Independent judgement for decision safety.
Independent judgement for decision safety.
Independent assessment of whether your product metrics are decision-safe.
Most teams have dashboards and tracking. The hesitation starts when the numbers stop behaving as expected.
Product Metrics Assessment exists for that gap: between having metrics and being able to rely on them under scrutiny.
This tends to show up in recognisable moments:
- A metric changes and no one can explain why in product terms.
- Two teams use the same dashboard and leave with different conclusions.
- Definitions are debated longer than the decision itself.
- “Activity” rises, but intent remains unclear.
- Confidence erodes and people compensate with caveats, side calculations, or gut feel.
The problem is rarely a lack of data. It’s uncertainty about what the data means — and whether it still maps to the behaviour you think you’re observing.
A Product Metrics Assessment is a bounded judgement of whether the signals you already use can safely support the decisions being made.
It treats platforms and tools as infrastructure. The assessment focuses on interpretation: what your metrics actually represent, where meaning has drifted, and where confidence is being borrowed from undocumented assumptions.
The output is an assessment artefact you can use internally:
- A clear judgement on which metrics and signals are decision-safe, and where they are not
- The assumptions interpretation depends on (including the ones no longer spoken aloud)
- Failure modes: how these metrics mislead teams, and under what conditions
- Ambiguity zones: where the signal cannot carry the weight being put on it
- Clarity on what the current metrics can and cannot justify
Teams living inside the system often inherit interpretive commitments without noticing:
- consent boundaries that change what behaviour is observable
- session or identity assumptions that don’t match real usage
- instrumentation gaps that look like product behaviour
- “like-for-like” continuity during changes that quietly alters meaning over time
When these constraints exist, reporting can remain technically consistent while becoming decision-unsafe.
This work is usually engaged when the consequences of misinterpretation rise — for example:
- leadership change, increased scrutiny, audit, or board exposure
- migrations or measurement transitions
- chronic disagreement that stalls decisions
- suspicion that the organisation is not seeing the full picture, without a way to prove it
Assessment-only. Implementation remains with your team.