E02 · Find the important handoff
Synthetic practice, not company performance.
One decision
Which stage deserves the next investigation?
Run the exact query
WITH b AS (SELECT * FROM v_task WHERE ('all'='all' OR persona='all') AND ('all'='all' OR workflow='all') AND ('all'='all' OR substr(signup_at,1,7)='all') AND date(created_at)>='2026-05-01' AND date(created_at)<'2026-10-01') SELECT workflow,COUNT(*) created,SUM(eligible) eligible,SUM(render_success) rendered,SUM(preview_at IS NOT NULL) previewed,SUM(exported_at IS NOT NULL) exported,SUM(reviewed_at IS NOT NULL) reviewed,SUM(accepted=1) accepted,SUM(distributed_at IS NOT NULL) distributed,SUM(confirmed_quality_use) used FROM b GROUP BY workflow;
Download SQL · Result CSV · Metabase saved question
Chart and reading
Use created tasks as the common denominator, then separate parallel review/export paths.
Challenge your recommendation
Could an expected rights or plan block explain the gap?
Guardrails: Review and export are parallel checkpoints; do not force them into a strictly ordered funnel.
Next evidence: Inspect real traces and task sessions; validate missing events before naming a defect.
PRD sections: 3, 6, 14. Open proposed PRD
Your spoken decision
State one takeaway, one caveat and one action in 30 seconds. Then stop.
Connect this finding
What this chart helps decide · Follow the connected decision · Canonical metric definitions
Optional model answer — try your own first
E02 · Find the important handoff
Decision: Which stage deserves the next investigation?
Readout: Use created tasks as the common denominator, then separate parallel review/export paths.
Actual query output (synthetic), first rows:
| workflow | created | eligible | rendered | previewed | exported | reviewed | accepted | distributed | used |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| api_template | 390 | 361 | 329 | 289 | 222 | 187 | 149 | 96 | 79 |
| document_avatar | 373 | 351 | 307 | 257 | 201 | 172 | 132 | 86 | 62 |
| dubbing | 318 | 291 | 241 | 216 | 169 | 158 | 111 | 57 | 43 |
Model spoken answer: I would investigate the largest verified loss of useful work, then test one recovery change.
Caveat/counterargument: Could an expected rights or plan block explain the gap? Review and export are parallel checkpoints; do not force them into a strictly ordered funnel.
Next evidence: Inspect real traces and task sessions; validate missing events before naming a defect.
Deliberately left out: An explanation of every possible stage and model; the decision needs one verified bottleneck.