First public pushback. I'd hold this one.

You said:
"I'm thinking we ship the AI summary feature next cycle to keep up with what Linear and Notion just announced."

I'd hold on this one.

Three reasons:

  1. Your AI features have 8% adoption.
     Shipping a fourth one before fixing why the first three aren't getting used compounds the wrong direction. Goodhart's law applies. You'd be shipping for the comp, not for the customer.

  2. Linear's announcement isn't the threat you think it is.
     They shipped to enterprise. Your wedge is Series B+ teams that don't have product ops yet. Different segment. Linear's move actually validates the category for your buyers.

  3. Your customers asked for something else.
     Pulled the last 30 customer calls. The asks cluster on three things and AI summary isn't one of them. The top ask is faster onboarding, which you already have a fix for in flight.

What I'd ship instead this cycle: the onboarding fix Maya scoped, plus a public changelog of the AI features that already shipped (because users don't know they exist). Ship the AI summary in cycle 16 if the data still points to it.

I'll write up the customer-call cluster analysis if you want to take it to the team Wednesday. Pushback was the right call to make.

Synthetic artifact. Real DAC voice (operator-coach, tenure-modulated). Generated against acme.ai's 90-day timeline. The same artifact a real buyer gets at this milestone, in their own voice and against their own data. See ← timeline for the events DAC was reading.