File: 2026.10.26 - Lumenwire Audio - 01 Meeting Script.md
Gary and Marcus
Lumenwire Audio requirements meeting · 26-Oct-26
Gary's meeting summary
Main points and action items
Main points
- The real problem: revenue fell from A$118.4m (FY25) to A$80.6m (FY26), and the board was surprised because nobody puts the Finance, Sales and Engineering numbers together. Nobody can show whether the business is still "growing underneath the fall"
- Marcus's story: hardware fell in an industry soft patch; software grew 38% to A$25.7m; gross margin 71% to 77%; record 1,180 design wins; Q1 FY27 about A$19m. Stated, not yet calculated
- Three objectives: revenue back to A$115m within two years; keep software growing with gross margin holding up; keep design wins turning into shipping products
- One firm target: A$115m within two years (the board's). Marcus doesn't know how it was set or the exact date. No other targets he can vouch for
- Audience: the chair and the board, monthly, one page, in the board pack and on screen; the CEO, CFO, VP Sales and Head of Platform Engineering on the same numbers
- Data: P&L trusted; forecasts not trusted; CRM trusted less (reps work to a bonus); telemetry trusted most but never used as an end-customer view; OEM stock reports patchy. History and refresh unknown
- Top 5 proposed: Total revenue, last 12 months, against the path to A$115m; New devices activated in the field; Software revenue growth; Design wins that ship; Forecast accuracy
- Confirmed by Marcus: the corrected Problem Statement, the objectives, audience and decisions, and the revenue, software and design-win KPIs. Conditional: the telemetry KPI (Head of Platform Engineering first) and forecast KPI (CFO first) stay off page one until then. Gary's proposals: every target and threshold except A$115m, and the owners and actions not stated by Marcus
Action items
| # | Action | Owner | Due |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Write the Business Requirements v1.0, draft measures and the Project Plan | Business requirements lead (Gary) | 26-Oct-26 |
| 2 | Review and approve Gary's proposed targets, thresholds, owners and actions | Adam (acting subject matter expert) | Stage 1 gate, 27-Oct-26 |
| 3 | Say what the telemetry can and can't show, so New devices activated can go on page one | Head of Platform Engineering | 6-Nov-26 |
| 4 | Give a view on Forecast accuracy, and walk through the FY27 targets and where each came from | CFO | 6-Nov-26 |
| 5 | Confirm how the A$115m was set and its date | Chair, via the CEO | 6-Nov-26 |
| 6 | Set a software revenue target | VP Sales with the CFO | 6-Nov-26 |
| 7 | Confirm and test every draft measure on the data; set baselines and pace needed | KPI analyst (Kewpie) | After the Stage 1 gate |
Due dates from 6-Nov-26 onwards are Gary's proposal.
Open questions
- How was the A$115m set, and does "within two years" mean the year ending 30 June 2028?
- What are the FY27 targets for revenue, gross margin, earnings, software and design wins, and where did each come from?
- What software revenue target should we use?
- What can the telemetry show and not show about what end customers install?
- Which forecast should be measured for accuracy, and does the CFO support it?
- How far back does each system go, and how often does it refresh?
- Can OEMs be named on the board page, and can customers?
- Will the chair use a phone?
- What tools and chart preferences should we follow?
- What happens if nothing changes in the next six months?
- How long after a design win should a product be expected to ship?
About this meeting
Test case. Lumenwire Audio is a made-up company. Marcus was played by the case's stakeholder agent, answering from its Stakeholder Brief only. Gary never saw the brief. Every question and answer below is word for word from the message thread. Each of Gary's messages opened with a label ("Question 1 from Gary.", "Playback from Gary.", "Close from Gary."), left out here.
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Date | 26-Oct-26 |
| Length | 9 message exchanges (7 questions, playback, close) |
| Interviewer | Gary, KPI Creator Stage 1 (business requirements lead) |
| Stakeholder | Marcus, co-founder and CEO, Lumenwire Audio (stakeholder agent, test mode) |
| Observer | Adam (acting subject matter expert for sign-off) |
| Questions used | 7 of 7. Probes merged into the questions; no separate probes |
| Source record | Message thread between Gary and the stakeholder agent, 26-Oct-26 |
G'day Marcus, I'm Gary. I'll keep this to a handful of questions. First one: what's the business problem, and why does it matter now? And if nothing changes in the next 6 months, what happens?
G'day Gary. The problem is simple to state. Revenue went from A$118.4m in FY25 to A$80.6m in FY26, down about a third. The board says they were blindsided, and Ros wants to see the business properly, not just a quarterly P&L. It matters now because the board wants us back to A$115m within two years, and they need a view they can trust each month.
Honestly, I don't think the business is as weak as the top line says. Hardware fell because of the industry soft patch: tariffs, interest rates, venue projects getting delayed, OEMs being cautious. Software grew 38% to A$25.7m, gross margin went from 71% to 77%, and we booked a record 1,180 design wins. Q1 FY27 came in at about A$19m, so we've stopped falling. That's the story I want the board to see.
If nothing changes for six months? I'd be guessing, and I don't want to guess in front of the board. You'd have to ask Priya Anand, our CFO, for the forecast view. I can tell you what I'd fear: that we keep being surprised by a number we should have seen coming.
"Blindsided" and "the story I want the board to see" are the two phrases to hold. My job is to test the story, not decorate it. Six-month view goes to the CFO.
Thanks Marcus. You used the word "blindsided", and you said your fear is being surprised by a number you should have seen coming. I'll hold onto that. So: what are the 2 or 3 outcomes the business is trying to achieve over the next two years? For each, how would you know it's happening, and do you have a number in mind?
Right, three things, as I see them.
One: get back to A$115m of revenue within two years. That's the board's number. Ros's number, I think. I don't know how it was set, you'd have to ask the board or Priya. How would we know? Monthly revenue, split hardware and software, tracking towards that figure. I'd like a number for the year-end, but I'd rather the board saw the trend than a single point.
Two: keep software growing. It's the future, and it's the story I want the board to see. How would we know? Software revenue growth each year, and gross margin holding up. I don't have a target for software in dollars. Sales and Finance should give you that.
Three: keep design wins turning into shipping products. Design wins are our leading indicator. An OEM commits to building with us, and those turn into revenue. I believe most of them do, eighty percent or so, but I've never measured it. How would we know? Design wins per quarter, and how many of them go on to ship. I don't have that conversion number. You'd have to ask Tomasz on the engineering side, or Gemma in Sales.
Honestly, I'd like the board to see all three on one page. That's the bit I can't prove yet.
"I believe... but I've never measured it" is the most important sentence so far. The record design wins only matter if they ship. Conversion goes above the count.
Clear, thanks. Who will use this, and what decisions will they make with it? Board, Ros, you, Priya, Sales? And how often, and where: on a screen, a phone, or in a board pack?
The main user is Ros and the board. She wants to look at it monthly, one page. I'd want it in the board pack, and I'd want Ros able to pull it up on a screen between meetings. I haven't thought about phones, you'd have to ask her.
I'd use it too, obviously. I'd want my exec team looking at it as well, Priya on the finance side, and Gemma in Sales. I'd expect Sales to look at it, but I'd want them using the same numbers as Finance, which is really the point. They shouldn't be arguing about forecasts any more.
The decisions it should support are three. Whether we're still growing underneath the revenue fall. Where to put sales and engineering effort. And whether to keep pushing software. That last one I'd want the board to think about hard, and I'd want the numbers to show why.
"Growing underneath the revenue fall" is the real question. That's the decision that changes if a number moves.
You said "growing underneath the revenue fall". That's the phrase I'll test hardest, because it's where the board will push. For each of your three outcomes (revenue back to A$115m, software growing, design wins turning into shipping products): what do you want to know, and what would you actually do if it went off track? And who would act on it, by role?
Fair challenge. Let me take them one at a time.
Revenue back to A$115m. What I want to know is whether the fall is still macro, or whether something in our own pipeline is behind it. If the hardware line stays flat while the industry recovers, I'd be worried, and I'd want to know why. If it went off track, I'd ask Priya to take the forecast apart, OEM by OEM, so we stop arguing about whose number is right. I would act on the sales plan and the allocation of effort, but the board sets the target, so they'd need to hear it from me early.
Software growing. I want to know whether the growth is real and repeatable, and how much of it comes from one big licence. I don't want to say more than that until the numbers are in front of me, but if software slowed, I'd want to know whether it was the product or the sales effort. Product decisions sit with me and Tomasz. Sales effort sits with Gemma.
Design wins turning into shipping products. I want to know how many of our design wins actually ship, and how long it takes. If that conversion number is weak, I'd want Gemma's team to stop chasing design wins for their bonus and start chasing the ones that will ship. Gemma would act on the sales side, and Tomasz on whether our engineering support is holding OEMs back.
So, by role: me for the overall call, Priya for the numbers, Gemma for the sales behaviour, Tomasz for product and engineering. I'd want the board told which of those we're acting on each month.
Actions and owners for all three. "Stop chasing design wins for their bonus" tells me the count can be gamed. "Take the forecast apart, OEM by OEM" is a forecast-accuracy action.
That's the most useful answer so far, thanks. Now targets and dates. You've given me A$115m within two years. What other targets and dates are you working to, for FY27 or beyond: revenue for this year, gross margin, earnings, software, design wins? And where does each one come from: board, plan, history? While I'm at it, for the record, what are your title and Ros's, and the titles for Priya, Gemma and Tomasz?
On targets, I'm only sure of the one I've given you. The board wants us back to A$115m within two years. I don't know how that was set. I'd guess it's Ros's number, but you'd have to check with the board.
Beyond that, I don't have dates or figures to hand for FY27 revenue, gross margin, earnings, software or design wins. The FY27 budget will be with Priya, and I'd want her to walk you through where each one came from, whether that's the board, the plan or last year's run rate. Don't take my word for those numbers.
For the record, I'm co-founder and CEO of Lumenwire Audio. Ros is our chair. Priya Anand is our CFO. Gemma Lowe is our VP Sales. Tomasz Wierzbicki is our Head of Platform Engineering.
One firm target. Everything else is my proposal or the CFO's to give. I won't guess.
Understood, I won't take your word for them; I'll log them for Priya. Now data. What data exists today, and what do you trust or not trust about it? Think finance ledger and invoices, sales orders, the CRM where design wins are logged, device or telemetry data, software licences, OEM stock reports, forecasts. How far back does it go, and how often does it refresh?
I'll be honest, I only know our data at a high level. The detail is with the people who run each system.
Finance has the P&L and the board pack, from the ERP. Priya would know how far back it goes and how often it closes. I trust the P&L for what it shows, but I don't trust the forecasts that come out of finance. They're built off last year's run rate.
Sales has the CRM. Design wins are logged there. I'd trust it less than the P&L, because reps are working to a bonus. Gemma can tell you more.
Engineering has telemetry in Grafana. Every device with our firmware phones home when it first joins a network. Engineering uses it to track firmware bugs, and I trust it more than anything else we have. It covers basically everything out there. Tomasz would be the one to ask about history and refresh.
OEM stock reports come from Sales. They're a bit patchy. I've never really looked at them.
Software licences sit with Finance, I'd say. Priya would have those.
On how far back it goes and how often it refreshes, I don't know. You'd have to ask Priya, Gemma or Tomasz.
The telemetry is the find of the day. Devices joining a network are end-customer installs, not OEM orders. Put that next to the OEM stock reports and you can tell destocking from lost demand. That's "growing underneath" made measurable.
That telemetry point is a big one: if every device phones home when it joins a network, that tells us what end customers are actually installing, not just what OEMs are buying from us. I'll come back to it in the playback. Last question: anything I must or mustn't do? Privacy (for example naming OEMs or customers on a board page), tools, chart likes and dislikes, and anything you've seen in past dashboards or board packs that didn't work?
On telemetry, I like where you're going. Engineering's data has always been undervalued, and I'd be happy to see it used for something beyond firmware bugs. I haven't thought of it as an end-customer view, so I'd want Tomasz to tell you what it can and can't show before we put it on a board page.
On rules, I don't have a privacy policy in front of me. Naming OEMs on a board page is a call for Priya and our legal people, not me. I'd want the board to see OEMs by name, but I'd be careful about naming customers. You'd have to check with them.
On tools and chart preferences, I'm not the person to ask about tooling. I dislike "accountant metrics", so keep the page to things people in the business can act on. Beyond that, I'd have to ask Gemma or Priya.
On past dashboards that didn't work, I don't have one to point to. The problem I know is that nobody puts the reports together. Finance, Sales and Engineering each have their own view, and that's what I want fixed.
"Nobody puts the reports together" belongs in the Problem Statement. EBITDA fails the Must Have test: no action, and he dislikes accountant metrics.
That's my seven questions. Here's what I've heard. Please tell me "Is this right?" and correct anything that isn't.
In one line: "Revenue fell by about a third in a year, from A$118.4m to A$80.6m, and the board was caught by surprise because Finance, Sales and Engineering each keep their own view. Nobody can yet show, from one set of numbers everyone trusts, whether the business is still growing underneath the fall or whether more bad news is coming."
In more detail: you want to (1) get revenue back to A$115m within two years, which I've read as the year ending June 2028 (to confirm with the board); (2) keep software growing, with gross margin holding up; and (3) keep design wins turning into shipping products. Ros and the board will use this monthly, one page, in the board pack and on screen between meetings; you, Priya, Gemma and Tomasz use the same numbers. The decisions: are we still growing underneath the revenue fall, where to put sales and engineering effort, and whether to keep pushing software. My proposal, not your words: I've added "see revenue coming before it lands" under the first outcome, because of your word "blindsided".
The five KPIs I'd put on the page (owners are roles; targets other than A$115m are my proposals, to be agreed with Priya):
- Total revenue, last 12 months, against the path to A$115m. Lagging. If below the path, the CFO takes the forecast apart OEM by OEM and you brief the board early. Owner: CEO.
- New devices activated in the field, last 12 months versus the year before (from engineering telemetry). Leading. It shows what end customers are installing, so it tests "growing underneath". If it falls, the VP Sales moves effort to where installs are growing. Owner: VP Sales. Only goes on the board page once Tomasz confirms what it can and can't show.
- Software revenue growth, last 12 months versus the year before. Lagging. If it slows, you and Tomasz check the product and Gemma checks the sales effort. Owner: CEO. Underneath it: share of software revenue from the largest licences (your "one big licence" worry) and gross margin %.
- Design wins that go on to ship, as a % of design wins old enough to have shipped. Leading. If weak, the VP Sales refocuses the team on wins that will ship. Owner: VP Sales. Underneath it: months from design win to first shipment, and design wins per quarter (kept underneath, not on top, because it's bonus-linked).
- Forecast accuracy: actual quarterly revenue against the forecast made at the start of the quarter. Leading. If it misses by more than the agreed band, the CFO rebuilds the forecast OEM by OEM, one number for Finance and Sales. Owner: CFO.
Parked as Nice to Haves: earnings (EBITDA) on page one, as it's the "accountant metric" with no action you named; and raw design-win counts as a headline.
Still open, for Priya, Gemma, Tomasz and the board: how the A$115m was set and its exact date; FY27 targets for revenue, margin, earnings, software and design wins; data history and refresh for each system; what telemetry can and can't show; whether OEMs can be named on the board page; tools and chart preferences; phone use for Ros; and what happens if nothing changes in six months.
Is this right?
Mostly right, with some corrections.
The one-liner. Close, but I'd put the surprise down to nobody putting Finance, Sales and Engineering together, rather than each keeping its own view. The rest is fine.
Outcome one. Drop "see revenue coming before it lands". That isn't my phrase. I said I want to know whether we're still growing underneath the fall. On the date, I've said two years. I don't know if that means June 2028, so please confirm it with the board.
Outcomes two and three are right.
Decisions and users are right. I'd want Ros on a screen, not only in the board pack, but I haven't thought about phones.
The five KPIs. I'd agree with the revenue one, the software one and the design wins one. On the forecast one, I'd want Priya's view first, because I don't trust the forecasts as they stand. On the telemetry one, I'm keen, but only once Tomasz has said what it can and can't show. I wouldn't want it on page one until then.
On earnings, I'm not sure it's a nice to have. But I dislike accountant metrics, and you've given me no action for it, so I'm fine parking it for now.
Your open list is right. I'd add that I don't know the FY27 targets, and I don't know how the A$115m was set.
Fair correction on my added sub-objective: I put words in his mouth. His own phrase goes in instead. Two KPIs are conditional, not rejected.
Thanks Marcus, all taken. Here are the changes, so you can give me a final yes or no.
- One-liner, Before: "...the board was caught by surprise because Finance, Sales and Engineering each keep their own view." After: "Revenue fell by about a third in a year, from A$118.4m to A$80.6m, and the board was caught by surprise because nobody puts the Finance, Sales and Engineering numbers together. Nobody can yet show, from one set of numbers everyone trusts, whether the business is still growing underneath the fall."
- Outcome one: "see revenue coming before it lands" is gone. In its place, in your words: "know whether we're still growing underneath the fall". The A$115m date stays "within two years", to be confirmed with the board.
- Revenue, software growth and design wins that ship: agreed by you.
- New devices activated (telemetry) and forecast accuracy stay in the five, but marked "pending sign-off" and kept off page one until Tomasz (telemetry) and Priya (forecast) have given their view.
- Earnings parked for now, as you said.
- Open list: added that you don't know the FY27 targets or how the A$115m was set.
Is this right now?
Yes, that's right now. Items one to six all match what I meant. Go ahead.
Checklist at close
| Area | Status | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Who | ✅ | Chair and board monthly, one page, board pack and screen; exec team on the same numbers. ⚠️ Phone use |
| What | ✅ | Problem as an outcome; three objectives; one sub-objective in Marcus's words |
| Where | ⚠️ | Sources and trust known. History, refresh and telemetry limits open |
| When | ⚠️ | A$115m within two years. Exact date, FY27 targets and review rhythm beyond monthly open |
| Why | ✅ | Why now, why each KPI, action and owner for each outcome |
Change log
| Version | Date | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 26-Oct-26 | Written after the playback and close, from the message thread |