Consulting, rebuilt for the AI age

Make the right call.

Diagnosis. Strategy. A practical execution plan.

Private, decision-focused — built for founders and executive teams.

Start a decision brief See an example brief

Premis is invite-only — join the waitlist.

THE ENGINE

A case team assembles
around your problem.

Specialist agents build independent reads of your situation. A lead partner weighs them — and makes the call.

THE CALL

The Premis™ Brief

A grounded call your team can act on — the diagnosis, the strategy, and a 90-day plan in one brief that survives the questions you’ll be asked, revisited as execution unfolds.

Start a decision brief See an example brief
Diagnose — Strategize — Execute Built for founders, executives, and fast operators
SEE IT WORK

Watch a brief take shape.

Three real scenarios, played end to end — exactly the way a run unfolds.

INSIDE THE BRIEF

You get a Decision Brief: the call, the reasoning, the plan.

Every engagement comes with a document your team can run — and your board can read.

The situation it was handed

An enterprise software company called Northwind. Two flat quarters despite three new feature launches. Sales says the product has grown too complex; churn is rising among smaller customers; and leadership is split — simplify the product, or double down on enterprise?

That situation went in. This document came out — and it claims no more than those five sentences support: its confidence is stated, what’s missing is named, and its tests are built to close the gaps. Real engagements attach the numbers; the read sharpens with them.

Example brief · Northwind
The Premis™ Brief
The Decision
Whether to commit the product, GTM resources, and success model to the enterprise segment or the SMB segment — and retire the other as a primary growth bet.
Prepared for
Diagnosis · Strategy · 90-Day Plan · Medium confidence · Generated July 24, 2026
Example — Not a Client Engagement© 2026 The Premis™ Brief · ID c91c704a
What this brief contains
2Executive summary
3The diagnosis
4The evidence
5The tests
6Strategy
8The 90-day plan
9How this brief was built
The Premis™ BriefExample · ID c91c704a · 1 / 9
The brief at a glance
The decision
Whether to commit the product, GTM resources, and success model to the enterprise segment or the SMB segment — and retire the other as a primary growth bet.
The recommendation
Force the Segment Decision
This is the only path that forces the decision the company keeps deferring — commit to SMB or to enterprise — instead of feeding the debate with more analysis. Making the real reasons customers leave a binding input to the next planning cycle puts the segment question on the table with a deadline; the two alternatives produce useful evidence but leave that gap open. It is also the lowest-effort, highest-return move of the three, so commit to it rather than run another parallel experiment.
Failure signalIf the exit reasons come back mixed or mostly about price rather than a clear complexity majority, the ambiguity isn't resolved — and the plan should pivot immediately to validating the enterprise pipeline as the tie-breaker.
Primary diagnosis
The structural-frame and strategic-ambiguity diagnosis is most supported by the evidence: the organization has never formally chosen its primary segment, so sales optimizes for enterprise, CS absorbs SMB churn, and product ships features that serve neither cohesively — producing two quarters of flat growth despite investment. The leadership debate framed as a product question ('simplify or double down') is the clearest signal of unresolved strategic ambiguity: the answer to that question requires a segment commitment that has not been made.
Impact
8/10
Effort
2/10
Risk
4/10
Confidence
Medium confidence
Problem type
Strategic ambiguity
Tests designed
3
Evidence gaps
4
Analysis Operating Without
Four things this analysis does not have — stated plainly, because the call above rests on them.
1Cohort-level churn data for SMB: which customers are churning, when in the lifecycle, and whether they adopted new features — this single dataset separates a demand mismatch from an onboarding/execution failure.
2Enterprise pipeline health metrics (deal velocity, conversion rate, ACV trend over the two flat quarters) — without this, it is impossible to know whether enterprise is holding or also quietly softening.
3Feature adoption rates by segment: are the three new features being used by anyone, and by which segment — this reveals whether the features are demand-misaligned or simply undelivered by sales and CS.
4Who formally owns segment strategy and with what decision authority — whether there is a segment P&L or cross-functional owner whose incentives are tied to a single segment outcome.
The Premis™ BriefExample · ID c91c704a · 2 / 9
The problem named, and what’s most likely broken
The diagnosis
The structural-frame and strategic-ambiguity diagnosis is most supported by the evidence: the organization has never formally chosen its primary segment, so sales optimizes for enterprise, CS absorbs SMB churn, and product ships features that serve neither cohesively — producing two quarters of flat growth despite investment. The leadership debate framed as a product question ('simplify or double down') is the clearest signal of unresolved strategic ambiguity: the answer to that question requires a segment commitment that has not been made.
1
The most decisive evidence is that leadership is actively debating 'simplify vs. double down on enterprise' — this is not a debate about execution tactics or market conditions; it is an unresolved strategic choice about who the product is for, which is the defining signal of strategic ambiguity rather than execution failure or demand erosion.
2
The execution frame is less supported because execution failures produce variance across reps and teams, but here both sales and CS are reporting the same directional problem from their respective vantage points — the issue is not that some reps sell complexity well and others don't, but that the entire go-to-market is pulling in two directions simultaneously; the demand frame is also less supported because there is no evidence that enterprise demand itself has eroded or that a specific alternative is winning those deals.
3
The adjudication would flip to the execution frame if cohort churn data showed SMB customers who completed structured onboarding retained at the same rate as prior cohorts — that would mean the product-segment fit is acceptable and the gap is purely in delivery; it would flip to the demand frame if enterprise pipeline velocity has also declined, indicating the product has lost relevance across both segments.
What anchors this read
Leadership is debating a binary strategic choice in real time — 'simplify or double down on enterprise' — without resolved data, which is the canonical signal of strategic ambiguity: the organization cannot make the call because it has never formally committed to a segment, not because it lacks execution capability or faces eroding demand.
Problem type
Strategic ambiguity
Confidence
Medium confidence
If the diagnosis is wrong
2
The execution frame's hypothesis — that features are shipping without sales enablement or CS integration, making the strategic debate premature because the organization lacks the diagnostic data to choose well — is the strongest alternative and partially co-exists with the primary diagnosis.
Reconsider if:If cohort churn analysis showed that SMB customers who were actively onboarded onto new features retained at prior-cohort rates, and that sales conversion is declining specifically on deals where new features are introduced, the root cause would shift to execution failure in GTM delivery rather than absence of a segment decision.
The Read
The primary diagnosis is strategic ambiguity: two quarters of flat growth despite three new features is the direct result of an organization that has never formally chosen its segment, allowing product, sales, and CS to optimize locally in ways that cancel each other out — the leadership debate over 'simplify vs. double down' is not the precursor to a decision, it is evidence that the decision has been repeatedly deferred.
Fastest testAsk the heads of product, sales, and customer success in separate conversations to name the primary target customer and the metric that defines success for that customer — divergent answers confirm the ambiguity diagnosis within 48 hours without any new data collection.
The Premis™ BriefExample · ID c91c704a · 3 / 9
The issue tree, built to test the diagnosis
4 branches of evidence — 3 support the diagnosis, 1 built to challenge it.
The structural-frame and strategic-ambiguity diagnosis is most supported by the evidence: the organization has never formally …
1
Segment strategy ownership
Supports
2
Feature-to-revenue linkage
Supports
3
Enterprise pipeline health
Supports
4
SMB churn root cause
Challenges
Drawn from the issue tree in this brief — each branch is examined in detail below.
Each branch, in detail
1
Segment strategy ownership
Supports
Examines whether any individual, team, or P&L structure has formal decision rights over which segment is primary and is held accountable for the revenue outcome of that choice.
What to look for:If no owner exists or accountability is split across functions with conflicting metrics, this confirms the strategic ambiguity hypothesis — the structure has institutionalized the indecision; if a clear segment owner exists and has made a call, the diagnosis shifts toward execution failure in delivering that stated strategy.
2
Feature-to-revenue linkage
Supports
Examines whether the three new features are present in sales pipelines, adopted by retained customers, and correlated with closed or churned accounts.
What to look for:If features show low adoption across both segments and are absent from closed-won deals, this confirms the ambiguity hypothesis — product is building without a segment anchor; if features show high enterprise adoption but zero SMB presence, it confirms the segment mismatch within the ambiguity frame and sharpens the direction of the required commitment.
3
Enterprise pipeline health
Supports
Examines deal velocity, conversion rate, and ACV trend in the enterprise segment over the two flat quarters.
What to look for:If enterprise pipeline is healthy and growing but not converting to revenue at the same rate, this supports the ambiguity hypothesis — sales is pursuing enterprise without a crisp value narrative anchored in a committed segment strategy; if enterprise pipeline has also softened materially, the demand frame gains ground and the ambiguity hypothesis must be revised to include product-market fit risk.
4
SMB churn root cause
Challenges
Examines when in the customer lifecycle SMB accounts churn, what their feature adoption looked like, and what exit interviews or CS data identify as the stated reason.
What to look for:If SMB churn clusters at onboarding or early activation, it partially supports the execution alternative; if it clusters at renewal with high-adoption customers citing complexity or price, it confirms a demand-side segment mismatch within the ambiguity frame — the product was never the right fit for this segment at this price point.
What determines the outcome
Segment decision-rights clarity: whether a formal owner with aligned incentives exists for the enterprise vs. SMB choiceFeature adoption rate by segment cohort vs. churn correlationEnterprise deal velocity trend over the two flat-revenue quarters
The Premis™ BriefExample · ID c91c704a · 4 / 9
What to prove, how to prove it, and where analysis runs out
Does any function own the segment strategy decision, and is anyone's success metric tied to the outcome of that choice?
RACI mapping of segment strategy decisions; incentive-to-segment alignment audit
Interview the heads of product, sales, and customer success separately; ask each to name the primary target customer and the single metric that defines success for that customer — then compare answers. Map incentive structures (quotas, OKRs, comp) to see whether they converge on one segment or pull in opposite directions.
Confirmed if
Divergent answers from three functional leaders and misaligned incentives confirm the strategic ambiguity hypothesis — the organization has structurally embedded the indecision.
Abandoned if
If all three leaders name the same segment and their metrics align, the ambiguity frame collapses and the diagnosis shifts to execution failure in delivering a strategy that is actually agreed upon.
Are the three new features present in closed-won deals, adopted by retained customers, or correlated with churn in either segment?
Cohort retention analysis; feature adoption funnel by segment
Pull CRM and product usage data to build a 2x2: segment (SMB vs. enterprise) by feature adoption (adopted vs. not adopted), then overlay churn and close rates. This takes 1-2 weeks with existing data if instrumentation is in place.
Confirmed if
Low adoption and zero appearance in closed-won deals across both segments confirms features were built without a segment anchor — direct evidence of the ambiguity-driven product drift.
Abandoned if
High enterprise adoption with strong retention but near-zero SMB adoption shifts the diagnosis: the product has already de facto chosen a segment and the real problem is that SMB is still being sold and onboarded against the wrong fit — which is an execution problem, not an ambiguity problem.
Is SMB churn concentrated at a specific lifecycle stage, and what is the customer-stated reason for leaving?
Customer exit interviews; lifecycle-stage churn waterfall
Segment churn by time-to-churn cohort (first 90 days vs. post-renewal) and overlay with onboarding completion data and any exit survey responses. Run 8-10 rapid exit interviews with recently churned SMB accounts if structured data is thin.
Confirmed if
Churn concentrated at renewal among customers who completed onboarding and used the product — citing complexity or value mismatch — confirms that SMB is the wrong segment for the current product, anchoring the ambiguity frame's directive to exit or reposition SMB.
Abandoned if
Churn concentrated in the first 30-60 days among customers with incomplete onboarding shifts root cause to execution failure in CS delivery, making a segment exit decision premature.
Your call from hereSensitive
The judgment calls, political dynamics, and relational constraints no analysis can resolve — written for the decision-maker, not for wide circulation.
The analysis can establish whether strategic ambiguity is the root cause and which segment the data points toward, but it cannot make the commitment to exit or de-prioritize SMB — that requires a board-level judgment call about revenue concentration risk, the cost of a managed SMB wind-down versus the opportunity cost of continued resource split, and whether the enterprise bet carries enough pipeline to justify the transition. There is also a relational judgment: the sales team's 'too complex' diagnosis may reflect capability gaps in enterprise selling that no segment decision resolves on its own — leadership must separately assess whether the sales team can execute an enterprise-only motion before committing to it.
The Premis™ BriefExample · ID c91c704a · 5 / 9
Three paths, argued independently
Problem interpretation
The product has been pulled toward enterprise complexity by three new features built without SMB-friendly configuration paths, but leadership has not formally decided whether enterprise is the target — meaning the company is neither defending its SMB base nor executing a deliberate enterprise pivot, just drifting. The core failure is that a segment strategy decision is being made by default through the product roadmap rather than by leadership intent.
The clearest driver here isn't a product problem — it's a leadership accountability gap: no one has set the rule for when an out-of-segment feature request gets turned down. Until that call is owned, even a successful SMB simplification will quietly undo itself.
Primary leverage point
Forcing leadership to a segment decision by making the churn reason code non-negotiable input — not advisory input — to the next feature planning cycle, because the mechanism of failure is unresolved strategic ambiguity being expressed through product drift, and that ambiguity is what makes every downstream fix temporary.
The recommended path carries the highest impact of the three at the lightest effort — 8/10 impact for 2/10 effort.
A — Force the Segment Decision
B
C
↑ Impact
Effort →
Drawn from the option scores in this brief — impact and effort on the engine’s 10-point scale.
Recommended
Option A
Force the Segment Decision
Immediately code the last 20-30 churned SMB exit interviews by primary reason (complexity, price, feature fit, support, competitive loss) and present the result to leadership within one week as the binding — not advisory — input to the segment strategy decision, treating the churn reason data as the kill signal that resolves the simplify-vs-enterprise debate before the next planning cycle.
Impact 8/10
Effort 2/10
Risk 4/10
Time to value 0-30d
Sacrifices: This option explicitly defers feature adoption mapping, enterprise pipeline assessment, and product simplification execution until the churn reason is confirmed — accepting that additional SMB exits may occur during the one-week diagnostic window.
Option B
Contained SMB Simplification Pilot
Run a two-week exit interview analysis correlated with product usage logs to isolate which of the three enterprise features appear in churn patterns, then immediately offer a simplified UI configuration path to at-risk SMBs (those using fewer than two of the three new features) as a 60-day reversible pilot — monitoring retention lift before committing any roadmap resources to a full SMB product track.
Impact 7/10
Effort 4/10
Risk 3/10
Time to value 30-90d
Sacrifices: This option does not resolve leadership's strategic ambiguity or establish segment governance — it treats the symptom (SMB friction) without forcing the organizational decision on segment prioritization, meaning the drift mechanism that caused the problem remains intact.
Option C
Enterprise Bet Validation First
Conduct a two-week diagnostic on enterprise pipeline health — win rates, deal velocity, competitive win/loss reasons, and average contract value trend — since the three new enterprise features shipped, to determine whether the product complexity that is driving SMB churn is actually generating commensurate enterprise revenue or is a strategic bet that has not paid off.
Impact 7/10
Effort 3/10
Risk 5/10
Time to value 30-90d
Sacrifices: This option delays the fastest path to SMB churn diagnosis — trading immediate validation of the complexity hypothesis for evidence of whether the enterprise motion is working, which means SMB attrition continues to compound during the diagnostic window with no concurrent retention action.
The Premis™ BriefExample · ID c91c704a · 6 / 9
One recommendation, and what has to be true for it
Why this recommendation
This is the only path that forces the decision the company keeps deferring — commit to SMB or to enterprise — instead of feeding the debate with more analysis. Making the real reasons customers leave a binding input to the next planning cycle puts the segment question on the table with a deadline; the two alternatives produce useful evidence but leave that gap open. It is also the lowest-effort, highest-return move of the three, so commit to it rather than run another parallel experiment.
Key assumption
Departing SMB customers gave specific enough reasons that complexity can be cleanly separated from price. If that exit data is missing, anecdotal, or mostly 'other,' this path won't force the decision — and validating the enterprise bet first becomes the fallback.
Failure signal
If the exit reasons come back mixed or mostly about price rather than a clear complexity majority, the ambiguity isn't resolved — and the plan should pivot immediately to validating the enterprise pipeline as the tie-breaker.
Constraint alignment
It is the only path that meets the hard requirement that the segment decision be made before the next feature planning cycle — it makes what you learn from departing customers the binding trigger for that decision, not an optional input.
Metrics that tell you if it’s working
SMB exit interview reason-code concentration: percentage of churned SMBs citing complexity or feature overload as primary reason
Where it stands
Unknown — this is a real evidence gap; we suspect complexity is the main driver, but it isn't confirmed yet
Where it must reach
More than 60% of departing SMBs citing complexity within 7 days — the threshold that should trigger the segment decision
This is the single leading indicator that either confirms the primary hypothesis and unlocks the strategic decision or falsifies it and forces a pricing or enterprise-health pivot — it is the decision gate, not a lagging outcome.
SMB monthly churn rate by cohort (customers onboarded before vs. after the three enterprise features shipped)
Where it stands
Rising — SMB churn is a confirmed symptom, but we don't yet have the rate or a cohort breakdown
Where it must reach
Churn rate for pre-feature cohort stabilizes or declines within 90 days of any intervention triggered by the exit interview finding
Cohort segmentation isolates whether churn is driven by the feature additions specifically or by a broader trend predating them, which is the confound that could invalidate the entire primary hypothesis.
Feature adoption rate for the three new enterprise features among active SMB accounts
Where it stands
Unknown — the absence of feature-by-segment adoption data is a critical gap
Where it must reach
Adoption rate mapped and baselined within 30 days; used to identify the at-risk SMB cohort for any follow-on intervention
If SMBs are not adopting the enterprise features at all, the complexity problem is UI exposure and navigation, not feature depth — this distinction determines whether the fix is a simplified onboarding path or a full feature-gating architecture.
Days to leadership segment decision from exit interview delivery
Where it stands
No decision made — the leadership debate is active and unresolved
Where it must reach
Formal segment decision (SMB-first, enterprise-first, or documented dual-segment with kill criteria) made within 14 days of exit interview findings delivery
The mechanism of failure is strategic drift enabled by governance absence — if leadership cannot commit to a segment within two weeks of receiving clean churn data, the root cause is organizational, not diagnostic, and the strategy requires a different intervention entirely.
The Premis™ BriefExample · ID c91c704a · 7 / 9
Execution Plan: Force the Segment Decision
90-Day Objective
Convert churned SMB exit interview data into a binding leadership decision on target segment strategy, formalize kill criteria before the next feature planning cycle, and validate the enterprise pipeline's viability — all within 90 days.
16 tasks across 90 days, front-loaded — 7 land in the first window.
Days 0–30
Retrieve, code, and validate SMB churn signal; run parallel enterprise and feature-adoption audits; and…
7 tasks
Days 30–60
Translate the leadership segment decision into a written feature triage framework and kill criteria, align…
5 tasks
Days 60–90
Measure whether the strategy is working, lock in structural governance before the next feature planning…
4 tasks
0306090
Drawn from the 90-day plan in this brief — the complete task-level plan lives in your workspace.
What tells you to stop or pivot
–
T1 returns fewer than 20 usable records, or more than 30% of coded records land in the 'other' category after T2 coding — either outcome means the 60% threshold cannot be meaningfully tested and the fallback diagnostic must be triggered immediately
–
The T12 governance checkpoint at day 45 finds one or more in-flight features that entered the backlog after T8 sign-off without a documented kill-criteria override — any single instance signals that the framework is not being enforced and structural accountability is missing
–
T2 frequency table shows no single reason category above 45%; leadership meeting in T5 ends without a documented commitment and is rescheduled — the absence of a written decision by day 14 is the earliest sign that the plan has failed to force the decision
Held for human judgment
The calls this brief deliberately leaves to you — they turn on values, relationships, and risk appetite no model should settle.
Whether to treat the churn data as truly binding or to allow leadership to reopen the debate if the signal is uncomfortable
Which of the four non-primary segment treatment options to choose — abandon, partner, simplified track, or dual UI
Whether to adjust sales rep commission structures and quota assignments to align with the new segment priority
Whether the exit-interview data is solid enough to act on, or whether the gaps found early mean it can't be trusted to force the decision
How to disposition in-flight enterprise feature work that has already been staffed and partially built when the backlog audit in T10 flags it as out-of-segment
The Premis™ BriefExample · ID c91c704a · 8 / 9
How this brief was built
The diagnosis in this brief was not a single pass of analysis. The same evidence was argued from three competing causes, and one read had to prevail.
The competing reads, unreconciled
Demand & Market72% conviction
Execution & Capability75% conviction
Structure & Operating ModelPrevailed72% conviction
What decided it
Leadership is actively debating 'simplify the product or double down on enterprise' as an open question — this is not a sign of thoughtful deliberation, it is the canonical signal that no segment commitment has been made and the organization is operating in two directions simultaneously.
Still standing
The execution frame's strongest remaining argument — that even after a segment decision is made, the organization lacks the sales enablement and CS onboarding discipline to deliver the chosen strategy — cannot be dismissed from the available evidence and would make the segment commitment necessary but not sufficient to restore growth.
Checks this brief passed
Every claim in this diagnosis was checked, line by line, against the material you supplied. Where your material runs out, the brief says so plainly — no gap is filled with guesswork.
Three different strategies were argued against each other before one was recommended — and the plan was tested against the most common ways plans like this fail, before it reached you.
The Premis™ BriefExample · ID c91c704a · 9 / 9
The Premis™ Brief
Generated
July 24, 2026, 05:21 AM
Run ID
c91c704a
Contents
Diagnosis · Strategy · 90-Day Plan
This report is produced for the named decision-maker and is confidential. It is not a substitute for legal, financial, or regulated professional advice. All judgements and decisions remain with the reader.
© 2026 The Premis™ Brief

The brief exports to a designed PDF — an ink cover unique to your run, exhibits throughout, and a confidential imprint on every page. The execution plan exports to Excel — or straight into Linear, Notion, or Jira, one issue per task.

See the example brief
AFTER THE BRIEF

The brief doesn’t disappear. It opens a room.

Every Full Brief opens a Situation Room — the 90-day plan as a live workspace. Tasks get ticked, owners get named, and the whole engagement sits in one view: what’s in front of you now, the quarter as it unfolds, and the signals that tell you it’s working. At 30, 60 and 90 days the check-ins land here — and what happened feeds your next brief.

The Situation Room — a live workspace, day 63 of 90Included with every Full Brief
FOR DECISIONS LIKE THESE

Decisions too important to stay unclear.

The moments that bring people here. If you're in one of these right now, you're in the right place.

Whatever you're facing →Bring it as it is. Start a brief.
THE METHOD

Before you solve it, be sure it's the right problem.

Most strategy fails in the diagnosis, not the execution. A Premis engagement runs the way a good first session with a top firm runs.

85% of C-suite executives say their organizations are bad at problem diagnosis — and 87% say this flaw carries significant costs. HBR · Wedell-Wedellsborg

This becomes the first line of your brief. Diagnosis is free to start.

AMBIGUITY CLARITY
Tangle → LineThe question

Bring the problem as it actually is — half-formed, contradictory, urgent. Premis finds the question underneath and asks what it needs to know.

SYMPTOM ROOT CAUSE
The IcebergThe diagnosis

What you can see is rarely what's wrong. The diagnosis goes below the waterline, names what's actually driving the problem — and says so plainly.

IMPACT EFFORT
The 2×2The strategy

Three real options, weighed against your constraints. One recommendation, argued with evidence — and a 90-day plan to act on it.

Under the hood

We don’t settle for the first plausible read. Every problem gets argued from more than one angle before Premis commits to a single point of view.

TWO WAYS IN

Sixty seconds, or the full engagement.

First Read
The sixty-second verdict

A straight answer in about a minute: the read, the reasoning behind it, what to keep an eye on — and what would prove it wrong.

When you need the answer before the meeting
Full Brief
The complete engagement

The four-stage diagnosis, three options with one recommendation, and the 30-90 day plan — the full document your team runs with.

When the decision deserves the whole engine

You don't have to choose blind. Premis reads your situation first and recommends the depth it deserves — you confirm with one click, the way a good partner scopes an engagement with you.

PRIVATE BY DESIGN

Read once. Checked twice. Never stored.

What you attach shapes one diagnosis, then disappears. And nothing reaches you without being checked against the evidence first.

Your documents

Anything you attach is read only for this run, then discarded — never stored, never used to train anything, nothing left behind for someone else to find.

The check

Before a diagnosis reaches you, an independent pass checks the reasoning is actually grounded in what you gave it — not inferred. Before a strategy reaches you, it’s checked against five ways this kind of advice usually goes wrong.

THE MOMENT

Everyone's moving.
You have to decide.

Start a brief Join the waitlist
Join the waitlist