Documentation makes a team’s contribution easy to examine: there are sources to consult, a draft to produce and claims to review. The following case is a workflow design, not a customer success story or a demonstration of ConductLoop’s future integration. You can adapt it to your existing notes and tools.
The initial assignment
Suppose an app needs a getting-started guide for new users. The goal is for someone to understand what they can do today, what they need to install and where to get help. The brief includes a README, published release notes and selected support questions. The requested deliverable is a three-step draft, a common-problems section and a list of details still requiring confirmation.
The CEO organizes the work
In the proposed hierarchy, the coordinator identifies dependencies before assigning tasks. Reviewing published documentation and grouping support questions could proceed independently. Drafting depends on their conclusions. The CEO should preserve the definition of done: each instruction must relate to an available capability, and important claims must be traceable to a source. There is no need to turn every paragraph into a separate task.
Research returns evidence
The first output could be a table of user questions, documented answers, sources and confidence. If the README names one operating system while release notes mention another, the agent should flag the inconsistency. A missing current screenshot is a gap to record. Identifying those problems before writing reduces the temptation to fill details with assumptions. The coordinator can decide which uncertainties block the draft and which should remain visibly marked.
Writing produces a bounded deliverable
The writer receives the brief and evidence table. Its job is to order instructions for a newcomer, maintain terminology and produce a draft. Anything in preparation must be identified as such. A useful delivery includes the document and unresolved questions, rather than hiding uncertainties in vague language. For ConductLoop, Brain, Boardroom and MCP belong to the current product; the CEO-to-agent hierarchy is described as future integration.
Review compares against criteria
The reviewer checks whether the text answers the brief’s questions, supports its instructions and avoids unconfirmed promises. It returns localized issues rather than a generic score. The coordinator consolidates corrections and returns a revised version with outstanding decisions. A disagreement about the product should return to evidence or a person who can decide; accumulating votes from more agents does not resolve it.
A person decides what to publish
Review the final document and confirm details that depend on the actual product. Publishing is separate from drafting. Save the brief, sources and accepted result as an example for the next assignment. This case illustrates the intent behind ConductLoop’s future hierarchy: direct the CEO and review a coordinated deliverable. It does not mean the workflow is available as a template, publishes automatically or has a committed release date.