For project & product owners

Your project remembers nothing.

The vision. The objectives. The decisions, the risks, the assumptions. All agreed at some point — none of it connected. So every question turns into archaeology.

What Studio is

A living record of your project where everything is linked: vision, objectives, requirements, work, decisions, risks and assumptions.

You settle things in conversation with your AI assistant. Studio gives it the tools to write them down and connect them — then answers why you decided something and what a change would break, in seconds.

Request access See how it works

PRIVATE BETA · WORKS WITH THE AI ASSISTANT YOU ALREADY USE

STUDIO OBJECTIVE OBJ-3 PROPOSED

TARGET DATE

None set

SERVED BY

4 REQ

RISKS

LINKS

CLAIM

Customers never wait on us for something they could do themselves

PURSUES VIS-1 Support is for the hard problems only

SUCCESS
METRIC

1.1Routine support tickets fall by a third over two quarters

CONSTRAINED
BY

DEC-4 — drop SMS codes, keep email links

One requirement here serves no objective, and a decision it depends on is still open.

9:41●●● ▮

‹Gaps & Health9 NODES

3 need attention

RECHECKED ON EVERY READ

REQ-9 serves no objective

Work started while DEC-4 is still open

ASM-2 unconfirmed for six weeks

OBJ-2 and its requirements target different people
ADVISORY · NOT A PROBLEM

✓ 12 other checks passed on this project

HOME

TRACE

REQS

BACKLOG

GAPS

What goes missing first

Two things disappear, and neither of them loudly.

The why

Why did we decide it this way?

A year on, the reasoning is gone. So you decide something new that quietly contradicts it — and nobody notices until it is built.

The impact

What does this change break?

You find out afterwards. Knowing upfront is the difference between managing a change and being managed by it.

Both were known, once. Neither was ever written down — because writing it down is not difficult, it is just never urgent.

And why it stays that way

Traceability is not hard.
It is just never urgent.

―Objectives you could actually measure

―Decisions with the options you really weighed

―Risks with a mitigation and an owner

―Assumptions written down before they bite

Every one of them is worth doing. None of them ever wins against the thing due on Friday — so it stays everyone’s job and nobody’s priority.

The fix

Studio writes it down for you.

You work it out in conversation with your AI assistant. Studio gives it the tools to record what you settle — and to link it all together, so the reasoning and the impact stop living in one person’s memory.

A claim someone made — what serves what, what constrains it

An open decision blocking work already underway

Connected to nothing, and now visible

Vision Objectives Requirements Work items Decisions & the options you weighed Open questions with an owner Risks Assumptions Personas

Consistency, computed rather than policed

Then it starts telling you what does not add up.

Not a report you commission and not a score. It is simply there, recalculated every time you look, phrased as the next question to ask.

Effort serving nothing

A requirement that serves no objective
Work that implements nothing
A requirement still serving an objective you dropped

Intent with nothing behind it

An objective with no requirements
An objective with requirements, but nothing being built
A requirement with no acceptance criteria

Decisions outrun by the work

Work proceeding against an option nobody chose
Work proceeding while the decision is still open

Quietly going stale

An open question past the date it was needed
An assumption still unconfirmed
A risk with no mitigation

And what it refuses to call a problem

An objective and its requirements aimed at different people is worth a look, never a failure — serving one group to benefit another is often exactly right. Advisories like that are excluded from every count that means something is wrong. A tool that cries wolf is one people learn to ignore, and then it is worth nothing on the day it is right.

What you get back

Ask Studio anything about your project.

›Why did we decide this, and what did we reject?

›What breaks if this objective moves?

›Which risks did we accept, and who owns them?

Answered in seconds, with the trail attached — what it serves, what constrains it, what it threatens, and what you are still assuming.

Through the assistant you already use

Studio is an MCP server, so it plugs into your existing AI app as a connector. Nothing new to learn and nothing to keep in sync — from your desk or your phone.

get_node get_work_context add_decision get_gaps link

On your desk, and in your pocket

The same graph, wherever the question comes up.

Studio runs in the browser on any device, and your assistant reaches it from your phone exactly as it does from your laptop. Answers in a corridor, not after the meeting.

9:41●●● ▮

‹OBJ-3ObjectivePROPOSED

TARGET DATE

None set

SERVED BY

4 REQ

RISKS

1

LINKS

9

Customers never wait on us for something they could do themselves

PURSUESVIS-1

SUCCESS METRIC

1.1Routine support tickets fall by a third over two quarters

SERVED BY

REQ-2 Customers can reset their own password

REQ-4 Two-factor sign-in without a phone call

REQ-6 Refunds inside the first 24 hours are self-serve

HOME

TRACE

REQS

BACKLOG

GAPS

Every record answers for itself

What it claims, how you would know it worked, and what is missing — in the first screen, not four taps down.

9:41●●● ▮

‹DEC-4DecisionDECIDED

CHOSE

OPT-1

REVERSIBILITY

COSTLY

CONSTRAINS

4

Drop SMS codes, keep email links

OPTIONS WEIGHED

OPT-1 Email links only — chosen

OPT-2 Keep SMS as fallback — rejected on cost

CONTEXT

Carrier fees were 60% of the auth budget and rising.

CONSTRAINS

REQ-4 Two-factor sign-in

ASSUMES

ASM-2 Every customer has a mobile number

HOME

TRACE

REQS

BACKLOG

GAPS

The why, still there a year later

The options you rejected and the reason you rejected them — so the next decision does not quietly contradict this one.

9:41●●● ▮

‹Your assistantMCP

What breaks if we drop SMS codes?

CHECKED THE GRAPH

Three things depend on that decision:

REQ-4 two-factor sign-in — acceptance criteria name SMS

WI-7 in progress, built against the SMS branch

ASM-2 assumes every customer has a mobile number

Shall I record the impact on REQ-4 and flag the assumption?

Yes — and open a question for the assumption.

Message your assistant… ↑

Impact, before you commit

Ask in plain words. The trail comes back with it — and the assistant offers to write down what you settle.