Revisiting Decisions
When the evidence changes, Brief brings it into the review. You approve the change, and the old reasoning stays.
The record said
when to look again
Every decision can say what would change it. When that evidence arrives, Brief puts it next to the original reasoning.
The standing decision
QBR peer benchmark default
WHAT
QBR exports default to 12 peer benchmarks.
WHY
The original Q1 customer sample wanted the full peer set to establish the comparison. Rejected alternative: eight benchmarks plus industry filters. We could not support that option because industry tagging was not available. The Reporting squad moved to other teams in June; this record retains its rationale.
Confirmed
RE-EVALUATE
- Until customer feedback on benchmark volume is available;
- re-evaluate once industry tagging is available.
New customer evidence
August customer advisory board
“Twelve benchmarks is noise. Give me eight and let me filter by industry.”
The constraint has changed
Industry tagging release
Industry tags are now available for peer accounts through the approved CDP service.
A review that
shows its limits
Brief pulls the feedback, the release note, and the original reasoning into one answer, and says where the
evidence is still thin.
Brief
Your AI product assistant
…was explicitly rejected at the time because industry tagging didn’t exist to support a meaningful filter (D-041).
What changed
Two things happened after that, neither of which is the customer-sample evidence D-041 was built on:
August 20 advisory board
(August customer advisory board, transcript excerpt): one session requested eight relevant benchmarks with an industry filter, and a PM on the call flagged “once industry tagging is available, we should revisit the Q1 reason for keeping twelve,” while noting the recorded default was still twelve. This is one advisory-board session, not broad customer demand.
August 28 industry tagging release
(Industry tagging release note): tagging shipped through the approved CDP, removing the technical blocker that killed the eight-benchmark option in January. The release note is explicit that this only removes an objection; it does not approve eight benchmarks, ship the QBR filter, or complete the benchmark work. It states plainly: “D-041 remains the recorded default until a replacement is approved.”
So what changed is that the technical objection is gone; the customer-demand evidence for a narrower set is still thin (one session).
Proposed replacement
D-43 (created Sep 16, 2026, active, tagged “for Product Manager review”) proposes: QBR exports default to eight peer benchmarks and support a single-select industry filter. Its own rationale is candid about the limits. It names the August feedback as coming from one advisory-board session, not evidence of broad demand, and flags a trade-off: the shorter default set needs validation in the next QBR cycle. It preserves D-039 (CDP-only data access), D-040 (Compass v2), and D-042 (schema name freeze) unchanged.
What’s approved today
D-041 is still the active, approved default: 12 peer benchmarks.
D-43 is recorded as an active proposal, not as a supersession. There is no supersedes relationship linking D-43 to D-041 (confirmed via decision graph lookup), and D-43’s own rationale calls itself a proposal awaiting PM review. Nothing here changes either record.
Sourcesapp.briefhq.ai +8
- 3
Says where the case is thin
Brief flags thin evidence before anyone approves, even when the request sounds urgent.
- 4
Keeps proposed apart from approved
The current decision stays in force until a person approves the replacement. The review changes nothing on its own.
What needed to be decided:
QBR exports default to eight peer benchmarks and support a single-select industry filter.
What was decided? *
QBR exports default to eight peer benchmarks and support a single-select industry filter.
Why? *
The January 22 reporting review rejected eight benchmarks with an industry filter because industry tags were unavailable. The August 20 customer advisory board requested eight relevant benchmarks and an industry filter. Industry tagging shipped through the approved CDP on August 28, removing that technical objection. The feedback is from one advisory-board session, not evidence of broad customer demand. Keep CDP-only access (D-039), Compass v2 (D-040), and the existing benchmarks schema name (D-042). Trade-off: a shorter default comparison set needs validation in the next QBR cycle. Approved as the replacement for the twelve-peer default in D-041.
- Original rationale:
- Q1 reporting review: benchmark default
- August feedback:
- August customer advisory board
- Industry-tagging release:
- Industry tagging release
Brief proposes.
You decide.
A replacement stays a proposal until someone on your team approves it. Approval asks what was decided and why.
- 5
The sources become part of the record
The evidence behind the change links from the new decision, so the next person can check the reasoning.
The old decision
stays on the record
The new decision links to the one it supersedes. Decisions are archived, never deleted, so the earlier reasoning is one click away.
The new decision
QBR exports default to eight peer benchmarks and support a single-select industry filter.
WHY
The January 22 reporting review rejected eight benchmarks with an industry filter because industry tags were unavailable. The August 20 customer advisory board requested eight relevant benchmarks and an industry filter. Industry tagging shipped through the approved CDP on August 28, removing that technical objection.
Confirmedmeridian-v7
RE-EVALUATE
After the first full QBR cycle using the eight-peer default, once customer feedback has been reviewed.
Superseded decision
Confirmed Jan 22, 2026
QBR peer benchmark default
QBR exports default to 12 peer benchmarks.
The original Q1 customer sample wanted the full peer set to establish the comparison. Rejected alternative: eight benchmarks plus industry filters. We could not support that option because industry tagging was not available.
Q1 reporting review: benchmark default
- 6
Linked, not deleted
Ask why the product used to work the other way, and Brief answers with the original reasoning next to what replaced it.
When something new
lands, Brief brings
it back
When a signal contradicts a standing decision, Brief raises it in a DM and answers with the decision that holds today.
- 7
Answers with what holds today
Brief leads with the decision in force and names the one it replaced.
An updated answer,
and why it changed
The team builds against the current decision. The old one stops acting as a permanent rule, and its reasoning is still there for anyone who asks.
Revisit a decision
with the evidence attached
See Brief bring new evidence to one of your own standing decisions, with the original reasoning beside it.