File: 2026.10.27 - Lumenwire Audio - 04 Stakeholder Brief Coverage Check.md
Lumenwire Audio: Stakeholder Brief Coverage Check
Test case, Sample data. In test mode the "brief" is Marcus's own words in the Meeting Script (2026.10.26 - Lumenwire Audio - 01 Meeting Script.md), never the Stakeholder Brief file. Checked against2026.10.27 - Lumenwire Audio - 04 Dashboard.html(Jennifer's finished first draft, 6 pages, data to 30-Sep-26) and Business Requirements v1.2. Ovy proposes next steps only: nothing here has been changed.
Author: Ovy. Date: 27-Oct-26. Result: 22 Addressed, 12 Partly, 3 Not addressed (37 items).
Summary
| Result | Count |
|---|---|
| ✓ Addressed | 22 |
| ! Partly | 12 |
| × Not addressed | 3 |
| Total | 37 |
The page answers Marcus's main question. The headline says "The business isn't yet growing underneath the fall", and it tests his story rather than telling it: the hardware fall is OEMs buying ahead (A$48.0m), software growth is one A$7.4m licence, and 31.5% of design wins ship against his unmeasured 80%.
The most important gaps:
- One number for Finance and Sales, so the board isn't surprised again (items 21, 35, 36). Both forecasts are shown and both miss badly (Finance 23.2%, Sales 34.3% over four quarters). The CFO hasn't chosen which counts, and there is no forward view. Owner: CFO, then Kewpie and Viktor.
- Targets other than A$115m read as firm on the page (items 8, 26). Marcus said "Don't take my word for those numbers". The 0%, 35%, +5% and 10% targets are signed off by the acting SME, not by the CFO or VP Sales, and the tiles don't mark them as proposals. Owner: Gary, with SME sign-off and the CFO.
- Where to put sales and engineering effort (items 12, 16, 22). One of Marcus's three decisions. The page has no split of installs or design wins by region, OEM or rep, and nothing separates "the product or the sales effort" behind software. Owner: Kewpie for the splits, Viktor for the view; OEM names wait on the CFO and legal.
- The board told which actions are being taken each month (item 24). The Top 3 actions have owners and targets, but no monthly status. Owner: Viktor, with the CEO supplying the status.
- One page in the board pack, and phone use (items 19, 20). The draft is a 6-page edition; page 1 carries all three outcomes, but whether page 1 stands alone as the board-pack page isn't confirmed, and nobody has asked the chair about phones. Owner: Jennifer, after Marcus confirms at Stage 5; the chair via the CEO for phones.
1. Item by item
| # | Marcus's words (Meeting Script) | Result | Where the output answers it |
|---|---|---|---|
| The problem as stated | |||
| 1 | "Revenue went from A$118.4m in FY25 to A$80.6m in FY26, down about a third" | ✓ Addressed | About panel: "Revenue fell by about a third, from A$118.4m in FY25 to A$80.6m in FY26"; Page 2 revenue bridge "Revenue fell A$37.8m" |
| 2 | "The board says they were blindsided" | ✓ Addressed | Page 5: "Neither forecast called the hardware step, and Sales has been too high in 12 of 12 quarters"; Total revenue tile shows the gap to path each month |
| 3 | "Ros wants to see the business properly, not just a quarterly P&L" | ✓ Addressed | The page joins ledger revenue, telemetry installs, CRM design wins and OEM stock reports, with monthly last-12-month views |
| 4 | His story: "Hardware fell because of the industry soft patch ... Software grew 38% to A$25.7m, gross margin went from 71% to 77% ... 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" | ✓ Addressed | Tested, not repeated: "OEMs cutting their buying by 47% after two years of buying ahead"; "Software grew to A$25.1m only because of one A$7.4m licence"; "Gross margin is 76.5% ... but 74.1% without the licence"; "Design wins rose to 1,180 in FY26 while the share that ships stayed flat"; "Hardware has held at A$12.6m to A$14.5m a quarter for five quarters: the fall has stopped" |
| The real problem | |||
| 5 | "The problem I know is that nobody puts the reports together. Finance, Sales and Engineering each have their own view" | ✓ Addressed | One page built from Finance, Sales and Engineering data; Business Requirements Problem Statement uses his corrected wording |
| 6 | "Whether we're still growing underneath the revenue fall" (his sub-objective, in his words) | ✓ Addressed | Headline: "The business isn't yet growing underneath the fall"; About panel: "It asks one question: are we still growing underneath the fall?" |
| Objectives and sub-objectives | |||
| 7 | "Get back to A$115m of revenue within two years ... Monthly revenue, split hardware and software ... I'd rather the board saw the trend than a single point" | ✓ Addressed | Page 2 chart, last 12 months by month against the path to A$115m, with a "Hardware and software" toggle; tile sparkline with target line |
| 8 | "I don't know how it was set ... please confirm it with the board" (the date) | ! Partly | Shown as a decision the board is waiting on: "Does 'within two years' mean 30-Jun-28, and how was A$115m set? Chair, via the CEO". Still unanswered; the tile reads "Target A$115m by 30-Jun-28" as if settled |
| 9 | "Keep software growing. It's the future" | ✓ Addressed | Software growth without one-off licences tile and Page 3 software bridge: "Without it, software fell 15.6%" |
| 10 | "gross margin holding up" | ✓ Addressed | Page 6: "Gross margin is 76.5%, above the board's 76%, but 74.1% without the licence" |
| 11 | "how much of it comes from one big licence" | ✓ Addressed | Page 6: "One licence is 29.4% of new software contract value; without it the largest is 4.9%" |
| 12 | "If software slowed, I'd want to know whether it was the product or the sales effort" | ! Partly | Top 3 actions: "Checks the product and sales effort behind software, without the big licence"; Page 3: "Other perpetual licences took A$3.52m off, from 105 deals to 81". No view separates product from sales effort |
| 13 | "Keep design wins turning into shipping products ... how many of our design wins actually ship, and how long it takes" | ✓ Addressed | Design wins that ship tile 31.5% against 35%; Page 3 curve; Page 6: "Wins that do ship take a median 15.0 months" |
| 14 | "I believe most of them do, eighty percent or so, but I've never measured it" | ✓ Addressed | Page 3: "About a third of design wins ship ... The 80% belief was never measured", with the 80% shown as a reference line |
| 15 | "Design wins per quarter" | ✓ Addressed | Page 6: "Wins per quarter rose from 230 to 273", kept under the shipping rate as he agreed |
| 16 | "Tomasz on whether our engineering support is holding OEMs back" | ! Partly | Months from design win to first shipment is owned by the Head of Platform Engineering, but "Target set after the baseline", and no view shows engineering support. The Head of Platform Engineering isn't in the Top 3 actions for design wins |
| 17 | "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" | ! Partly | The bridge answers the past: "End customers installing 3.3% fewer devices cost only A$1.8m", buying ahead cost A$48.0m. There is no industry measure, so "flat while the industry recovers" can't be read |
| Audience and decisions | |||
| 18 | "I'd like the board to see all three on one page" | ✓ Addressed | Page 1: headline, Top 3 actions (revenue, software, design wins) and the Top 5 tiles |
| 19 | "Ros and the board ... monthly, one page ... in the board pack, and ... on a screen between meetings" | ! Partly | Monthly and on screen: yes ("the board's monthly view", "Data to 30-Sep-26"). The draft is "1 of 6" pages; whether page 1 alone works as the one board-pack page isn't confirmed |
| 20 | "I haven't thought about phones, you'd have to ask her" | × Not addressed | Open question Q-8 in the Business Requirements; the chair hasn't been asked |
| 21 | "I'd want them using the same numbers as Finance ... They shouldn't be arguing about forecasts any more" | ! Partly | Page 5: "the CFO is still to choose which one counts, so both are shown". Finance and Sales still have two forecasts |
| 22 | Decision: "Where to put sales and engineering effort" | ! Partly | Top 3 actions name owners. Page 5 notes installs turned up "in 19 of 21 countries", but no chart splits installs or design-win shipping by region, OEM or rep, which the Business Requirements action for New devices activated (K2) relies on |
| 23 | Decision: "whether to keep pushing software ... I'd want the numbers to show why" | ✓ Addressed | Page 3: "the FY26 software growth rests on one contract, and the FY27 plan repeats it" |
| 24 | "I'd want the board told which of those we're acting on each month" | ! Partly | Page 1 Top 3 actions and Page 4 "Three owners, three targets, and six decisions". No status shows which actions are under way this month |
| 25 | Actions and owners: "ask Priya to take the forecast apart, OEM by OEM"; "Gemma's team to stop chasing design wins for their bonus"; "the board ... need to hear it from me early" | ✓ Addressed | Top 3 actions: "CFO rebuilds the forecast OEM by OEM; CEO resets the sales plan and effort"; "Refocuses on design wins that will ship, not ones that earn a bonus"; tile note "so the board hears it from the CEO first" |
| Targets | |||
| 26 | "I'm only sure of the one I've given you ... Don't take my word for those numbers" | ! Partly | Business Requirements 5.2 marks every other target as Working Hypothesis and Gary's proposal. On the page, tiles read "Target 0% or more", "Target 35%", "Target +5%" with no "proposed" label; gross margin says "the board's FY27 figure" while the Business Requirements say "CFO to confirm" |
| Data and trust | |||
| 27 | "I don't trust the forecasts that come out of finance. They're built off last year's run rate" | ✓ Addressed | Forecast accuracy (K5) measured: "Finance missed by 23.2% on average and Sales by 34.3%, against a 10% target" |
| 28 | CRM: "I'd trust it less than the P&L, because reps are working to a bonus" | ✓ Addressed | Design wins tile note "Working Hypothesis: 33% undated"; Page 6 bonus chart: "The design-win bonus raised the count, not the shipping rate" |
| 29 | Telemetry: "I'd want Tomasz to tell you what it can and can't show before we put it on a board page" | ✓ Addressed | Page 5: "Signed off 27-Oct-26: new devices activated by the Head of Platform Engineering"; Business Requirements v1.2 change log |
| 30 | OEM stock reports: "They're a bit patchy. I've never really looked at them" | ✓ Addressed | Page 5: "Months of stock cover at the 28 OEMs that reported ... (reporters cover 46% of FY26 hardware revenue)" |
| 31 | "On how far back it goes and how often it refreshes, I don't know" | × Not addressed | Open question Q-6. The page shows "Data to 30-Sep-26" but no refresh rhythm or history per system |
| Rules and constraints | |||
| 32 | "I dislike 'accountant metrics', so keep the page to things people in the business can act on"; earnings: "I'm fine parking it for now" | ✓ Addressed | Every Top 5 tile has an owner, target and action; earnings (EBITDA) parked in Business Requirements section 6 and not on the page |
| 33 | "I'd want the board to see OEMs by name, but I'd be careful about naming customers" | ! Partly | Customers: "No customer is named". OEMs: not named; "Can OEMs and customers be named on the board page, CFO with legal" is still open |
| 34 | Tools and chart preferences: "I'm not the person to ask ... I'd have to ask Gemma or Priya" | × Not addressed | Open question Q-9; nobody has given tools or chart preferences. Note: the Page 3 dot chart says "exact values can't be read", which may not suit a board that wants numbers |
| Success statement and known gaps | |||
| 35 | "If nothing changes for six months? I'd be guessing ... You'd have to ask Priya Anand, our CFO, for the forecast view" | ! Partly | Page 5 gives a direction only: "Stock at the OEMs that report is still high, so buying may stay low"; "More destocking is possible before hardware buying recovers". No six-month forecast view (Q-10) |
| 36 | Success: "they need a view they can trust each month"; fear: "that we keep being surprised by a number we should have seen coming" | ! Partly | The monthly view exists and every number is labelled Observed Fact, Strong Inference or Working Hypothesis. But the forward-looking measure (forecast accuracy) shows both forecasts missing by more than 20%, with no single trusted forecast yet, so the next surprise isn't yet visible in advance |
| 37 | Playback correction: "Drop 'see revenue coming before it lands'. That isn't my phrase" | ✓ Addressed | The phrase isn't on the page; Business Requirements O1.1 uses his words |
2. Proposed next steps (propose only, not made)
| # | Gap | Proposed next step | Owner (stage) | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21, 35, 36 | No single forecast; no forward view | CFO chooses which forecast Forecast accuracy (K5) measures and gives the six-month view (Q-5, Q-10). Kewpie then re-measures on the chosen forecast; Viktor shows one line instead of two | CFO; then Kewpie and Viktor | CFO by 6-Nov-26; rebuild after |
| 8, 26 | Targets other than A$115m are proposals but read as firm | CFO walks through the FY27 targets (Q-2) and confirms the A$115m basis and date with the chair (Q-1); VP Sales and CFO set the software target (Q-3). Until then, Jennifer marks each unconfirmed target "Proposed" on the tiles and changes the gross margin note to "CFO to confirm" | Gary (with SME sign-off) and the CFO; Jennifer for the labels | Ask at the Stage 5 walk-through; answers by 6-Nov-26 |
| 22, 12, 16 | No view of where to put sales and engineering effort | Kewpie calculates New devices activated (K2) by country and OEM, and Design wins that ship (K4) by region and rep (fields exist in the Sample data); test whether perpetual deal count against deal size separates sales effort from product. Viktor adds a drill-down. Any new sub-KPI, and a target for Months from design win to first shipment (K4.1), goes through Gary with SME sign-off and the Head of Platform Engineering | Kewpie, then Viktor; Gary for new sub-KPIs and targets | Agree scope at Stage 5; build after |
| 24 | No monthly status of actions | Add a status per Top 3 action (not started, under way, done) that the CEO updates each month | Viktor (story), with the CEO supplying the status | Stage 5 decision |
| 19 | One board-pack page not confirmed | Ask Marcus whether page 1 alone is the board-pack page; Jennifer checks page 1 prints on one A4 page, light, with the Top 5 readable | Jennifer, after Marcus confirms at Stage 5 | Stage 5 walk-through |
| 20 | Phone use unknown | Ask the chair whether she will use a phone (Q-8); if yes, Jennifer checks the phone layout against the UX Standards | Chair, via the CEO; then Jennifer | 6-Nov-26 |
| 17 | No industry benchmark | Ask Marcus whether an industry measure (for example a market index for pro audio or venue projects) belongs as a sub-KPI under Total revenue (K1); if yes, name a source and owner | Gary (with SME sign-off) | Stage 5 walk-through |
| 33 | OEMs not named | CFO and legal decide on naming OEMs (Q-7); if allowed, Viktor names them on the stock-cover and buying-ahead charts | CFO with legal; then Viktor | 6-Nov-26 |
| 31 | History and refresh unknown | Each system owner states history and refresh (Q-6); Jennifer adds a refresh line next to "Data to" | CFO, VP Sales, Head of Platform Engineering; then Jennifer | 6-Nov-26 |
| 34 | No tools or chart preferences | VP Sales or CFO give tool and chart preferences (Q-9); Viktor reviews the experimental dot chart against them | VP Sales or CFO; then Viktor | 6-Nov-26 |
Due dates follow the Business Requirements v1.2 open questions (Gary's proposal).
↑ Back to top