Josh 1:1 Prep — Thursday, February 12, 2026 (10am)

Meeting type: Quarterly goals review Zoom: https://stanford.zoom.us/j/94194351840?pwd=YkxaQ3JaL3h4d3lVbTluK1plYjByZz09 (pw: 588228) Agenda: Q4 2025 review → Q1 2026 check-in → Personal Logic Model → Open items

---

Part 1: Q4 2025 Review (Oct-Dec 2025)

Summary Scorecard

Goal	Q4 Target	Result	Score
1. Team Communication	3 tag meetings, 100% projects tagged	3 meetings done + Tags 2.0 revision; partial Airtable coverage	Met
2. Strategic Influence	1+ workshop, 3 EdTech Summit follow-ups	2+ workshops incl. House Ed Committee; 3 follow-ups done	Exceeded
3. Scalable Programs	Toolkit v1 released, alpha feedback	Toolkit v1 shipped at designkit.stanford.edu; Anna-Lena ran Flash Lab successfully	Met
4. Sustainable Leadership	Complete training program, snowboard-ready	1 fitness cycle completed, physically ready (no snow)	Partial

Goal 1 Details: Team Communication

• Tag meetings: Oct, Nov, Dec monthly meetings all completed, plus Jan 6 quarterly analysis
• Tags 2.0: Culled and revised the full tag system — moved from generic to intentional
• Jan 6 quarterly analysis: 24 CHECK-INs, pattern analysis across the portfolio — the system is generating useful data
• Gap: Airtable hygiene still inconsistent. Some projects happening that aren’t in Airtable.

Goal 2 Details: Strategic Influence (strongest goal)

• Workshops delivered:
  • “Scaling Sustainably from Academia” Panel Workshop
  • Build-a-Bot for House Education Committee Staffers (significant reach)
  • AI Flash Lab at Accelerate EdTech Summit (rebrand moment)
• EdTech Summit follow-ups:
  • Anoo Padte & Max Fritz (Microsoft) — met Dec 17
  • Vanessa Monterosa (New Schools) — met Jan 29
  • Osvaldo Jimenez (Pacific) — stalled
• Additional reach: Karen (Australia), Anna-Lena (international), Spyros (Greece), Nathan (UK), Oman Ministry of Ed

Goal 3 Details: Scalable Programs

• Flash Lab toolkit v1 shipped at designkit.stanford.edu — cohesive, downloadable package
• Anna-Lena delivered Flash Lab independently: “Everything went really well and I am waiting for participants to fill out our evaluation survey.”
• Gap: Need to close the loop with Karen Murcia (Australia)

Goal 4 Details: Sustainable Leadership

• Completed 1 cycle of “Moment of Weakness” fitness app
• Snowboard-ready (nature didn’t cooperate)
• Gap: Broader sustainability practices (energy audits, reflection rituals, learning sprints, “saying no”) didn’t get traction

Q4 Patterns

Working well: Natural connector (international reach expanding), monthly ritual sticking, products maturing (Flash Lab rebrand) Growth edges: Airtable discipline, packaging vs. doing, wellness goal drift

---

Part 2: Q1 2026 Progress (Jan-Feb, 3 weeks in)

The Q1 goals file was drafted Jan 21 but never finalized. Here’s where things actually stand with 3 weeks of new evidence:

Goal 1: Team Communication — On Track

• Monthly meetings continuing (Jan completed)
• Tags system generating data for portfolio analysis
• New evidence: Jan 6 quarterly planning meeting showed the tagging system working at scale
• Still needed: Airtable hygiene push — Joe remains the model

Goal 2: Strategic Influence — Strong Momentum

Activity	Status	Evidence
Oman Hackathon	Delivered	Feb 2-5, Ministry of Ed partnership. Fatma Al-Dohani warm thank-you. Spawned special ed whitepaper thread.
AI+Education Summit	Attended (Feb 11)	Full day, ANKO. Key contacts: Candace Thille, Tamar Perez. Rich notes on broken proxy, personalization, AI driver’s license
Legal 101 Workshop	Launched (Feb 18)	Email sent, posted to Slack. Kristen Blair: “Ooh. This is great!” Josh forwarded to Keith, Sarahi, Kristen — broader reach
Teaching w/ AI Community	Attended (Feb 10)	Share-out, lightning talks. New contacts, CASA paradigm notes
ISTE Partnership	Advancing	Train-the-trainer path (60-min → deeper engagement pivot)
Flash Lab / Tinkery	Expanding	Gregory Wilson partnership, toolkit collaboration
Dr. Shariffa / Oman Special Ed	New thread	AI + special education whitepaper project with Maryam Alkhzami

Key talking point: The Summit alone generated multiple strategic connections. This goal is firing on all cylinders.

Goal 3: Scalable Programs — New Proof Points

Method	Program	Status	New Evidence
Trained facilitators	Build-a-Bot	Scaling	Courtney Garza completed training, then registered and delivered Build-a-Bot at TCEA 2026 on her own — [MULTIPLIER] [RIPPLE] — first trained facilitator to deliver at a major conference
Trained facilitators	Flash Lab	Scoping	ISTE train-the-trainer being scoped
Self-service toolkit	Flash Lab	Building	Gregory Wilson Tinkery Toolkit collaboration — website format (like designkit.stanford.edu)
Self-service toolkit	Flash Lab	Building	designkit.stanford.edu live, materials in use internationally
Online/async	TBD	Not started	—

Key talking point: Courtney Garza is the strongest scaling proof point yet. She completed the training, then took the initiative to register, submit a session, and deliver Build-a-Bot at TCEA (major ed-tech conference) on her own. That’s the multiplier model working exactly as designed.

Goal 4: Sustainable Leadership — Mixed

Routine	Status	Evidence
Reflective practice	Active	Personal Logic Model as structured self-reflection (see Part 3). Claude executive assistant system as daily routine
Mental / weekly review	Active	Friday 2pm personal review slot, daily prep/EOD ritual with Claude
Physical	Needs attention	No concrete routine yet
“Check my capacity”	Partially practicing	Capacity analysis done (18→14 active threads), but still saying yes too often

Key talking point: The Personal Logic Model and Claude system are genuine sustainable routines. Reframe Goal 4 around what’s actually working rather than the fitness-first framing.

---

Part 3: Personal Logic Model — Talking Points

What it is: A living document that answers “What happens differently because I’m here?” — framed as an evolving question with evidence, not a tagline.

Show Josh:

1. The Question — “What happens differently because I’m here?” Not a tagline — a question I’m answering with evidence, quarter by quarter.

2. Operating Modes — I don’t do the same thing on every project. The mode depends on what the collaboration needs:
   • Format Designer (high defensibility) — Flash Lab structure, Build-a-Bot trainer program
   • Strategic Filter (high defensibility) — ISTE withdrawal → train-the-trainer pivot
   • Builder (medium defensibility) — Health Coach Bot, Colombia chatbot, Comic Studio
   • Sounding Board (lower alone, but it’s the pipeline) — trust-building that enables deeper modes
3. The AI-Era Argument — AI can build chatbots. The building is the easy part. What’s not replicable:
   • Format design (pedagogical, not code)
   • Strategic judgment (knowing when 60 min isn’t enough)
   • The trust layer (you can’t hand someone a codebase and transfer that)
4. Evidence Chains — Three concrete chains showing how value compounds:
   • Holding out for the right format → scoping deeper partnership (ISTE example)
   • Prototype → evidence → iteration (Health Coach Bot)
   • Sounding board → trust → deeper modes (Karin quote)

5. The Broken Proxy (from Mehran Sahami at Summit) — frame I’m now using: GenAI broke the assumption that a strong product = strong process. The question isn’t “how do we catch cheating” — it’s “how do we make the learning process visible again?”

6. Defensibility Roadmap — What’s vulnerable (builder mode, thoroughness work) vs. what’s durable (format design, strategic filter, system design). Where I’m moving: from “I build for you” to “here’s how you build for yourself at scale.”

Why show Josh:

• Connects to Goal 4 (sustainable reflective practice)
• Demonstrates strategic thinking about role evolution
• Opens conversation about where to invest time in an AI-accelerated world
• Ask: Does this framing resonate? Does it align with where he sees the team going?

---

Part 4: Other Discussion Items

Summit Debrief

• Full day at AI+Education Summit (SAL + HAI joint event)
• Key takeaway: “What intelligence is and how we learn is the new design problem”
• Dan Schwartz: personalization isn’t curriculum pacing, it’s targeting underserved demographics
• Michael Taubman: “AI Driver’s License” (4-part framework)
• Candace Thille: responsible assessment white paper coming — schedule coffee next trip
• Action: Look up Amanda Bickerstaff “AI 2027 for Education”

Courtney Garza — Build-a-Bot Scaling Proof Point

• Ran Build-a-Bot at TCEA 2026 independently (first fully independent facilitator at a major conference)
• Drafted congratulations email — in Exchange drafts
• Potential Flash Lab ambassador too
• Tags: [MULTIPLIER] [RIPPLE]

Gregory Wilson / Tinkery Toolkit

• Met Tuesday (Feb 10) with Gregory + Josh about Flash Lab / Tinkery partnership
• Gregory shared first draft of Tinkery toolkit, wants feedback
• Recommendation: website format (like designkit.stanford.edu) rather than document
• Reply drafted — in Exchange drafts (reply-all with Josh)

Wen MyBook — No-Cost Extension

• Cathy sent Wen the no-cost extension form
• If approved: extension through Aug 31, 2026
• Still need to: review database schema, survey design, mock up login flow
• Deferred most review to next week

Jena Swan — Learn Academy

• Behavior analyst at nonpublic school in Redwood City (K-adults, students with disabilities)
• Potential connection to Dr. Shariffa’s AI + special ed work?
• Worth flagging to Josh — is there an introduction or pathway here?

CRM Re-engagement (brief mention)

• 5 emails queued but not sent yet (Spyros, Shannon, Drew, Karen, batch email)
• Deferred to next week — want to focus on goals conversation today

---

Suggested Flow for the Meeting

1. Q4 Review (10 min) — Walk through scorecard, celebrate Goal 2, acknowledge Goal 3/4 gaps
2. Q1 Progress (10 min) — New evidence since Jan 21 draft. Highlight Oman, Summit, Courtney, Legal 101
3. Personal Logic Model (10 min) — Show the document, discuss operating modes and defensibility
4. Open Items (5 min) — Summit debrief, Jena Swan, Wen extension, CRM timing
5. Align on Q1 priorities (5 min) — What to focus on for the remaining 6 weeks of Q1

---

Strategic Questions (Raised During Meeting)

How does my work connect to the rest of the Accelerator?

• I’m the bridge between seed grantees’ ideas and testable artifacts — without prototyping support, research visions stay in proposals longer
• Workshops (Flash Lab, Build-a-Bot, Legal 101) are on-ramps — they bring people into SAL’s orbit who might become seed grantees, collaborators, or advocates
• The tagging system gives the team evidence of value-add across the portfolio — makes the Accelerator’s impact visible, not just felt

How does it feed back into the Accelerator?

• Prototypes generate pilot data that strengthen grant applications (the evidence cycle)
• Trained facilitators (Courtney, Anna-Lena) multiply SAL’s reach without adding headcount
• Strategic connections (ISTE, Oman, New Schools) bring partnerships and visibility back to SAL
• Stories from these interactions (quoted-impact) feed into SAL’s reporting and fundraising narrative

Can we charge for this?

• Train-the-trainer licensing — ISTE or districts pay for Flash Lab facilitator certification
• Consulting model — organizations pay for a “Prototype Sprint” engagement (scoped, time-bound)
• Toolkit licensing — designkit.stanford.edu as a paid resource for non-Stanford orgs
• Tension: Stanford’s mission + non-profit status may limit this; charging could reduce adoption/reach, which undercuts the scaling story
• Better framing: Can partners (ISTE, districts) fund the scaling rather than pay per-use? Keeps it mission-aligned while sustainable.

---

Prepared: Feb 12, 2026 morning