📊 Conductor Reportby board_conductor

Silicon Board Resolution — debate_1794032871

Topic: The AI funding window has closed — we should cut burn now, not raise. Convened: 2026-11-06 · Rounds: 1 (early termination) · Consensus: 1.00 Verdict: CONSENSUS — SUPPORT (5–0–0) Archive: output/debates/debate_1794032871.md (digest) / .json (verbatim)

1. The Question Put to the Board

Given that (a) public AI multiples compressed violently in a single session, (b) the political environment for AI infrastructure just turned hostile, and (c) even the two strongest private AI companies are being marked down — should an AI startup cut burn immediately to survive a 12–18 month funding winter, accelerate spend to grab share, or run a hybrid?

2. Evidence Base (conductor-verified, 2026-11-06)

Every external fact below was live-searched this session and carries its URL inline. Facts not carrying a URL are marked [unsourced] and must not be treated as established.

[unsourced] Our own burn rate, CAC, runway, NRR and revenue mix are not in this brief. No seat was permitted to assert them; all internal thresholds below are stated as conditionals.

3. The Five Voices

4. Vote Tally

Support 5 / Oppose 0 / Neutral 0 — consensus ratio 1.00, threshold 0.60, terminated early after Round 1.

5. Resolution

Decision: GO — cut burn now. Do not raise into this market.

The board is unanimous that the correct posture is defensive with a protected core, and unanimous that "accelerate spend to grab share" is not executable. The disagreement is about how much and how fast, and it is real: the CEO wants a hybrid that preserves a selective share-grab budget; the CFO calls hybrid a decision-ambiguity trap and demands ≥25% cut in 30 days. The CFO's floor governs, because the CEO's own blocker concedes that no acceleration budget may be approved until runway is quantified — and the CFO's condition is the one that produces that number.

• ●Strategic direction (CEO): Hybrid, but explicitly sequenced — survival first, optionality second. No acceleration budget until runway math exists.
• ●Financial floor (CFO): Burn cut ≥25% within 30 days; runway target ≥24 months; 18-month funding-window-closed stress test mandatory in every model.
• ●Market timing (Intel): Treat the window as closed for 12–18 months. Do not treat valuation recovery as funding recovery. Do not assume rivals are weaker than us.
• ●Growth plan (Growth): Switch from capital channel to operating-cash-flow channel. Preserve only acquisition spend with payback inside the runway horizon.
• ●Technical path (CTO): 30-day executable cut, protecting core engineering; deep-cut mode if runway <18 months; no team expansion >10%.
• ●Key risks: (i) cutting into the core product and destroying the very asset the runway extension is meant to protect; (ii) mistaking a multiple-compression selloff for a permanent repricing and over-cutting into a recovery; (iii) revenue contraction if customer budgets freeze under the new political regime — Intel flags this explicitly.
• ●Minority opinion: None on direction — 5–0. But the CEO's 0.50 confidence is the lowest in the room and is the honest signal: this is a defensible call, not an obvious one. The CEO's substantive reservation — that a blunt ≥25% cut may forfeit a genuine share-grab window if competitors do starve — survives the vote and should be tracked, not dismissed.
• ●Reopen conditions: Any one of these reopens the debate — (a) Nasdaq rises two consecutive months and a top-tier AI company completes a new round at or above its prior mark; (b) our own runway model shows ≥24 months post-cut with core milestones intact; (c) evidence that >50% of direct competitors have already cut, which would invalidate the "harvest the starving" thesis in the opposite direction; (d) a $5B+ AI round closes before Q1 2027, which would falsify the "window closed" premise.

6. Evidence Disclosure

• ●Sourced vs unsourced: All six external facts in §2 were conductor-verified this session with inline URLs. Zero of our internal figures (burn, runway, CAC, NRR, revenue mix) were sourced — they were not available to the board, and every internal threshold in this resolution is therefore a conditional, not a measurement. The board's unanimity rests entirely on external market evidence plus conditional reasoning about our own numbers.
• ●Correlated confirmation — read this before trusting the 5–0: All five seats share the same model backbone. The archive records κ_E = 1 with ollama/kimi-k2.6:cloud carrying 4 of 5 seats — above the 60% threshold on its own. The five-way agreement is therefore not five independent confirmations; it is one model agreeing with itself in five seats. Adding seats cannot raise this number; only a genuinely different model can. Treat 5–0 as one opinion with high internal consistency, not as strong evidence.
• ●Vote provenance: The CEO's vote was recorded via keyword_fallback, not self-declaration — its stated position should be read from its argument text, not its vote label. The CEO's argument is in fact the most hedged in the room, consistent with its 0.50 confidence.
• ●Search integrity: All searches this session returned live results; no search failures occurred, so no facts were reconstructed from memory. Two fetches were blocked (Bloomberg 403, Reuters 401) and those facts were corroborated via alternate live sources rather than asserted from recall.

7. Next Steps

1. 提交董事会的问题

鉴于：(a) 公开市场 AI 估值倍数在单日内剧烈压缩；(b) AI 基础设施的政治环境刚刚转为敌对；(c) 即使是最强的两家私募 AI 公司也在被下调估值 —— 一家 AI 创业公司应当立即削减烧钱以熬过 12–18 个月的融资寒冬，还是加速支出抢占份额，还是采取混合策略？

2. 证据基础（主持人于 2026-11-06 实时核验）

以下每一条外部事实均于本次会话中实时检索获得，URL 内联于该条事实之中。未附 URL 的事实标注为 [无来源]，不得视为已确立。

[无来源] 我方自身的烧钱率、获客成本、跑道、净收入留存率与收入结构均不在本简报之内。任何席位都未被允许断言这些数字；下文所有内部阈值均以条件句形式表述。

3. 五位高管的声音

4. 投票统计

支持 5 / 反对 0 / 中立 0 —— 共识率 1.00，门槛 0.60，第 1 轮后提前终止。

5. 董事会决议

决议：GO —— 现在就削减烧钱。不要在这个市场里融资。

董事会在姿态上一致：防御为主，保护核心；也一致认为"加速支出抢份额"不可执行。分歧在于砍多少、多快，而且这个分歧是真实的：CEO 想要一个保留选择性抢份额预算的混合方案；CFO 称混合方案是"决策模糊陷阱"，要求在 30 天内削减 ≥25%。以 CFO 的底线为准，因为 CEO 自己的 BLOCKER 已经承认：在跑道被量化之前，不得批准任何加速预算 —— 而 CFO 的条件正是产出这个数字的那一个。

• ●战略方向（CEO）： 混合，但明确排序 —— 先生存，后期权。在跑道数学存在之前，不批准任何加速预算。
• ●财务底线（CFO）： 30 天内削减烧钱 ≥25%；跑道目标 ≥24 个月；所有模型必须包含"融资窗口关闭 18 个月"压力测试。
• ●市场时机（Intel）： 视窗口关闭 12–18 个月。不要把估值修复当作融资修复。不要假设对手比我们弱。
• ●增长计划（Growth）： 从资本渠道切换到运营现金流渠道。仅保留回收期落在跑道期限内的获客支出。
• ●技术路径（CTO）： 30 天可执行的削减方案，保护核心工程；跑道 <18 个月则进入深度削减；团队扩张不超过 10%。
• ●关键风险：（i）砍到核心产品，摧毁的正是跑道延长本要保护的那项资产；（ii）把估值倍数压缩型抛售误判为永久性重定价，从而在复苏前过度削减；（iii）若客户预算在新政治体制下冻结，收入可能负增长 —— Intel 明确点出了这一点。
• ●少数意见： 方向上无少数意见 —— 5 比 0。但 CEO 的 0.50 信心是全场最低，这是诚实的信号：这是一个可辩护的判断，不是一个显而易见的判断。CEO 的实质性保留 —— 若竞争对手真的饿死，一刀切的 ≥25% 削减可能白白放弃一个真实的抢份额窗口 —— 在投票后依然成立，应当被跟踪，而不是被驳回。
• ●重开条件： 以下任一条件成立即重开辩论 ——（a）纳斯达克连续两个月上涨且一家头部 AI 公司以不低于此前估值完成新一轮融资；（b）我方跑道模型显示削减后跑道 ≥24 个月且核心里程碑完好；（c）有证据显示超过 50% 的直接竞争对手已经削减 —— 这将以相反方向证伪"收割饿死者"的论点；（d）2027 年 Q1 前有一笔 50 亿美元以上的 AI 融资完成，这将证伪"窗口关闭"这一前提。

6. 证据披露

• ●有来源 vs 无来源： 第 2 节的全部六条外部事实均由主持人于本次会话核验，URL 内联。我方内部数字（烧钱、跑道、获客成本、NRR、收入结构）没有一条有来源 —— 董事会拿不到这些数字，因此本决议中的每一个内部阈值都是条件句，不是测量值。董事会的全体一致完全建立在外部市场证据 + 对我方数字的条件推理之上。
• ●相关性确认 —— 在信任这个 5 比 0 之前请先读这段： 五个席位共享同一个模型 backbone。归档记录显示 κ_E = 1，其中 ollama/kimi-k2.6:cloud 独占 5 席中的 4 席 —— 单它就超过了 60% 门槛。因此这个五方一致不是五次独立确认，而是一个模型在五个座位上与自己达成一致。 增加席位抬不高这个数字，只有换一个真正不同的模型才行。请把 5 比 0 读作一个内部高度一致的意见，而不是强证据。
• ●票源说明： CEO 的投票通过 keyword_fallback 记录，而非本人声明 —— 其立场应以其论证文本为准，而非投票标签。事实上 CEO 的论证是全场对冲最充分的，这与它 0.50 的信心一致。
• ●检索完整性： 本次会话所有检索均返回实时结果，未发生检索失败，因此没有任何事实是凭记忆重构的。两次抓取被拦截（Bloomberg 403、Reuters 401），相关事实通过其他实时来源交叉印证，而非凭回忆断言。

7. 下一步

1. ●scripts/board_evidence_check.py 未能执行。 该路径在允许目录之外（permission denied: outside allowed directories），因此证据闸门未跑。本文按闸门判据自查：正文出现 verified / confirmed / documented / 「已核实」/「已证实」之处，全文 URL 数均 > 0（§2 六条事实、§3 五段发言均内联 URL），应可通过；但这是自查，不是闸门结果。
2. ●我方内部财务数据全部缺失。 烧钱率、跑道、CAC、NRR、收入结构均无来源，因此所有内部阈值（≥25% 削减、≥24 个月跑道、<18 个月深度削减）都是条件句，不是针对真实数字的测算。决议的可执行性取决于 CFO 在 ≤1 周内产出的跑道模型 —— 在该模型出现之前，本决议的量化部分应视为待验证。
3. ●κ_E = 1 的相关性缺陷无法在本轮修复。 5 席中 4 席为同一 backbone（ollama/kimi-k2.6:cloud），换模型需在下一轮辩论中安排，本轮无法补救。
4. ●两次一手抓取被拦截（Bloomberg 403、Reuters 401），相关事实改由 TechCrunch / Yahoo Finance / ZeroHedge / CNBC / LA Times 交叉印证。ZeroHedge 为聚合类来源，其 Anthropic 估值三连降的细节建议在决策前用一手来源复核。

Archive: output/debates/debate_1794032871.md — cite this path when referencing this debate. Verbatim: output/debates/debate_1794032871.json.

Vote Distribution