Closing the Loop: Drafting the Post-Meeting Feedback Summary
Objective: Given raw facilitator notes from a CAB meeting, build the three-part written follow-up the lesson requires within 5 business days, then flag which commitments are at risk under the 60-day rule.
You run customer marketing at Wise, six days after the company's first in-person CAB summit. You have raw facilitator notes from two strategic topics and the roadmap-reaction session, and 5 business days left to send a written summary before members start disengaging.
Turn messy notes into the heard / doing / not-doing summary the lesson prescribes, then attach ship dates and flag anything that risks the 60-day rule.
Before you start
What you'll need
Free path (everything below is enough to finish)
Free, easy to share and comment on with the exec sponsor
Free, sortable by date for the escalation check
Paid upgrades (optional, faster/deeper)
The free Docs-and-Sheets path covers a single meeting cycle; a CRM log only starts paying off once you're tracking commitments across multiple CAB cycles.
Keeps the commitment history attached to the account instead of a standalone doc
The process
2 steps
Step 01 of 02
The lesson requires a written summary within 5 business days covering what you heard, what you're doing about it, and what you're explicitly not doing and why. The 'not doing' section is the one that proves the feedback was genuinely evaluated.
The raw notes contain 6 distinct pieces of feedback. How do you sort them into the three sections without softening the 'not doing' items into vague language like 'we'll consider it'?
Procedure
- List all 6 raw feedback items from the facilitator notes as a working table
- Sort each into Heard, Doing, or Not Doing based on what leadership actually committed to in the room
- For every 'Not Doing' item, write one concrete, specific reason, no hedging language
- Draft the summary in the lesson's three-section format
WHAT WE HEARD - Multi-currency batch payouts are the #1 blocker for our marketplace-seller segment - API rate limits are too low for members processing 500+ transfers/day WHAT WE'RE DOING - Batch payouts: entering discovery this quarter, targeting Q1 next year WHAT WE'RE NOT DOING (AND WHY) - Raising default API rate limits for all users: the segment affected is under 3% of members; we're building a dedicated high-volume tier instead, details in 60 days
Healthy
Each 'not doing' item names a specific, checkable reason.
Unhealthy
'Not doing' items written as 'we'll keep this in mind for the future.'
What this means
A vague 'not doing' reason reads as the feedback being ignored, which is exactly the outcome the section is meant to prevent.
So what do I do about it?
| Symptom | Action | Effort |
|---|---|---|
| A 'not doing' item has no concrete reason attached | Go back to the decision-maker in the room and get the actual reason before sending | 30 min |
Step 02 of 02
The lesson's Common Mistakes section names the 60-day rule as the single biggest predictor of long-term CAB health: if members don't see visible movement on their input within 60 days, attendance starts dropping.
Of the 3 items now in 'What We're Doing,' which ones have a ship date inside 60 days, and which need to be escalated to stay on the clock?
Procedure
- List each 'doing' commitment with its current target ship date
- Calculate days remaining from the meeting date to each target date
- Flag any commitment with no date, or a date past 60 days, in red
- Escalate flagged items to the executive sponsor with a specific ask: a date, or a visible interim update
COMMITMENT TRACKER 1. Batch payouts discovery kickoff -- target: day 21 -- ON TRACK 2. API rate-limit tier scoping doc -- target: day 58 -- ON TRACK, tight 3. Mobile push notification prefs -- target: none set -- FLAGGED, escalate to exec sponsor today
Healthy
Every 'doing' item has a date inside 60 days, or an escalation logged the same day.
Unhealthy
A 'doing' commitment with no date sitting unescalated for two weeks.
What this means
An undated commitment isn't a commitment; it's the exact gap that erodes trust before the next meeting.
So what do I do about it?
| Symptom | Action | Effort |
|---|---|---|
| A 'doing' item has no ship date by the time the summary goes out | Escalate to the exec sponsor for a hard date before sending, don't send the summary without one | 30 min |
Final deliverable
A written CAB follow-up summary (heard / doing / not-doing) ready to send within 5 business days, plus a 60-day commitment tracker flagging any at-risk item.
See a reference example
Coinbase, CAB Follow-Up Summary -- Q2 2026 (excerpt) WHAT WE HEARD - Institutional members want sub-account permissioning before Q3 WHAT WE'RE DOING - Sub-account permissioning: scoping doc due day 45, escalated to VP Product as owner WHAT WE'RE NOT DOING (AND WHY) - Custom API keys per sub-account: security review flagged this as a 2027 roadmap item, not deprioritized, genuinely sequenced behind a compliance dependency
Success criteria
You're done when you can:
- Sorts all 6 raw feedback items into heard / doing / not-doing with no vague language in the not-doing section
- Attaches a ship date to every 'doing' commitment
- Flags and escalates any commitment that risks breaking the 60-day rule