Sunshine Sunday Company · Preview checkpoint
What did your first calls change?
You completed 2 of 8 SIM weeks. This is a partial result using the full simulation’s scoring and analysis.
The five full-run targets give this checkpoint context. Later challenges can change all five KPIs; this is not your final board verdict.
Use this result to discuss the team’s decisions and trade-offs.
PREVIEW · 2 SIM WEEKSFive goals × 20 points
74.5 before penalties
Every week answered
New business
$36.0MGoal $96.0M
7.5 / 20Below goalProfit from bookings
$8.40MGoal $24.00M
7.0 / 20Below goalCustomer trust
75Goal 72
20.0 / 20✓ Goal reachedDelivery reliability
93Goal 84
20.0 / 20✓ Goal reachedSpare capacity
81Goal 28
20.0 / 20✓ Goal reachedWhat your decisions reveal
Observed choices and modeled consequencesWhat limited your score?
Profit from bookings earned 7.0 of 20 points. Review the choices that protected other goals at its expense.
0 unanswered week(s): 0 points deducted.
Trust needs a reason.
The numbers were accurate. What did they give you permission to conclude? The limitation was available before commitment.
Selected options cannot establish anyone’s motives. Use saved reasons and the Observer’s concrete example.
The company remembers.
Week 7 has not occurred; delayed effects remain unobserved.
Did your first view change?
Pick one decision. What changed your mind? What did a colleague notice? Could you explain the reason for your choice?
K = Know How to Land It · Put your answer to the test
Choose one week from your THINK record. Explain your decision using one piece of evidence, one trade-off and one uncertainty. Ask a teammate to challenge it: what would have to be wrong for you to change your mind?
Compare that explanation with your Yes, Partly or Not yet answer. Changing your mind can be a good outcome. Use what you learn in your working agreement.
What if we changed one call?
In this model, replacing Week 2 with Guarantee every request using the AI summary changes your score from 74.5 to 78.1 and reaches 3 of 5 goals.
Later choices and market conditions are held fixed; linked consequences are recalculated. A real team might respond differently. Ask: what evidence would have made this choice reasonable at the time?
Your next decision
What would you check before committing again?
Compare the evidence you trusted with the consequences you accepted. Observers: bring one example of whose input was heard, what changed minds, or how disagreement was handled.
From simulation to work
Build your working agreement.
Choose one recurring decision, agree a few clear rules, and set a first use and review date. Allow about 20 minutes.
Bring the room back together
Who helped you see it differently?
Thank a colleague for one question or perspective. Compare one trade-off with another table, then write a rule you would both be willing to try.
Bring this to your team
Turn the experience into a useful working agreement.
In the two-hour workshop, Pav helps teams compare reasoning and agree how to check evidence, use AI and own the call. Discuss your audience, decision focus and format.