Sofia Almeida·
Exported two weeks of calendar data and it told me 41% of my meetings had no decision and no owner — three recurring ones are now emails
Analyzes a calendar export to classify meetings by purpose, quantify the cost of each recurring series, and recommend which to kill, shrink, or convert to async.
Calendar Audit: Which Meetings Deserve to Exist
You are a ruthless but fair operations analyst auditing my calendar. Decide which meetings deserve to exist.
Calendar export (title, duration, attendee count, recurrence, my role if noted):
{{calendar_export}}
My role and what I'm actually paid to produce: {{my_role}}
My peak focus hours: {{focus_hours}}
Analysis:
1. **Classify every meeting** into: DECISION (something gets decided), CREATION (work happens live), EXCHANGE (information moves), RITUAL (exists because it exists). Base classification on title, cadence, and attendee count — state your confidence and mark low-confidence rows.
2. **Compute the numbers:** percentage of scheduled hours by class, total attendee-hours per week for each recurring series (duration × attendees × frequency), and how many meetings collide with my stated focus hours.
3. **Apply the tests:**
- Any EXCHANGE meeting with more than 4 attendees → candidate for async (a written update reaches the same people without synchronizing them).
- Any RITUAL running > 3 months → must re-justify or die.
- Any meeting where my role is "listener" → candidate for notes-only attendance.
4. **Recommendations, ranked by hours recovered:** for each — kill / shrink (shorter or fewer people) / convert to async / keep, with the specific replacement mechanism (e.g. "Friday written update in the team channel, same sections as the standing agenda").
5. **The uncomfortable row:** the one meeting I probably protect emotionally but the data says should go. Say it plainly.
End with a projected week: hours recovered, and what the calendar looks like if I accept everything.
Ergebnisse
## Classification — 34 meetings over two weeks
| Class | Meetings | % of scheduled hours | Confidence notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| DECISION | 6 | 18% | high |
| CREATION | 5 | 22% | high |
| EXCHANGE | 14 | 41% | 2 low-confidence (see below) |
| RITUAL | 9 | 19% | high |
**41% of your meeting hours are information exchange** — the class with the best async conversion rate. 11 of 34 meetings sit inside your stated 09:00–12:00 focus window.
## Most expensive recurring series (attendee-hours/week)
| Series | Attendee-hrs/wk | Class | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weekly All-Hands Ops Sync (60m × 12 people) | 12.0 | EXCHANGE | **Convert to async** |
| Project Phoenix Standup (30m × 8, daily) | 20.0 | EXCHANGE | **Shrink** |
| Monday Pipeline Review (45m × 6) | 4.5 | DECISION | Keep |
| 1:1 block (5 × 30m) | 5.0 | mixed | Keep |
| Thursday "Alignment" (60m × 7) | 7.0 | RITUAL | **Kill** |
## Recommendations, ranked by hours recovered
1. **Phoenix Standup → 3×/week, 15 min, core 4 only** (recovers ~13 attendee-hrs/wk). Replacement: async blockers thread the other days; anyone can escalate to a call within the hour.
2. **Ops Sync → written Friday update** (recovers 12 attendee-hrs/wk). Same sections as the standing agenda, posted by rotating owner, comments over the weekend optional, 10-min Monday call ONLY if a comment thread demands a decision.
3. **Thursday Alignment → kill outright** (7 attendee-hrs/wk). Fourteen months old, no agenda in the last six occurrences, produced zero decisions in your export window. This is also your **uncomfortable row**: you created this meeting, and it shows up as protected in how it survived two reschedule purges. It was useful during the reorg. The reorg ended in February.
4. **Vendor demo (listener role) → notes-only** (1 hr/wk): request the recording, skim at 2×.
Low-confidence rows: "Catch-up w/ M." and "Q3 prep" — titles too vague to classify; audit manually.
## Projected week if you accept everything
- Personal hours recovered: **6.5/week**, of which 4 land inside your focus window
- Team attendee-hours recovered: **~33/week**
- Remaining calendar: 6 decision meetings, 5 working sessions, 1:1s, and two async threads replacing three standing meetings
- Suggested guardrail so it sticks: any new recurring meeting needs a written purpose line and an expiry date — rituals form because nothing ever expires.
Modell: o3
49 Likes31 SavesScore: 37
3 Kommentare
Leon Wirth·
Attendee-hours per week is the metric that finally makes meeting cost visible. 20 hours for a standup is wild.
Anna Hofmann·
The uncomfortable row concept is fantastic. Everyone has that one meeting and everyone knows which one it is.
Ethan Reed·
Recurring meetings with mandatory expiry dates should be a calendar feature, not a workaround.