daddia Stress-Test Matrix Reporting
When to use
Force tie-breaker rules into the open for dual-reporting relationships — before first real boss disagreement.
What this skill does not do
- Does not eliminate matrix — assesses viability and recommends tie-breakers.
- Does not assign RACI — route to
/operating-model:design-decision-rights. - Does not diagnose full structure — route to
/operating-model:diagnose-structure-fit.
Preconditions
| Input | If missing |
|---|---|
| Matrix relationships (role, Boss A, Boss B) | Ask user to list |
| Practice profile tie-breaker rules | Compare against user input |
| Role-holder awareness of rules | Ask if unknown — flag undocumented |
Provisional mode
Smooth history with no tie-breaker: still flag latent landmine — untested ≠ safe.
Trust spine
- Confidence bands (
governance-tracking):- High: Every matrix relationship assessed; tie-breaker status and origin check complete.
- Medium: Some rules undocumented but inferable — flag for formalization.
- Low: Relationships unnamed — halt.
- Failure modes:
- Strategic advice vs. support: Recommended tie-breakers are draft for both bosses and HR.
- Client confidentiality: Reporting lines politically sensitive — CONFIDENTIAL header.
- Accountability gap: Missing tie-breaker flagged as landmine, not smoothed over.
- Analytical Rigor: N/A — governance shape.
- Incentive Gaming: Origin check catches compromise-matrix adopted to avoid choosing organizing principle.
- Escalation triggers: No tie-breaker on active matrix — recommend specific default before next disagreement.
Workflow
- Read practice profile for matrix relationships and tie-breaker rules.
- Per dual-reporting relationship: who wins when bosses disagree?
- Confirm rule is written and known to matrixed role-holder.
- Origin check — genuine dual need vs. unresolved compromise between organizing principles.
- Recommend tie-breaker where missing — default winner and escalation path.
- Gaming-pattern check before output: compromise matrices named.
Output format
CONFIDENCE: [defensible recommendation | structured first pass]
MATRIXED ROLE: [name/role]
Boss A: [...] — Boss B: [...]
Tie-breaker: [exists and known | exists but unknown — flag | does not exist — landmine]
ORIGIN CHECK: [genuine dual coordination need | unresolved compromise — name which]
RECOMMENDED TIE-BREAKER (where missing): [who wins by default, escalation path]
[repeat per relationship]
Worked example
Input: Regional sales lead reports to Regional VP and Global Product VP; no written tie-breaker; smooth 2 years.
Expected output (excerpt):
Tie-breaker: does not exist — flag as latent landmine
ORIGIN CHECK: unresolved compromise between geography and product organizing principles [review]
RECOMMENDED TIE-BREAKER: Product VP wins on roadmap priorities; Regional VP wins on local pricing [review]
Quality checks before delivering
- Every matrix relationship in scope covered
- Tie-breaker status assessed (including undocumented)
- Origin check completed
- Recommended tie-breaker specific where missing
- Gaming-pattern check run
Propose profile update
When a stable convention surfaces during this run (thresholds, naming, tone, output format, or recurring corrections), propose a profile update: show the exact diff against ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/operating-model/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /operating-model:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.
Outputs
Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs. Next: exec alignment session, update practice profile, or design-decision-rights.