Building Your Product 360
The end-to-end playbook for a new surface area, with grilling prompts for your harness.
Use your first 90 days to build a shared, current view of the product. Scope the work, verify inherited evidence, make the missing decisions and establish a cadence that keeps the Product 360 useful.
Why this matters
Inherited strategy, personas, pricing and roadmaps often describe different moments. Reading them gives you a private view. A Product 360 makes the reconciled evidence and decisions available to the organization.
Michael Watkins’s The First 90 Days (2003) frames transitions through learning, diagnosis, expectations, early wins, coalitions and team building. Enterprise release cycles make early wins more likely to be decisions than newly shipped features.
An approved harness can inventory connected documents, CRM and analytics, then expose gaps. You supply the judgments. The grilling session structures that work: one question, an evidenced recommendation, a challenge and a recorded answer.
The playbook
Three phases, five moves
Repeat five moves across three 30-day phases.
In days 1–30, scope, inventory, verify facts, map stakeholders and settle an early decision. In days 31–60, resolve missing choices and build the spine. In days 61–90, run reviews, produce needed event artifacts and assess maturity.
The moves adapt Anthropic’s 2024 prompt chaining and evaluator-optimizer patterns. One step feeds the next with a check, while a separate pass critiques the result. You own those checks.
- Anchor. Give the harness your reference materials and connectors. It inventories them, maps them to the nine dimensions, quotes the evidence and produces a gap list.
- Grill. Run a grilling session per dimension. The harness asks; you decide; every answer goes into a log.
- Generate. The harness turns the log plus the evidence into the book’s templates, with every claim tagged to its source.
- Audit. A separate pass checks the artifacts against each other and against their sources.
- Maintain. The cadence keeps the artifacts true: weekly exception briefs, monthly roadmap checks, quarterly and annual re-grills.
Facts and decisions
Separate missing information into facts and decisions.
A fact exists in a source: ARR, escalations, margin trend or customer statements. Retrieve it through an approved connector, cite its owner and date, and ask for confirmation rather than reconstructing it from memory.
A decision selects a course: segments to serve, the North Star, retirement timing or a margin tradeoff. Record the accountable decider, rationale and tradeoff. Existing documents may hold prior choices, but the harness cannot invent a new one.
Separate sourced facts from proposed choices before drafting strategy. In grilling, the harness recommends an option and the human accepts, changes or rejects it. Keep unresolved choices visible.
MCP connects the harness to permissioned data and tools. Anthropic introduced it in November 2024, and it moved to the Linux Foundation’s Agentic AI Foundation in December 2025. Chapter 19 covers access and source verification.
The grilling session
In a grilling session, the harness interviews you toward an explicit goal. Jules White and colleagues’ 2023 Vanderbilt prompt catalog calls this Flipped Interaction: the model asks until it has the information needed. Specify the goal and collection boundaries.
Li, Tamkin, Goodman and Andreas found model-led questioning informative and less effortful than user-written prompts or labels across three domains. The study did not test product strategy. Anthropic’s coding guidance similarly recommends interviewing toward a specification, recording it and implementing in a fresh session. These support the mechanism, without proving strategy quality.
This book’s grilling session adds three things the Flipped Interaction pattern doesn’t specify:
- A recommended answer with every question. The harness proposes an answer with its reasoning and evidence. You react instead of composing from scratch, which is faster and exposes the harness’s assumptions.
- Challenges against explicit tests. The harness doesn’t accept a weak answer just because you gave it.
- A written log. Every question, recommendation, answer, challenge and status goes into a grilling session log, which later becomes the source for the artifacts.
Explicit tests counter agreeable but weak answers. Sharma and colleagues’ 2023 Anthropic research found sycophancy across five assistants and four tasks, alongside preferences for responses matching users’ views. Require the harness to identify unsupported assumptions and contradictions.
The tests are this book’s synthesis, in the Socratic tradition of asking for clarification, evidence, assumptions, alternatives and consequences. Every answer in a grilling session should pass all seven:
| Test | Passes when the answer… | Typical failing answer | Chapter |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specific | Names a segment, number, date or owner | “Enterprise customers,” “soon” | 17 |
| Evidenced | Cites a source, or is labeled an assumption with a test | “Customers love it” | 01, 19 |
| Falsifiable | Says what result would prove it wrong | “Agents will transform ops” | 01 |
| Trade-off named | Says what you give up | A strategy with no refusals | 03 |
| Consistent | Doesn’t contradict an earlier answer or an existing artifact | Positioning that promises what the risk assessment forbids | 00 |
| Owned | Someone is accountable and there’s a review date | “The team will track it” | 29 |
| Decision-relevant | Changes a decision someone makes in the next quarter | A metric nobody acts on | 17 |
If an answer fails, the harness names the failed test, explains the gap and asks once more. A second failure becomes overridden with your rationale or open with an owner. Preserve the gap rather than forcing apparent agreement.
End each dimension with a readback, premortem and confirmation. Adapt Gary Klein’s 2007 method: assume the artifact misled a decision ninety days later and ask why. Record the resulting risks and changes.
Live mode and file mode
There are two ways to run a grilling session, and they suit different dimensions.
Live mode asks one question at a time and adapts after each answer. Use it for Strategy, Business and Leadership judgments. This book suggests 20–40 questions over 45–90 minutes per dimension as guidance, not a research finding.
File mode sends a written questionnaire with recommendations, reasons, evidence and a response field. You or a stakeholder edit the file. When it returns, untouched recommendations count as accepted. The harness challenges weak answers in a short live follow-up before writing the log. Use this mode for stakeholder-owned evidence and decisions, such as finance inputs or engineering constraints.
Split sessions by dimension to limit context rot, the declining recall Anthropic describes as context grows. Keep logs outside the conversation, retrieve evidence as needed and restart with a summary before the session becomes unwieldy.
Anchoring the harness in reference materials
Before grilling, supply strategy, PRDs, pricing, reviews, win-loss, roadmap, dashboards, financial exports and escalations. Use approved connectors or labeled exports.
For long documents, Anthropic recommends placing material before instructions, labeling sources and extracting relevant passages before synthesis. Its tests reported up to 30% better responses with questions at the end. Label each document with name, owner and date so time-dependent disagreements remain visible.
The intake produces a gap list, split three ways:
- Facts found, each with a quote and a source, for you to confirm.
- Facts missing, each with the likely owner and the system that probably holds it.
- Decisions missing, each phrased as a question for a grilling session.
Use Chapter 00’s current/stale/contradicted inventory as input. The intake converts it into a session agenda.
The build order
Build Chapter 00’s twelve spine artifacts and Chapter 31’s four AI artifacts, adding event artifacts when needed. The schedule below is a dependency default. Move urgent business risks ahead of it.
| Phase | Artifact | Spine # | Dimension | Built from (chapters) | Template |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Days 1 to 30 | Product 360 index | 1 | All | 00 | product-360-index |
| Stakeholder map and DACI (draft) | 12 | Leadership | 28, 36 | 36-stakeholder-map, 36-daci-decision |
|
| Decision log (opened day 1) | 10 | Operate | 00, 29 | 29-decision-log |
|
| Urgent event artifacts with fixed dates | Event | Varies | 25, 30 | 25-launch-plan, 30-lifecycle-stage-assessment |
|
| Days 31 to 60 | Problem hypothesis and personas | 2 | Customer | 01, 10 | product-hypothesis, b2b-persona |
| Vision and strategy one-pager | 3 | Strategy | 02, 03, 14, 16, 20 | 03-strategy-one-pager |
|
| Competitive landscape | 4 | Strategy | 13, 16 | 13-competitive-landscape |
|
| Business model and unit economics | 5 | Business | 12, 13, 15 | 13-business-case, 15-value-metric-assessment |
|
| North Star and metric tree, with dashboard | 7 | Measure | 02, 05, 17, 18 | 02-north-star-tree |
|
| OKRs | 8 | Measure | 02 | 02-okr-set |
|
| Outcome roadmap (now, next, later) | 6 | Build | 03, 06, 11 | 03-now-next-later-roadmap |
|
| Positioning and messaging | 9 | Go-to-market | 24 | 24-positioning-statement, 24-messaging-framework |
|
| Eval plan, AI cost model, model register, AI risk assessment | AI four | Measure, Business, Lifecycle, Operate | 31, 33 | eval-plan, ai-cost-model, model-register, ai-risk-assessment |
|
| Days 61 to 90 | Operating cadence (formalized) | 10 | Operate | 00, 28, 29 | operating-cadence |
| Lifecycle stage assessment | 11 | Lifecycle | 30 | 30-lifecycle-stage-assessment |
|
| Event artifacts: PRD, PR/FAQ, launch plan, event plan, sunset plan, AI PRD addendum | Event | Varies | 04, 25, 26, 30, 31, 34 | 04-prd, 34-pr-faq, 25-launch-plan, 26-event-plan, 30-end-of-life-plan, ai-prd-addendum |
|
| Product 360 health review and maturity score | Review | All | 37, Appendix C | 37-health-review |
Move the stakeholder map forward to identify respondents. Open the decision log on day one, before the full cadence is ready. Build the roadmap after success measures and OKRs so investments trace to outcomes.
Keeping it alive
By day ninety, the cadence should run. Each ritual produces a decision or is cancelled, and choices enter the log (Chapters 00 and 29).
Cedric Chin’s WBR account emphasizes consistent graphs and attention to exceptions. Have the harness draft exception-only briefs from connected sources: moves outside normal range, supported explanations or an assigned investigation. Verify the numbers and supply judgment. Chapter 18 covers the report design.
Re-grill living artifacts quarterly: roadmap, metrics, OKRs, competition and stakeholders. Review durable vision, strategy, personas, positioning and lifecycle assumptions annually or after material events. Start from the previous log and focus on changes.
Scoring maturity
Appendix C scores each dimension using Product 360’s own five-level model. Its shape borrows from the Capability Maturity Model developed by Humphrey and Carnegie Mellon’s Software Engineering Institute from 1986, rather than inheriting that model’s criteria.
Check artifact existence, ownership, review dates, source freshness, use in decisions and consistency. At day ninety, score all nine dimensions against Appendix C and choose the weakest for focused work next quarter.
How to apply it: the 90-day plan
The plan assumes you’ve taken over an existing product. For a new product the order holds, but the intake is thinner and more of the gap list is decisions.
Before day 1: set up the workspace.
- Create a Product 360 workspace in your harness: a project, folder or repository with standing instructions and a place for the artifacts. The instructions hold the scope paragraph (draft it now, even if it’s wrong), the nine dimensions, the seven challenge tests and the no-invention rule. Use the workspace prompt and the workspace brief template; Chapter 32 covers how harnesses carry instructions across sessions.
- Confirm which connectors and tools are approved for customer and financial data, and connect only those.
Days 1 to 30: learn and anchor.
- Scope the surface area (Chapter 00, step 1). Send the scope paragraph to your manager and the PMs on your boundaries. Log any dispute as decision log entry 1. You now have a decision log.
- Run the intake. Point the harness at your documents, ticketing, CRM, analytics and finance sources, or supply exports where connectors don’t exist, each labeled with name, owner and date. Run the intake prompt, then review the gap list and correct anything misfiled before it drives the grilling. This is the first human gate.
- Draft the Product 360 index (spine 1) with Chapter 00’s index prompt. Mark everything you haven’t verified as “unverified” and publish it to your team in week 2, half-empty and honest.
- Build the stakeholder map and a first DACI (spine 12, Chapters 28 and 36). The harness can draft it from org charts, meeting invites and decision history; you correct it from conversations. It tells you whom to send file-mode questions to.
- Run a listening tour alongside the intake: your manager, peers on the boundaries, engineering and design leads, sales, customer success, product marketing, finance and at least five customers across the buying group (Chapter 01). Ask each what’s working, what’s broken and what decision is overdue. Add the notes to the workspace, with permission and an approved tool.
- Grill the facts only. Run short sessions that confirm or correct the “facts found” list, and send file-mode questionnaires to the owners of “facts missing.” Hold off on strategy; you don’t yet know enough to argue with your own answers.
- Land one early decision. Pick the overdue decision with the clearest owner and the most evidence (often a scope boundary or an unowned metric), write a decision memo (Chapter 17), get it decided and log it. That’s Watkins’s early win, in the form a B2B product allows.
- Agree on expectations with your manager at day 30: the gap list, the order for the next 60 days and what you will deliberately not do in the first 90.
Days 31 to 60: decide and build the spine.
- Grill dimension by dimension, in dependency order: Customer, Strategy, Business, Measure, Build, Go-to-market, and AI for an AI-powered product. Use the master grilling prompt with the module for each dimension, live for judgment-heavy dimensions and file mode for anything a stakeholder must answer. Approve each log before you use it; this is the second human gate.
- Generate the artifacts in a fresh session, one at a time, with the artifact generation prompt and the template named in the build order table. Every claim carries a source tag; anything unsourced stays as a visible gap. Record each artifact’s owner and review date in the build tracker.
- Share drafts with the people who’ll live with them (the business model with finance, the AI risk assessment with security and legal, and so on). Treat their objections as new grilling input and log them.
- Run the day-60 consistency audit. Each contradiction becomes a fix (the artifact was wrong) or a decision log entry (the conflict is real and someone must choose). This is the third human gate.
Days 61 to 90: operate and prove.
- Formalize the cadence (spine 10). Put the weekly metrics review, monthly roadmap refresh and quarterly business review on the calendar, each with the artifacts it reviews and the decision it produces (Chapters 00 and 29). Start the weekly exception brief with the maintenance prompt and run at least four cycles before day 90.
- Assess the lifecycle stage (spine 11, Chapter 30) of each offering in scope, legacy ones included. That’s where inherited products hide their liabilities.
- Produce the event artifacts the calendar demands: PRDs and PR/FAQs (Chapters 04 and 34), launch plans (Chapter 25), event plans (Chapter 26), sunset plans (Chapter 30), AI PRD addenda (Chapter 31). Generate them from the spine. When an event artifact contradicts the spine, take the conflict to the decision log.
- Hold the business review on the 360. Present from the index and spine artifacts rather than a deck built for the occasion (Chapter 35). A slide the 360 can’t support marks a gap.
- Run the Product 360 health review: each dimension’s freshness, open grilling items and maturity score against Appendix C. Pick the weakest dimension as next quarter’s focus.
- Run a premortem on the next quarter, write the next 90-day plan and close this one.
The AI lens
When the product is AI-powered
An AI-powered product needs a tenth grilling module. Chapter 00 explains why AI isn’t a tenth dimension; the module exists because AI reaches into four of the nine at once, and each needs an artifact from Chapter 31.
- Measure: the eval plan. What does “good” mean for this AI feature, who decided, what are the current scores and what score stops a release? A PM who can’t answer doesn’t yet know whether the product works.
- Business: the AI cost model. What does one task or one resolved outcome cost in inference, and which way is it trending? AI features can quietly change unit economics, as Beacon’s gross margin shows.
- Lifecycle: the model and vendor register. Which models and versions are in use, with which deprecation dates? A model retirement is a lifecycle event your customers will feel even if you change nothing.
- Operate: the AI risk assessment. What are the failure modes, guardrails and regulatory duties (Chapter 33)? The question that matters most: what’s the worst thing this product has already done, and what changed afterward?
The premortem works especially well here. “It’s 90 days from now and the agent caused an incident at a customer. What happened?” produces eval cases, guardrails and risk entries in one pass, and often exposes the gap between what the positioning promises and what the risk assessment allows.
Doing the work with AI
Most of this chapter is about doing the work with AI. Five rules keep it honest.
The harness asks; you decide. Review each recommendation and its reasoning before returning the file. Untouched recommendations count as your decisions and are logged under your name. Challenge or change answers you cannot support.
Split sessions and write things down. Each grilling session covers one dimension and ends in a written log. Generation happens in a fresh session that reads the approved log and the cited sources: the interview, write, then build pattern Anthropic recommends for coding work.
Make the audit a separate pass. Dhuliawala and colleagues’ 2023 Chain-of-Verification research reduced hallucination by checking claims independently before revision. Use separate source checks and cross-artifact checks, with Chapter 19’s numerical verification.
Package what you repeat. Save grilling and maintenance procedures as skills, saved prompts or project instructions. Relevant instructions load when needed, and a shared package lets portfolios use consistent tests (Chapter 32).
Keep the 360 machine-readable. After day 90, the maintenance prompts read the index and only the artifacts due for review. That works only if the index is current and the artifacts are documents the harness can open (Chapter 00).
The Beacon case: the first 90 days
Days 1 to 30: intake. Approved connectors and an FP&A export expose missing autonomous-resolution and inference-cost measures, plus unresolved choices about the North Star, pricing, the Observe boundary and Classic retirement.
Business comes first because margin fell from 81% to 72%. The harness cites FP&A and asks what margin makes outcome pricing viable. It flags the strategy deck’s stale 80% assumption.
You propose 80%. The harness asks what cost per incident that implies, whether evidence supports it and who owns cost. The applied AI lead receives the open item. You log 80% as a target to test, not a commitment. The premortem asks how a Northlight Live pricing launch could reduce margin further.
Meanwhile you draft the stakeholder map: Priya, Dana, Marcus, Sam and Leo outside; your manager (the VP of Product for the Operations portfolio), the Observe and Desk group PMs, the product marketing manager, product ops and finance inside. The first DACI covers the Observe boundary, with your manager as approver.
That boundary becomes your early win. The listening tour shows that both teams want a clean story for customers who run both products; the disagreement is about who owns the correlation roadmap. Your memo proposes, and your manager approves, that Beacon keeps its Correlate team and owns diagnosis and action, while correlation of Observe-native alerts becomes a shared capability with a joint quarterly roadmap review. Decision 1 closes in week 4, consistent with the guiding policy you’ll write in Chapter 03: Observe data as an accelerant, not a requirement.
Days 31 to 60: grilling the spine. The Customer session runs alongside the discovery work in Chapter 01. When you answer “SRE teams” to the question of who the customer is, the harness challenges on Specific: SRE teams use Beacon, but who signs, who blocks and who resells? Marcus, Sam and Leo enter the persona set, and Sam’s job story comes from Chapter 01’s interviews.
The Measure session starts from the North Star: incidents resolved with Beacon’s help per week. The harness accepts the metric and challenges the phrase “with Beacon’s help.” An accepted diagnosis, an approved action or both? If per-resolved-incident pricing goes ahead, this definition becomes the price meter. You log it as open with a two-week deadline; the definition you later agree with finance and product marketing is the one in Chapter 18. The session also names diagnosis acceptance rate and autonomous resolution rate as inputs to the metric tree (Chapter 02).
The AI session anchors its premortem in a real event: the design-partner pilot in which a responder accepted a hallucinated root cause and rolled back the wrong service (Chapter 31). The eval plan, the guardrails and the AI risk assessment all take cases from it. Sam’s requirements become audit-log and least-privilege items in the risk assessment, and the EU customers’ requests for AI Act documentation go into its regulatory section (Chapter 33).
Generate one artifact per fresh session. The day-60 audit finds positioning promising broad autonomy while the risk assessment permits only allowlisted low-risk actions. It also finds Classic investment contradicting a decline posture. Log both decisions: narrow positioning to supervised remediation and redirect Classic capacity to migration tools.
Days 61 to 90: running it. The cadence goes on the calendar. The weekly exception brief covers the North Star, MTTR, diagnosis acceptance rate, autonomous resolution rate, weekly active responders and inference cost per resolved incident. The maintenance prompt drafts it from the connected sources each Monday, and you check every number before it’s shared. In one of the first four cycles, the brief flags diagnosis acceptance sliding while weekly active responders rise; Chapter 19 tells how the team traced it to the mix of accounts migrated from Classic rather than to agent quality. The brief surfaced the exception and named an owner the same week.
The event artifacts arrive on time because the spine already holds their inputs: the Beacon Agents launch and event plans for Northlight Live (Chapters 25 and 26) draw on positioning, personas and the risk assessment, and the Classic sunset plan (Chapter 30) on the lifecycle assessment.
At day 90 you run the health review. Measure and Business come out strongest: both have owners, are current and feed a ritual that decides from them. Leadership has a map and a DACI but no ritual that uses them yet. Lifecycle is weakest: Classic has an assessment and a sunset plan, but nobody has assessed Correlate and Diagnose as offerings in their own right. Scored against Appendix C, Lifecycle sits at the bottom, so it becomes next quarter’s focus, with a re-grill in week 2.
Three artifacts still need re-grilling. Their status, owners and dates are visible. Every claim traces to evidence or a decision, and audit conflicts are resolved or assigned in the log.
Product 360 artifacts
Use five management artifacts: the 30/60/90 plan, build tracker, grilling log, health review and workspace brief. Build the spine using the chapter templates in the schedule.
# 30/60/90 plan · [Product surface area] · Start date [date]
**PM:** [name] **Manager:** [name] **Reviewers:** [peers, engineering lead, design lead]
**Last updated:** [date] **Status:** Draft / Agreed with manager / In progress / Closed
## Scope paragraph
[One paragraph: products, customers, teams, revenue. Note any boundary disputes and their decision log IDs.]
## Expectations agreed with my manager
- What success looks like at day 90:
- Decisions my manager expects me to bring:
- How and how often we'll review progress:
## Days 1 to 30: learn and anchor
**Goals:**
-
**Artifacts to deliver:** Product 360 index (spine 1), stakeholder map and DACI draft (spine 12), decision log opened, gap list, urgent event artifacts: [list]
**Grilling sessions:** facts only. [Dimensions and dates]
**File-mode questionnaires sent to:** [owner: dimension]
**Listening tour:** [names and roles, including at least five customers across the buying group]
**Early decision to land:** [decision, decider, date]
**Exit criteria:** gap list approved; index published; stakeholder map reviewed by manager; one decision logged
**Risks:**
## Days 31 to 60: decide and build the spine
**Goals:**
-
**Grilling sessions (dependency order):**
| Dimension | Mode (live / file) | Date | Participants | Log ID |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customer | | | | |
| Strategy | | | | |
| Business | | | | |
| Measure | | | | |
| Build | | | | |
| Go-to-market | | | | |
| AI (if AI-powered) | | | | |
**Artifacts to deliver:** spine 2 to 9; AI four if applicable: [list]
**Stakeholder reviews:** [artifact: reviewer]
**Consistency audit date:** [day 60]
**Exit criteria:** spine 2 to 9 drafted from approved logs; audit run; every contradiction fixed or logged
**Risks:**
## Days 61 to 90: operate and prove
**Goals:**
-
**Cadence started:** weekly exception brief from [date]; monthly roadmap refresh on [date]; QBR on [date]
**Artifacts to deliver:** operating cadence (spine 10), lifecycle stage assessment (spine 11), event artifacts: [list with dates]
**Health review date:** [date]
**Exit criteria:** four weekly cycles run; QBR held from the 360; health review scored against Appendix C; next quarter's focus dimension chosen
**Risks:**
## What I will not do in the first 90 days
-
-
## Day-90 close
**Premortem for next quarter:**
**Weakest dimension and next quarter's focus:**
**Open grilling items carried forward:** [count and IDs]# Product 360 build tracker · [Product] · Updated [date]
**Owner:** [PM] **Index:** [link]
Status values: Not started / Grilling / Drafted / Audited / Published / Re-grill due
## Spine
| # | Artifact | Dimension | Kind | Template | Source materials | Grilling log ID | Owner | Status | Last reviewed | Next review | Open items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Product 360 index | All | Living | product-360-index | | | | | | | |
| 2 | Problem hypothesis and personas | Customer | Durable | product-hypothesis, b2b-persona | | | | | | | |
| 3 | Vision and strategy one-pager | Strategy | Durable | 03-strategy-one-pager | | | | | | | |
| 4 | Competitive landscape | Strategy | Living, quarterly | 13-competitive-landscape | | | | | | | |
| 5 | Business model and unit economics | Business | Living, quarterly | 13-business-case | | | | | | | |
| 6 | Outcome roadmap | Build | Living, monthly | 03-now-next-later-roadmap | | | | | | | |
| 7 | North Star and metric tree, dashboard | Measure | Living, weekly | 02-north-star-tree | | | | | | | |
| 8 | OKRs | Measure | Living, quarterly | 02-okr-set | | | | | | | |
| 9 | Positioning and messaging | Go-to-market | Durable | 24-positioning-statement, 24-messaging-framework | | | | | | | |
| 10 | Operating cadence and decision log | Operate | Living, weekly | operating-cadence, 29-decision-log | | | | | | | |
| 11 | Lifecycle stage assessment | Lifecycle | Durable, yearly | 30-lifecycle-stage-assessment | | | | | | | |
| 12 | Stakeholder map and DACI | Leadership | Living, quarterly | 36-stakeholder-map, 36-daci-decision | | | | | | | |
## AI artifacts (AI-powered products)
| Artifact | Dimension | Template | Grilling log ID | Owner | Status | Last reviewed | Next review | Open items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eval plan | Measure | eval-plan | | | | | | |
| AI cost model | Business | ai-cost-model | | | | | | |
| Model and vendor register | Lifecycle | model-register | | | | | | |
| AI risk assessment | Operate | ai-risk-assessment | | | | | | |
## Active event artifacts
| Artifact | Event and date | Template | Spine artifacts it draws on | Owner | Status | Archive date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | | |
## Summary
- Spine artifacts published: [n] of 12
- Open grilling items: [n] Contradictions open from last audit: [n]
- Overdue reviews: [list]# Grilling session log · [Product] · [Dimension] · [Session ID] · [Date]
**Mode:** Live / File **Participants:** [PM, stakeholders] **Harness:** [tool, approved for this data: Y/N]
**Reference materials loaded:**
| Source | Owner | Date of source | How loaded (connector / export / pasted) |
|---|---|---|---|
| | | | |
**Prior logs read:** [session IDs]
## Questions
| Q-ID | Question | Kind (fact / decision) | Harness recommendation and reason | Answer | Evidence (source or "assumption") | Challenge raised (test) | Status | Owner | Feeds artifact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [DIM]-01 | | | | | | | Agreed / Overridden / Open / Needs owner | | |
| [DIM]-02 | | | | | | | | | |
Status rules: Agreed means the answer passed all seven tests. Overridden means the PM kept an answer that failed a test, with the reason recorded below. Open means no answer yet. Needs owner means someone else holds the answer.
## Overrides
| Q-ID | Test failed | PM's reason for keeping the answer |
|---|---|---|
| | | |
## Premortem
"It's 90 days from now and this dimension's artifact misled a decision. What happened?"
- Answer:
- Changes made because of it:
## Readback
[Five to ten lines: what was decided in this session.]
**Readback confirmed by PM:** Y / N **Date:**
## Next
- Follow-ups and owners:
- Next session:# Product 360 health review · [Product] · [Quarter] · [Date]
**Reviewer:** [PM] **Attendees:** [manager, peers, product ops]
**Maturity scale:** Appendix C **Previous review:** [link]
## By dimension
| Dimension | Artifacts | Owner | Last reviewed | Freshness (current / stale / contradicted) | Used in a ritual? (which) | Maturity (Appendix C) | Open grilling items | Audit contradictions open | Decision needed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customer | | | | | | | | | |
| Strategy | | | | | | | | | |
| Business | | | | | | | | | |
| Build | | | | | | | | | |
| Measure | | | | | | | | | |
| Go-to-market | | | | | | | | | |
| Operate | | | | | | | | | |
| Lifecycle | | | | | | | | | |
| Leadership | | | | | | | | | |
## AI artifacts (AI-powered products)
- Eval scores: current, trend, last release gated by evals:
- Cost per task or outcome: current, trend:
- Model deprecations due in the next two quarters:
- AI risk assessment: last reviewed, new regulatory duties:
## Cadence health
| Ritual | Held as planned (n of n) | Decisions produced | Keep / change / cancel |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weekly metrics review | | | |
| Monthly roadmap refresh | | | |
| Quarterly business review | | | |
## Summary
- Weakest dimension:
- Top three fixes (owner, date):
1.
2.
3.
- Re-grills scheduled: [dimension, date]
- What changed since the last review:# Product 360 workspace brief · [Product]
Standing instructions for the AI harness. Keep this short and current; it loads with every session.
## Scope
[The scope paragraph, with the date it was last confirmed.]
## Where the 360 lives
- Index: [location]
- Grilling logs: [location]
- Decision log: [location]
- Approved connectors: [list, with what each may be used for]
- Not approved for this workspace: [systems or data types]
## Rules
1. Never invent facts, numbers, quotes or decisions. If a source doesn't support it, say "no source" and add it to the gap list.
2. Fetch facts from connected sources and cite them (source, owner, date). Ask the PM only for decisions.
3. Ask one question at a time, with a recommended answer and the reason.
4. Test every answer against the seven challenge tests: specific, evidenced, falsifiable, trade-off named, consistent, owned, decision-relevant. Push once on a failure, then log it as open or overridden.
5. Don't agree to be agreeable. If the evidence points elsewhere, say so.
6. Write every session to a grilling log before ending it.
7. The decision log names a person as the decider, never the harness.
## Vocabulary
- Nine dimensions: Customer, Strategy, Business, Build, Measure, Go-to-market, Operate, Lifecycle, Leadership.
- Artifact kinds: durable, living, event.
- Product terms and metric definitions: [link to metric dictionary]
## Current state
- Phase: [days 1 to 30 / 31 to 60 / 61 to 90 / maintaining]
- Open grilling items: [n, link]
- Next review due: [artifact, date]Prompts
The prompt chain covers workspace setup, intake, grilling with dimension modules, generation, audit, maintenance and health review. Use approved harnesses and connectors for confidential material. Chapter 00’s inventory prompts and Chapter 32’s context-pack prompt complement it.
Goal: Give the harness standing instructions so every later session follows the same rules.
Paste in: your scope paragraph, the list of approved connectors and data types, where the index and logs will live, and any existing metric dictionary. Use only a harness approved for your company's confidential data.
You're helping me build and maintain a Product 360 for [product surface area]. Draft a workspace brief that will load with every session in this workspace. Use the structure below and keep it under 600 words.
1. Scope: restate my scope paragraph. List any boundary that looks disputed or vague, as a question for me.
2. Where things live: the index, grilling logs, decision log and approved connectors, with what each connector may be used for. List anything I've said is not approved.
3. Rules for you, in this order:
- Never invent facts, numbers, quotes or decisions. If no source supports something, say "no source" and add it to the gap list.
- Fetch facts from connected sources and cite source, owner and date. Ask me only for decisions, priorities and trade-offs.
- Ask one question at a time, each with your recommended answer and the reason.
- Test every answer I give against seven tests: specific, evidenced, falsifiable, trade-off named, consistent, owned, decision-relevant. On a failure, name the test and push once. On a second failure, log the item as open or overridden with my reason.
- Don't agree with me to be agreeable. If the evidence points elsewhere, say so plainly.
- Write every session to a grilling log before it ends.
- The decision log always names a person as decider, never you.
4. Vocabulary: the nine dimensions (Customer, Strategy, Business, Build, Measure, Go-to-market, Operate, Lifecycle, Leadership) and three artifact kinds (durable, living, event).
5. Current state: phase, open items, next review due.
Then ask me up to three questions about anything in the brief you couldn't fill from what I gave you.
[scope paragraph, connectors, locations, metric dictionary]
Check the output: read the rules section aloud. If any rule lets the harness answer a decision question on its own, or accept an answer without testing it, rewrite that rule before saving the brief.Goal: Turn the documents and data you inherited into an evidence map and the agenda for every grilling session.
Paste in (or connect): strategy decks, PRDs, pricing pages, QBR and board decks, roadmap exports, dashboard exports, finance model exports, win/loss and support escalation summaries, your listening tour notes. Label each item with its name, owner and date. Put the documents first and this prompt after them. Use only approved tools; remove personal identifiers from customer material.
[documents, each labeled: name | owner | date]
You're running the intake for the Product 360 of [product]. Work in four passes and show each one.
Pass 1, evidence. For each of the nine dimensions, quote the passages from the documents that state a fact about the product (numbers, dates, owners, definitions, commitments, decisions already made). Give each quote its source name and date. Don't summarize yet.
Pass 2, conflicts and staleness. List every place where two sources disagree, or where a source is older than a later event it doesn't reflect. For each, give both quotes and dates.
Pass 3, the gap list. Produce one table per dimension with three sections:
- Facts found: the fact, the quote, the source, the date, and "confirm with [owner]".
- Facts missing: what's missing, the likely owner and the system that probably holds it.
- Decisions missing: phrased as a question I must answer, with why it matters in the next quarter.
Pass 4, the agenda. Propose the order of grilling sessions, starting with the dimension carrying the most business risk, and say why. Mark which sessions should be live and which should go to a stakeholder as a written questionnaire, and to whom.
Rules: every fact in Pass 3 must trace to a Pass 1 quote. If you're inferring rather than quoting, label it "inference." Never fill a gap with a plausible guess.
Check the output: pick five facts at random and open their sources. If any quote is wrong or any "fact" came from inference, rerun Pass 3 with a stricter instruction. Then move anything misfiled between facts and decisions before you approve the list.Goal: Draw out the decisions behind one dimension of your Product 360, one question at a time, with the harness challenging weak answers and writing everything down.
Paste in: the workspace brief, the approved gap list for this dimension, earlier grilling logs that this dimension depends on, the dimension module from the next prompt, and any reference materials not already connected. Use only approved tools.
You're going to grill me about the [dimension] dimension of the Product 360 for [product]. The goal is a grilling log complete enough that a fresh session could generate the [artifact names] from it without asking me anything else. Stop when every question in the module and every decision-missing item in the gap list is agreed, overridden or open with an owner, or when I say stop.
How to run the session:
1. Before asking anything, list the facts you'll rely on from the gap list and connected sources, with citations, and ask me to confirm or correct them in one reply.
2. Then walk the decisions in dependency order: settle the questions other answers depend on first. Ask exactly one question per turn.
3. With each question, give your recommended answer and the reasoning, citing evidence where it exists. If evidence is thin, label the recommendation tentative and state the assumption it needs tested. Mark any unsupported factual input as missing.
4. Never ask me for a fact a connected source can answer. Look it up, cite it and ask me to confirm.
5. Test each of my answers against the seven tests: specific, evidenced, falsifiable, trade-off named, consistent (with my earlier answers and existing artifacts), owned, decision-relevant. If an answer fails, name the test and explain the gap in two sentences, then ask again. If my second answer still fails, log it as "overridden" with my reason, or "open" with an owner, and move on. Don't argue a third time.
6. Identify contradictions with the evidence or earlier answers before moving on. Explain the conflict and ask which assumption or decision should change.
7. If I say "I don't know," ask who would know, log it as "needs owner" and continue.
8. Every five questions, show a two-line running summary so I can correct drift.
9. When the questions are done, run a premortem: "It's 90 days from now and this dimension's artifact misled a decision. What happened?" Ask me for my answer, then add the two failure stories you think are most likely, and ask what we should change.
10. Finish with a readback of everything decided, ask me to confirm it, and then write the grilling log with these columns: Q-ID, question, kind (fact or decision), your recommendation and reason, my answer, evidence, challenge raised, status (agreed, overridden, open, needs owner), owner, feeds artifact. Add the overrides table, the premortem and the readback.
File mode: if I request it, write a questionnaire addressed to [stakeholder] instead of asking live. For each question include your recommended answer, reason, evidence and a blank "Your answer" line. When I return the edited file, treat untouched recommendations as accepted. Test every edited answer against the seven tests, ask follow-ups only for failures, one at a time, and then write the log.
Start with step 1.
Check the output: before you approve the log, scan the status column. If every item is "agreed," the harness probably went easy on you; rerun the challenge step on your three most important answers. Make sure no "agreed" answer is a fact that nobody actually confirmed.The ten grilling modules below (one per dimension, plus the AI module) each plug into the master grilling session. Paste the master prompt, then the one module for the dimension you’re grilling. The seed questions are a minimum: the harness extends them from your gap list.
Goal: Seed the master grilling session with the questions, chapters and challenge for the Customer dimension.
Paste in: the master grilling session prompt, then this module, plus the gap list items for Customer. Use only approved tools for the finance, customer and incident data this module draws on.
Grill me on the Customer dimension using the master session rules. The handbook chapters behind this dimension are Chapters 01, 10; if I've provided them as context, use their frameworks and templates.
This session produces: problem hypothesis, personas, job stories.
Start from these seed questions and add any the gap list requires: Who is the user, the champion, the economic buyer, the technical evaluator and the gatekeeper? What job are they hiring the product for, and what's the current alternative, including doing nothing? Which persona would we disappoint to serve another? What did the last ten customer conversations say, with sources? What evidence would kill the problem hypothesis?
Extra challenge for this dimension: reject "customers" or "users" without a named role and segment.
Check the output: compare the finished grilling log against the "produces" line. Each artifact listed needs enough agreed or overridden answers to fill its template; if one doesn't, schedule a short follow-up session rather than letting generation fill the gap.Goal: Seed the master grilling session with the questions, chapters and challenge for the Strategy dimension.
Paste in: the master grilling session prompt, then this module, plus the gap list items for Strategy.
Grill me on the Strategy dimension using the master session rules. The handbook chapters behind this dimension are Chapters 02, 03, 13, 14, 16, 20 to 23; if I've provided them as context, use their frameworks and templates.
This session produces: vision and strategy one-pager, competitive landscape.
Start from these seed questions and add any the gap list requires: What's the diagnosis in one sentence? Where do we play, and where do we refuse to play? How do we win, and what would a competitor have to do to beat us? Product or platform? What's the moat, and how fast is it eroding? How is the innovation portfolio balanced across horizons?
Extra challenge for this dimension: every strategic choice must name what we give up.
Check the output: compare the finished grilling log against the "produces" line. Each artifact listed needs enough agreed or overridden answers to fill its template; if one doesn't, schedule a short follow-up session rather than letting generation fill the gap.Goal: Seed the master grilling session with the questions, chapters and challenge for the Business dimension.
Paste in: the master grilling session prompt, then this module, plus the gap list items for Business. Use only approved tools for the finance, customer and incident data this module draws on.
Grill me on the Business dimension using the master session rules. The handbook chapters behind this dimension are Chapters 08, 12, 13, 15; if I've provided them as context, use their frameworks and templates.
This session produces: business model and unit economics summary.
Start from these seed questions and add any the gap list requires: How do we make money, by segment and channel? What are the unit economics and the margin trend? What's the pricing metric and how does it track customer value? What would make the business case false? What does finance believe that the product team doesn't?
Extra challenge for this dimension: every number must cite the finance source and date.
Check the output: compare the finished grilling log against the "produces" line. Each artifact listed needs enough agreed or overridden answers to fill its template; if one doesn't, schedule a short follow-up session rather than letting generation fill the gap.Goal: Seed the master grilling session with the questions, chapters and challenge for the Build dimension.
Paste in: the master grilling session prompt, then this module, plus the gap list items for Build.
Grill me on the Build dimension using the master session rules. The handbook chapters behind this dimension are Chapters 03, 04, 06, 07, 11; if I've provided them as context, use their frameworks and templates.
This session produces: outcome roadmap, backlog policy.
Start from these seed questions and add any the gap list requires: What's in now, next and later, and which outcome does each item serve? What did we stop doing, and who was told? Which delivery model fits each team? Which technical debt is a product bet? Which dependencies on other teams could break the plan?
Extra challenge for this dimension: any roadmap item that doesn't trace to an outcome or a strategy choice is flagged.
Check the output: compare the finished grilling log against the "produces" line. Each artifact listed needs enough agreed or overridden answers to fill its template; if one doesn't, schedule a short follow-up session rather than letting generation fill the gap.Goal: Seed the master grilling session with the questions, chapters and challenge for the Measure dimension.
Paste in: the master grilling session prompt, then this module, plus the gap list items for Measure.
Grill me on the Measure dimension using the master session rules. The handbook chapters behind this dimension are Chapters 02, 05, 09, 17, 18, 19; if I've provided them as context, use their frameworks and templates.
This session produces: North Star and metric tree, OKRs, dashboard spec.
Start from these seed questions and add any the gap list requires: What's the North Star and why does it reflect customer value rather than usage? Which input metrics can teams move? What decision does each metric inform? Where are the definitions disputed or the data untrusted? Which OKRs are outcomes rather than outputs?
Extra challenge for this dimension: every metric needs an exact definition, an owner and the decision it informs.
Check the output: compare the finished grilling log against the "produces" line. Each artifact listed needs enough agreed or overridden answers to fill its template; if one doesn't, schedule a short follow-up session rather than letting generation fill the gap.Goal: Seed the master grilling session with the questions, chapters and challenge for the Go-to-market dimension.
Paste in: the master grilling session prompt, then this module, plus the gap list items for Go-to-market.
Grill me on the Go-to-market dimension using the master session rules. The handbook chapters behind this dimension are Chapters 24 to 27; if I've provided them as context, use their frameworks and templates.
This session produces: positioning and messaging, launch tiers, enablement plan.
Start from these seed questions and add any the gap list requires: What's the positioning statement, category and proof? What's in the next launch and at which tier? What do sales and customer success need that they don't have? How does field feedback reach the roadmap, and how fast?
Extra challenge for this dimension: every claim in positioning must be supported by the product's current capability and risk assessment.
Check the output: compare the finished grilling log against the "produces" line. Each artifact listed needs enough agreed or overridden answers to fill its template; if one doesn't, schedule a short follow-up session rather than letting generation fill the gap.Goal: Seed the master grilling session with the questions, chapters and challenge for the Operate dimension.
Paste in: the master grilling session prompt, then this module, plus the gap list items for Operate.
Grill me on the Operate dimension using the master session rules. The handbook chapters behind this dimension are Chapters 28, 29; if I've provided them as context, use their frameworks and templates.
This session produces: operating cadence, decision log, risk register.
Start from these seed questions and add any the gap list requires: Which rituals exist, and what decision does each produce? Who holds decision rights for pricing, roadmap, launches and sunsets? What's on the risk register, with owners? Which ritual should be cancelled?
Extra challenge for this dimension: a ritual with no decision output is proposed for cancellation.
Check the output: compare the finished grilling log against the "produces" line. Each artifact listed needs enough agreed or overridden answers to fill its template; if one doesn't, schedule a short follow-up session rather than letting generation fill the gap.Goal: Seed the master grilling session with the questions, chapters and challenge for the Lifecycle dimension.
Paste in: the master grilling session prompt, then this module, plus the gap list items for Lifecycle.
Grill me on the Lifecycle dimension using the master session rules. The handbook chapters behind this dimension are Chapter 30; if I've provided them as context, use their frameworks and templates.
This session produces: lifecycle stage assessment, sunset candidates.
Start from these seed questions and add any the gap list requires: What stage is each offering in, with evidence? Which offerings or features are sunset candidates? What migration obligations, contracts or notice periods apply? What would it cost to keep a declining offering another year?
Extra challenge for this dimension: no offering is "growth" without trend evidence.
Check the output: compare the finished grilling log against the "produces" line. Each artifact listed needs enough agreed or overridden answers to fill its template; if one doesn't, schedule a short follow-up session rather than letting generation fill the gap.Goal: Seed the master grilling session with the questions, chapters and challenge for the Leadership dimension.
Paste in: the master grilling session prompt, then this module, plus the gap list items for Leadership.
Grill me on the Leadership dimension using the master session rules. The handbook chapters behind this dimension are Chapters 34, 35, 36; if I've provided them as context, use their frameworks and templates.
This session produces: stakeholder map and DACI, communication plan.
Start from these seed questions and add any the gap list requires: Who can say no to the top three decisions this quarter? What's the DACI for each? Which stakeholder relationship is weakest, and why? What does each audience need to hear, how often and in what format?
Extra challenge for this dimension: every DACI names one approver.
Check the output: compare the finished grilling log against the "produces" line. Each artifact listed needs enough agreed or overridden answers to fill its template; if one doesn't, schedule a short follow-up session rather than letting generation fill the gap.Goal: Seed the master grilling session with the questions, chapters and challenge for the AI module.
Paste in: the master grilling session prompt, then this module, plus the gap list items for AI. Use only approved tools for the finance, customer and incident data this module draws on.
Grill me on AI across all nine dimensions using the master session rules. The handbook chapters behind this module are Chapters 31, 32, 33; if I've provided them as context, use their frameworks and templates.
This session produces: eval plan, AI cost model, model and vendor register, AI risk assessment.
Start from these seed questions and add any the gap list requires: What does "good" mean for each AI feature, who decided, and what are the current eval scores? What score blocks a release? What does one task or outcome cost in inference, and what's the trend? Which models and versions are in use, with deprecation dates? What's the worst thing the product has done, and what changed afterward? Which regulatory duties apply in which markets? How does the team itself use the harness, and with which data?
Extra challenge for this dimension: run the premortem as "the AI caused an incident at a customer."
Check the output: compare the finished grilling log against the "produces" line. Each artifact listed needs enough agreed or overridden answers to fill its template; if one doesn't, schedule a short follow-up session rather than letting generation fill the gap.Goal: Turn approved grilling answers and evidence into one of the book's templates, without adding anything that wasn't decided or sourced.
Paste in: in a fresh session, the workspace brief, the approved grilling log(s) for this artifact, the cited source documents and the empty template from this book (for example, the strategy one-pager from Chapter 03). Use only approved tools.
[grilling logs]
[source documents, each labeled: name | owner | date]
[template]
Fill in the [template name] for [product] using only the grilling logs and sources above.
Rules:
1. Every sentence or table cell that states a fact, number or decision ends with a source tag: the log Q-ID (for example [STR-07]) or the document name and date.
2. Use "overridden" answers as written, and add the override note in a comment so readers know a challenge was raised.
3. Where the template asks for something the logs and sources don't cover, write "GAP: [what's missing] (owner: [name or unknown])." Don't fill it.
4. Don't add facts, examples, competitors, numbers or quotes that aren't in the material.
5. Keep the template's headings and order. Write in plain language, short sentences.
After the artifact, list: (a) every GAP, (b) every place where two log answers seemed to conflict and how you handled it, (c) any open item from the log that this artifact depends on.
Check the output: pick five source tags and confirm each one supports the sentence it's attached to. Search for any sentence without a tag. Either it's connective text or it was invented; delete the second kind.Goal: Find contradictions, unsourced numbers and stale content across the whole 360 before anyone else does.
Paste in: the Product 360 index and every spine and AI artifact (or connect the harness to where they live), plus the decision log. Use only approved tools.
Audit the Product 360 for [product]. Work in separate passes and don't let an earlier pass change a later one's answers.
Pass 1, claims. List every factual claim and number in the artifacts, with the artifact and section it appears in.
Pass 2, verification questions. For each claim, write the question that would verify it ("What is the gross margin in the latest finance export?"). Then answer each question independently from the cited source alone, without looking at the artifact's wording. Mark each claim verified, unsourced, contradicted by its source, or stale (the source is older than a later event).
Pass 3, cross-artifact contradictions. Check these pairs at minimum: positioning against the AI risk assessment and current capability; roadmap against strategy one-pager and lifecycle assessment; OKRs against the North Star tree; business model against pricing and the AI cost model; personas against positioning and the stakeholder map; the decision log against every artifact a decision touched. Quote both sides of each contradiction.
Pass 4, coverage. Which spine artifacts are missing, have no owner, or are past their review date?
Output a table: issue, artifacts affected, quotes, type (unsourced, contradicted, stale, missing, cross-artifact), severity (blocks a decision this quarter / should fix / cosmetic), and a proposed resolution: "fix the artifact" if the source is clear, or "decision needed: [question], decider: [name]" if the conflict is real.
Check the output: every "decision needed" row goes into the decision log with a decider and a date. Spot-check three "verified" claims yourself; if any fails, rerun Pass 2 for that artifact.Goal: Keep the 360 true with the least effort: an exception-only weekly brief, a monthly roadmap check and scheduled re-grills.
Paste in: the workspace brief and the Product 360 index; the harness loads only the artifacts due for the chosen mode. Name the mode. Use only approved tools.
Mode: [weekly / monthly / quarterly / annual / event]
Weekly: From the connected metric sources, draft an exception brief for [product]'s weekly review. Use the same metrics in the same order every week: [list from the North Star tree]. For each, say "nothing to see here" if it moved within its normal range over the last eight weeks, or, if it didn't, give the size of the move, the likely reason with evidence, or "unknown, owner [name] investigating." Add new risks, decisions logged this week and any artifact whose review date passed. Keep it to one page.
Monthly: Compare the roadmap against the strategy one-pager, the OKRs and last month's decisions. List items that no longer trace to an outcome, items that changed without a decision log entry, and competitive or customer changes from the month that should affect the roadmap.
Quarterly: Load the living artifacts (roadmap, metric tree, OKRs, competitive landscape, business model, stakeholder map) and their last grilling logs. Run a short grilling session: for each artifact, ask what changed since the last log, with your recommended update and evidence, one question at a time, using the seven tests. Write a new log that references the previous one.
Annual: Do the same for the durable artifacts (vision and strategy, personas, positioning, lifecycle stage), and add one question per artifact: "If we were writing this from scratch today, would we write the same thing?"
Event: For [launch / sunset / pricing change / reorganization / incident], list every spine artifact the event affects and the questions each now needs answered, then start a grilling session on the first one.
Rules: verify every number against its source and show the source. Don't restate unchanged content. Don't propose decisions; frame them as questions with a recommended answer.
Check the output: check every number in the weekly brief against the dashboard before you share it. If the brief runs past one page, it's a recap, not an exception brief; cut it back.Goal: Score the 360 dimension by dimension against Appendix C and pick next quarter's focus.
Paste in: the Product 360 index, the build tracker, the latest consistency audit, the grilling logs' open items, the decision log and calendar evidence of which rituals were held, and the Appendix C maturity model. Use only approved tools.
Draft a Product 360 health review for [product] for [quarter], using the health review template.
For each of the nine dimensions (and the AI artifacts if applicable):
1. List the artifacts, owners and last-reviewed dates from the tracker.
2. Mark freshness: current, stale or contradicted, citing the audit.
3. Name the ritual that made a decision from this dimension's artifacts this quarter, citing the decision log. If none, say "not used."
4. Score maturity against Appendix C, quoting the level description you matched and the evidence for it. If evidence is mixed, give the lower level and say why.
5. Count open grilling items and open audit contradictions.
Then: cadence health (rituals held against planned, decisions produced, which to keep, change or cancel); AI artifact health (eval trend, cost trend, deprecations due); the weakest dimension with your reasoning; and three fixes, each with a suggested owner and date.
Finally, ask me three grilling questions, one at a time with recommended answers, to confirm the weakest dimension and the fixes before you finalize the review.
Check the output: challenge any score above the level the evidence supports; generous scores defeat the purpose. Make sure the weakest dimension is chosen by evidence, not by which one is most comfortable to fix.Anti-patterns
Checklist
Key takeaways
Background
A new product owner inherits documents that disagree or describe stale conditions. The first 90 days need a shared view built while decisions continue. A Product 360 connects verified evidence, explicit choices and artifact ownership to a cadence that keeps them current.
Idea in brief
Build through five moves: anchor, grill, generate, audit and maintain. Separate retrieved facts from human decisions, resolve uncertainty visibly and end the transition with a functioning operating rhythm rather than a finished folder.
Apply it
- Use days 1–30 to agree scope, inventory evidence, map stakeholders and open the decision log. Verify facts and settle one overdue decision with a clear owner and supporting evidence.
- Separate facts found, facts missing and decisions missing. Cite names and dates, preserve source conflicts and leave gaps visible until an accountable person resolves them.
- Grill one dimension per session with recommendations and seven tests: specificity, evidence, falsifiability, tradeoff, consistency, ownership and decision relevance. Log agreed, overridden and open answers.
- Use live questioning for evolving judgments and written questionnaires for stakeholder responses. Review recommendations before returning the file: untouched answers count as accepted. Confirm the readback before generating artifacts.
- Build the spine in dependency order during days 31–60. Generate from approved logs in fresh sessions and assign each artifact an owner, source trail and review date.
- Audit source accuracy and cross-artifact consistency. Turn clear errors into fixes and genuine conflicts into decisions with deciders and dates. Approve the gap list, logs and audit as human gates.
- Run at least four verified weekly reviews before day ninety. Score maturity, choose the weakest dimension for next quarter and schedule quarterly or annual re-grills as appropriate.