Product Management — topic-it-product — Temerarii Media Back Office

post topic-it-productkind topicweek —date —campaign it-dev-pillarpillar it_devbeat —asset videoduration 59.4sground blackscenes 9

Checklist the per-video bar — engine/sim

88.7/100

plain languagevo coverageno dead airuniquenesscaption fitcompletenesscleanliness

quantitative quality · weights learn from your reviews (engine.sim.memory review topic-it-product good|bad)

⚠ 4 flag(s) — not yet ship-ready: copy_generictoo_complexcurate_missinggeneric_scene · see docs/strategy/VIDEO-CHECKLIST.md

Composition comp · template family · expected output

composition SceneReelfamily / template SceneReel

9:16 Reelrendered1:1 Squarepending16:9 Widepending9:16 4Kpending1:1 4Kpending16:9 4KpendingGIF (SMS)pending

▶ open rendered mp4

expected output: 1/7 rendered — same matrix the /media preview surfaces for this asset.

Composition layer × scene 9 scenes · 59.4s · comp_id + rendered still + tier + the script

#	Layer (comp_id · still · tier)	Beat	Timecode	Motion	Logo	Audio	VO / on-screen / caption
1	still pending matches intent shared field signature-3d	open	0–5.2s	spatial-parallax	icon·liquid-chrome	♪ —	Good product management is mostly about saying no to the right things at the right time. on-screen: Product management, decided
	expected on screen: black ground · box hero in the shared Signal Field · Faber leads · node-graph · spatial-parallax · icon·liquid-chrome logo · caption bottom-left spec (the prompt): comp_id shared Signal Fieldvisual node-graphshape boxground blacktreatment liquid-chromemotion spatial-parallaxpower summoninstrument summon→three-mark
2	still pending first render · fix pending TerminalRun templatecurate_missing	legacy	5.2–12.0s	crossfade-8f	icon·wireframe	♪ —	The old way let the loudest stakeholder set the roadmap, and the backlog became a wishlist no one could finish. on-screen: The old way: loudest voice wins
	expected on screen: black ground · a TerminalRun panel over a dimmed Signal Field · Faber leads · crossfade-8f · icon·wireframe logo · caption bottom-left spec (the prompt): comp_id TerminalRunshape boxground blacktreatment wireframemotion crossfade-8fpower morphinstrument decay→three-symbolic
3	still pending matches intent NumberedList template	teach	12.0–19.7s	kinetic-build	icon·wireframe	♪ —	We start every feature as a written problem statement, captured as a GitHub issue, so we are solving something real before we on-screen: Write the problem first
	expected on screen: black ground · a NumberedList panel over a dimmed Signal Field · Faber leads · node-graph · kinetic-build · icon·wireframe logo · caption bottom-left spec (the prompt): comp_id NumberedListvisual node-graphshape boxground blacktreatment wireframemotion kinetic-buildpower morphinstrument morph+laser→html-in-canvas-panelcurate items, nodes
4	still pending matches intent ChecklistCard template	teach	19.7–27.4s	kinetic-build	icon·wireframe	♪ —	We prioritize against actual usage pulled from the analytics API, so the roadmap follows behavior instead of opinion. on-screen: Score with real data
	expected on screen: black ground · a ChecklistCard panel over a dimmed Signal Field · Faber leads · node-graph · kinetic-build · icon·wireframe logo · caption bottom-left spec (the prompt): comp_id ChecklistCardvisual node-graphshape boxground blacktreatment wireframemotion kinetic-buildpower morphinstrument morph+laser→three-diagramcurate items, nodes
5	still pending matches intent StepFlow template	teach	27.4–32.699999999999996s	kinetic-build	icon·wireframe	♪ —	Then we cut each idea to the smallest version that teaches us something, and ship that first. on-screen: Ship the smallest slice
	expected on screen: black ground · a StepFlow panel over a dimmed Signal Field · Faber leads · node-graph · kinetic-build · icon·wireframe logo · caption bottom-left spec (the prompt): comp_id StepFlowvisual node-graphshape boxground blacktreatment wireframemotion kinetic-buildpower morphinstrument morph+laser→html-in-canvas-codecurate nodes, steps
6	still pending matches intent AnnotatedDiagram template	teach	32.7–39.6s	kinetic-build	icon·wireframe	♪ —	We watch session recordings and read the support tickets, so the next slice is shaped by what people actually did. on-screen: Close the loop with users
	expected on screen: black ground · a AnnotatedDiagram panel over a dimmed Signal Field · Faber leads · node-graph · kinetic-build · icon·wireframe logo · caption bottom-left spec (the prompt): comp_id AnnotatedDiagramvisual node-graphshape boxground blacktreatment wireframemotion kinetic-buildpower morphinstrument morph+laser→three-flowcurate callouts, nodes
7	still pending first render · fix pending ComparisonTable templategeneric_scene	proof	39.6–47.6s	receipts-count	icon·wireframe	♪ —	Running this way, one team cut features that shipped and went unused by about forty percent. Placeholder until the real metric lands. on-screen: 40% fewer dead features
	expected on screen: black ground · a ComparisonTable panel over a dimmed Signal Field · Faber leads · receipts · receipts-count · icon·wireframe logo · caption bottom-left spec (the prompt): comp_id ComparisonTablevisual receiptsshape boxground blacktreatment wireframemotion receipts-countpower receiptsinstrument spotlight→html-in-canvas-receiptscurate colA, colB, rows, statsLabels
8	still pending matches intent shared field signature-3d	futurist	47.6–53.9s	spatial-parallax	icon·wireframe	♪ —	Soon the roadmap updates from live usage, so every priority comes with the evidence behind it. on-screen: A roadmap that defends itself
	expected on screen: black ground · box hero in the shared Signal Field · Faber leads · spatial-parallax · icon·wireframe logo · caption bottom-left spec (the prompt): comp_id shared Signal Fieldshape boxground blacktreatment wireframemotion spatial-parallaxpower spatial-parallaxinstrument laser-fire→three-forward
9	still pending matches intent shared field signature-3d	resolve	53.9–59.4s	coalescence	icon·liquid-chrome	♪ swell	If you want a product process that decides on evidence, The Big T-M will help you set it up. on-screen: Run it right · temerarii.xyz
	expected on screen: black ground · box hero in the shared Signal Field · Faber leads · coalescence · coalescence · icon·liquid-chrome logo · caption bottom-left spec (the prompt): comp_id shared Signal Fieldvisual coalescenceshape boxground blacktreatment liquid-chromemotion coalescencepower coalescenceinstrument coalescence→three-coalescence

Format stack 3 aspects · same scenes[], re-cropped

9:16

1080×1920

Stories · TikTok · YouTube Shorts · Reels

1:1

1080×1080

LinkedIn · Facebook · Instagram

16:9

1920×1080

X/Twitter · YouTube · LinkedIn video

Channels 12 destinations

LinkedInX/TwitterYouTubeInstagramFacebookThreadsTikTokPinterestBlueskyEmailSMSBlog

Social captions supplemental published copy · per channel (comp_id level)

tiktokGood product management is mostly saying no to the right things. Here is the move: write every feature as a problem statement first, log it as a GitHub issue, then score the backlog against real usage from the analytics API. Cut each idea to the smallest slice that teaches you something and ship that. Then watch session recordings and read the tickets so the next slice follows what people did, not who shouted loudest. AI-assisted.

instagramThe loudest stakeholder should not own your roadmap. The method: - Write the feature as a problem first - Log it as a GitHub issue - Score it against real usage data - Ship the smallest slice - Close the loop with session recordings Decide on evidence, not opinion. temerarii.xyz #productmanagement #buildinpublic #temerarii #roadmap #shipsmall

linkedinMost roadmaps are wishlists set by whoever talked the most in the meeting. Here is the process we run instead: 1. Every feature starts as a written problem statement, captured as a GitHub issue. You are solving something real before anyone writes code. 2. The backlog gets scored against actual usage pulled from the analytics API. The roadmap follows behavior, not the loudest voice. 3. Each idea is cut to the smallest version that teaches you something, and that ships first. 4. The loop closes with session recordings and support tickets, so the next slice is shaped by what people actually did. The takeaway: when priorities come with the evidence behind them, the roadmap defends itself. Want to set this up? temerarii.xyz

xGood product management is mostly saying no to the right things. Write the feature as a problem. Log it as a GitHub issue. Score the backlog against real usage data. Ship the smallest slice. Repeat. The roadmap follows behavior, not opinion. temerarii.xyz

facebookMost roadmaps are just a wishlist set by the loudest person in the room. There is a better way. Write every feature as a problem statement first, log it as a GitHub issue, then score the backlog against real usage from your analytics. Ship the smallest slice that teaches you something, then read the tickets and watch the recordings to shape the next one. Decide on evidence, not opinion. See how it works at temerarii.xyz

threadsGood product management is mostly saying no to the right things. Write each feature as a problem first. Log it as a GitHub issue. Score the backlog against real usage data, not the loudest voice. Ship the smallest slice that teaches you something, then read the tickets and shape the next one. The roadmap follows behavior. temerarii.xyz

pinterestProduct management process: how to build a roadmap on evidence instead of opinion. Write every feature as a problem statement, log it as a GitHub issue, score the backlog against real usage data from your analytics API, ship the smallest slice that teaches you something, then close the loop with session recordings and support tickets. A repeatable system for product teams who want fewer dead features and a roadmap that defends itself. temerarii.xyz

blueskyGood product management is mostly saying no to the right things. Write the feature as a problem. Log it as a GitHub issue. Score the backlog against real usage. Ship the smallest slice, then read the tickets. The roadmap follows behavior, not opinion. temerarii.xyz

youtubeProduct Management on Evidence: Write the Problem, Score on Real Usage, Ship the Slice Most roadmaps are wishlists set by whoever talked the loudest. This walks through a product process that decides on evidence instead of opinion. The method: - Write every feature as a problem statement, captured as a GitHub issue, so you are solving something real before any code - Score the backlog against actual usage pulled from the analytics API, so the roadmap follows behavior - Cut each idea to the smallest version that teaches you something, and ship that first - Close the loop with session recordings and support tickets, so the next slice is shaped by what people actually did The goal is a roadmap that comes with the evidence behind every priority, so it defends itself. Want to set up a product process that decides on evidence? temerarii.xyz

Cross-links every lens is a view on this one record

→ Wireframe · scenes → Calendar week → Media (audience preview)→ Storyboard hub → Day view → Channel view