Show Core42 the responsibility matrix filled in, not blanked - a first cut we are flexible on beats arriving with an empty working sheet

August 19, 2026 at 8:28 PMstrategymedium

Situation

In the Core42 implementation-review pre-call on 2026-08-18, Michael Shinn was uneasy about showing his RACI/responsibility diagram because it assumed a much larger scope than Core42 might want, and offered to blank the boxes so the conversation could fill them in. Adam Jackson agreed and asked for the letters removed so CIQ would go in with no expectation. Peter challenged that directly and argued for leaving the chart filled in, framed as a first cut with an explicit statement that CIQ is flexible and not married to any of it. Adam conceded. On the following morning call the control matrix was in fact presented as a draft rather than as a blank working sheet.

Reasoning

Peter judged that an empty matrix reads as CIQ not knowing, while a populated one reads as CIQ having done this before and being open to correction. He said arriving expecting a working meeting where the customer fills in the chart is a worse presentation than arriving with a first cut. He accepted every de-fanging change that reduced the appearance of grabbing scope - pulling the Atomic branding, pulling the logos, stamping it draft, softening we can take it all - because none of those cost him the thing he wanted, which was visible evidence of competence. What he refused to give up was the content itself.

Additional Context

The room was working out how to handle a new CISO-side counterpart who had begun asking about commercialisation rather than only security sign-off, which Peter read as him looking for CIQ to take work off his plate. Peter also asked for the logos to be corrected or removed rather than shown wrong, and cut the review off himself once it hit diminishing returns on wording.

Observed Evidence

Michael Shinn: I could also just make all those little boxes blank. In other words, at the point of the conversation is for us to figure that out. Adam Jackson: if you remove the letters and have those boxes blank, then that means that we have gone in with no expectation. Peter: I would leave that chart filled in ... showing that we have a first cut is a much better presentation. Adam: Okay, fair enough. I am open to that. Peter separately: I think whatever you can do to defang it, or put a big draft over it. And: we are as we either want to remove the fuzzball and Ascender Pro icons and Pro Hardened, or we want to get the right ones in.

Matching Patterns

75%
Demonstrate the Standard, Then Collect It(hand-cited - the mechanism is exactly show a first cut then collect corrections, same shape as showing the half-migrated TPS report on 2026-07-29)
55%
Reclassify to Route - Decide Who Owns It, Then Give a Criterion Not a Verdict(1 keyword match, involves Bjorn Hovland and Adam Jackson, same category (strategy))

Confidence Breakdown

34/35
Evidence
27/30
Pattern
19/20
Source
10/15
Corroboration

Reasoning Depth Analysis

Org Signal:Draft-but-complete is the CIQ default for customer artifacts. Incompleteness is not a form of humility, it is a failure to show work.
Who Affected:Michael Shinn, whose document it was and whose instinct was the opposite. Adam Jackson, who is managing the commercials and wanted to avoid appearing to grab scope. And the customer-side reader, who Peter reasoned about specifically.
Precedent:Direct repeat of showing the half-migrated TPS report to the leadership room on 2026-07-29 - the imperfect artifact goes up with a caveat rather than being withheld. It also sets that presentation-softening edits are cheap and content-removing edits are not.
Consequences:Real and immediate - the matrix went in front of the customer as a draft the next morning and became one of two named Thursday deliverables.
Timing:Now because the call was the next morning and Shinn needed to know before the 7am prep whether to blank the chart.

Related Context

🎥
Core42 - Implementation Review Pre-Call 2026-08-18

fathom

So the reason, let me challenge it just for a second. I would leave that chart filled in and just say, look, this was our first cut at what we think you are going to want, but we are flexible. We are not married to any of this. I think showing that we have a first cut is a much better presentation than coming into this sort of expecting a working meeting with them, filling this chart in.

🎥
CIQ-C42 Gap Analysis Part 2 - matrix presented as draft the next morning

fathom

Two deliverables to be shared with you tomorrow, namely one, the HLD draft shared today on the call, and two, matrix map of the controls for 800-53 high, covered by the current scope, draft shared today on the call as well.

Outcome

No outcome recorded yet.

Decision ID: 6c858b0a-ff65-4211-a59d-8596a409d922