# Truffle strategy workshop · all resources Original guided exercises. No affiliation with Strategic Coach. ## Workflow 1 · Pre-work — before the workshop # 18-month retrospective **Pre-work 1 of 7 · Complete individually before the workshop** Before the workshop: complete this sheet independently. Due 48 hours before Session 1; submit only the material you approve. This is preparation, not an agreed session output. Participant / note owner: __________ Date: __________ Privacy: Private / not for synthesis ## Instructions Build a one-page timeline of 8–12 moments across the previous eighteen months. Include life as well as work. Observe first, then name what changed; finish with the three changes the others need to understand. Keep raw personal details private unless you choose otherwise. ## Fictional worked example — not Truffle facts Alex, a fictional founder: “February — caring for a parent meant reducing travel. I felt useful at home but depleted by late calls. My belief that being available all the time equals commitment weakened. I now protect two evenings a week. What others may miss: my capacity changed, not my ambition.” Top change: reliable availability matters more than constant availability. ## Blank worksheet ### Period covered From [month/year] to [month/year]; count back eighteen months from the workshop. [Your response] ### Timeline: 8–12 moments For each: month/period → what happened → life domain (family, health, identity, location, money, work, relationships) → energy gained/drained → pride, fear, disappointment or meaning → belief/priority changed. Use one short paragraph per moment. [Your response] ### The three changes that matter most 1. What changed / why it matters now. 2. What changed / why it matters now. 3. What changed / why it matters now. [Your response] ### What the others may not understand about me now What assumption about the old me would be misleading? What do I want them to understand? [Your response] ### Approved share-back only What am I explicitly comfortable sharing in the workshop? Keep raw details out of this summary if private. [Your response] --- # 12-month future story **Pre-work 2 of 7 · Complete individually before the workshop** Before the workshop: complete this sheet independently. Due 48 hours before Session 1; submit only the material you approve. This is preparation, not an agreed session output. Participant / note owner: __________ Date: __________ Privacy: Private / not for synthesis ## Instructions Write in the first person, as though it is twelve months after the workshop and the year went extraordinarily well. Start with your life, not a shared-business pitch. The venture may have a large, small or no role. Finish with five specific success conditions. ## Fictional worked example — not Truffle facts Alex, fictional: “It is one year later. I exercise three mornings a week and eat dinner with family four nights a week. I spend 15 focused hours weekly on a venture that has three repeat customers; we have not hired ahead of demand. I keep six months of personal runway. I lead customer discovery, not daily operations.” One success condition: a sustainable 15-hour role, reviewed monthly. ## Blank worksheet ### Future date and story Write 1–2 pages. Cover life/family; health/energy; work/professional identity; money/security; location/lifestyle; learning/growth; contribution/relationships; and the role, if any, of the shared venture. [Your response] ### Five success conditions For each: desired condition → observable evidence → why it matters. Include personal and professional conditions. [Your response] ### Protect / more / less What must be protected? What do I want more of? What do I want less of? [Your response] ### Boundaries and unacceptable sacrifices Which financial, health, family, ethical or reputational risks will I not accept? [Your response] ### Partnership fit How could the partnership advance this future? How could it threaten it? What remains uncertain? [Your response] --- # Partner feedback **Pre-work 3 of 7 · Complete individually before the workshop** Before the workshop: complete this sheet independently. Due 48 hours before Session 1; submit only the material you approve. This is preparation, not an agreed session output. Participant / note owner: __________ Date: __________ Privacy: Private / not for synthesis ## Instructions Complete both partner sections independently. Preserve two strengths per person. Describe 1–2 observable behaviors and use behavior → impact → request. Separate direct observation from interpretation; do not diagnose motives. The recipient can clarify and choose what to own or test. ## Fictional worked example — not Truffle facts Fictional feedback to Morgan: “Protect your calm in customer conversations and your ability to simplify choices. In the last two planning calls, the decision changed afterward without a written explanation (observation). I rebuilt the proposal twice (impact). Please log any changed decision with the reason and owner that day (request). I do not know why it happened.” ## Blank worksheet ### Partner 1: name and two strengths Name the person; give an example for each strength and explain what should be protected. [Your response] ### Partner 1: behavior → impact → request Describe 1–2 behaviors. For each: specific event/date → observed behavior → business/relationship impact → one concrete request. Label any interpretation or uncertainty. [Your response] ### Partner 2: name and two strengths Name the person; give an example for each strength and explain what should be protected. [Your response] ### Partner 2: behavior → impact → request Describe 1–2 behaviors. For each: specific event/date → observed behavior → business/relationship impact → one concrete request. Label any interpretation or uncertainty. [Your response] ### My part and approved share-back What contribution do I own? What may be shared with each recipient? Do not assume consent to wider circulation. [Your response] --- # Role and capacity truth **Pre-work 4 of 7 · Complete individually before the workshop** Before the workshop: complete this sheet independently. Due 48 hours before Session 1; submit only the material you approve. This is preparation, not an agreed session output. Participant / note owner: __________ Date: __________ Privacy: Private / not for synthesis ## Instructions Use sustainable capacity, not your best week. Make trade-offs visible. This is a proposal for discussion, not a binding commitment or approval of financial/legal risk. ## Fictional worked example — not Truffle facts Fictional Alex: “I can sustain 12 hours/week: 6 selling, 3 discovery, 3 coordination. My outside role takes 30 hours. I can meet 06:00–08:00 California Tuesdays/Thursdays, not Fridays; unavailable 10–17 December. I want customer discovery ownership, not finance operations. No personal guarantees. If sales needs 20 hours, we must remove another commitment or narrow scope.” ## Blank worksheet ### Current roles and outside commitments List roles, care responsibilities and other commitments with realistic weekly hours. [Your response] ### Sustainable capacity Total hours/week; allocation by activity; what must stop to make room; duration this is sustainable; warning signs of overload. [Your response] ### Availability and time zones Local time zone; working windows; overlap windows; response expectations; planned unavailability. Verify DST against actual dates. [Your response] ### Desired and unwanted roles What role do I want? What role do I not want? What evidence supports my fit? [Your response] ### Decision ownership and risk boundaries Which decisions will I own? What financial, legal or reputational risk could I consider? What needs separate explicit approval? [Your response] ### Non-negotiables and constraints What must the others respect? What trade-off or unanswered question must be resolved? [Your response] --- # Three hard-thesis cards **Pre-work 5 of 7 · Complete individually before the workshop** Before the workshop: complete this sheet independently. Due 48 hours before Session 1; submit only the material you approve. This is preparation, not an agreed session output. Participant / note owner: __________ Date: __________ Privacy: Private / not for synthesis ## Instructions Write three beliefs that deserve testing, not automatic agreement. Each card needs evidence, counter-evidence and the smallest bounded test. A thesis can concern AI, talent, services, construction, geography, ownership or customer value. ## Fictional worked example — not Truffle facts Fictional thesis: “Mid-sized service firms will pay for a faster onboarding workflow.” Why: two interviewees described costly delays (anecdotal, not demand proof). Could be wrong: they may prefer an internal workaround. Test: five buyer interviews and a manual pilot within two weeks, owned by Alex, capped at 8 hours. Pass signal: two buyers agree to a scoped paid pilot; otherwise revise the segment. No spending is approved by this example. ## Blank worksheet ### Thesis card 1 Belief / target customer or domain: Why I believe it (evidence, source, date, confidence): Counter-evidence / what could make it wrong: Smallest test / owner / deadline / time and cost cap: Success threshold / failure threshold / what result changes my mind: [Your response] ### Thesis card 2 Belief / target customer or domain: Why I believe it (evidence, source, date, confidence): Counter-evidence / what could make it wrong: Smallest test / owner / deadline / time and cost cap: Success threshold / failure threshold / what result changes my mind: [Your response] ### Thesis card 3 Belief / target customer or domain: Why I believe it (evidence, source, date, confidence): Counter-evidence / what could make it wrong: Smallest test / owner / deadline / time and cost cap: Success threshold / failure threshold / what result changes my mind: [Your response] ### Priority and connections Which thesis is most consequential? Which assumptions overlap? Which evidence is missing? [Your response] --- # Workshop outcome card **Pre-work 6 of 7 · Complete individually before the workshop** Before the workshop: complete this sheet independently. Due 48 hours before Session 1; submit only the material you approve. This is preparation, not an agreed session output. Participant / note owner: __________ Date: __________ Privacy: Private / not for synthesis ## Instructions Define what must exist when these three sessions end. Prefer decisions or artifacts you can inspect over aspirations such as “alignment.” Name the difficult issue directly. ## Fictional worked example — not Truffle facts Fictional Alex: “1. An explicit proceed/pause/narrow decision. 2. A capacity-and-sales ownership proposal with gaps named. 3. Two bounded customer tests with owners and review dates. Biggest fear: enthusiasm hides incompatible weekly commitments. Truth not to avoid: I cannot commit full time.” ## Blank worksheet ### Three must-have outcomes 1. Outcome / evidence it exists. 2. Outcome / evidence it exists. 3. Outcome / evidence it exists. [Your response] ### Biggest fear If we get this wrong, what could happen? What safeguard would reduce that risk? [Your response] ### Truth or decision we must not avoid What needs to be spoken about directly? What would a useful resolution look like? [Your response] ### My contribution What will I do to make these outcomes possible? [Your response] --- # January & Makosi reality check **Pre-work 7 of 7 · Complete individually before the workshop** Before the workshop: complete this sheet independently. Due 48 hours before Session 1; submit only the material you approve. This is preparation, not an agreed session output. Participant / note owner: __________ Date: __________ Privacy: Private / not for synthesis ## Instructions Treat the January working positions as historical prompts, not present agreement or findings about anyone. For every position choose still true / changed / unclear / disagree and give evidence. Use the approved facilitator summary, not raw transcript excerpts. Apply the same leadership-feedback standard to both other partners. ## Fictional worked example — not Truffle facts Fictional Alex: “Lean until demand is proven — still true. Evidence: our two discovery calls do not yet establish repeatable demand. Safeguard: review pipeline before adding fixed cost; Casey owns the monthly check. Own risk: I avoid uncomfortable capacity conversations. New behavior: flag capacity conflicts within one working day.” This is an illustration, not a statement about Truffle or Makosi. ## Blank worksheet ### Position 1 · Founders personally own early selling Status: still true / changed / unclear / disagree. Evidence / source / date. What was never decided? What decision is needed now? [Your response] ### Position 2 · Customer value and market reality lead pricing Status: still true / changed / unclear / disagree. Evidence / source / date. What was never decided? What decision is needed now? [Your response] ### Position 3 · Lean operations until demand is proven Status: still true / changed / unclear / disagree. Evidence / source / date. What was never decided? What decision is needed now? [Your response] ### Position 4 · Technology creates measurable customer value Status: still true / changed / unclear / disagree. Evidence / source / date. What was never decided? What decision is needed now? [Your response] ### Position 5 · Preserve culture, consultant quality, talent pipeline, advisory leverage and agility Status: still true / changed / unclear / disagree. Evidence / source / date. What was never decided? What decision is needed now? [Your response] ### Preserve and prevent Which Makosi strength must we preserve? Which failure pattern are we most at risk of repeating? Define safeguard / owner / measure / review date. [Your response] ### Other partner 1 · leadership Name / where leadership helped / observable behavior that created drag / impact / request now. Separate memory, interpretation and verified fact. [Your response] ### Other partner 2 · leadership Name / where leadership helped / observable behavior that created drag / impact / request now. Separate memory, interpretation and verified fact. [Your response] ### My own repeating pattern Which behavior of mine could recreate a failure? What observable replacement behavior will I test? [Your response] ### Approved share-back What is approved for shared synthesis? What stays human-interviewer only or private? [Your response] ## Workflow 2 · Session outputs — finalise together at each session’s close # Session 1 output · Success & alignment maps **Session 1 output · Finalise together at the session’s close** During Session 1: the named note owner captures only approved summaries and provisional decisions. At the close: review this pack together, confirm agreement or record differences, check actions have owners and dates, and approve the shared version. The note owner then exports and circulates only that approved version. This pack is not a pre-work submission. Participant / note owner: __________ Date: __________ Privacy: Shared · approved summaries only ## Instructions Name a human note owner and timekeeper. Obtain unanimous recording/transcription consent or keep recording off. Capture only approved personal summaries. Complete one success map per participant, then compare without forcing consensus. Every unresolved item needs an owner and a route to resolution. ## Fictional worked example — not Truffle facts Fictional: Alex wants 15 sustainable hours/week; Morgan wants a full-time build. Shared resonance: customer-led work. Difference: pace and availability. Open question Q1: can a part-time model meet the first customer promise? Owner Casey; evidence: delivery workload estimate; due before Day 3. Status: unresolved—not consensus. ## Blank worksheet ### Opening contract Date / facilitator / timekeeper / note owner. Confidentiality and sharing agreement. Recording and transcription consent from everyone (or off). Decisions and evidence rules. [Your response] ### Success map · Darren Approved summary only: five success conditions / what must be protected / contribution / non-negotiables / partnership fit / tensions or questions. [Your response] ### Success map · Graham Approved summary only: five success conditions / what must be protected / contribution / non-negotiables / partnership fit / tensions or questions. [Your response] ### Success map · Seth Approved summary only: five success conditions / what must be protected / contribution / non-negotiables / partnership fit / tensions or questions. [Your response] ### Shared resonance and differences map For each theme: reinforcing goals / differences / incompatible expectations / implications / agreement not yet reached. [Your response] ### Open-question register ID / question / why it matters / evidence needed / owner / due date / status / next decision forum. [Your response] ### Close and decision log Each person: energy / caution / trust / desire to continue. Each decision: decided / test approved / evidence owner and deadline / parked. Record dissent and privacy limits. [Your response] --- # Session 2 output · Partner compact **Session 2 output · Finalise together at the session’s close** During Session 2: the named note owner captures only approved summaries and provisional decisions. At the close: review this pack together, confirm agreement or record differences, check actions have owners and dates, and approve the shared version. The note owner then exports and circulates only that approved version. This pack is not a pre-work submission. Participant / note owner: __________ Date: __________ Privacy: Shared · approved summaries only ## Instructions Use a neutral human facilitator when available; otherwise scripted equal-time peer rounds. Nobody facilitates or adjudicates feedback about themselves. Hear all six partner-to-partner perspectives. The recipient owns, tests or carries an item; listening is not forced agreement. Capture commitments, not private raw feedback. ## Fictional worked example — not Truffle facts Fictional compact: Morgan will log changed decisions with reason and owner within one working day for 30 days. Evidence: decision log; measure: every changed decision logged on time; review: a named calendar date. Alex will flag capacity conflicts within one day. Their weekly 15-minute review checks behavior, not personality. ## Blank worksheet ### Safety and round plan Date / neutral facilitator or peer script / note owner / timekeeper / privacy and recording consent. Equal recipient time; no interruptions; clarify before responding. [Your response] ### Strengths map Darren / Graham / Seth: two strengths each, supporting observation, what must be protected in the operating model. [Your response] ### Feedback coverage and response For each of the six directed pairs: heard? recipient response (own / test / carry unresolved) / approved summary only. Record evidence requests separately; do not adjudicate memories. [Your response] ### Capacity truths Each person: sustainable hours / allocation / outside commitments / overlap windows / unavailable dates / desired role / excluded role / decision ownership / risk constraints. [Your response] ### Behavior commitments Person / observable behavior / business or relationship impact / specific replacement behavior / measure / start date / review date. Include clarity, presence, conflict handling and decision transparency symmetrically. [Your response] ### Thirty-day partner compact Commitment / owner / support needed / success measure / review date / reviewer / if missed, repair step. Set an actual calendar date; record unresolved conditions and consent. [Your response] ### Trust conditions and decision log Communication cadence / escalation route / response expectations / decisions or tests approved / parked issues / owner and deadline. Do not turn private feedback into shared notes without permission. [Your response] --- # Session 3 output · Tests, gate & Act II brief **Session 3 output · Finalise together at the session’s close** During Session 3: the named note owner captures only approved summaries and provisional decisions. At the close: review this pack together, confirm agreement or record differences, check actions have owners and dates, and approve the shared version. The note owner then exports and circulates only that approved version. This pack is not a pre-work submission. Participant / note owner: __________ Date: __________ Privacy: Shared · approved summaries only ## Instructions Begin with ownership, not rebuttal. Separate historical positions from current decisions. For each thesis distinguish evidence from belief. End with an explicit continuation decision and a bounded Act II brief; proceeding is not permission to spend, hire or make external commitments. ## Fictional worked example — not Truffle facts Fictional experiment E1: five buyer interviews on onboarding delays; Alex owns; 8-hour cap; due in two weeks; evidence is notes approved for synthesis. Pass: at least two buyers request a scoped paid pilot; fail: no buyer prioritizes the problem. Gate: narrow scope to discovery only until results are reviewed. No spending approved. ## Blank worksheet ### Ownership commitments Each person: what I heard / what I accept / what I will change / measurable evidence / review date / what remains unresolved. [Your response] ### January position register For each: founder-led selling; market-led pricing; lean operations; customer-valued technology; Makosi strengths. Record still true / changed / unclear / disagree, evidence, actual current decision, owner and deadline. [Your response] ### Agreed hard-thesis register ID / thesis / sponsor / supporting evidence with source/date / counter-evidence / confidence / agreement, disagreement or unresolved assumption / what changes our mind. [Your response] ### Bounded experiment slate ID / assumption / smallest test / owner / time and cost cap (approval needed separately) / evidence / pass and fail thresholds / deadline / review date / next action for each result. [Your response] ### Continuation decision Proceed to Act II / pause for partnership repair / narrow scope. Record rationale, each person’s position, dissent, conditions, owner, review date and what is explicitly NOT approved. [Your response] ### Act II design brief Purpose / customer and problem / scope in and out / required outputs / owner / participants / input evidence / dates / capacity constraints / approval gates / unresolved questions. [Your response] ### Founder-led sales decision list Named markets/accounts / minimum weekly founder selling capacity / US presence / pipeline targets / BDR support / pricing authority / evidence-based hiring or handoff trigger. Mark unresolved items with owner and date; do not invent agreement. [Your response] ### Makosi-pattern safeguards · 30/90 days Pattern to avoid / strength to preserve / observable safeguard / owner / measure / 30-day check / 90-day check. Cover customer priority, clear vision, direct conflict resolution, decision transparency, hiring quality, lean cost and customer-valued technology. [Your response] ### Final action and decision log Action or decision / status (decided, test approved, evidence needed, parked) / owner / deadline / evidence link / review forum / privacy approval. Name the next check-in. [Your response]