Product Brief — Outcome Ledger

User and decision

The primary user is the owner of a small customer adoption program, accountable for deciding whether to continue, investigate, or change the next investment. The problem is that completed deliverables are easy to count while comparable benefit evidence is often incomplete. A delivery milestone can be mistaken for demonstrated value, and adjacent teams can claim the same workflow saving twice.

The smallest observable product outcome is a reviewer correctly distinguishing delivered output, adoption, hypothetical forecast, eligible descriptive observation, and causal interpretation. A reviewer can name the benefit owner and the exact missing evidence before making a decision.

Proposed solution

Use a contribution map rather than a general metric dashboard. The routing guide and context card link delivered outputs to adoption and explicit benefit assumptions. A baseline panel exposes measurement eligibility. An overlap reconciliation counts the shared lookup atom once. Investment reviews preserve reasoning, owner, open questions, evidence references, versions, and interpretation limits.

A milestone checklist was the principal alternative. It is simpler for delivery reporting but cannot expose incompatible baseline populations or shared benefit claims. A full financial ROI system was rejected because this prototype has no validated costs, financial measurements, or causal design.

Scope and boundaries

Original fictional Cedar support records only. Local decision history and report export are included. Certified ROI, imported employer finances, integrations, automatic causal attribution, research findings, and production workflow authorization are excluded. Review directions remain human choices; evidence eligibility does not auto-select them.

Mo supplied product direction. AI produced the implementation and software verification. Product judgment and discussion are not inferred from passing software checks.