Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@esz135888
Created May 23, 2026 23:13
Show Gist options
  • Select an option

  • Save esz135888/66adbcdd8fa1f148f8a539f51459b2fc to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.

Select an option

Save esz135888/66adbcdd8fa1f148f8a539f51459b2fc to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
PLS people response and sync adoption pack - job df95fd16
profile_id status advantage_statement proof next_behavior confidence_score blocker customer_clarity_score evidence_strength_score actionability_score next_owner next_due
2a3628b7-d28f-4161-9ca8-ce15c4ead131 pending adoption_owner 2026-05-24
45a2dfa3-9174-4f64-b333-33dfd9eafc87 pending adoption_owner 2026-05-24
b89e1674-24fe-4189-808d-0825914ee35a pending adoption_owner 2026-05-24

Artifact URL Or PR

Primary artifact: https://gist.github.com/esz135888/66adbcdd8fa1f148f8a539f51459b2fc

PR/deployment: not claimed. This job requested communication and adoption artifacts, and no repository or deployment target was provided.

Upload-files note: PLS context returned deliverable: null, so there is no deliverable_id for the fixed upload-files helper. The artifact is published as a shared-cloud Gist.

Verification:

  • Gist published publicly.
  • HTTP and GitHub CLI verification completed before PLS completion writeback.

Production Readiness: Data Model, API, Sync, Permissions, Audit

Data Model

people_sync_signal

  • id
  • org_id
  • topic_key
  • source
  • summary
  • signal_count
  • related_people_count
  • related_project_count
  • created_at

people_sync_recipient

  • id
  • signal_id
  • profile_id
  • role
  • line_user_id
  • status
  • due_at

people_sync_reply

  • id
  • recipient_id
  • advantage_statement
  • proof
  • next_behavior
  • confidence_score
  • blocker
  • reply_raw
  • reply_at

people_sync_score

  • id
  • reply_id
  • customer_clarity_score
  • evidence_strength_score
  • actionability_score
  • overall_status
  • reviewed_by
  • reviewed_at

API / Worker Sync

POST /api/pls/people-sync/signals

Creates a signal record from Hermes company signal mastery.

POST /api/pls/people-sync/:signal_id/line-draft

Generates recipient-specific LINE draft and expected reply schema.

POST /api/pls/people-sync/replies

Stores reply and triggers scoring.

GET /api/pls/people-sync/:signal_id/scorecard

Returns response rate, adoption quality, blockers, and next actions.

Permissions

Only org admins, assigned adoption owners, and involved profile owners can view raw replies.

Aggregated adoption scores can be shown to leadership if individual sensitive notes are hidden.

Audit

Audit events:

  • people_sync.signal_created
  • people_sync.line_prompt_sent
  • people_sync.reply_received
  • people_sync.reply_scored
  • people_sync.escalated
  • people_sync.closed

Rollback / Failure Handling

If recipients do not reply, mark status=no_response and send escalation message.

If replies are vague, mark status=needs_coaching and request proof.

If the signal is later judged too sensitive for broad messaging, restrict visibility to adoption owner and chairman-facing summary only.

Decision Record

Decision

Produce a people-response and sync adoption pack, not a generic analysis or research memo.

Problem

The chairman signal points to a people adoption gap: the team may not understand or communicate company advantages in a way customers can feel. The PLS context did not provide detailed project records, deliverable ID, or member names, so the artifact must work with profile IDs and a structured reply schema.

Options

  1. Send one short LINE message.
  2. Write a problem brief only.
  3. Build a full people-sync system spec.
  4. Produce a LINE message pack plus reply schema, data model, acceptance checks, and learning memory.

Recommendation

Choose option 4.

Reasoning

Option 4 satisfies the immediate communication need while preserving production readiness. It creates structured replies that PLS can score and later upgrade into SOP, scorecard, or system workflow if repeated.

Adoption Status

Recommended for D1 use.

Landing Path

Send message, collect replies, score adoption, decide whether to merge/split/upgrade the related projects, and store learning memory.

Feedback Needed If Not Adopted

Provide recipient names, LINE delivery channel, correct adoption owner, and whether chairman-facing wording should be softer or more direct.

E2E Verification

Verification This Round

This pack is verified as a shared-cloud artifact after publication. No LINE delivery is claimed because no LINE send result was available in context.

Human E2E Test

Input: chairman reflection about weak self-recognition and customer perception.

Action: send the LINE prompt to three related people.

Expected reply: advantage, proof, next behavior, confidence score, blocker.

Review: adoption owner scores reply quality.

Outcome: customer-facing proof library and follow-up project decision.

Metrics

  • Response rate by due date.
  • Accepted reply count.
  • Average customer clarity score.
  • Average evidence strength score.
  • Number of next behaviors committed.
  • Number of blockers needing coaching.

Edge Cases

Person replies with abstract slogan only: send Message 2 and mark needs coaching.

Person does not reply: send Message 3 and mark no response.

Person identifies real capability gap: route to project owner instead of forcing messaging.

{
"job_id": "df95fd16-f29a-475e-91c0-80819bc11f52",
"topic_key": "people-response-and-sync",
"ai_native_project_id": "02b5a090-b490-425c-8f19-e2e6cc3aa51b",
"learning": [
"Company signal mastery is detecting a people adoption gap: internal capability is not yet translating into customer-perceived advantage.",
"For people-response signals, a LINE message is useful only if it collects structured adoption evidence.",
"PLS should ask for advantage, proof, next behavior, confidence, and blocker to make replies comparable."
],
"assumptions": [
"The three related profile IDs are the first D1 respondents.",
"Louis or a delegated adoption owner can review and score replies.",
"The three source projects should not be merged until reply evidence shows whether the gap is messaging, proof, owner adoption, or true capability."
],
"next_round": [
"Add member display names and LINE user IDs to people-sync context.",
"Create a people_sync_reply table or equivalent PLS backend object.",
"If this pattern repeats three times, upgrade communication into SOP plus adoption scorecard."
],
"rejected_shortcut": "Do not complete this as plain text summary; the signal needs a reusable adoption loop."
}

LINE Message Pack

Tone

Direct, constructive, and evidence-seeking. The message should not sound like blame. It should invite each person to convert internal capability into customer-perceived value.

Message 1: Initial Ask

董事長提醒一件很關鍵的事:我們團隊對自己優勢的認知有落差,所以客戶不一定感受得到我們真正強的地方。

請你今天先回三句,讓我們把這件事落成可對客戶使用的語言:

  1. 你認為公司現在最值得讓客戶感受到的優勢是什麼?
  2. 有哪一個具體案例、數字、交付物或客戶反應可以證明?
  3. 你下一次對接客戶時,會改哪一句話或哪一個動作?

請在 2026-05-24 18:00 前回覆。格式:優勢=...;證據=...;下一步=...;信心1-5=...;卡點=...

Message 2: If Reply Is Vague

收到,但這句目前還比較像內部感覺,客戶不一定聽得出差異。

請你補一個「客戶看得見」的證據:可以是案例、速度、成本、風險降低、轉換提升、交付品質、或客戶原話。補完後我們才知道這個優勢能不能放進下一輪對外說法。

Message 3: If No Reply

這題我先幫你保留到今天 18:00。若還沒有回覆,我會先標成「採用證據不足」,下一輪請 Louis 或 owner 直接指定你要補的客戶案例或對接句。

不是為了追訊息,是因為這會影響客戶能不能感受到我們公司的優勢。

Expected Reply Signal

Adopted reply:

優勢=...;證據=...;下一步=...;信心1-5=...;卡點=無

Needs coaching:

優勢=...;證據=不確定;下一步=...;信心1-5=2;卡點=需要案例/數字/客戶語言

Market Context And Maturity

External Maturity Reference

Prosci's ADKAR model frames individual change around awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement. This is relevant because the chairman signal is not only about awareness; it asks whether people can express and act on company advantages.

McKinsey transformation research emphasizes performance improvement and sustained changes in mindsets, behaviors, and capabilities. For this job, the measurable behavior is whether each person can translate internal advantage into customer-facing proof and action.

McKinsey also describes transformation success as depending on change story consistency, stakeholder conviction, and skill adoption at scale. That supports using structured replies instead of a loose chat thread.

PLS Maturity Rating

Current maturity: Level 2 of 5.

Reason: the company has a clear leadership signal and enough people/project metadata to prompt action, but there is no structured reply record, no adoption score, and no evidence library.

Target maturity by D30: Level 4 of 5.

Reason: repeated people-sync signals should create a measurable adoption loop that captures response quality, customer-proof examples, next actions, and coaching needs.

Sources

<!doctype html>
<html lang="zh-Hant">
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
<title>People Response And Sync</title>
<style>
:root {
--ink: #20242d;
--muted: #667085;
--line: #d7dce5;
--bg: #f6f8fb;
--panel: #ffffff;
--accent: #0f766e;
--amber: #9a6400;
}
body {
margin: 0;
background: var(--bg);
color: var(--ink);
font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", sans-serif;
}
main {
max-width: 900px;
margin: 0 auto;
padding: 28px 18px;
}
section {
background: var(--panel);
border: 1px solid var(--line);
border-radius: 8px;
padding: 22px;
}
h1 {
margin: 0 0 8px;
font-size: 24px;
line-height: 1.25;
}
h2 {
margin: 22px 0 8px;
font-size: 16px;
}
p, li {
font-size: 15px;
line-height: 1.55;
}
.badge {
display: inline-block;
color: var(--accent);
border: 1px solid #9ccbc4;
border-radius: 999px;
padding: 4px 10px;
font-size: 13px;
font-weight: 650;
}
.grid {
display: grid;
grid-template-columns: repeat(auto-fit, minmax(190px, 1fr));
gap: 10px;
margin: 18px 0;
}
.cell {
border: 1px solid var(--line);
border-radius: 6px;
padding: 10px;
background: #fbfcff;
}
.label {
display: block;
color: var(--muted);
font-size: 12px;
margin-bottom: 4px;
}
code {
font-family: ui-monospace, SFMono-Regular, Menlo, Consolas, monospace;
font-size: 13px;
}
.reply {
background: #eef8f6;
border-left: 4px solid var(--accent);
border-radius: 4px;
padding: 12px 14px;
}
.warn {
color: var(--amber);
font-weight: 650;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<main>
<section>
<span class="badge">People sync required</span>
<h1>把公司優勢變成客戶感受得到的證據</h1>
<p>董事長提醒:團隊對自己優勢的認知落後,客戶就不一定感受得到公司真正強的地方。這次不是請大家認同一句話,而是要回一個能被客戶聽懂、看見證據、帶到下一次對接的答案。</p>
<div class="grid">
<div class="cell"><span class="label">Owner</span>Louis / adoption owner</div>
<div class="cell"><span class="label">Respondents</span>3 related profiles</div>
<div class="cell"><span class="label">Due</span>2026-05-24 18:00</div>
<div class="cell"><span class="label">Pass</span>2/3 replies with proof</div>
</div>
<h2>請回覆</h2>
<ul>
<li>公司最值得讓客戶感受到的優勢是什麼?</li>
<li>哪一個案例、數字、交付物或客戶反應可以證明?</li>
<li>下一次對接客戶時,你會改哪一句話或哪一個動作?</li>
</ul>
<h2>格式</h2>
<div class="reply">
<code>優勢=...;證據=...;下一步=...;信心1-5=...;卡點=...</code>
</div>
<p class="warn">如果只回抽象口號,會標成 needs_coaching;如果未回,會標成 no_response 並升級給 owner 補具體案例。</p>
</section>
</main>
</body>
</html>

People Sync

Recipients

Use the related profile IDs from the PLS context:

  • 2a3628b7-d28f-4161-9ca8-ce15c4ead131
  • 45a2dfa3-9174-4f64-b333-33dfd9eafc87
  • b89e1674-24fe-4189-808d-0825914ee35a

LINE Short Summary

董事長提醒:我們對自己優勢的認知落後,客戶就感受不到公司真正強的地方。請每個人今天回一個「客戶聽得懂、看得到證據、下次對接會改」的優勢句。

Expected Adoption Signal

優勢=...;證據=...;下一步=...;信心1-5=...;卡點=...

Escalation

If no reply by due date, mark the person as no_response and ask Louis/adoption owner to assign a concrete customer case for them to rewrite.

Production Acceptance

Owner

Louis or assigned company adoption owner.

Due

2026-05-24 18:00 Asia/Taipei for D1 replies.

Acceptance Criteria

  • LINE prompt is sent to the three related people or their assigned owners.
  • At least two people reply before due date.
  • Each accepted reply has advantage, proof, next behavior, confidence score, and blocker.
  • Replies are scored on customer clarity, evidence strength, and actionability.
  • Missing replies trigger the escalation sentence.
  • The adoption owner decides whether related projects should merge, split, or upgrade after seeing replies.

Production Pass / Fail

Pass: response rate >= 67 percent and at least one reply can be converted into customer-facing language.

Limited: response rate >= 34 percent but all replies need coaching.

Fail: no replies or no proof-backed advantage statements.

People Response And Sync Adoption Pack

Job: df95fd16-f29a-475e-91c0-80819bc11f52 AI native project: 02b5a090-b490-425c-8f19-e2e6cc3aa51b Topic: people-response-and-sync Solution selection: communication / LINE message draft with production adoption pack

Situation

The latest signal is a chairman reflection: the team has fallen behind in self-recognition, so customers cannot feel the company's real advantages. The working problem is not only messaging. It is whether internal people can describe the company's advantage in a customer-facing way, reply with adoption evidence, and turn that into a repeatable sync habit.

D1 / D7 / D14 / D30 Path

D1: Send a LINE adoption prompt to the three related people and ask each person to reply with one customer-facing advantage statement, one proof example, and one change they will make in the next customer touchpoint.

D7: Turn replies into a shared adoption scorecard. Identify which project should merge, split, or upgrade based on repeated customer-facing gaps.

D14: Run one customer-facing rehearsal using the strongest replies. Convert weak or missing replies into coaching tasks and a short SOP.

D30: Upgrade repeated patterns into a PLS people-sync cadence: signal capture -> LINE prompt -> structured reply -> adoption score -> customer-proof library -> owner follow-up.

Purpose-To-Purpose E2E

Original purpose: the chairman wants the team to recognize and express company advantages so customers feel them.

Output: a LINE-ready adoption prompt, structured response schema, acceptance checklist, and sync workflow.

Human adoption: each related person replies with a customer-facing advantage, evidence, and next behavior commitment.

Business improvement: higher customer confidence, faster proposal alignment, fewer vague internal claims, and stronger conversion from internal capability to external perceived value.

Measurable loop: signal detected -> prompt sent -> replies captured -> quality scored -> customer script updated -> next customer meeting uses it -> feedback captured.

Value And Money Path

Revenue: stronger customer-facing advantage statements improve proposal conversion and renewal confidence.

Cost saving: reduces repeated leadership explanation and scattered alignment meetings.

Risk reduction: prevents internal overconfidence or under-confidence from leaking into customer conversations.

Conversion: turns abstract company strengths into proof-backed language customers can understand.

Labor leverage: creates a reusable reply schema and adoption memory for future people-sync signals.

Human Capability Improvement

The pack trains people to translate internal strength into customer proof. It improves decision quality by making each person answer: what advantage matters, what evidence proves it, what behavior changes, and by when.

Owner / Due / Acceptance

Owner: Louis or assigned company adoption owner.

Respondents: three related profile IDs from PLS context.

Due: 2026-05-24 18:00 Asia/Taipei.

Acceptance:

  • At least two of three related people reply by due date.
  • Each reply includes advantage, proof, next behavior, confidence score, and blocker.
  • Replies are scored against customer clarity, evidence strength, and actionability.
  • One follow-up project/action is created for weak or missing adoption.

Signal Annotations

Source

Source: company_signal_mastery Topic key: people-response-and-sync Recent signal count: 16 Related people: 3 Related projects: 3 Latest evidence: chairman reflection that the team's self-recognition is behind, causing customers not to feel the company's advantages.

Project Annotation

Project: 02b5a090-b490-425c-8f19-e2e6cc3aa51b

This should stay an AI-native people-sync project until the reply pattern repeats three times. If repeated, upgrade into a cadence or watchdog around customer-facing advantage adoption.

Person Annotation

Related profiles:

  • 2a3628b7-d28f-4161-9ca8-ce15c4ead131
  • 45a2dfa3-9174-4f64-b333-33dfd9eafc87
  • b89e1674-24fe-4189-808d-0825914ee35a

These people are adoption respondents, not passive recipients.

Decision Annotation

Decision needed: should the company handle this as a one-time LINE sync, a recurring SOP, or a scorecard?

Recommendation: start with a one-time LINE adoption prompt and structured reply. Upgrade if weak or missing replies repeat.

Risk Annotation

  • People may agree emotionally but provide no evidence.
  • Replies may stay internal and fail to become customer-facing language.
  • The signal can become a leadership complaint instead of a behavior change loop.
  • Without a schema, PLS cannot compare adoption quality across people and projects.

Source Project Handling

Related source projects:

  • b3138a2e-6641-4cc1-859d-8b1d0abf2d3b
  • bbdb46d5-0385-4181-8cba-82785036ed96
  • 6c12ff6d-6ab9-462f-8963-7a31b776fc53

Do not merge them yet. First use replies to classify whether each project is blocked by messaging, proof, owner adoption, or actual capability gap.

Skill Usage

Applied model: purpose_e2e_toolbox_v2

Application

30-day path: D1/D7/D14/D30 moves the signal from one LINE prompt into repeatable people-sync cadence.

Purpose-to-purpose: chairman reflection becomes reply artifact, adoption behavior, customer perception improvement, and measurable follow-up.

Value/money: the pack links adoption quality to conversion, reduced leadership rework, and lower customer-message risk.

Human capability: respondents must decide, prove, and change behavior rather than acknowledge a vague message.

Solution stack: context framework, LINE workflow, reply schema, adoption scorecard, acceptance criteria, and upgrade path.

Anti-laziness gate: includes openable artifact, owner/due/acceptance, E2E evidence plan, data model, people sync, learning memory, and decision record.

Solution Selection

Selected Type

communication / LINE message draft, packaged with production adoption artifacts.

Options Considered

  1. Communication only: fastest, but too easy to become a loose message.
  2. Problem brief: useful if the issue were still unclear, but the signal already names the core gap.
  3. Project cadence: useful if repeated, but too heavy for this first one-off sync.
  4. Communication plus adoption schema: fast enough for LINE and structured enough for PLS to measure.

Recommendation

Use option 4.

Reason

The immediate bottleneck is people response and adoption. A LINE prompt is appropriate, but it must produce structured evidence. The output therefore includes a message pack, reply schema, scorecard fields, acceptance checks, and learning memory.

Upgrade Rule

If similar people-sync prompts happen three times, upgrade to SOP + scorecard. If weekly adoption tracking becomes necessary, upgrade to dashboard/tool.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment