Fasten each status claim to something a reviewer can open — a merged change, a signed contract, a launched service — date its last movement, and leave the colour to the named owner.
A status is set, and the named owner who set it is recorded beside the claim it makes.
02
A milestone slips, and the original target stays on the record next to the new one.
Reason
03
An initiative goes quiet, and the weeks without movement are reported as plainly as the colour.
04
An objective rolls up green, and the worst initiative beneath it is shown beside the aggregate.
05
A merged change lands, and the claim it supports is bound to that artefact, not to a form entry.
Decide
06
A contract is countersigned, and the initiative resting on it carries the day that happened.
07
A service launches, and the objective above inherits evidence rather than an assertion.
Out
08
A high-confidence assertion arrives, and it still ranks under a shipped artefact with a low one.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent gathers and dates evidence. A named owner sets the status — the agent grades nobody, and this is not a productivity or performance-management tool.
Example workflow
One initiative, evidence to status
AgentHuman
1Initiative signals receivedDelivery systems, contract stores, release logs or launch records
2Initiative context assembledThe objective above it, the owner named on it, the target it carries and the day it last moved
3Evidence pack draftedThe claim, the artefacts under it, the gaps and completeness
4Controls appliedMovement checks, evidence-binding checks, baseline checks and completeness confidence
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and no status is set at any of them — the agent only gathers, and the owner enters at the completeness gate.
5DecisionSplits at the completeness gate
Evidence sufficient
Goes to the named owner to set the status.
Anything thin
Adds a portfolio analyst read first.
Portfolio review
The pack is held with its claim, its gaps and the artefacts behind them.
Set status · Append evidence · Send to portfolio review
Status set — by the named owner▼
6Initiative and objective records updatedOnly where write access and records policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedEvidence coverage, movement dating, analyst corrections and what review found
Corrections
Each analyst correction is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Setting the status on any initiative.
Judging whether an objective was met.
Deciding that an initiative is blocked.
Rating, ranking or appraising a person.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Bind each status claim to an artefact that a reviewer could open.
✓Date the last movement on every initiative and show it.
✓Show the worst constituent beside every roll-up status.
✓Keep the original target on the record whenever a baseline is moved.
No status is set and no report leaves the agent except by a named person, on approval.
Deciding what an objective is worth.
Telling the board the portfolio is healthy.
Choosing which initiatives get funded.
Changes to targets, owners or the status record.
Example output
One status claim, annotated
This serves a strategy or transformation function reporting to an executive team; our performance reporting agent reports campaign delivery for a client, which is a different object entirely.
Evidence pack · single initiativeIllustrative example
Claim
Recorded as
Initiative
Evidence of record
Confidence
Held for
Platform migration, phase two
Evidence gathered, colour left to the owner
Delivery evidence
Merged change, 3 August 2026
Held unset
The named initiative owner
As receivedTaken from the release log and the contract store — nothing beyond those systems is claimed.
What the record holdsMerged changeSigned contractLaunched service
Why no status is set hereWhether an initiative is green remains an owner judgement, not a model output.
ActionSet statusAppend evidenceSend to portfolio review
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold a pack picks up an analyst read before the owner sees it.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Every claimFrom the system that shows it
03Evidence
Where the evidence is used
This is not a productivity or performance-management tool: it reports on initiatives and the evidence beneath them, and it produces nothing at all about individuals.
01Approved path
A status is a claim
A claim wants something observable under it — a merged change, a signed contract, a launched service — rather than an assertion typed into a form.
02Human review
What was checked, and not found
No external standard defines what green means, so none is quoted here; the thresholds stay yours; and movement dates come only from the systems connected, so an initiative worked outside them will read as quiet.
04Build an evidence trail
The initiative, the evidence behind its status and the owner who set it stay together.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Delivery and engineeringIssue trackers · repositories Merged changes and releases
Planning and objectivesObjective tree · baselines Targets and re-baselining history
Commercial and legalContract store · CRM Countersigned agreements
Agent
OKR and initiative evidence
Reads the initiatives Gathers the evidence Holds for the owner
Launch and operationsDeployment logs · service catalogue Go-live and launch records
An objective-level evidence-coverage figure can read clean while cross-team initiatives carry most of the rework. Nestack reports the correction rate by initiative type, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Cross-team platform initiatives
6.9%
3.6×
Review
Re-baselined initiatives
4.9%
2.6×
Review
Partnership and contract initiatives
3.0%
1.6×
Watch
Single-team delivery initiatives
1.2%
0.6×
Normal
Bar: correction-rate lift vs. single-team initiative baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
What an unevidenced green costs
The loop shuts when the green status without evidence is a regression case. That suite is what the next review pack is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Correction rate rises on cross-team initiatives.
02Diagnose
The initiative that stayed green for two quarters and shipped nothing is worked back through its claims until one cause remains.
03Improve
Any change goes out numbered, with the initiatives that caused it attached.
04Verify
One initiative case still failing is enough to hold the release back.
05Learn
One case joins the suite, one line joins the status record.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next pack is measured against a suite one case longer.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, evidence assembly, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Objective-tree discovery and status-boundary work.
02Delivery, contract and launch sources.
03Claim-to-artefact and last-movement-date mapping.
04Initiative evidence ingestion.
05Claim, artefact and owner binding.
06Completeness scoring and review routing.
07Owner status workflow.
08Delivery-system integration.
09Evidence and rollup cases.
10Guardrails and attestation controls.
11Initiative-trail instrumentation.
12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne objective, one yearProductionProduction review workflowAdvancedMultiple objectives / teams
Introduced at Pilot
Evidence gathering to your objectives✓✓✓
Named owner release✓✓✓
Tracked-initiative baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by objective—✓✓
Owner status workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Delivery-system integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-level objective trees——✓
Cross-team evidence packs——✓
Large initiative portfolios——✓
Multi-level rollup controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, initiative volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your objective tree and the initiatives beneath it→Objective mapping and initiative captureWeek 1
02Representative delivery, contract and launch records→Artefact binding, claim logic and the evidence baselineWeek 2
03Your standing review cadence and the owners it names→Objective mapping, artefact binding and the automation boundaryWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Delivery, contract and launch source assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Statuses you would not want challenged→Rollup cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06What no status report may prove→Completeness scoring, review routing, guardrails and release controlsWeek 3
07A named owner on every objective and initiative→Release to the named owner, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Widths track what each phase costs to do, so two of them necessarily share the fifth week here.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Review workflow discovery, objective mapping and the automation boundaryW2Source integration and the tracked-initiative baselineW3Evidence gathering, rollup logic and release controlsW4Evaluation suite, rollup cases and stale-initiative testingW5Delivery-system integration, pilot objectives and targeted correctionsW6One planning year run under the transformation lead, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandEach bar covers only the weeks its own work is named for. The fifth week carries two because the work does.
At the end of W6Once the status record validates, Agent Care assumes the agent.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Strategy AI agent
Build an initiative tracker around the green that shipped nothing.
An objective built from many initiatives goes green while one of them is stuck, and the average is what hides it. Show us your rollup and the worst thing beneath it. Every claim comes back dated, and no status is ours to set.
