Two Bases, three note types, one funnel. The schema is live; two prospects are in it. The workflow for "who updates what when" is still loose. Here's what to decide today.
We have a two-base Obsidian system that tracks prospects end-to-end: from cold outbound and share-sourced leads, through value delivery, feedback, and conversion. Schema is coherent. Hasbro and truData are populated. It works — but it's under-populated and nobody has a logging habit yet.
| Base | Location | What it tracks |
|---|---|---|
| Prospect-Pipeline.base | projects/shur/ |
The funnel: Idea → Outreach Planned → Value Delivered → Follow-up → Converting → Won. Eight views including Kanban, Temperature Board, and Share-Sourced Prospects. |
| Share-Feedback-Pipeline.base | projects/shur/ |
The bridge: every artifact share, every feedback event, every conversion signal. Eight views including Awaiting Feedback, Conversion Pipeline, Lead Magnet Tracking, Solicitation Rules. |
projects/shur/[prospect]/prospect-engagement.md. Frontmatter: type: client-project, status, stage, score, prospect_temperature, artifact_source, share_history, feedback_given, next_action.projects/shur/shares/YYYY-MM-DD-[recipient]-[artifact].md. Records every artifact share: who sent it, who got it, when, via which channel, whether feedback came back.projects/shur/feedback/YYYY-MM-DD-[person]-[artifact].md. Records each feedback instance: named source, feedback type, key pattern, InfraNodus graph, prospect signal, solicitation rule.Team shares artifact
→ Slack log: "Shared [artifact] v[X] with [person] via [channel]"
→ Claude creates artifact_share note
→ Feedback comes back
→ Claude creates feedback_event note + InfraNodus feedback graph
→ If feedback provider shows prospect signal
→ Prospect note created with artifact_source + share_history
→ Enters Prospect-Pipeline.base at stage "Value Delivered"This pattern was validated on Kevin Mowrer reviewing CI-2026-03 v1 → his 9 feedback comments produced v2 → identified him as a connector to Tom McGrath and Jennifer Dowdall.
| Prospect | Folder | Stage | Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hasbro | projects/shur/hasbro/ |
Value Delivered | 16/20 | Full scaffolding — INDEX, engagement_cycle, prospect-engagement, prospect-intake, source_docs, transcripts, deliverables-v2. Warm (Kevin Mowrer back-channel). |
| truData | projects/shur/trudata/ |
Value Delivered (draft) | 15/20 | Scaffolded today. Cold outbound. Draft brief exists; needs canonical consolidation before share. |
Shares logged: 1 (Kevin Mowrer / CI-2026-03)
Feedback events logged: 1 (Kevin Mowrer / CI-2026-03)
Named prospects referenced in value-flows/prospect-pipeline.md but not yet in Bases: Paramount (Rebecca Mall, Mike Benson), Hornet, Habit Finder, Rob Citula / Ether Facts.
artifact_source / share_history / feedback_ref fields; they cross-reference cleanly.The infrastructure is real. The habit is the gap.
Named prospects in value-flows/prospect-pipeline.md (Paramount, Hornet, Habit Finder, Rob Citula) aren't in Bases. Either we batch-migrate them in, or we accept that the active pipeline is just Hasbro + truData for now. Recommend: batch-migrate the warm ones this week.
The Slack-trigger pattern ("Shared X with Y") works in theory but nobody has a habit yet. Options:
Share-note schema covers email, Slack, in-person, LinkedIn, meeting — but we don't have a separate outbound workflow distinct from share-sourced. Hasbro is back-channel sourced (Kevin). truData is cold outbound. Pipeline handles both but doesn't differentiate the motion. Question: do we need an "outbound register" separate from the share log?
Both prospects score 15-16/20. Narrow band. Either our rubric is conservative (all prospects look similar) or the criteria need tightening (Gap Depth / Urgency / Fit / Budget, each 0-5). Proposal: review the rubric once we have 5+ prospects to compare against.
Both prospects have "draft" deliverables with multiple variants (Hasbro: v1/v2; truData: terminal + Claude Desktop). We don't have a "canonical v1 declared" checkpoint between draft and share. Proposal: add a canonical_version: vN field to engagement_cycle that the team explicitly sets before any share is logged.
Nobody is opening Prospect-Pipeline.base daily. Either it's not surfaced prominently enough, or the team isn't the audience for it (it might be more an orchestration tool for Claude than a human daily-driver). Question: what's the right weekly rhythm — Monday standup? Friday review?
lead_magnet_type + lead_magnet_post fields on share notes — ready for the 8 content-calendar magnets to flow through