Getting Started / Setup
Why would I use this? What has it actually helped people do?
The honest answer is that it depends on where you are. The people who have got the most out of it were not looking for an AI tool. They were looking for a way to get a grip on something specific.
One founder needed a forcing function. He knew he had to get his company using AI but kept putting it off. The bootstrap gave him a reason to sit down and do it, and something concrete to show the team.
Another needed clarity on a business problem that had been drifting for months. The process of answering the bootstrap’s questions forced him to articulate what was actually wrong. The answer was already there. The BoS OS just made him write it down.
A third had two people on his team running separate systems with different vocabulary, neither of them aware the other had done it. The BoS OS gave them a shared foundation.
None of these are what you might expect from “AI software.” The BoS OS is useful because it makes you think clearly about your own business, and then gives you a system that reflects that thinking back at you.
What do I need to get started?
You need a Claude Pro subscription (not free), the Cowork desktop app, and the skill zip file. That’s it. The BoS OS itself is a folder of text files on your machine. There’s no software to install beyond those three things.
What does "bootstrap" mean? I thought that meant self-funded.
In this context, bootstrap means “build from what’s already publicly known about your company.” The system researches you and creates a first draft of your BoS OS. It has nothing to do with funding status.
I set it up but I didn't connect my folder to the project first. Do I have to start again?
No. But you should always connect your folder to the project before running the bootstrap. If you’ve already run it without the folder connected, the files may not be in the right place. Fix: back up what you have, reconnect the folder, and re-run the bootstrap. It’s additive and won’t delete anything.
What is the BoS OS?
The BoS OS is a series of text files that sit on your machine. That is all it is. There is no software to install beyond the BoS OS tools, no database, no cloud sync, no background process running on your behalf.
The files describe your company: your values, your strategy, your decisions, your constraints, your agents, and your active missions. When you open a session with the BoS OS connected, it reads those files and uses them as context for everything it does. When the session ends, it stops. Nothing persists except the files you chose to update.
This means a few things worth understanding.
You own it entirely. The files are yours. You can read them, edit them, move them, back them up, or delete them. No vendor holds your data. No subscription locks you in.
It starts from zero trust. The bootstrap builds your first version from publicly available information about your company. Nothing private goes in unless you choose to add it. You can run a fully functional BoS OS without ever putting a single confidential document into the system.
It compounds over time. Each session that ends with updated files leaves the BoS OS slightly more informed than before. The decisions you log, the strategies you refine, the agent instructions you improve: these accumulate. The longer you run it, the better it knows your business.
It is not an AI product in the conventional sense. The BoS OS does not do anything on its own. It is the structure that makes AI useful for your specific company, rather than useful in general. The AI is the engine. The BoS OS is what points it at your business.
My IT or security team is nervous about Claude. How do we set it up safely?
There are two separate questions here, and they have different answers.
The first is not about the BoS OS at all. It is about whether your company is ready to use AI-enabled tools in general. That is a company policy question your security team is right to ask, and it applies to Claude the same way it applies to any other AI tool. Involve them early, work through your existing policies, and make sure Claude sits within your governance framework before you start.
The second question is about the BoS OS specifically, and the answer is straightforward: the BoS OS is a series of folders and text files that sit on your machine. There is no database, no cloud sync, no background process. You decide which files Claude can see during a session, and when the session ends, it stops. Nothing goes anywhere you have not chosen to put it.
The BoS OS starts from zero trust by design. The bootstrap builds your first version from publicly available information about your company only. Nothing private, nothing internal. You can run a fully functional BoS OS from that point without putting a single confidential document into the system. From there, what you add and when is entirely your call.
One thing worth being deliberate about: how Claude handles data from your sessions is governed by Anthropic’s terms and conditions and your account settings, not the BoS OS. Check those settings before you start and make sure they reflect what your organisation needs. Do not assume the defaults are right for you, and do not rely on anyone else’s summary of the terms, including this one.
The BoS OS exists so that you control your AI, not the other way round. If a step ever feels like it requires you to give up control, that is a signal something has gone wrong.
I'm on a Mac / Windows and the setup instructions don't match what I'm seeing.
Mac and Windows paths and tooling differ. If you get stuck on setup steps that don’t match your environment, use the Cowork-only flow. It avoids the command-line entirely. If you’re on Windows and need PowerShell installed, that’s a one-time setup step.
I'm not on Mac and can't use the Cowork desktop app. Can I still use the BoS OS?
Yes, with some friction. The BoS OS is a folder of text files, and Claude Code (the command-line tool) can read and update them on any platform. The Cowork desktop app makes this significantly easier and is strongly recommended where available. If you are on Linux or Windows without Cowork, Claude Code is the path. It works, it just requires a bit more setup. For step-by-step help, ask in the workshop community or reach out to BoS directly at mark@businessofsoftware.org. Someone who has done it will walk you through it.
What's the difference between the bootstrap skill and the workshop skill?
Bootstrap creates the initial structure of your BoS OS from public information about your company. The workshop skill then walks you through refining it: adding your real goals, metrics, values, and decisions. Bootstrap first, workshop second. They’re sequential, not interchangeable.
What is the workshop skill actually trying to produce?
Fair criticism of v1: early versions of the workshop skill did not state their goal clearly upfront. Later versions have addressed this. The intended output is: (1) a refined set of BoS OS strategy documents that reflect your actual business rather than the bootstrapped draft, and (2) a first mission with a defined goal, owner, and timeline. If you are running the workshop and those two things are not yet taking shape, ask it directly: “What are we trying to have at the end of this? What does done look like?”
How do I install a skill? The zip file structure isn't working.
Skills are installed from the Claude sidebar under “Skills.” The zip file must have the skill folder at the top level, not nested inside another folder. If Claude says it cannot find the skill after installing, unzip the file, check the structure, and re-zip from inside the skill folder rather than from the parent level.
When a readme says “spec a new agent,” the command to type is: run agent spec builder (or the equivalent named command). If the instructions don’t tell you the exact phrase to type, that’s a gap. Ask in the workshop community and we’ll update the docs.
Should I use voice input instead of typing?
If you already use voice-to-text tools, yes. Whisper Flow or Super Whisper work well with the BoS OS because you’re usually explaining a situation rather than issuing precise commands. If you’ve never tried voice-to-text, the setup cost is worth it for AI work in general.
Using Claude / The Interface
Why can't I find that conversation I had earlier? Did it get deleted?
Archived conversations aren’t deleted. Go to “View All” on the left sidebar to find archived threads. To move one back into a project, use the three-dot menu on the thread.
Why doesn't the BoS OS automatically update my files when I accept a suggestion?
This is a deliberate design choice in the BoS OS, not a limitation of Claude. The BoS OS requires explicit instruction before writing to any file. If you ask a question, read the answer, and close the session without telling it to write anything, nothing is saved. This is intentional: the BoS OS should never change your files without your say-so.
To make a suggestion stick, tell it: “Good, update the relevant documents with this.” Claude will then propose the specific changes, which you approve before anything is written. This is the single most common reason new users do not see the BoS OS improving over time: the conversation was good, but the instruction to write was never given.
Should I keep my conversations going, or start new ones? And do I need to close old sessions?
Start fresh conversations for new topics. Long threads slow Claude down because it re-reads the entire thread on every message. That is Claude’s behaviour, not something the BoS OS controls. End each session, archive the thread, and start fresh next time. Starting fresh does not mean starting from scratch: Claude builds a summary of your work over time, so it retains context across conversations on paid plans.
The BoS OS-specific reason to close sessions properly: if a session discussed changes to your OS files that were never written, those changes do not exist. If you then start a new session, the BoS OS will not have them. The most common source of confusion about setup is sessions that ended without the write step. Go through open threads, complete any pending file updates, and archive them before your next session.
What's the difference between Opus and Sonnet? Which one should I use?
These are Claude models, not BoS OS features. Opus is more capable and more expensive. Use it for strategic work, bootstrapping, and complex reasoning. Sonnet is faster and cheaper. Use it for everyday tasks like drafting content, reviewing documents, and routine agent work. Practical tip: do your heavy lifting in the morning before US usage drives token costs up after around 1pm UK time.
Can I switch models (Opus / Sonnet) mid-conversation?
No. This is a Claude limitation: once you start a thread, the model is fixed for that thread. If you realise halfway through that you want a more capable model, you need to start a new conversation. Decide your model before you start, not after. For strategic work and bootstrapping, start with Opus. For routine tasks, Sonnet is fine and uses fewer tokens. Think of it as choosing the right tool before you pick up the job, not after.
Is Claude making things up? I asked it about a company and it invented details.
Yes. This is Claude’s behaviour, not the BoS OS. Claude can state things confidently that are not true. This is why the BoS OS is built around grounding Claude in your own documents: when it works from files you have written and approved, the output is verifiable. When it works from general recall, it can be wrong. For research tasks about external companies or people, always ask for sources and verify key claims independently.
What do the blue and grey conversations on the left sidebar mean?
Blue means there are unread updates in that thread. Claude wrote something you haven’t seen yet. Grey means you’ve read everything in it. It has nothing to do with whether the session is open, closed, or active.
Why does Claude finish a task in 30 minutes when I told it to "work for three hours"?
Claude doesn’t experience time. “Work for three hours” means nothing to it. It works until the task is complete or it hits a context or tool limit, however long that takes. For large tasks, break them into explicit phases with defined outputs rather than giving a time budget. If you want Claude to do more, give it more things to do in sequence, not more time.
Can I branch a conversation and come back to the original thread?
Branching isn’t currently available in Cowork. The practical workaround: start a new conversation in the same project for the side topic, then return to the original thread when you’re ready. Both threads share the same project file context, so there’s no loss of background knowledge about your business. Only the specific conversation history differs.
Does the BoS OS have real agents, or are they just scheduled tasks?
When you are not in a session, nothing is running. Claude’s Cowork UI has no persistent background process. What the BoS OS calls “agents” are scheduled prompts: Claude wakes at a set time, reads its instructions and your BoS OS files, does the task, and stops. “Agent” in the BoS OS is a conceptual label for a role with defined decision boundaries, not a technical description of how Claude works underneath. If you are expecting persistent, autonomous agents that monitor things continuously between sessions, that is not the current architecture. What you get instead is structured, bounded, scheduled tasks that run with your context and your constraints. In practice that is more controllable and often more useful than fully autonomous agents, but it is worth understanding the distinction so your expectations match the reality.
What does "top-down vs bottom-up" mean? I keep hearing this.
Bottom-up means starting with a specific tool, task, or problem: “I need a content calendar,” “I need to filter these search results,” “I need to sort out our transcript process.” Top-down means starting with the outcome and letting the system figure out how to get there: “I want newsletter subscribers to grow, what does our content system need to do?” or “I want to understand what’s actually driving trial conversions.”
The BoS OS gets dramatically more useful when you work top-down. When you start with the solution, you constrain what it can suggest. When you start with the goal, it can draw on everything it knows about your business and propose approaches you wouldn’t have thought of. A useful test: if you can describe what the output should look like before you’ve asked the question, you’re probably being too specific. Try opening it up.
File Structure / The OS Itself
What are RFCs? Why does it keep calling things "RFC-001"?
RFC stands for “Request for Comments,” an engineering term for a working document. In the BoS OS, RFCs are strategy documents describing one operational area of your business (e.g., marketing, sales, values). Newer versions of the BoS OS rename these to plain English (e.g., “Values and Culture,” “Brand and Messaging”) to remove the jargon.
What's a CLAUDE.md file and why does it matter?
CLAUDE.md is the rules file that every session reads at startup. It’s your company’s constitution. It tells the BoS OS who you are, what constraints it must follow, and what it should always do and never do. Everything in the BoS OS sits on top of this foundation. Getting it right is the most important single step.
Can I use Google Drive, Dropbox, or GitHub to share the OS with my team? What should I keep private?
The BoS OS has two folder tiers by design: a private folder for anything confidential (financials, personnel notes, sensitive client information) that stays on your machine, and a shared folder for the strategy documents, agent specs, and deliverables you choose to make accessible to your team. Not everything needs to go in the shared folder. Some strategy documents may stay private, depending on what you are comfortable sharing. You decide what goes where.
For sharing the team folder: Dropbox works well and is what BoS uses internally, and it is the simplest option for non-technical teams. GitHub with GitHub Desktop as a simpler interface is the robust long-term solution, giving you version control, access permissions, and the ability to review changes before they go in. Google Drive has known compatibility limitations with Claude on Windows. Even files set to “available offline” can be unreadable. Start with Dropbox and move to Git when the team is ready.
One thing to be aware of regardless of which tool you use: Claude cannot index files on a remote shared drive. The folder needs to be connected locally on each person’s machine.
My cloud sync tool is conflicting with my OS files. What do I do?
Conflicts between cloud sync tools and the BoS OS are a known friction point across platforms. When a sync tool is actively managing the same files Claude is writing to, you can get conflicts, read errors, or files that appear to update but don’t. This is largely a platform limitation rather than something the BoS OS can solve, but it is improving as these tools mature. The minimum viable setup that avoids most of these issues: keep your private BoS OS folder on a plain local path outside any sync boundary, and share only the team folder via a sync tool. Dropbox tends to behave most reliably in practice. For team sharing at scale, Git (with GitHub Desktop as a simpler interface) is the robust long-term answer. If you are on a corporate device with enforced sync policies, talk to IT about creating an exclusion for the BoS OS folder path.
Should I keep company knowledge inside my OS strategy documents, or build a separate knowledge base?
Start by putting knowledge into the BoS OS. Every piece of information you add enriches the system. The more context the BoS OS has about your business, the better it gets at helping you think and act. This is how the BoS OS compounds over time: not by completing individual tasks, but by accumulating a richer picture of your business that makes every future task more useful. The practical limit comes later, when you are running at scale: if you try to embed your entire competitive intelligence library, your full CRM history, and every meeting note, you will eventually hit context limits and the system will become slower and less focused. When that happens, the right move is to externalise raw data to a knowledge base and let the BoS OS point to it, keeping the distilled judgment (decisions, strategy, agent instructions) inside the BoS OS and the supporting detail outside. For now, lean toward putting things in. The compounding value of a richer BoS OS outweighs the theoretical future cost of tidying it up.
If I update the bootstrap skill, will it overwrite everything I've already done?
No. The bootstrap is additive. It adds to what’s there; it does not replace it. Back up your BoS OS folder before running a new version, just in case.
We have good discussions on Discord/Slack. How do we get those into the BoS OS?
The simplest current approach: export your channel history and run it through the transcript processing flow. The BoS OS will pull out decisions, action items, and anything worth keeping. For a more automated path, tools like Zapier can connect Slack or Discord to trigger BoS OS updates without manual export steps. Claude’s integrations are expanding quickly and this will become increasingly seamless over time. Key principle regardless of method: any decision worth keeping should make it into the BoS OS within 24 hours, or it probably won’t happen.
Getting Value
The BoS OS gave me a number, a recommendation, or a plan. Should I just go with it?
Think of everything the BoS OS produces as a suggestion, not an option. When someone gives you four options to choose from, you feel obliged to pick one. A suggestion is different. You can take it, ignore it, or go in a completely different direction. That is the right relationship to have with BoS OS outputs.
This matters most when the BoS OS produces something that looks precise but is not grounded in data. Ask it for a target and it will give you one. Ask it if the target is “more realistic” and it will give you a lower one, because to an LLM, “more realistic” reads as “the number is too high, bring it down.” It is not exercising judgment. It is pattern-matching on your phrasing. Neither number means anything without a baseline. The BoS OS is responsive, not automatically cautious about its own uncertainty, so you have to be.
When the BoS OS gives you a number or a recommendation, the question to ask is: what data would actually inform this? Go and get some of that before you act. A target set against a known baseline is worth ten times a target set against nothing.
The BoS OS is a thinking tool. It is at its best when you push back on it, not when you accept the first thing it says.
I'm not sure where to start or what to focus on first.
Start with two things: your CLAUDE.md (the rules file) and one strategy document covering the area where you most want AI to help. Do not try to build the whole BoS OS at once. Get one area working well, then add more.
How do I get my team to actually use this?
Start by building it yourself. Get the bootstrap done, run the workshop, complete at least one mission that produces something genuinely useful. Then bring people in to help solve specific pieces of the puzzle, not to join an AI project, but to help make the business better, clearer, and easier to work in.
That framing matters. If you present this as “we’re adopting AI,” you will get mixed reactions. If you present it as “here’s something that makes our strategy clearer and our decisions easier to find,” people lean in. The BoS OS is a tool for running the business better. Lead with that, and team adoption follows naturally.
I built a workflow but it still has a manual step. How do I remove it?
Ask the BoS OS, but frame the question at the level of the whole system, not just the one step. Rather than “how do I automate this paste,” try: “Here is my full workflow. I want it to run without any manual steps. What needs to change, and what are my options?” The BoS OS knows your connected platforms and your constraints. When you give it the whole picture, it can suggest a better approach. Sometimes the manual step is a symptom of a broader design issue rather than just a missing integration. The habit to build: whenever something feels like friction, describe the outcome you want and ask the BoS OS how the system could deliver it. That question is almost always more useful than trying to fix the specific step yourself.
What makes a good mission? Mine scored badly when I ran the evaluation.
A mission is not a parking lot for ideas. If you have written something like “explore how AI could help with marketing” or “think about our hiring process,” that is a topic, not a mission. A well-formed mission has: a specific outcome you can describe, an owner, a timeline, and a clear definition of done. The evaluation scores poorly when those elements are missing because the agents have nothing concrete to act on. The fix is not to delete the idea. Ask instead: what specifically would we do, by when, and how would we know it worked? If you cannot answer those three questions, the mission is not ready yet.
What's the difference between an activity and an outcome? Why does it matter for missions?
An activity is something you do: “publish talks,” “write emails,” “run the keyword monitor.” An outcome is what changes as a result: “newsletter subscribers up 20%,” “trial-to-paid conversion improves,” “two qualified prospects engage per week.”
Missions need outcomes, not activities. Agents can only build feedback loops around things that can be measured. If your mission says “do X,” you’ll never know whether X worked. If it says “achieve Y,” you can check, iterate, and improve.
When you write a mission, ask yourself: “how would I know in four weeks whether this succeeded?” If you can’t answer that with a number or a clear observable state, the mission isn’t ready. The Mission Planner will catch some of this, but the activity/outcome distinction is one you need to apply yourself.
What's the difference between an agent and a mission?
An agent is a role. It has a defined purpose, a decision boundary, and things it’s allowed to do without asking. A mission is a time-bound project with a goal, a scope, and an end state. Agents run inside missions. The common mistake early on is building an agent that’s trying to do everything a mission should do: a mission dressed up as an agent. If your thing has a goal, a timeline, and a deliverable, it’s a mission. If it has a role and a decision boundary and runs repeatedly, it’s an agent. The right way to think about it: define the mission first. What outcome are you trying to achieve, by when? Then ask which parts of that work an agent can handle on your behalf. The mission sets the direction. The agent does a bounded piece of the work within it.
The BoS OS keeps suggesting I spec a CEO agent. Should I?
Not necessarily first. Before deciding what agent to build, answer a prior question: what roles or functions in your business currently have no reliable owner, human or AI? The CEO agent framing can push you straight into speccing an agent for your most complex, judgment-heavy work, which is the hardest place to start and the easiest place to stall. A better starting point: map the functions that are either undone or poorly owned, then ask which of those an agent could handle with a clear decision boundary. The CEO agent might be the right answer eventually, but it should be the conclusion of that thinking, not the opening assumption.
I've been through the workshop but still don't know what my mission should be.
Start with the press release. Describe, in two sentences, what success looks like six weeks from now, as if writing a headline for it. Then work backward: what would have to be true for that headline to be real? That’s your mission scope. If you can’t write the press release, the mission is still too vague to execute. That’s useful to know.
My Mission Planner didn't push back on measurability. Is that a bug?
Not a bug, but a known gap. The current Mission Planner focuses on scoping and phasing. It will catch many weak missions, but it doesn’t yet consistently challenge you on whether the mission is outcome-oriented and measurable. If your mission feels like a to-do list rather than a business objective, ask the Mission Planner directly: “Is this mission outcome-oriented and measurable? What would a more ambitious version of this goal look like?” That usually surfaces the gap. A more proactive challenge on measurability is planned for a future skill update.
The output doesn't sound like us. It sounds too generic.
This means the BoS OS does not yet have enough of your company’s voice in it. When the output sounds wrong, tell it specifically what is off and ask it to update the relevant strategy document or voice guidelines. Over time, as you give feedback and the documents improve, outputs get more specific to you.
What's the "one number I should be watching"? What's a north star metric?
The bootstrap asks this to anchor the BoS OS on what actually matters to your business. Do not overthink it. It is whatever number, if it went up, would tell you the business is heading in the right direction. Revenue, MRR, trial conversions, demo bookings: whatever you actually check first on a Monday morning.
I want multiple co-founders or team members to work on the same problem. How do we share context?
There’s no live shared-session feature yet, but there’s a practical workaround. When you’ve been working through an idea and want teammates to build on it, ask the BoS OS to write a “current working thinking” summary to a file in your shared BoS OS folder (e.g., 00_LOCAL_CONTEXT/thinking_on_[topic].md). Anyone on the team can open that file, continue in their own session, and write back. It’s asynchronous rather than live, but the shared folder keeps the thinking accessible and compounding.
This is an area being actively developed. Expect better support for team collaboration in future BoS OS versions.
I tried to filter noise from my agent's results at the tool level, but it's not working well. What should I do instead?
Don’t try to solve filtering inside the external tool (e.g., negative keywords in an API search config). Instead, give the BoS OS the raw results and tell it directly what’s irrelevant and why: “anything related to games or game development is noise for my use case.” The BoS OS learns your filtering criteria across sessions and gets better at qualification over time. The external tool does the broad search; the BoS OS does the judgment. Trying to pre-filter at the API level removes the BoS OS’s ability to learn your specific criteria, and most APIs can’t handle the nuance you actually need anyway.
Bigger Picture
Is this just a fancy way of using ChatGPT?
No. ChatGPT (or Claude without this system) is a general-purpose AI with no memory of your company and no constraints on what it does. The BoS OS gives Claude persistent context about your specific business: your values, strategy, decisions, constraints. It operates as a knowledgeable colleague rather than a blank-slate chatbot. The files are the thing, not the AI.
What does "the antidote to ad hoc AI adoption" mean?
Most companies use AI reactively. Someone finds a useful tool, others copy them, nobody coordinates. This produces duplication, inconsistency, and AI that does not actually know the business. The BoS OS is the structured alternative: AI that runs on the same values, strategy, and constraints that govern everything else in your company.
How reliable is the output? When should I act on it and when should I check it?
This is one of the most important questions to answer before you rely on the BoS OS for anything consequential.
The AI at the core of the BoS OS is probabilistic, not deterministic. Traditional software gives the same output every time for the same input. AI gives an output within a range. It can vary, and it can be wrong, sometimes confidently. This is not a bug to work around. It is the nature of how these systems work.
In practice, think in three zones.
High confidence, act on it: formatting, summarising, restructuring content you have provided, drafting from a clear brief. The output is reliable here because you can verify it against the source material.
Calibration required, challenge it: analysis, strategy, interpretation, research about external companies or people. The output may be directionally right but factually wrong on specifics. Always ask for sources on factual claims. Treat strategic analysis as a starting point, not a conclusion.
Always verify before acting: anything with external consequences such as commitments, communications, financial figures, legal or regulatory claims. The system can state things with complete confidence that are not true. If you would be embarrassed if the output turned out to be wrong, verify it independently before acting.
The BoS OS governance model, specifically the decision cascade and the rule that nothing goes external without human approval, is the practical answer to this question built into the system. Governance is not bureaucracy. It is how you manage the gap between what the system produces and what you can safely rely on.
Why does the BoS OS produce better answers than just asking Claude directly?
Because Claude’s accuracy is primarily a context problem, not a capability problem.
When you ask bare Claude a question, it searches across everything it knows, which might include dozens of plausible-but-conflicting answers to your question. The more ambiguous your business context, the more likely it picks the wrong one, confidently.
The BoS OS narrows that space down to a single governed answer. When you have one clear values document, one strategy for a given area, one definition of your ICP, the BoS OS doesn’t have to guess which one to use. It uses yours. The output is more reliable not because the AI got smarter, but because you removed the ambiguity it would otherwise have to resolve on its own.
This is also why letting the BoS OS go stale matters more than it looks. If your strategy documents haven’t been updated in three months, the BoS OS is still working from a three-month-old version of your business. The AI doesn’t flag that. It just uses what’s there. Keeping the files current is not housekeeping. It is the main thing that keeps outputs accurate.
What's the point of the funnel map, and when would I use it?
A funnel map is a visual representation of how activity flows through a system, from input to output, stage by stage. In the BoS OS, it helps you see where leads or content enter, what happens at each stage, and where things drop off.
It is most useful when planning missions around growth or marketing. Rather than assuming you need to improve the whole system, a funnel map lets you ask: which stage are we actually trying to fix? A mission aimed at the wrong stage will produce effort without results.
If you ask the BoS OS to show you your funnel map, it will generate one from the strategy and mission documents in your BoS OS. If the output looks wrong (stages missing or in the wrong sequence), that usually means the relevant strategy documents do not yet describe your actual funnel clearly. Use that as a prompt to improve those documents rather than correcting the map directly.