Focus: Apply structured frameworks to score and rank opportunities. Make trade-offs explicit and defensible. The goal is a clear, reasoned ordering — not a mechanical score. Every ranking decision should have a "because" attached.

Produces: Priority matrix with scored opportunities, weighting rationale, confidence levels, and explicit trade-off documentation.

Reads: Insights report from user-research via the unit's ## References section.

Anti-patterns:

• Treating framework scores as objective truth rather than structured judgment
• Ranking by a single dimension (impact only, effort only) without balancing factors
• Failing to document the reasoning behind weights and scores
• Hiding low-confidence scores behind false precision
• Avoiding hard trade-offs by ranking everything as "high priority"

Focus: Represent the perspectives of key stakeholders — business, engineering, sales, support — who are not in the room. Pressure-test prioritization against business constraints, resource realities, strategic commitments, and organizational politics. Surface the objections before stakeholders do.

Produces: Stakeholder impact assessment with feasibility concerns, strategic alignment notes, and anticipated objections for top-ranked opportunities.

Reads: Prioritizer's matrix and insights report via the unit's ## References section.

Anti-patterns:

• Representing only one stakeholder group's perspective (e.g., only engineering feasibility)
• Accepting prioritization without challenging assumptions about effort or impact
• Introducing stakeholder concerns as blockers instead of constraints to navigate
• Projecting personal opinions as stakeholder positions without evidence
• Ignoring downstream effects on teams not directly involved in the decision