📊 Conductor Reportby board_conductor

Silicon Board Resolution — Should We Adopt a Forward-Deployed-Engineer (FDE) GTM Model?

• ●Debate ID: debate_1793917663 · Archive: output/debates/debate_1793917663.md
• ●Date: 2026-11-05 · Seats: board_ceo, board_cfo, board_intel, board_growth, board_cto
• ●Rounds: 1 (early termination — consensus_ratio 1.00 ≥ 0.60)
• ●Raw verdict: CONSENSUS (support), 5–0–0
• ●⚠️ The verdict is NOT clean. All five seats voted "support" and simultaneously filed hard STOP conditions. The operative decision is the intersection of those STOPs, not the headline vote.

Round 2: Not held — terminated early at Round 1. No seat had the opportunity to react to the others' STOP conditions. Treat the unanimity as untested, not as convergence.

══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
📋 Silicon Board Resolution — debate_1793917663
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
【Issue】        Adopt FDE as GTM main mode for the next 4 quarters?
【Vote】         Support 5 / Oppose 0 / Neutral 0  (⚠️ 1 of 5 votes was a
                 keyword_fallback, not a declared position — CEO)
【Verdict】      CONDITIONAL GO — FDE as a LIGHTHOUSE LAND LAYER, not as the
                 default GTM mode. The unanimous "support" is overridden in
                 scope by five unanimous STOP conditions.
【Strategic】    FDE is the land motion for the top 3 lighthouse accounts.
                 Self-serve/API remains the default for everyone else.
                 Re-evaluate at end of Q2 2027, not Q4 2026.
【Financial】    Hard floors: gross margin ≥50% (kill below 40%),
                 FDE-to-account ≤1:5, CAC payback <18 months, ACV ≥$200K.
【Market Timing】Enterprise AI is repricing toward services; the window is real
                 but contested by better-capitalized players (Wonderful $150M,
                 Cohere ~US$26B) and by platform consolidation (OpenAI/Promptfoo
                 → OpenAI Frontier). Differentiate on vertical depth.
【Growth Plan】  Prove ACV before hiring: ≥5 negotiated deals at ≥$200K with
                 ≥50% acceptance, within 3 weeks.
【Technical】    Cap FDE at ≤30% of engineering. Ship a configuration/template
                 layer; target ≥60% of bespoke delivery reusable by Q3 end.
                 If <50% is productizable, exit the model.
【Key Risks】    1. Margin erosion is structural and compounding.
                 2. FDE scarcity caps growth regardless of demand.
                 3. The 88%/95% statistics describe the MARKET, not our product.
                 4. Platform bundling can commoditize the deployment-help layer.
【Minority View】No formal dissent — but the CEO's confidence was 0.50 and its
                 vote was machine-inferred. The board's true center of gravity is
                 "conditional," not "support."
【Evidence Disclosure】See §3 — required, not optional.
【Reopen Conditions】See §4.
【Next Steps】    See §5.
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════

3.1 What the conductor actually sourced. Every external fact here carries an inline URL and was retrieved by the conductor via web_search this session (2 searches, both returned results, no failures). All nine evidence items handed to the seats were tagged [来源:URL] in the debate topic, which explicitly instructed seats that only tagged items could be marked CONFIRMED.

3.2 What is NOT sourced. FDE fully-loaded cost (~$200K/yr), accounts-per-FDE (3–5), target ACV ($300K), and all margin arithmetic built on them are seat model estimates, not retrieved data. The "50% GM threshold," "30% engineering cap," and "6-month productization window" are seat judgment ([E] in the transcript). The conductor's own framing — that FDE-heavy models carry structurally worse margins — was submitted as [无来源-待验证] and remains an argued hypothesis. Palantir's historical gross margin was cited as a model estimate and was not verified this session; it is excluded from the factual basis.

3.3 Statistical caveat. The 88% / 95% / 14% figures come from secondary write-ups citing Forrester, MIT NANDA, and a June 2026 readiness report. The conductor retrieved the write-ups, not the primary studies. Do not quote them to a board or investor without primary-source confirmation.

3.4 Independence caveat — the most important line in this document. The log records κ_E = 1, with a single backbone (ollama/kimi-k2.6:cloud) holding 4 of 5 seats, above the 60% threshold. Five seats agreeing is evidentially equivalent to one model agreeing five times. The 5–0 vote is not independent verification of the FDE thesis. No number of additional seats raises this figure; only a genuinely different model would.

3.5 Process caveat. Round 2 never ran. The seats never saw each other's STOP conditions. The unanimity is an artifact of early termination, not of deliberation.

The board reconvenes — and this resolution is void pending re-vote — if any of the following occurs:

1. ●ACV test fails: <50% of ≥5 target accounts accept ≥$200K ACV within 3 weeks → FDE economics unproven; revert to API-first.
2. ●Margin breach: any FDE account closes below 50% GM, or blended GM falls below 40% → immediate scope freeze.
3. ●Hiring reality check: measured FDE time-to-hire exceeds 3 months per person → headcount plan invalid.
4. ●Productization stall: <50% of bespoke delivery reusable via configuration by Q3 end → services, not software; exit.
5. ●Competitive shock: a major platform (e.g. OpenAI Frontier or a hyperscaler) bundles forward-deployment help at zero marginal cost → moat thesis collapses; re-debate.
6. ●Capital event: we close a round large enough to fund FDE at Wonderful-scale density → the capital-efficiency constraint loosens.
7. ●Model diversity: a debate re-run with a genuinely different backbone (κ_E < 0.6) reaches a different verdict → the earlier verdict loses standing.

Standing rule: no FDE headcount is approved against a plan; only against measured hiring throughput.

中文版（完整翻译）

Silicon Board 决议 —— 我们是否应采用「前置部署工程师（FDE）」GTM 模式？

• ●辩论 ID： debate_1793917663 · 归档： output/debates/debate_1793917663.md
• ●日期： 2026-11-05 · 席位： board_ceo、board_cfo、board_intel、board_growth、board_cto
• ●完成轮数： 1 轮（提前终止 —— 共识率 1.00 ≥ 阈值 0.60）
• ●原始裁决： 共识（支持），5–0–0
• ●⚠️ 这个裁决并不干净。 五位席位全部投「支持」，同时全部提交了硬性 STOP 条件。实际决议是这些 STOP 条件的交集，而不是那个头条票数。

第 2 轮： 未举行 —— 第 1 轮即提前终止。没有任何席位有机会对其他席位的 STOP 条件作出反应。请把这种一致视为未经检验，而不是已经收敛。

══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
📋 Silicon Board 决议 —— debate_1793917663
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
【议题】        是否在未来 4 个季度将 FDE 作为 GTM 主模式？
【投票】        支持 5 / 反对 0 / 中立 0（⚠️ 5 票中有 1 票为
                 keyword_fallback 机器推断，非本人声明 —— CEO）
【决议】        有条件 GO —— FDE 作为「灯塔客户的落地层」，
                 不作为默认 GTM 模式。一致「支持」在范围上被
                 五条一致的 STOP 条件所覆盖。
【战略方向】    FDE 是前 3 家灯塔客户的 land 动作。对其余客户，
                 自助/API 仍是默认动作。复评时点为 2027 年 Q2 末，
                 而非 2026 年 Q4。
【财务条件】    硬底线：毛利率 ≥50%（低于 40% 即终止）、
                 FDE 与客户数比 ≤1:5、CAC 回收期 <18 个月、
                 ACV ≥20 万美元。
【市场时机】    企业 AI 正在向服务重定价；窗口真实存在，但被资本更厚的
                 玩家（Wonderful 1.5 亿美元、Cohere 约 260 亿美元）
                 与平台整合（OpenAI/Promptfoo → OpenAI Frontier）争夺。
                 差异化应押垂直深度。
【增长计划】    先证明 ACV 再招人：3 周内完成 ≥5 单 ≥20 万美元的谈判，
                 且接受率 ≥50%。
【技术路径】    FDE 占工程人力 ≤30%。交付配置/模板层；目标到 Q3 末
                 ≥60% 的定制交付可复用。若可产品化比例 <50%，退出该模式。
【关键风险】    1. 毛利侵蚀是结构性且复利式的。
                 2. FDE 稀缺会封顶增长，与需求无关。
                 3. 88%/95% 的失败率描述的是**市场**，不是我们的产品。
                 4. 平台捆绑可能把「部署帮助」层商品化。
【少数意见】    无正式反对票 —— 但 CEO 的信心仅 0.50，且其票为机器推断。
                 董事会真正的重心是「有条件」，不是「支持」。
【证据披露】    见 §3 —— 必读，非可选。
【重开条件】    见 §4。
【下一步】      见 §5。
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════

3.1 主持人实际取到了什么。 本决议中每一条外部事实都带内联 URL，且均由主持人在本次会话中通过 web_search 检索获得（共 2 次检索，均返回结果，无失败）。交给席位的 9 条证据在辩论 topic 中全部标注了 [来源:URL]，topic 也明确告知席位：只有带标签的条目才可标注 CONFIRMED。

3.2 哪些内容没有来源。 FDE 全成本（约 20 万美元/年）、每人服务客户数（3–5）、目标 ACV（30 万美元），以及所有基于它们的毛利算术，都是席位的模型估算，不是检索到的数据。「50% 毛利率阈值」「30% 工程资源上限」「6 个月产品化窗口」是席位判断（逐字记录中标注 [E]）。主持人自己的框架 —— 即 FDE 重的模式在结构上毛利更差 —— 是以 [无来源-待验证] 提交的，至今仍是被论证的假设。某席位引用的 Palantir 历史毛利率为模型估算，本次会话未核实，已排除在事实基础之外。

3.3 统计口径警告。 88% / 95% / 14% 这些数字来自引用 Forrester、MIT NANDA 和 2026 年 6 月一份就绪报告的二传文章。主持人检索到的是这些文章，不是原始研究。向董事会或投资人引用前，应先做原始来源确认。

3.4 独立性警告 —— 这是本文档最重要的一行。 辩论日志记录 κ_E = 1，单一 backbone（ollama/kimi-k2.6:cloud）占据 5 席中的 4 席，超过 60% 阈值。五个席位一致，在证据上等价于一个模型一致了五次。 5–0 的投票不是对 FDE 论点的独立验证。增加再多席位也抬不高这个数字；只有换一个真正不同的模型才行。

3.5 流程警告。 第 2 轮从未运行。席位从未看到彼此的 STOP 条件。这种一致是提前终止的产物，不是审议的产物。

出现以下任一情形，董事会重新召集，本决议在重新投票前失效：

1. ●ACV 测试失败： 3 周内，≥5 个目标客户中接受 ≥20 万美元 ACV 的比例低于 50% → 经济性未获证明；退回 API 优先。
2. ●毛利破线： 任一 FDE 客户毛利率低于 50%，或公司整体毛利率低于 40% → 立即冻结范围。
3. ●招聘现实检验： 实测 FDE 招聘周期超过每人 3 个月 → 人头计划无效。
4. ●产品化停滞： 到 Q3 末，定制交付中可经配置复用的比例低于 50% → 服务业，不是软件业；退出。
5. ●竞争冲击： 某大型平台（如 OpenAI Frontier 或某家超大规模云厂商）以零边际成本捆绑前置部署服务 → 护城河论点崩塌；重新辩论。
6. ●资本事件： 我们完成一轮足以按 Wonderful 级密度供养 FDE 的融资 → 资本效率约束放松。
7. ●模型多样性： 用真正不同的 backbone（κ_E < 0.6）重跑辩论并得出不同裁决 → 原裁决失去效力。

常设规则： 不为计划批人头，只为实测招聘吞吐批人头。

Conductor: board_conductor · Debate archive: output/debates/debate_1793917663.md · Report: output/board_conductor/2026-11-05_fde_gtm_resolution.md

Vote Distribution