Navigate
Team Conditions Diagnostic
The survey moved. The work didn't.
A two-to-four-week evidence engagement for capable teams whose output doesn't match their talent. It names the specific condition constraining the work, shows you the evidence, and hands you the one intervention worth running first — with a 30-day check that it worked.
Surveys measure sentiment. Your problem is a condition.
Something structural in how the team's work actually happens — which is why a team can feel fine and still be blocked, and why the score can climb while output stays flat. Sentiment tools aren't wrong; they're usually deployed before anyone has diagnosed what the problem actually is.
Three commitments run through the whole engagement: conditions, not sentiment · evidence before verdict — every finding traces to something you can inspect · one bottleneck at a time — teams don't fail from twelve problems, they fail from one or two the other ten are compensating for.
How it works
The work itself testifies
Interviews and questionnaires report what people say. Real meeting transcripts show what the team does — how decisions close (or don't), who gets interrupted, which questions keep coming back. When what's said and what's shown disagree, that disagreement is usually the finding.
Leader intake
Frame, never finding
Context, symptoms, prior attempts, what "better" would look like.
Confidential interviews
High
3–6 team members, 30 minutes each. What people know but don’t say in meetings. Quoted without attribution only.
Meeting transcripts
High — the differentiator
2–4 real meetings, recorded with the team’s consent and announced in advance. How decisions actually happen, what interrupts, which loops never close.
Team questionnaire
Triangulation
All members, ~15 minutes, async. Whole-team coverage — including where the leader’s read and the team’s diverge.
Work artifacts
Corroborating
Optional: planning docs, dashboards, a channel sample — whether systems exist versus get used.
AI reads the evidence base at depth — every transcript, interview, and response, against all twelve conditions — which is what makes this affordable for a team your size. The diagnosis, the argument, and every sentence of the report are the practitioner's.
The shape of the engagement
Four weeks, then proof at day 30
Week 0
Scoping call · team and meeting selection · consent one-pager to every participant · questionnaire out
Week 1
Evidence: leader intake, interviews, meeting recordings collected, questionnaire closes
Week 2
Synthesis: each stream read separately, then triangulated · report drafted, every finding carrying its evidence
Week 3
The debrief — 90 minutes with the whole team. Findings pressure-tested together; the intervention chosen with the team, not handed down. The 30-day indicator is agreed in the room
Day 30
Follow-through call: did the indicator move, and what’s honestly next — including "done"
The team knows everything that's collected
Before week one, every participant receives a plain-language consent one-pager. It isn't fine print — a team that trusts the process gives honest evidence, and honest evidence is the product.
- Interviews are confidential; quotes appear without attribution, edited to remove identifying phrasing
- No individual is scored, ranked, or named in any finding — the team is diagnosed, never its people
- Meetings selected for recording are announced in advance; nobody is recorded unaware
- Transcripts are processed on the practitioner’s own machine and deleted 30 days after the follow-through call — confirmed in writing
- Anyone can ask for their words to be excluded, no reason needed, up to report delivery
What you receive
The whole diagnosis, on one page
The Team Conditions Map: all twelve conditions read under four plain layers, the bottleneck named, the first move and its 30-day indicator. This one below is from the sample engagement — fictional, and labeled that way on purpose.
Team Conditions Map
Fictional sample — “Relay”People
how the humans are doing
Tools & Systems
what the work runs on
Direction
where the work is pointed
Values
what's underneath
The first intervention
The closing loop: every decision leaves the weekly with an owner and a date; every shipment gets one adoption number, reviewed next week.
The 30-day indicator
Decisions closed in the room: from 1 in 5 to 4 in 5 — counted from the team's own notes. No tooling required.
Team Conditions Report
The full read across all twelve conditions, the bottleneck argued with its evidence, what to do first — and what not to do first.
The debrief
90 minutes with the whole team. A diagnosis the team helped confirm gets implemented; one handed down gets shelved.
30-day follow-through
One observable indicator, agreed in the room, checked together at day 30. So the engagement ends in an answer, not a binder.
No case studies yet. Here's the sample instead.
This offer is new, and we'd rather show you a labeled fictional sample than an invented success story. The full method was run on a synthetic engagement — a fictional 12-person product team called “Relay” — and the complete report is public: the evidence base, the twelve-condition read, the bottleneck argument, the intervention. Exactly what you'd receive, honestly labeled.
Read the full sample reportWhat this is not
Not a performance review, not conflict mediation, not a reorg proposal, not a culture program. Individuals are never scored — if the evidence surfaces something outside diagnostic scope, it goes to you privately as a flag, never into the report.
A lighter first step exists
The 90-minute Team Conditions Audit reads the same twelve conditions from your account of the team — one session, one most-likely condition, one first intervention. The Audit tells you what I can see from your description; the Diagnostic tells you what the team's own work says. Ask about either.
Pricing is scoped on the first call — team size and evidence depth — and you'll get a plain number, not a proposal deck.
Start the conversationWant the finding to land person by person afterward? That's the Flow Map Session.