Judgment detail
One signal, fully reasoned: what goal it was meant to move, how good the work is on its own terms, and whether it was the highest-leverage use of capacity.
Status reporting + standup prep
5.5h this week compiling status spreadsheets and prepping standups across 3 clients. Recurring, manual, copy-paste from Jira and GitLab.
What the engine inferred
The three scores
never a single numberDimension breakdown
how output value was earnedReports are accurate — but assembled by hand from Jira + GitLab.
5.5h/week of copy-paste across 3 clients. Recurring.
Pure overhead; produces no durable artifact.
Judgment trace
question → finding- 1
What goal was this meant to move?
Nothing weighted — it's coordination overhead, the kind FlowIQ itself should erase.
- 2
How good is the work on its own terms?
It's careful, but the task shouldn't exist manually.
- 3
Was this the highest-leverage use of capacity?
No. 5.5h/week of a skilled engineer compiling status is the clearest waste on the board.
Narrative
This is the single clearest capacity leak in the unit: 5.5h every week of an engineer hand-compiling status across three clients. It ladders to no goal and produces nothing durable. Automating it (the legacy-reporting goal exists precisely for this) returns most of a workday per week.
Action ladder
how far the engine will goAuto-generate the weekly status from Jira + GitLab and kill the manual macro. Reclaims ~5h/week — reinvest in FLOW-204.