# Asset needs — allied --- ## Images ### 1. Four-actor system diagram (Chapter 01) - **What it is:** A simple diagram showing the four actors (lender, dealer, provider, Allied) with labeled data and money flows between them. - **Where it likely exists:** The `` component in the live MDX renders this as an interactive visual. A static export or screenshot of that component is the simplest path. Alternatively, the diagram appears in the final presentation deck (`allied-deck-overview.jpg` or the Lucid/Miro source referenced in raw-case-material). - **Why the rewrite needs it:** Chapter 01 establishes the four-actor structure before anything else. A reader who can see this diagram in 10 seconds understands the service's fundamental complexity before committing to the rest of the case. - **Fallback:** A screenshot of the actor swim-lane header from the service blueprint (the rows showing Lender action / Dealer action / Provider action / Allied action) provides the same orientation even though it's more complex. ### 2. Future-state blueprint slice (Chapter 03) - **What it is:** A cropped slice of the future-state blueprint showing the Status Milestone row and at least one orange "big rock" unresolved question. - **Where it likely exists:** `raw-case-material/allied/` — the Lucid/Miro export referenced in the final presentation. `allied-deck-overview.jpg` in the site repo shows the blueprint in a slide-sorter view. The `` component in the live MDX is the closest existing rendering. - **Why the rewrite needs it:** The "big rocks" feature is the case's most distinctive design decision. The visual has to show what it actually looked like — an orange unresolved question sitting alongside resolved cells — for the argument to land. - **Fallback:** A tight crop from `allied-deck-overview.jpg` showing just the blueprint section with orange tags visible. Annotate with a caption pointing to the big rock cell. ### 3. Evolution map or storyboard (Chapter 04 / Scaling) - **What it is:** Either the evolution map (capabilities organized by feature concept, showing the sequence across the implementation horizon) or one of the future-state storyboards (lender dashboard showing real-time status visibility). - **Where it likely exists:** Same Lucid/Miro source as the blueprint. `allied-storyboard-status-portal.png` and `allied-storyboard-funds-status.png` exist in the site repo's public/images folder. - **Why the rewrite needs it:** Chapter 04 and the scaling section describe the future state; a visual showing what it looked like breaks the text and grounds the "activation phase commissioned" claim. - **Fallback:** Use `allied-storyboard-status-portal.png` from the existing site repo — it's already cleared for use and directly illustrates the lender real-time visibility that was approved for the activation phase. --- ## Pull quotes ### "The blueprint told the truth about what wasn't decided yet" (Chapter 03) - **Attribution:** This is Whitney's own voice from the existing case, not a participant quote. Currently used as a pull-quote in the live MDX. Confirm whether to attribute as "Whitney Masulis" or leave unattributed (the spec recommends attributing pull-quotes by role where possible). ### Retrospective quote (Scaling) - **What it is:** "The client started to think of RefundPlus as a service, not a product" — currently paraphrased in the rewrite. If the original retrospective document is available in raw-case-material, the actual wording should replace the paraphrase. - **Where it likely exists:** A post-project retrospective document in `raw-case-material/allied/`. May be in the workshop chat transcripts or a retrospective session output. --- ## What Whitney needs to confirm — CRITICAL ### Whitney's Phase 2 specific contribution (publishing blocker) The critic flagged this as the single biggest gap in the case. The rewrite cannot be published without it. Whitney needs to provide: 1. **Which Phase 2 workshops she facilitated vs. co-facilitated vs. attended** — specifically, which of the future-state design sessions she led. 2. **Which artifacts she owned end-to-end** — blueprint construction, evolution map, capability inventory, moment briefs — vs. which she contributed to alongside Mariah and Matthias. 3. **At least one specific design decision in the blueprint or evolution map that was hers** — for example: the Status Milestone row concept, the two-view evolution map structure, the "big rocks" protocol for unresolved questions, a specific capability definition or moment brief she drafted. Recommended path: run the case-interviewer agent with Whitney to surface these specifics before the next revision. A 30-minute interview would likely produce enough to add a named "What I owned" section to Chapter 03 or Chapter 04. ### Retrospective line quotability Confirm whether the "service not a product" retrospective line is directly quotable and whether the source document is available. ### Second engagement description Confirm whether the second Allied engagement can be named or briefly described. Even a one-line description ("a follow-on engagement addressing [X]") would strengthen the scaling section.