" (NEW for V7.4)	Probes specific pairs: Finance vs. Consulting, Healthcare Provider vs. Payer, Retail vs. CPG, Big Tech vs. SaaS. Use during Cross-Industry Dynamics block.
"How did Collective Bonus results affect your strategy?" (NEW for V7.4)	Surfaces whether peer recognition (+2) emboldened or peer concern (-2) forced pivots. Did the group's collective judgment match your own assessment? Use during Individual Reflections block.
"Did the Market Shock in Round 2 change your trajectory?" (NEW for V7.4)	Probes whether externally imposed constraints created lasting strategic shifts or were absorbed. Use during Cross-Industry Dynamics block.

Debrief Facilitation Moves:

Call on all industries: Ensure each industry voice is heard. Don't let one participant dominate. With 11 participants, be disciplined about time.
Push on tensions: "You chose aggressive automation. Why didn't you invest more in workforce transition?"
Highlight divergence: "Retail chose aggressive automation. Law chose defensive positioning. Manufacturing went hybrid. That's realistic market divergence based on industry characteristics."
Probe cross-industry dynamics: "Consulting, your pricing pressure directly affects Finance's advisory budget. Did you two discuss that? Finance, did you factor in how Consulting's AI-augmented delivery changes your cost structure?"
Note real-world parallels: "In real strategy work, you're facing these same tradeoffs. How will you handle it in your actual organization?"

Common Facilitation Scenarios & Facilitator Moves#

Scenario	What You'll See	Facilitator Move
Implausible Strategy	Healthcare Provider rep proposes fully autonomous AI diagnostics with zero human oversight in 6 months.	Don't shut them down — probe: "FDA approval takes 12-24 months. How do you compress that?" Reference scenario: regulators demand human oversight. Offer redirect: "AI reads scans, radiologists verify — that's plausible and still powerful." Scoring: If they insist on zero-oversight, score Execution Risk at -3. If they redirect, score higher.
Analysis Paralysis	Manufacturing rep has been deliberating 12 minutes. Time is up in 3. No decision yet.	Name it: "You're wrestling with a tough tradeoff. That's valid." Force binary: "Markets don't wait. Aggressive or conservative? Which way?" Probe instinct: "If you had to bet $1M, which would you choose?" Hard deadline: "60 seconds. Write it down. Go." Scoring: Score based on decision made, not analysis quality.
Market Shock Creates Disruption (R2)	Facilitator Market Shock imposes a constraint that threatens an industry rep's strategy.	Normalize: "This is exactly the kind of external shock real organizations face." Slow down: "Don't react emotionally. Analyze carefully." Decompose: "What changed? Who's most affected? Which industries feel the ripple?" Redirect: "Adapt or fight?" Scoring: Thoughtful adaptation gets credit. Panic or dismissal loses points.
Labor Displacement Moral Tension	Consulting rep is conflicted — AI automates junior associate work but destroys the talent pipeline.	Name the tension: "This is one of the realest tensions in professional services AI strategy." Separate layers: financial return, execution, talent pipeline sustainability, client perception. Present options: aggressive automation (fast margin, high pipeline risk), hybrid (slower savings, preserved pipeline), full reskilling (high cost, uncertain ROI). Scoring: Score fairly regardless of choice. They own the tradeoff. Debrief: "Your talent pipeline may not recover. Junior associates are how you develop senior partners."
Major Inject Triggers Market Crisis	Inject hits: "AI-driven trading error causes 12% market drop. Regulators investigating."	Describe cascade: "This isn't a single-company problem. It's market-wide. All industries are affected." Force immediate decision: "What's your response in the next 48 hours?" Highlight consequences: "Did you build safeguards? If you went all-in on automation, you're exposed." Scoring: Quick, transparent response gets credit. Defensive or slow responses lose trust. Draw lesson: "Tail risk is real. Hedges and governance matter more in crises than in calm markets."
Bar Rule Uncertainty (NEW for V7.4)	Law rep wants to deploy AI for client advice but is uncertain about bar association rules across jurisdictions.	Acknowledge the constraint: "Bar rules vary by jurisdiction. This is a genuine uncertainty." Frame the decision: "Deploy cautiously in permissive jurisdictions, or wait for clarity nationally. Each has costs." Probe: "If you wait, competitors gain 6-12 months of efficiency advantage. If you deploy, you risk compliance action." Reference malpractice: "Who bears liability if AI-assisted legal work contains errors?" Scoring: Thoughtful navigation of regulatory uncertainty gets credit. Ignoring it does not.

Banded Scoring Framework (V7.4)#

Each submitted decision is scored across three dimensions using banded scoring: {-2, 0, +2} with +/-3 on red-flag triggers.

Three Scoring Dimensions:

Strategic Fit (-2 to +2): Does this decision align with the participant's industry position and market reality? Are the stated bands (Spend, Timeline, Complexity, Dependency, Scale, Success Metric) realistic and well-reasoned?
Execution Risk (-2 to +2): Can this actually be executed given constraints (time, capital, talent)? Are risks and mitigations credible?
Tail Risk (-2 to +2): Does this decision create or mitigate major downside scenarios?

Red-Flag Triggers:

Exceptionally implausible strategy or unrealistic bands (-3 on Execution)
Exceptionally prescient risk management or hedging (+3 on Tail Risk)
Gross negligence of stakeholder management (-3 on Strategic Fit)

Banded Framework Integration: Participants should use the six-band decision format (Spend/Commitment, Time-to-Impact, Execution Complexity, Dependency, Scale, Success Metric) to avoid false precision. Your scoring should reinforce this: "Your 'Material but manageable' Spend band is realistic given the Regional pilot Scale. Your 'High' Execution Complexity band reflects the regulatory dependency — well-reasoned."

How to Score & Communicate:

When scoring a decision, tell the participant explicitly:

"Your decision scores +2 on Strategic Fit (Spend, Timeline, and Scale bands are realistic; well-aligned with industry fundamentals)."
"0 on Execution Risk (your 'High' Complexity band is credible, but mitigations are thin on the regulator dependency piece)."
"+1 on Tail Risk (you've thought through downside if regulatory approval delays; fallback plan is weak)."
"Total this round: +1 point. Running total: [X]."

This transparency builds trust and reinforces the banded framework.

Scoring Time Management with 11 Industries: With up to 11 decisions per round (vs. 5 in V7), plan for approximately 1 minute per decision during the 12-minute scoring block. Consider having the helper serve as a second scorer, or pre-prepare scoring templates with industry-specific baselines to accelerate adjudication.

Document Version: Project Threshold V7.4 — Lead Facilitator Briefing Last Updated: March 2026 Format: 8-hour single-day format, 11 industries (5–11 participants) + 1-2 facilitators, individual participant model, Collective Bonus (all rounds) + Facilitator Market Shock (R2)