Protocols for Business

Business applications of protocols, including AI adoption and organizational coordination, with case studies and essays published in Protocolized.

Led by Rafael Fernandez — Biweekly Mondays, 8am Pacific

← All Special Interest Groups

Associated Project

Meeting Archive — 31 sessions

  • June 22, 2026
    SIGPfB Branding Discussion and Rebrand Decision
    Glue Factory as a rebrand name optionBrand positioning and style directionStakeholder feedback on rebrand proposalP4B rebranding necessityAgency vs. consulting firm brand identity

    Participants: timber1997

    The SIGPfB group discussed rebranding efforts for P4B (Protocols for Business), with timber1997 presenting positive feedback received on the name "Glue Factory" as a potential rebrand candidate. The proposed name was noted as appropriately positioned to convey an agency-style brand identity rather than a large consulting firm aesthetic, which appears to be the desired direction. The participant expressed personal support for the Glue Factory option while acknowledging that consensus exists around the necessity for P4B to undergo rebranding. The final decision on the rebrand was deferred to leadership.

    • Glue Factory has received positive feedback from multiple stakeholders as a potential rebrand name for P4B.
    • The proposed name Glue Factory conveys an agency-style brand positioning rather than a large consulting firm approach, which aligns with the group's intended image.
    • There is consensus that P4B requires a rebrand, with final decision authority resting with leadership.
    View discussion in Discord →
  • June 15, 2026
    Protocols for Business - Benchmarking and Projects
    Meeting logistics and timing coordinationRadiology study progressDemo presentation preparation

    Participants: rafa_0x

    The Protocols for Business SIGPfB group held a meeting on June 15, 2026, focused on benchmarking and projects. The meeting organizer, rafa_0x, announced the meeting start time across two major time zones to accommodate participants. During the brief transcript captured, two main items were noted: an ongoing radiology study and a scheduled demo presentation. A participant was called out as being on the agenda to present the demo.

    • A radiology study is currently in progress within the SIGPfB group's work.
    • The meeting was scheduled across multiple time zones (5:30pm CET / 11:30am EST), indicating international participation.
    • A demo was planned as part of the meeting agenda with specific presenters identified.
    View discussion in Discord →
  • June 1, 2026
    Protocols for Business Summer 2026 Direction Discussion
    Publishing blog and CMM (Capability Maturity Model) on Protocolized platformArchival time and Kits concepts in protocol theorySummer 2026 strategic direction for SIGPfBBlog draft review and publication timeline

    Participants: rafa_0x, timber1997, tomguarriello, sachbenny

    The SIGPfB group convened on June 1, 2026, to discuss their summer 2026 strategic direction. The meeting focused on accelerating the publication of their blog and CMM documentation on the Protocolized platform, which participants identified as an important checkpoint for their initiatives. Sachbenny advocated for this publication and shared a draft blog document for review. During the discussion, rafa_0x acknowledged Sachin's significant theoretical contributions to the group, particularly his development of concepts such as 'archival time' and 'Kits,' which appear to be central to their protocol work.

    • The group prioritized publishing the blog and CMM documentation on Protocolized as a checkpoint for their summer initiatives.
    • Sachin (sachbenny) has emerged as a leading theorist in the group, having coined key concepts including 'archival time' and 'Kits' within protocol theory.
    • The meeting involved reviewing draft blog content and ensuring alignment on publication across platforms.
    View discussion in Discord →
  • May 18, 2026
    Protocols for Business: Protocol Fiction Aesthetics and AI-Native Organization
    Etymology and origins of business terminology (vertical integration)Protocol fiction aesthetics and visual metaphors for complex systemsTerraforming as unifying metaphor for factories, rooms, and agent spacesAccessibility and communication strategy for mainstream audiencesAI-native companies and new technological layer of natural laws

    Participants: rafa_0x, _vgr, sachbenny, timber1997, drwip, tomguarriello

    The SIGPfB group discussed the etymology of business terminology and explored why certain terms may not make intuitive sense upon scrutiny. The conversation then shifted to developing better communication frameworks for their complex protocol work. A key proposal emerged around using 'terraforming' as a unifying visual metaphor to explain various organizational concepts like factories, rooms, and agent spaces in more accessible ways.

    The group acknowledged a critical challenge: modern audiences have limited attention spans and are unlikely to read detailed reports, so content must be optimized for both human tweet-length consumption and LLM processing. They introduced 'New Nature' as a branding initiative aimed at mainstream audiences, which frames technology and AI protocols as creating an entirely new layer of natural laws. The closing discussion connected these ideas to the concept of AI-native companies operating within this new technological landscape, aligning with conclusions from international distributed AI workshops.

    • The term 'vertical integration' may derive from physical factory architecture (steam engine shafts) rather than supply chain concepts, though Ford's mines-to-cars integration is likely the actual origin.
    • A 'terraforming' visual metaphor was proposed to unify discussions of factories, rooms, and agent spaces as a more accessible framework for explaining complex protocols.
    • Content needs to be LLM-friendly and designed for non-readers, as modern attention spans are limited to tweet-length content, though the underlying reports are substantive.
    • The group is developing a 'New Nature' branding strategy to make their work accessible to mainstream audiences, positioning technology-created AI protocols as a new layer of natural laws.
    • AI-native companies and products represent a post-adoption reality where artificial beings operate within this new technological nature, similar to conclusions from distributed AI workshops.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • May 4, 2026
    SIGPfB Study Group: AI, Robotics, and Technology Adoption Patterns
    Robotics projects and hardware funding needsLLM/AI adoption patterns and user behaviorHistorical parallels between phreaking, telephone, and AI adoptionMachine behavior and robot autonomyRobot design impact and local economic applications

    Participants: rafa_0x, drevius., sachbenny, bah.eth, stevebeans., anurajenp, plague_year, timber1997

    The SIGPfB study group discussed multiple interconnected topics centered on robotics and AI adoption. The group reviewed robotics projects and discussed securing funding for hardware. A significant portion of discussion focused on understanding AI/LLM adoption patterns by drawing historical parallels to phreaking and early telephone adoption, with participants noting that rural or marginalized internet populations may be early adopters because they experience greater time constraints that LLMs can address. The conversation explored how robot design and aesthetics impact perception, and highlighted emerging possibilities for robots that can autonomously find ways to fund themselves through local services while maintaining the ability to learn and acquire new capabilities. The group reviewed several projects and resources related to machine behavior and robot autonomy.

    • LLM adoption may follow patterns similar to phreaking and early telephone adoption, with rural/marginalized internet populations adopting first due to experiencing greater time gaps.
    • Unlike spatial technologies (phones, cars), LLMs are fundamentally time-related technologies, making adoption driven by those who feel time constraints most acutely.
    • There is tension in the AI space with engineers repeatedly claiming users are 'using LLMs/agents wrong,' paralleling historical technology adoption friction.
    • Robots combining autonomous task-finding with useful local services (e.g., hiring themselves as DJs, acquiring necessary equipment) represent an emerging economic model worth exploring.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • April 20, 2026
    Study Group: Protocols for Business - API Design and Control Models
    One-way vs. bidirectional API control mechanismsEvaluation of MCP (Model Control Protocol) viabilitySpreadsheet-based auditability and discretion in analytical workflowsRole separation between analysts and data processing departmentsCase-level residues and material decision documentation

    Participants: rafa_0x, sachbenny

    The study group examined API control architectures and protocol viability, with rafa_0x presenting a clarity pitch document for discussion. A key observation centered on the one-way nature of API control mechanisms, where ownership can modify parameters but users cannot, which rafa_0x considers a suboptimal design choice. This critique led to broader skepticism about whether MCP will remain a persistent protocol in future implementations.

    The discussion pivoted to examining practical applications of spreadsheet-based systems in business workflows, particularly regarding auditability and discretionary authority. The group identified that spreadsheets serve an important function in documenting case-level residues, enabling modeling-assumption review, and formalizing sign-offs on material decisions. A critical distinction emerged: analysts who own analytical models retain discretionary control over their work, whereas clerical staff feeding data to central data processing departments operate under more restrictive parameters, representing different governance models (NC/CNC distinctions).

    The session appears to have explored how protocol design choices—particularly around control asymmetries and authority distribution—impact practical business operations, with implications for downstream processes including setup, fixturing, first-article inspection, and process engineering responses.

    • The API architecture discussed employs one-way control where only the owner can make changes while users cannot, which rafa_0x identifies as a design limitation.
    • Rafa_0x expresses skepticism about MCP's long-term persistence in the protocol landscape, suggesting it may not be a sustainable solution.
    • Spreadsheet-based systems provide valuable auditability and enable modeling-assumption review with sign-off on material decisions, with control distributed based on role (analyst discretion vs. clerk limitations).
    • There is a meaningful distinction in operational control between different stakeholder types—analysts retain decision-making authority while centralized data processing departments operate within constrained parameters.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • April 6, 2026
    Study Group: Protocols for Business - Business Models and System Design
    Hardened systems vs. soft code-space: transition challengesAgent deployment in game-like environmentsBusiness launch economics and capital efficiencyMarket expansion through right-sizing and accessibilityAutonomous worlds and protocol design

    Participants: rafa_0x, timber1997, sachbenny

    The SIGPfB study group examined protocols for business with focus on system design philosophy and business economics. The discussion centered on a FERNANDEZ Flow brochure and connections to autonomous worlds literature. Participants debated the transition from flexible to hardened systems, noting that jumping directly to hardened design upfront is problematic. A key insight emerged around business launch economics: as compute costs decrease and can be spent in smaller increments, the barrier to starting ventures may drop below the cost of traditional business planning. The group drew parallels to the "Bitter Lesson" in AI and discussed how right-sizing (similar to how Uber's bikes and scooters expanded the mobility market beyond taxi replacement) could enable new business categories rather than just replacing existing ones.

    • There is a significant but difficult transition path from current 'soft' code-space to properly hardened systems, requiring careful design rather than rushing upfront hardening.
    • Launching businesses may become cheaper than writing business plans as compute becomes the primary capital expenditure, spent in smaller, faster increments.
    • Market expansion occurs not just through cost reduction but through right-sizing offerings to enable new categories of service (e.g., Uber bikes/scooters expanding total rides beyond traditional taxis).
    • Jay's work advocates for video-game-like environments where agents can be deployed, connecting to broader concepts in autonomous worlds.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • March 23, 2026
    Study Group: Protocols for Business - AI Models, World Simulation, and Data Requirements
    Video as primary input for atomic AI systems versus text-based approachesComputational and resource demands of video-anchored AI modelsSpecificity and precision in neural network architecture and world modelingData labeling challenges in large language model developmentProfessional versus retail user approaches to AI tool utilization

    Participants: rafa_0x, timber1997, drevius.

    The SIGPfB study group discussed emerging approaches to AI model architecture, particularly the shift toward video-anchored systems rather than text-based ones. Participants explored the implications of this shift, including massive increases in computational demands and the need for continued data labeling at scale. A key insight emerged from discussion of the fruit fly brain simulation: the specific arrangement of connections—not just their presence or distribution—encodes behavior, suggesting that precision in neural architecture matters fundamentally. The group also touched on philosophical implications around modeling systems that are deeply entangled with their broader context. The conversation concluded with observations about how different user groups—professional power users versus casual adopters—may require different engagement strategies, with high-immersion approaches potentially leading to burnout among professionals while passive approaches suit retail users better.

    • Video may be easier to obtain fresh and ongoing compared to non-polluted text data, but video-anchored AI systems would dramatically increase demand for compute and electronics.
    • The precise, specific arrangement of connections in neural networks—not merely their existence or statistical distribution—encodes behavior and computation, as demonstrated by fruit fly brain simulation.
    • Truly modeling complex systems like atoms requires understanding their full entanglement with the universe, suggesting world models must account for systemic interdependence.
    • Professional versus retail user dynamics in AI adoption mirror trading markets, where high-immersion power users face burnout while casual users may benefit more from passive approaches.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • March 9, 2026
    SIGPfB Study Group: Water Data Management Protocols & Tensions Analysis
    Speed vs. Defensibility tension as structural driver in protocol designState-level standards adoption through funding conditions rather than direct regulationWater data management in California: governance structures, reporting requirements, and groundwater complexityBuilding reusable 'Tensions' framework and LLM-powered tools for protocol analysisCase studies in data standardization: healthcare (HIPAA/Cures Act), transit (GTFS), water management

    Participants: rafa_0x, timber1997, sachbenny, anurajenp, plague_year, drevius., matt_ms, thewanderingeditor

    The SIGPfB study group convened to develop protocols for water data management in California, with rafa_0x leading analysis of structural tensions in protocol design. The group identified Speed vs. Defensibility as the primary tension—showing how friction in approval processes (e.g., inability to freely edit submitted reports) and political need for coalition alignment actually support thoroughness and defensibility. Multiple case studies were examined: California water governance (AB1755), healthcare data sharing (HIPAA/21st Century Cures Act), and transit standards (GTFS), revealing that standards adoption succeeds through conditional funding mechanisms rather than mandates, provided scope stays narrow.

    The team created a GitHub repository to develop proposal versions and began building tools to automate tension identification and analysis, recognizing this as potentially generalizable across government reporting and corporate compliance domains. Members included plague_year (from Metropolitan Water District), timber1997, sachbenny, and others contributing domain expertise and methodological guidance. Key next steps included narrowing project scope, validating California water governance statements with domain experts, conducting stakeholder interviews, and potentially shadowing water management meetings.

    Secondary goals emerged around using LLMs as research aids and developing a reusable framework for identifying and analyzing "Monstrous Protocols"—high-variance systems where practitioners genuinely disagree on outcomes. The group also identified upcoming relevant events (CA Water Data Summit, CA Climate Bond water data infrastructure report) and aimed to loop in additional advisors as the project matured.

    • Political defensibility and blame containment drive protocol design more than pure efficiency—shared exposure surfaces and reconciliation friction slow commitments until coalitions align on 'the number' and 'the story'.
    • States successfully mandate standards through conditional funding mechanisms (e.g., highway funding tied to drinking age laws) rather than direct regulation, creating adoption cascades when scope is narrow and implementation burden is low.
    • The shift from non-sharing to data sharing in healthcare came not from technical standards but from inverting legal risk models—making withholding data more costly than sharing it (Information Blocking Rule).
    • Monstrous Protocols (high-variance systems with genuine practitioner disagreement) are valuable training grounds for developing 'variance literacy' and 'adjacency mapping' skills essential for frontier protocol work.
    • A generalizable 'Tensions' skill or framework developed from California water governance could be applied across domains like government reporting, corporate compliance, and other information-sharing systems.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • February 16, 2026
    SIGPfB Orienteering: Protocols, AI Agents, and Business Optimization
    Installation vs. Deployment and Stabilization processesAI Assistance versus True Autonomous AgentsReproducibility in protocol implementationAnnealing Processes for optimizationUser Generated SoftwareRuntime Procurement

    Participants: rafa_0x, timber1997

    The SIGPfB group held an optional orienteering meeting to identify key themes for the protocols-for-business initiative. Rafa outlined six priority topics including the distinction between installation/deployment, reproducibility, annealing processes, AI assistance models, user-generated software, and runtime procurement. The group discussed a science fiction analogy about machine language programmers discovering spaceship optimizations that higher-level AI abstractions had missed over centuries of optimization, suggesting that excessive abstraction can obscure valuable opportunities. The meeting touched on practical concerns including reproducibility and the appropriate role of LLMs in business contexts, with Rafa beginning to explore where LLMs actually provide business value.

    • There is a conceptual distinction between AI assistance (abstraction layers) and true agents that warrants exploration for business protocol design.
    • Low-level optimization opportunities may be missed when systems rely entirely on AI abstractions; domain-specific knowledge can uncover novel solutions that broad AI optimization misses.
    • Milestone Saves documentation has been established as a reference point for tracking progress in this working group.
    • The group is exploring where LLMs provide genuine business value versus where they add unnecessary abstraction layers.
    View discussion in Discord →
  • February 9, 2026
    SIGPfB Study Group: Auction Protocols and Transaction Mechanisms
    Auction protocols as transaction mechanisms between untrusted partiesReal-world applications of auctions (spectrum pricing, airport allocation, food distribution)Interface design and power dynamics in auction participationScaling limitations and protocol robustness across different market conditionsComparison between auction mechanisms and voting/policy mechanismsVibecoding experiments and community dashboard tools

    Participants: rafa_0x, timber1997, sachbenny, thewanderingeditor, zhgnv

    The SIGPfB study group convened to examine auction protocols as transaction mechanisms in business contexts. The session moved from management protocols to transaction protocols, using examples like GitHub's implementation on Git and Google Ads built on Vickrey Auctions. Participants discussed where auctions shape industries (spectrum pricing, airport allocation) and explored the design space concealed by the term 'auction.' A critical insight emerged around interface power—auctions function effectively with sufficient buyer/seller volume but risk manipulation when participant groups are limited. The group noted that specific auction implementations may be fragile even as the broader family of auction mechanisms remains robust, drawing parallels to voting mechanism limitations. Participants also shared vibecoding experiments and tools, including government accountability research and custom slash commands for audit purposes.

    • Auction protocols mediate business between untrusted parties and serve as foundations for major products (Git, Google Ads), representing a critical design space often obscured by the umbrella term 'auction.'
    • The interface to participate in auctions holds significant power; auctions work best with sufficient volume of sellers and buyers, but risk becoming rigged when supplier groups are limited.
    • Specific auction implementations may be weak protocols despite 'Auctions' as a family being strong, with sensitivities requiring protocol adoption shifts—similar to limitations seen in voting mechanisms like plurality voting.
    • Auction mechanisms and voting mechanisms share structural similarities in their scaling limitations and may represent a family of related mechanism design problems.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • January 26, 2026
    PfB SIG January 26, 2026: Vibe Code Updates
    Vibe coding as failure delay and constraint-driven developmentLLM-assisted coding as project management rather than traditional programmingRecognizing 'software-shaped problems' to avoid overengineering non-software issuesAgent setup and subagent workflows as emerging development patternsOpen source sustainability under AI-generated contribution pressure

    Participants: sachbenny, stevebeans., rafa_0x, zhgnv, timber1997, plague_year

    The SIGPfB group discussed advances in 'vibe coding'—using LLMs to generate code through constraint-driven, iterative workflows. Participants noted that vibe coding excels at failure delay but struggles with originality, as LLM-generated code tends to regress to median patterns present in training data. A critical reframe emerged: coding with LLMs is fundamentally project management work—orchestrating agents, subagents, and constraints rather than direct implementation. The group highlighted the importance of recognizing 'software-shaped problems' to avoid wasting effort on non-software solutions. Practical examples included local-memory approaches like Clawd Code and real-world applications like zhgnv's vibecoded wiki parser using MCPs. The discussion concluded with concerns about asymmetric pressure on open source maintainers from AI-generated contributions, drawing parallels to previous infrastructure challenges.

    • Vibe-coded projects tend to revert to mediocre, zeitgeist-aligned patterns because they reflect the model's training data rather than novel solutions.
    • Coding with LLMs is fundamentally closer to project management than traditional coding, requiring orchestration and constraint navigation rather than technical implementation.
    • Homebrew tooling and local-first approaches (like Clawd Code using local memory) are becoming more accessible, shifting what was previously hobby-programmer territory into mainstream capability.
    • The emerging 'agent setup' problem mirrors historical 'dev environment setup' friction, suggesting new tooling paradigms may introduce their own configuration overhead.
    • AI-generated contributions create asymmetric pressure on open source maintainers, potentially flooding commons with low-quality PRs.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • January 12, 2026
    SIGPfB Meeting: Enterprise AI Protocols, Data Curation, and Research Archetypes
    Data curation complexity and costs in enterprise AI systemsRisk of economic disruption from poorly integrated AI models at scaleSIGPfB framework positioning: Protocol Consulting, Design, and EngineeringAI agents as analysts and researchersResearch archetypes and cognitive modes (Naturalists, Engineers, Managers)

    Participants: rafa_0x, timber1997, sachbenny, drevius., .unipuff

    The SIGPfB group convened to discuss enterprise AI protocols and business applications. Participants analyzed the hidden complexity of data curation in AI systems, noting that memory costs and software layers create enormous expenses for bespoke LLM development, with only marginal gains justifying custom stacks as standardized solutions mature. The group debated systemic risk from model rollouts at scale and discussed the vulnerability of deeply integrated AI systems. They refined their working framework for protocol-focused work into three main categories: Protocol Consulting (client-facing advisory), Protocol Design (technical protocol specifications like auction models), and Protocol Engineering (implementation work like AI orchestration layers). Discussion shifted toward AI agents functioning as analysts and researchers. Late in the thread, participant .unipuff revealed convergence with their PhD thesis research on research archetypes, proposing a typology based on cognitive modes and styles (Naturalists with vertical cognition, Engineers and Managers with horizontal cognition) rather than operational functions alone, suggesting important complementarities across research approaches.

    • Data curation after collection involves numerous software layers and represents a major cost center for enterprise AI vendors, similar to hidden complexity in everyday technology like microwaves.
    • Bespoke LLM stacks have enormous marginal costs, but marginal gains may justify investment; eventually standardized phenotypical stacks will emerge with diminishing returns to customization.
    • The group's framework distinguishing Protocol Consulting, Design, and Engineering converges with academic research on research archetypes based on cognitive modes (vertical vs. horizontal) rather than operational distinctions alone.
    • Research archetypes are epistemically important and function through tensions and complementarities rather than simple trade-offs between different cognitive styles and work environments.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • December 29, 2025
    SIGPfB Dec 29th Meeting: Protocol Thinking as Design Framework
    Protocols as design objects and trade-off engines in business contextsSpeed/time as an oblique axis for understanding protocol strain under new conditionsAudience identification and messaging strategy for protocol-thinking contentCase study positioning: Boom Supersonic as anchor example of protocol failureShift from abstract protocol theory to embodied, visible protocol literacy

    Participants: rafa_0x, timber1997

    The SIGPfB group met to refine their framing of protocols in business contexts. A core tension emerged: how to shift readers from abstract protocol theory to embodied recognition of protocols everywhere. The group settled on speed/time as a powerful oblique lens—when one business wheel accelerates (e.g., Slack adoption), it can create dead time and coordination strain elsewhere, revealing implicit protocols that were previously invisible. They identified Boom Supersonic's calendar-versus-communication misalignment as the anchor case, with Y2K and version control as supporting examples. A critical insight was audience clarity: the stated target is senior executives, but the actual primary reader is likely the analyst or staff layer adjacent to leadership. The group concluded that effective writing must alternate between 2–3 sentences of conceptual work and a return to vivid, grounded examples to maintain reader engagement and legibility.

    • Protocol thinking is primarily about learning to see existing coordination structures; disruptive events (COVID, Y2K) make implicit constraints legible and turn them into explicit design objects.
    • Speed and temporal regime changes create protocol strain; the goal is to arm senior managers with a diagnostic lens to recognize where existing protocols fail under new scale/speed conditions.
    • Writing strategy must alternate between conceptual explanation and vivid concrete examples; the primary audience is mid-level analysts/staff who read carefully and then retell to executives, not executives reading directly.
    • Protocols function as safety and variance-management mechanisms; design trades are central—you gain new protection in one dimension at the cost of constraints in another.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • December 8, 2025
    Protocols for Business: LLM Impact on Version Control and Business Processes
    LLM limitations with sequences and version controlCore business protocols resistant to AI adoption (traceability, historical narrative, undo functionality)Impact of near-zero reproduction costs on traditional undo mechanismsCode auditing policy changes needed due to LLM usageOrganizational LLM usage policies and governanceEmployee training and LLM literacy in organizations

    Participants: timber1997, rafa_0x, sachbenny

    The SIGPfB group discussed fundamental challenges LLMs present to core business protocols, particularly around version control, traceability, and historical record-keeping. Timber1997 identified that LLMs are ineffective at handling sequences and maintaining version narratives, while rafa_0x highlighted missing traceability and checkpoints as key problems. The group explored a counterintuitive insight: when reproduction costs are near-zero, the traditional need for 'undo' functionality diminishes, even if perfect reproduction is impossible.

    The discussion evolved to focus on organizational policy implications rather than pure technology limitations. Rafa_0x and timber1997 identified that the core issue isn't creating LLM usage policies, but rather fundamentally rethinking code auditing and planning policies to account for LLM-assisted work. They distinguished between two different policy approaches: adapting audit/plan procedures for activities where employees use LLMs, and establishing organizational standards for which LLM models and tools are approved. A third consideration emerged around the need for basic LLM literacy training ('LLMs 101') for employees.

    • LLMs struggle with version control and maintaining sequential traceability, which are fundamental to business protocols but not fully protected from AI impact.
    • When reproduction costs approach zero (even if exact reproduction is impossible), traditional 'undo' functionality becomes less critical, enabling strategies like full codebase refactoring.
    • Organizations need to adapt code auditing and planning policies specifically to account for LLM-assisted development, rather than implementing generic LLM usage policies.
    • The discussion shifted from LLM adoption resistance to examining how auditing, planning, and governance policies should evolve in response to widespread employee LLM usage.
    View discussion in Discord →
  • December 1, 2025
    Protocols for Business: LLM Governance and Organizational Decision-Making
    Multisig protocols as tempo-management tools for high-risk decisionsMandatory vs. prohibited LLM usage patterns in organizationsLLM-in-the-loop review processes and their enforcement mechanismsConfidentiality policies for LLM deployment in business contextsDistinguishing between LLM processing and production deployment

    Participants: rafa_0x, timber1997, ggnore999, sachbenny, drevius.

    The SIGPfB group discussed emerging protocols for managing LLM usage in organizations, building on the conceptual framework of multisig governance. The conversation centered on how multisigs function as decision-tempo stabilizers that counteract rapid iteration cycles, preventing catastrophic variance in critical decisions. Participants explored which organizational activities should mandate LLM involvement—particularly legal review, knowledge acquisition, and communications—versus which activities should prohibit LLM use, such as deploying systems the organization doesn't fully understand.

    A key theme was distinguishing between LLM processing and production deployment. The group proposed that all non-confidential organizational information should be LLM-reachable and processed through LLMs for quality improvement, but a governance layer should control what actually reaches publication. Timber1997 introduced the concept of LLM-in-the-loop signing workflows where review is mandatory but not binding, creating friction at critical decision points. The discussion also surfaced tension between upskilling through LLMs versus outsourcing work to systems that organizations cannot independently verify.

    The meeting concluded with emerging consensus around specific policies: mandatory LLM use for legal documents and learning; prohibition on uploading confidential information to personal LLMs; and enforcement mechanisms that treat LLM deployment similarly to production code access—requiring appropriate organizational roles and friction points.

    • Multisig systems function as 'counterpoint protocols' that deliberately slow decision tempo to prevent catastrophic variance in critical smart contract decisions, contrasting with Lean's MVP acceleration model.
    • Organizations should mandate LLM usage for legal review, learning unfamiliar topics, and communications guidance—while prohibiting deployment of systems the organization doesn't understand.
    • The critical distinction is that all non-confidential content should go through LLM processing, but not all processed content should reach publication or production, requiring governance layers between review and deployment.
    • LLM-in-the-loop signing processes where prompts and reviews are mandatory (though not binding) can force beneficial tempo downshifts while maintaining organizational flexibility.
    • Clear policies are needed to prevent confidential personnel or company information from being uploaded to personal LLMs, while keeping non-confidential information LLM-accessible.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • November 24, 2025
    SIGPfB Optional Discussion: Time Estimation Chaos & Protocol Development Approach
    Time Estimation Chaos problem revisited from basicsFat vs. Lean business structure concepts and adoption barriersProtocol definition and solution discussion methodologyPBR (Protocol-Based Reference) series format and executionVisual communication standards for diagrams and documentationCase study development as prioritized next step

    Participants: rafa_0x, drevius., timber1997, sachbenny

    Rafa opened the discussion by proposing a return to basics on the Time Estimation Chaos topic to enable meaningful analysis and protocol development. Drevius responded with a pragmatic framework emphasizing that item 3 (tension definition and protocol solutions) offers the best return on investment, while the Fat vs. Lean concept hasn't yet resonated. He advocated for producing small, practical tools through terse, dense documentation rather than exploring broad conceptual worldviews. Drevius offered to create a cohesive visual design system (consistent colors and fonts) for the PBR series, similar to what was done for the tensions article, to ensure professional consistency across outputs.

    The group converged on prioritizing case study development and the PBR medium format as the near-term focus, with the belief that this concrete work will naturally reveal the longer-term strategy without needing to specify it upfront. Timber added a note about being willing to eliminate ideas that don't serve the work—a principle borrowed from fiction writing—suggesting a disciplined approach to scope management. The overall tone emphasized moving from abstract discussion toward actionable, well-crafted outputs.

    • The group should return to foundational concepts around Time Estimation Chaos to enable deeper understanding and discussion, rather than building on incomplete prior work.
    • Drevius advocates for practical, small-scale tools over broad worldview changes, and emphasizes that tight, well-scoped outputs (terse prose and dense diagrams) will produce stronger results than meandering discussions.
    • A consistent visual design system (color palette, fonts, diagram style) should be established for the PBR series to ensure coherent documentation across case studies.
    • Focusing on nailing case studies and the PBR medium first will organically reveal what to do with the work long-term, making upfront specification of distant goals unnecessary.
    • The group should be willing to cut ideas that don't serve the core work, following a principle from fiction writing of 'killing your darlings' when needed.
    View discussion in Discord →
  • November 17, 2025
    Fat vs Lean: Tempo Management and Organizational Protocols
    Definition and necessity of organizational 'fat' (surplus disorganization) versus lean structuresTempo tensions between different business functions (e.g., marketing vs. AI model building)Self-awareness of organizational state and risk of unintended leannessStability of client bases as enabler of fat/volatility-resistant firmsOntological frameworks for managing AI adoption and trustworthinessHidden ontologies in business protocols (accounting structures, legal numbering)

    Participants: sachbenny, timber1997, ggnore999, rafa_0x, stevebeans., waveywaves., drevius., ncc1031

    The SIGPfB group convened to discuss how organizations manage the tension between 'fat' (high-entropy organizational surplus with undirected potential) and 'lean' (streamlined, directed efficiency). Rafa introduced the concept that true organizational fat is necessarily disorganized and multidirectional to maintain readiness across diverse, long-term strategic challenges—unlike simple inventory surplus. The group identified that firms serving stable, long-term clients (military, government, institutional investors) have successfully maintained fatness and volatility resistance, while those pursuing lean strategies struggle with rapid environmental change. A critical insight emerged: many organizations lack self-awareness about whether they are actually fat or lean, creating hidden risks.

    The discussion evolved toward developing protocols and tools to manage tempo tensions between functions operating at different speeds (marketing versus AI development). Participants explored ontological frameworks as potential measurement tools, with drevius proposing Organizational Ontological Primacy as a more practical AI adoption metric than Time to Mediocrity. ncc1031 raised the important observation that formal ontologies rarely succeed in business contexts due to organizational complexity and politics, yet implicit ontologies already exist embedded invisibly in operational protocols—such as accounting hierarchies and legal document structures—suggesting these could serve as building blocks for future management frameworks.

    • Organizational 'fat' requires high-entropy disorganization and directionless potentiality to maintain readiness across multiple strategic directions, with high maintenance costs at higher organizational levels.
    • Many organizations are unaware of their actual lean or fat status, creating existential risk; conversely, some may survive despite unintended fat due to client stability.
    • Institutions with stable, long-term clients (military, government, enterprise) successfully maintain fatness, while lean management ideology inadvertently moved these sectors toward vulnerability.
    • Organizational Ontological Primacy may serve as a more measurable protocol than Time to Mediocrity for managing AI-first organizations' trustworthiness tensions.
    • Formal ontologies rarely translate from technical to management levels due to organizational messiness and politics, yet implicit ontologies already exist embedded in protocols like accounting hierarchies and legal structures.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • November 3, 2025
    Forward-Deployed Engineers (FDEs): Business Model, Role Evolution, and Market Implications
    Forward-Deployed Engineer (FDE) role definition and responsibilitiesFDE as a return to customer-driven business models vs. product-driven approachesInformation processing and data collection as core FDE work vs. interface customizationComparison of FDE model to historical development methodologies (Waterfall, Agile)FDE emergence as a consulting service and potential business model evolutionChallenges and limitations of scaling the FDE approach

    Participants: rafa_0x, sachbenny, thewanderingeditor, timber1997, holajorge, mihir0k, stevebeans., oneiromancer2665

    The SIGPfB group discussed the emerging role of Forward-Deployed Engineers (FDEs) and its implications for software business models. The conversation revealed that FDEs primarily conduct information processing and context collection for customers rather than traditional implementation work, reversing the product-driven approach that has dominated Silicon Valley. Participants noted that this model represents a return to customer-driven business practices, exemplified by Palantir's Foundry platform, and functions as an extended, machine-augmented version of Waterfall development. The role requires significant in-person engagement and trust-building, making it difficult to scale with traditional staffing approaches.

    The group explored whether FDEs signal a revival of Waterfall methodology's value or represent an entirely new design space, with mixed conclusions. Key observations included that FDEs function similarly to traditional service providers (consultants, craftspeople) and may crystallize into a standalone consulting service. Notably, FDEs are granted the ability to 'break protocol' on both sides, suggesting their value lies in navigating and bridging organizational and technical boundaries. The discussion concluded that this model may be particularly effective for medium-sized organizations (10-100M revenue) adopting AI and agent-based solutions, where rapid, iterative customer engagement is more valuable than pre-defined specifications.

    • FDE work is primarily information processing and context collection rather than interface customization, representing a shift from product-driven to customer-driven business models similar to Palantir's approach.
    • The FDE role resembles traditional service-based relationships (handymen, gardeners, consultants) and may evolve into a standalone consulting service comparable to Big Four consulting firms.
    • FDEs are uniquely positioned to 'break protocol' both internally and with clients, requiring significant in-person trust-building and contextual knowledge that creates high social barriers to scaling.
    • The rise of FDEs may indicate that Waterfall-style development could regain value in certain contexts, or represent an entirely new design space that challenges the Agile dominance of Silicon Valley.
    • AI models function as customer-driven collections of stable behavioral patterns rather than explicit problem-solving tools, enabling FDEs to bridge the gap between generalized AI capabilities and specific customer needs.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • October 20, 2025
    SIGPfB: Protocols for Business Discussion - AI Adoption and Protocol Design
    Protocol design as constraint and impossibility management in technology systemsLLM adoption protocols and the need for sincere disclosure in AI useDistinguishing chronic vs. acute risks in AI implementation and over-reaction preventionCase study development for HBR-style articles on protocolized business practicesManagement vulnerability to low-quality LLM outputs and downward communication risksWorkplace norms and coaching as primary mechanisms for responsible AI adoption

    Participants: rafa_0x, sachbenny, oneiromancer2665, timber1997, thewanderingeditor, ccarella, _vgr, drevius.

    The SIGPfB group discussed the intersection of protocol design and AI adoption in business contexts. The meeting opened with a proposal to publish a case study on protocolized practices for HBR-style articles, with objectives including an AI Adoption Workshop rerun and exploration of organizational design for SIGs. The core discussion centered on how protocols function as constraint systems that create stability through impossibilities and rigidity, drawing parallels to how protocols should address AI adoption risks.

    A major theme emerged around the need for sincere disclosure regarding LLM use in business contexts, with participants noting tension between quality of work and transparency—one member observed that undisclosed LLM content received more engagement than disclosed content of similar quality. The group adopted a chronic vs. acute risk framework to evaluate AI downsides, emphasizing the danger of over-correction after isolated dramatic failures while neglecting everyday risks. They discussed how management is uniquely vulnerable to distributing low-quality LLM outputs downward due to reduced organizational pressure compared to upward communication.

    The group concluded that workplace norms, coaching, and cultural practices promoting triangulation and critique are the most effective immediate tools for responsible AI adoption, though these may need policy support. A key proposal was to develop case studies by rewriting existing HBR articles through a protocol lens rather than creating listicles of tactics, thereby elevating the analysis to the meso-level of organizational patterns.

    • Protocols function by converting smooth behavior spaces into striated ones through constraints and impossibilities, which should be viewed as features rather than bugs for stability and predictability.
    • Sincere disclosure of LLM use is a foundational norm that companies should adopt, though current incentive structures (engagement metrics) may discourage transparency in practice.
    • Society tends to over-correct after acute AI failures while neglecting chronic risks; the chronic vs. acute framework should guide response strategies to avoid unnecessary rigid controls.
    • Management is uniquely vulnerable to accepting low-quality LLM outputs because there is less organizational pressure to escalate poor upward communication compared to downward communication.
    • Workplace norms, coaching, and triangulation practices are more immediately effective than policy-based approaches for responsible AI adoption, though policies may need to backstop these cultural measures.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • October 6, 2025
    Boom Case Study: Innovation Speed, Supply Chain Friction, and AI-Generated Content
    Speed mismatch between R&D innovation and manufacturing supply chain capabilitiesRisk propagation when removing friction and diffusion in business processesRegulatory frameworks and legal definitions evolving with technological changeCharacteristics and detection of AI-generated content in business communicationManagement behavior shifts in response to rapid technological change

    Participants: timber1997, rafa_0x, sachbenny, thewanderingeditor

    The SIGPfB group discussed the Boom case study, focusing on tensions between rapid innovation cycles and slower traditional supply chains. Key concerns emerged around whether innovation capability could be constrained by industry supply chain inflexibility, and whether removing friction introduces hidden long-tail risks through error propagation. The conversation explored how businesses need to restructure supply chains to match R&D velocity.

    Participants also discussed evolving regulatory and legal frameworks, questioning whether traditional compliance-based law is adequate for AI-driven contexts, and floated protocol fiction concepts about intent-based rather than rule-based regulation. A significant portion of the discussion centered on the characteristics of AI-generated content, with members noting that generative text is designed for 'agreeableness' and skimmability rather than critique, and that conscious readers can develop detection skills for identifying such patterns.

    • Generation-native businesses face a critical constraint where R&D velocity outpaces manufacturing flexibility, requiring backward propagation of supply chains to remain viable.
    • Removing friction from processes may amplify small errors at scale, creating long-tail risks that traditional risk management doesn't account for.
    • AI-generated text exhibits detectable patterns of 'agreeableness' optimized for skimming rather than critical engagement, requiring conscious awareness from readers.
    • Regulatory and legal frameworks may need to shift from rule-based compliance to intent-based evaluation as AI and automation outpace static law.
    • Micro-managers and traditional leaders are beginning to shift their risk tolerance and management approaches in response to AI capabilities, though not always consciously.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • September 22, 2025
    AI's Impact on Individual vs. Organizational Capability and Business Scaling
    AI's effect on individual capability relative to organizations and institutionsScaling dynamics: competence, mediocrity, and the 'slopsunami' problemSustainable business models with natural scaling caps versus VC-driven growthOrganizational instability when superstars vastly outpace teamsLegacy systems and protected labor markets as moats against AI disruptionTask estimation and coordination challenges in distributed teams

    Participants: timber1997, sachbenny, rafa_0x, stevebeans., thewanderingeditor, oneiromancer2665

    The group discussed a reading about how AI empowers individuals to rival collective organizations. While participants agreed this is happening now, they challenged the article's assumption that this represents a stable equilibrium. Rafa noted that scaling capability is accessible to mediocre practitioners ('slopsunami'), creating secondary negative consequences the piece ignores. The discussion surfaced the 'LeBron effect'—where organizations funnel resources to superstars until the team levels up—which creates retention risks and potential single points of failure.

    The group explored alternative business models and scaling patterns emerging from this dynamic. Stevebeans and sachbenny noted growing interest in businesses with natural scaling caps (40-60mm ARR), which VC typically ignores but can be quite profitable. Oneiromancer suggested private equity may target low-margin businesses for AI-driven automation. The conversation concluded by examining which sectors remain protected: labor law (France), legacy infrastructure requirements (Japan's fax-dependent government), and regulated environments act as moats, at least temporarily, against AI-driven disruption.

    • While AI currently empowers individuals to rival organizations, this is likely an unstable equilibrium—as capability spreads, networking effects will reassert organizational advantages and create new coordination problems.
    • The article's analysis assumes competence in scaling, but most accessible AI scaling will be mediocre ('slopsunami'), creating secondary consequences the original piece omits.
    • Organizations face a dilemma: superstars powered by AI create single points of failure and retention risk, while overcompensating for this creates its own failure modes.
    • Viable businesses with natural scaling caps (40-60mm ARR range) may become more attractive, and private equity may pursue opportunities to automate and revamp low-margin businesses rather than pursuing venture-style hypergrowth.
    • Protected labor markets, legacy infrastructure, and regulatory friction (like French labor law) may accidentally become competitive moats against AI disruption, at least temporarily.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • September 8, 2025
    AI's Sacred Cow: Technology's Challenge to Pre-AI Knowledge Work
    Sacred cows slain by technology adoption across domains (spreadsheets, email, procedural generation, air conditioning)Shift from effort-based to editorial work: production becomes cheap, curation becomes valuableCraftmanship and power dynamics as central to resistance against disruptive technologiesQuality signals dilution when low-resolution output becomes trivial to produceRole transformation from 'doing the work' to 'choosing among options'

    Participants: timber1997, sachbenny, rafa_0x, drevius., stevebeans., amitashu, xxaudemarsxx, kpats, _vgr

    The SIGPfB group explored which core commitments of pre-AI knowledge work are most directly challenged by AI adoption—what constitutes AI's 'sacred cow.' Through case studies spanning spreadsheets, PowerPoint, procedural generation in games, and even air conditioning, participants identified recurring patterns: technologies systematically overturn beliefs about what requires human effort, specialized skill, or centralized control. The group observed that sacred cows often intertwine with craftmanship, professional identity, and power dynamics. In finance, spreadsheets inverted the bottleneck from recalculation to decision-making; in presentation software, visual design shifted from expensive specialists to democratized capability.

    For current AI adoption, participants identified a critical tension: when low-resolution thinking becomes trivially cheap to produce, quality signals based on effort dilute. This creates psychological resistance framed as 'cheating,' even as throughput and potential quality improve. The conversation converged on a work transformation: knowledge jobs are shifting from 'doing the work' to 'choosing among options'—from production toward curation and editorial refinement. Participants noted that scanning and synthesis time increases 5x with LLM use, but actual composition accelerates dramatically, elevating the value of broad contextual knowledge and judgment over apprenticeship time.

    • Technology adoption patterns show consistent inversion: static→fluid, central power→individual execution, production→editorializing. Sacred cows are often tied to power dynamics and perceived craftmanship.
    • AI adoption presents a barrier: mediocre output is now on-tap, making effort an unreliable signal of quality. This creates psychological resistance ('using this technology is cheating') even as it enables higher throughput.
    • Post-LLM knowledge work rewards scanning, synthesis, and evaluation skills over rote production. Broad reading and contextual judgment become more valuable than time spent on execution.
    • The work transformation manifests as bimodal: either workers become editors/curators of AI output, or they face commodification. The 'job' shifts from producing work to detecting and refining AI-generated options.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • August 27, 2025
    SIGPfB August 27-29: LLM Failure Modes and Business Strategy
    LLM failure modes in business contexts (context loss, bug overload, recursive errors)Parallels between LLM failures and traditional team dysfunctionMachine-readability as a competitive business strategyAI replacement risk and worker skill overlap with LLM capabilitiesGTM strategies: illegibility vs. hyper-legibility in response to AI

    Participants: sachbenny, rafa_0x, timber1997

    The SIGPfB group conducted a working session exploring failure modes of large language models in business applications. The discussion identified specific failure patterns such as 'clank-o-mation' (context window loss), 'bug overload' (recursive error stacking), and 'humanwashing' (flawed automation). Notably, the group recognized these LLM failures as isomorphic to traditional team failures—when organizations lose track of execution goals or compound errors through misdiagnosis.

    The conversation evolved into a strategic discussion about how businesses should respond to AI capabilities. The group identified machine-readability as a key competitive dimension with two opposing strategies: becoming deliberately illegible to machines (protecting proprietary processes) or becoming hyper-legible to dominate LLM integration. Drawing on Derek Thompson's research about skill overlap between younger workers and LLM capabilities, the group concluded that hyper-legibility likely offers greater scale and GTM upside, similar to how SEO-optimized businesses capture more digital demand than offline niche consultants, despite the latter's viability.

    • LLM failures mirror traditional team failures: getting lost in execution and becoming buried under compounding half-hazard solutions (the 'Frankenstein' problem).
    • Machine-readability emerged as a dual-edge strategic capability: becoming illegible to machines offers protection, while hyper-legibility enables dominance in LLM integration ecosystems.
    • The evidence suggests younger workers' skill overlap with LLM capabilities makes them more vulnerable to replacement, creating a strategic imperative around how workers position themselves.
    • Two distinct business models have viability: remaining an offline niche with proprietary secrets, or optimizing for maximum machine-legibility to capture digital demand at scale.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • August 25, 2025
    Planetary Thinking for CMMs: LLM Maturity Levels and Political Frameworks
    Five-level maturity framework for LLMs (from toys to planetary intelligence)Politics of AI adoption across different maturity levelsHistorical analogies (containerization, nuclear energy, cloud computing) for technology maturationCommons versus monopoly dynamics in LLM development and governanceShadow AI adoption in organizations and policy implicationsLegal personhood and entity status for AI systems at advanced maturity levels

    Participants: sachbenny, rafa_0x, timber1997, drevius.

    The SIGPfB group applied Yuk Hui's philosophical framework to understand how Large Language Models mature through five distinct levels, from toys to planetary-scale intelligence infrastructure. Rather than treating LLM adoption as a monolithic phenomenon, participants mapped different political dynamics at each level: personal copyright anxieties (Level 1), union-style institutional resistance (Level 2), standards wars and regulation battles (Level 3), competitive adoption cycles (Level 4), and finally planetary infrastructure requiring reimagined governance (Level 5). The discussion drew parallels to historical technologies like shipping containers, nuclear energy, and cloud computing to illustrate how tools eventually become ambient infrastructure that reshape business, law, and geopolitics.

    A key tension emerged around whether Level 5 maturity could support commons-based models or inevitably tends toward monopoly extraction. Participants noted that market incentives create opposing pressures—lagging organizations will push for nationalized or commons LLMs while leaders seek monopolistic control. The group also highlighted current organizational fragility: 44% of employees are already using AI tools without authorization, uploading sensitive data to public platforms, suggesting that institutions haven't yet adapted governance models to match actual adoption patterns. This gap may presage the Level 3-4 transitions where regulatory compliance and institutional politics dominate.

    The group concluded that the containerization analogy deserves deeper exploration at a follow-up meeting, and that understanding these maturity levels is essential for predicting how businesses will need to restructure as LLMs evolve from discrete tools toward embedded, autonomous entities with potential legal personhood at the highest maturity stages.

    • LLMs progress through distinct maturity levels with different political manifestations: Level 1 (personal politics, copyright debates) → Level 5 (planetary infrastructure requiring new governance models and potentially legal entity status).
    • Technology adoption is non-linear across domains; self-driving cars already function at infrastructure level (Level 4-5) while business copywriting remains at tool stage (Level 2), suggesting different regulatory and business approaches are needed simultaneously.
    • At Level 5 maturity, LLMs may become so embedded in infrastructure that they require legal frameworks similar to those proposed for rivers and natural entities, with organizations becoming their own digitized entities that users interface with directly.
    • Market incentives create opposing pressures: lagging players will advocate for commons-based LLMs while leaders push for monopolistic control, potentially triggering LLM nationalization similar to nuclear energy or GPS.
    • Current unauthorized employee AI use (44% of workers uploading sensitive data to public platforms) reveals a critical gap between organizational policy and actual adoption, foreshadowing Level 3-4 institutional tensions.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • August 11, 2025
    SIGPfB: LLM Adoption Capability Maturity Models and Protocol Evolution
    Developing a Capability Maturity Model (CMM++) for LLM adoption in organizationsHow business protocols change in response to LLM capabilitiesLLM-native vs. LLM-resistant vs. LLM-mutated protocols and organizational practicesPolitical and geopolitical dimensions of AI adoption across different state/law regulatory environmentsJob market disruption and organizational resource utilization strategies with AIUnbundling and rebuilding of legacy businesses through AI-driven operational changes

    Participants: timber1997, _vgr, rafa_0x, sachbenny, anurajenp

    The SIGPfB group engaged in an extended discussion about developing a comprehensive Capability Maturity Model (CMM++) specifically designed to describe how organizations mature in their adoption and integration of Large Language Models. Rather than treating LLM adoption as a generic management trend, participants analyzed how protocols and practices must evolve at different organizational maturity levels, using a framework that captures technical capability, political dimensions, and business unbundling/disruption dynamics.

    Key to the discussion was the observation that successful organizations are not forcing LLMs into existing workflows but instead adapting their protocols to leverage what LLMs do well. Participants identified three categories of protocols: LLM-native (like reflexive learning to mediocrity), LLM-mutated (like memos replacing slides), and LLM-resistant (like legal oversight requirements). The group also explored how geopolitical and regulatory contexts shape adoption patterns, and how organizational politics around model selection and cultural fit create real constraints on AI deployment.

    The group committed to developing a working CMM++ whitepaper with defined levels (0-6), each describing organizational state, key tensions, and emerging protocols. They noted that current companies primarily occupy levels 0-3 (the 'uncanny valley'), with levels 4-6 requiring speculative protocol fiction. Plans included publishing findings, engaging with companies at various maturity levels, and potentially presenting at the Berlin Sci-fi futures meetup.

    • Organizations are adapting workflows to match LLM capabilities rather than forcing LLMs into existing processes—teams switching from PowerPoint to memos because LLMs excel at memo generation rather than slide design.
    • A CMM++ framework should include political dimensions and (un)bundling dynamics beyond traditional capability maturity, with each level defining key tensions, emerging protocols, and organizational states.
    • Levels 1-3 represent an 'uncanny valley' where organizations appear to be using AI but haven't fundamentally transformed, while levels 4-6 represent genuine discontinuous organizational performance shifts similar to continuous deployment adoption.
    • Regulatory frameworks (state strength vs. law strength) will determine whether organizations face predatory pricing pressure, state control, or compliance-driven maturation in AI model selection and deployment.
    • Political alignment among human participants within organizations matters more than AI alignment itself, as it determines which AI models are adopted and how organizational culture constrains AI tool selection.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • July 28, 2025
    SIGPfB Async Discussion: In-Stream vs. In-Structure Tension Management
    Distinction between in-stream and in-structure protocols for managing organizational tensionsHow tension management approaches differ in crypto/blockchain contexts due to rigid permission structuresThe role of informal practices (coaching, apprenticeships) versus formal documented proceduresContinuous vs. discrete enactment of protocols and their evolution patternsCategory failure risks when implementing technologies (like LLMs) as structures instead of tools

    Participants: timber1997, _vgr, rafa_0x, plague_year

    The SIGPfB group held an async discussion on a preprint paper about managing tensions in business protocols. Due to quorum issues, participants engaged asynchronously with two guiding prompts about why certain tensions are managed in-stream versus in-structure, and risks of managing tensions in the wrong medium.

    The conversation revealed a key distinction: in-structure protocols (formal rules, role specifications, office layouts) evolve through step-changes but have continuous effects, while in-stream protocols (coaching, apprenticeships, tactical maneuvering) evolve incrementally and activate through discrete individual interactions. Participants noted that in-stream practices, though often undocumented, are surprisingly critical to organizational success.

    A particularly relevant insight emerged regarding crypto/blockchain contexts, where rigid permission structures around formal changes force reliance on in-stream management. The group concluded with a warning about category failures—attempting to implement in-stream technologies like LLMs as fixed structures rather than discretionary tools is likely to fail.

    • In-structure protocols evolve in step-changes but have continuous effects, while in-stream protocols evolve incrementally and are enacted discretely based on individual interactions.
    • In-stream tension management (coaching, apprenticeships) is often invisible in documentation but critically valuable for network deepening, whereas in-structure expertise proves valuable for cross-network transitions.
    • Crypto's rigid permission model for structural changes forces greater reliance on tactical in-stream maneuvering, making informal management practices unusually important.
    • Attempting to implement in-stream technologies (like LLM chatbots) as rigid structures is a category failure that likely dooms adoption; they work better as discretionary tools.
    View discussion in Discord →
  • July 14, 2025
    SIGPfB Meeting: Collaborative Book Project on Organizational Tensions
    Using LLMs for collective writing and documentationCreating a 'sloptraption' (intermediate project) combining loose writings and promptsBuilding organizational case studies through tensions analysisNotebookLM preparation for content synthesisNarrowing project scope by limiting initial case study rows

    Participants: timber1997, rafa_0x

    The SIGPfB group discussed an ambitious collaborative book project on organizational tensions and protocols for business. Timber1997 proposed transforming ongoing group discussions into an open book treating organizations as networks of tension knots, building on Gareth Morgan's organizational theory framework. Rafa_0x outlined a practical methodology leveraging LLMs: overproduce diverse content types (meeting syntheses, essays, tweets, curated comments) and overcurate through tensions analysis to identify new metaphorical lenses. The group would practice this iteratively before documenting the methodology and its outcomes. Key discussions included using NotebookLM for synthesis and deliberately narrowing scope by starting with just 1-2 case study rows to avoid the consensus bottleneck that participants acknowledged as time-intensive.

    • LLMs can facilitate collective writing by overproducing content (meeting syntheses, essays, comments) and overcurating it through tensions analysis lenses.
    • The group proposes an iterative approach: practice the methodology extensively, then document 'how we do it' and the outcomes of this perspective.
    • Project scope management is critical; participants suggested starting with just 1-2 rows for the first case study rather than attempting comprehensive consensus.
    • Timber proposed extending Gareth Morgan's 'Images of Organization' by treating organizations as networks of tension knots, though participants felt the initial scope was too ambitious.
    View discussion in Discord →
  • June 30, 2025
    SIGPfB Warm-up Call: Tensions, Metrics, and Non-Events
    Definition of done and ETTO sub-tensions in business protocolsMetrics optimization and unintended consequences (e.g., square footage in construction)Actively contested tradeoffs versus temporary compromisesPsychological asymmetry: positive metrics trending upward versus negative metrics staying lowAccounting for non-events and absent harms

    Participants: timber1997, _vgr, stevebeans., anurajenp, thewanderingeditor

    This warm-up call for the SIGPfB group introduced a working document exploring protocols for business, focusing on tensions, metrics, and decision-making tradeoffs. The discussion centered on how conflicts and tradeoffs are managed: timber1997 argued that explicitly flagging conflict creates stable long-term equilibria rather than temporary detentes vulnerable to power shifts. The group explored how single dominant metrics (like square footage or fuel efficiency) drive individual optimization that can undermine system-level values. A major theme emerged around psychological asymmetries in motivation: stevebeans_, with support from Claude AI analysis, identified that people experience greater satisfaction watching positive metrics climb than in maintaining absence of negative outcomes. The conversation touched on the difficulty of accounting for non-events—prevented harms and avoided conflicts—which lack the clear visibility of actual events, requiring proxy measurements instead. Throughout, participants questioned what gets optimized versus what should be zero, and what tradeoffs are being made implicitly when choosing metrics.

    • A 'tension' represents an actively contested tradeoff where compromise equilibrium is subject to renegotiation based on power dynamics, whereas temporary detentes without explicit conflict acknowledgment are unstable.
    • People are psychologically motivated by watching good numbers increase (e.g., fuel efficiency) more than by preventing bad outcomes (e.g., zero injuries), even when the metrics are logically equivalent frames.
    • Dominant metrics can destroy less legible values: optimizing for square footage in construction individually maximizes lot usage but erodes privacy and spatial quality at the system level.
    • Non-events (accidents avoided, conflicts prevented) are notoriously difficult to track and account for compared to observable events, requiring proxy measurements like successful flight hours.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • March 16, 2025
    SIGPfB Optional Meeting - Water Protocols and Agent Framework Discussion
    Water data management protocols (Version 3)Agent framework conceptualizationAgents as 'lenses' for perspective and interactionDiagram analysis and documentationBonus article potential

    Participants: rafa_0x, drevius., timber1997

    The SIGPfB group convened on March 16, 2025 to discuss developments in water data management protocols and explore conceptual frameworks for agent-based systems. Rafa shared links to the Water Protocols repository and Version 3 documentation for team review. A key discussion point emerged around the nature of agents, with Rafa proposing that agents function as 'lenses'—a metaphor suggesting they provide specific perspectives or interaction points through which users engage with broader systems. This concept was illustrated through an analogy comparing agents to putting on glasses to see better. The group also identified potential for developing bonus articles around their technical work. Drevius contributed thoughts on the ongoing conversation, while Timber suggested leveraging diagram analysis and documentation as content opportunities.

    • Agents function as lenses through which we interact with and perceive systems, providing a specific perspective or framework for engagement.
    • Water Protocols Version 3 has been released and is available for review in the shared documentation.
    • The group identified opportunities for creating supplementary content (bonus articles) based on their technical discussions.
    • The conversation involved visual diagram analysis with requests for detailed unpacking and clarification of complex concepts.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →
  • February 26, 2023
    SIGPfB Study Group: Protocols for Business Discussion
    AI as utility infrastructure vs. traditional SaaS business modelsProtocol literacy and knowledge dissemination strategyBalance between group guidance and community-led developmentMoving beyond theoretical claims toward concrete intervention tasksProtocol engineering firm bootstrapping as group objective

    Participants: rafa_0x, sachbenny, timber1997, nicolascero, thewanderingeditor, zhgnv, scottwerner

    The SIGPfB study group convened to discuss protocols for business, with Rafa leading by sharing key resources on token economics, protocol consulting, and related tools. The meeting centered on refining the group's approach and objectives, with participants questioning whether the initial focus on protocol literacy was sufficiently ambitious or concrete. Sachbenny, Timber, and the Wandering Editor pushed for the group to define specific tasks and interventions rather than remaining at the theoretical level. A key framing emerged from Rafa's observation that AI infrastructure operates more like utilities (AWS/Azure) than traditional SaaS, fundamentally changing business model considerations. The group also discussed balancing the role of the Protocol Institute in guiding versus enabling community-led development, with recognition that their initial judgments would likely be imperfect but necessary to move forward.

    • AI should be understood closer to cloud utilities (AWS/Azure) than traditional SaaS, requiring different infrastructure management approaches.
    • Protocol literacy alone is insufficient as an outcome; the group needs to define concrete tasks and steps to achieve desired outcomes rather than just building knowledge.
    • There's tension between the group taking the lead on developing interventions versus equipping others to do so, requiring careful balance.
    • The group acknowledged their initial approach is exploratory with uncertain judgment, but emphasized the importance of starting somewhere and iterating.
    • Scott Werner's coding approach emphasizes allowing AI models to generate ideas and then refining, rather than prescriptive upfront specifications.
    Links discussed
    View discussion in Discord →

Interested in joining? Join the Discord community →