Is this one step or two? Someone has to put it on the agenda first.
Talking about an element
One thread per sticky. People and the facilitator write in the same place.Two channels, not two products. The session chat holds the conversation about the board as a whole; a thread on an element holds the conversation about that element. Both accept a person or the facilitator, and neither can change the board on its own — every proposed edit arrives as a dashed ghost that a person accepts or dismisses.
Approve change
2 MESSAGESTwo. "Approve change" does not say who acts or what changes. I have drafted the missing command and the event it produces.
- One thread, both kinds of author. A comment to a colleague and a question to the facilitator are the same object with a different addressee. Nobody has to guess which panel to open.
- Proposals are ghosts. Anything the facilitator would add is drawn dashed steel at 72% — the same treatment as an assumption — and is not on the board until accepted. Dismissing keeps the reason in the thread.
- The facilitator is steel, never a sticky colour. Color belongs to the domain; the tool speaks in steel. No avatar, no personality, no emoji.
- Threads count as open items. A badge on the sticky, a line in the review queue, and a number on the phase. An unanswered thread blocks nothing but is never invisible.
- Session chat is for the board, not the element. Ask it about the whole flow and it answers with references you can click; ask it about one sticky and it moves the question into that sticky’s thread rather than answering twice.
- Selection is the context. Select three stickies and the chat’s placeholder becomes "about these 3". No prompt engineering, no @-mentions.
Session
14 PEOPLE · 62 MINIntake reads cleanly end to end. Approval does not: two commands have no actor and one arrow crosses into Scheduling without a name.