Oluwanifemi A.

More like: -A human-readable history of rule changes -Clear before / after impact (“this change increased payouts by X%”) -The ability to roll back without needing to understand the underlying math So less “who changed what,” and more “what changed, why it changed, and whether it helped.” If a sales manager can explain payouts to a rep without opening the tool, you’ve probably nailed it. Happy to jam more if useful, I’ve seen trust break fast when money logic feels opaque. 😅

Great direction tbh, that bet makes a lot of sense. When I said versioned logic, I was thinking closer to confidence first, not power first. Not full “Git for commissions” with branches and diffs, that quickly becomes scary for non technical ops teams.

The pre-surface framing pass you described is exactly where I do my best work: clarifying what must be true before anything becomes visible, so speed doesn’t introduce drift. Less “polish,” more constraint-setting, what’s the irreducible promise, what gets deprioritized, and what the system should refuse to say even under pressure. A same-day pass reacting to live signal makes sense to me. That’s usually where weak hierarchies and fuzzy value claims show up fast. Happy to treat it as a working session rather than a deliverable, align the frame, stress-test it, and leave you with a sharper internal compass before anything ships. Whenever the signal feels strong enough to react to, I’m open to jumping in.

That framing actually resonates a lot. I agree, once narrative hardens too early, it becomes a liability instead of leverage. Pressure is the only honest validator.

That makes a lot of sense, once there’s signal, the biggest risk really is misalignment, not lack of effort. What I’ve seen kill momentum at this stage is when GTM execution is solid, but the story + positioning lag behind the revenue systems, so teams ship fast but slightly off-target. Most of my work sits right in that gap also, tightening the narrative, value hierarchy, and visual system so sales, marketing, and product are all pulling in the same direction under pressure, especially when speed matters. If you’re open to it, I’d be curious to look at how the offer is currently framed (landing page, deck, or sales copy) and share where clarity could unlock faster execution. Even a quick pass usually reveals where friction hides.

This is a great question to ask early. Honestly, most people don’t hate a specific feature, they hate not knowing why a number changed. Audit trails, versioned logic, or even plain English explanations matter more than extra controls. Less “power,” more confidence.

This is refreshingly clear. Speed + revenue focus usually works best when positioning is already sharp, otherwise even great operators end up guessing instead of executing. Curious (if you can share): is this a new product finding GTM motion, or an existing offer that needs tighter revenue systems and messaging to scale fast? Love the no-theatre approach regardless. Hope you find the right operators quickly.

Hey Sumanth, welcome 👋 I like how you frame hiring around speed + fairness, that balance is hard to get right, especially at scale. A lot of AI hiring tools move fast but accidentally erode trust on the candidate side. Curious: when you’re building these systems for high-growth teams, what’s been the hardest part, internal adoption by hiring teams, or candidate perception of AI in the process? Always interesting to see people working at the intersection of systems, community, and real outcomes. Looking forward to learning from you.