Ama Kusi
Disagreed with the CEO in writing, with data, and kept the relationship intact.
Cut scope to the one path that cleared most of the backlog.
Decision-first documents with explicit non-goals.
Sound calls; the pricing question needed a sizing estimate.
Asked for the right data; analysis stayed directional.
Voice, phrasing and revision patterns are consistent across three days of live messages and long-form documents. Nothing in the deliverables reads differently from how she writes in chat.
- Asked Finance for refund data before proposing anything, then used it to reframe the CEO’s request around the failed-payment path.
- Turned a hard no on the launch date into a scoped Friday release the team could hit, and documented why.
- Her PRD was the clearest document of the run: short, decision-first, risks and non-goals named up front.
- The pricing debate on Day 2 ran long because her case was qualitative. A ten-minute estimate would have settled it.
- Design learned about the scope change a day late and the flow had to be revisited. Earlier inclusion would have saved a cycle.
- Scope the refunds reworkPass“Went to Finance first. Exactly the instinct I want.”
- Respond to the CEO’s launch datePass“Disagreed with me in writing, with numbers. Rare.”
- Write the v1 PRDPass“Tight. The non-goals section saved us a meeting.”
- Brief Sales on the trade-offPass“Good framing, a little long for a Sales audience.”
“Thinks like a PM already. The operations background shows in how she sequences work. I would put her in front of the team on Monday.”




