Stand-ups, retros, steering committees and delivery reviews already contain everything a status roll-up needs. meetapp.ai reads them, scores every team and every project against the dimensions you already argue about, and chases whatever nobody covered.
It scores the team, never the person. Blockers nobody is clearing. Decisions that keep being reopened. Commitments made and kept. Things a team can act on together.
Not because the people in them are careless. Because a meeting is the only process most businesses run with no specification, no record of what it was supposed to establish, and no check on whether it did. We would not accept that anywhere else.
It starts without a stated purpose.
Every other process has a spec. A room's purpose is set before anyone joins, and that purpose becomes the agenda.
The agenda is abandoned by item three.
Whatever the meeting never reached is logged as a gap against the dimension it was meant to feed — before anyone leaves.
Actions leave the room without an owner or a date.
Commitments are lifted out with the name and the date attached, from the words that were actually said.
The next one re-establishes what the last one decided.
Decisions and open loops carry forward. The session starts where the previous one stopped, not where memory failed.
The person who actually decides was never in the room.
Coverage shows which of the people this work needs have actually been in a room with you. A decision-maker you have never met is a red cell, not a footnote.
Nobody checks whether any of it happened.
What the room agreed is checked against what actually happened — not to grade anyone, but so nothing quietly falls through.
None of these are hard problems. They survive because nothing holds a meeting to its own purpose. Give the room a purpose, hold the agenda to it, and take the record out automatically — and the hour stops being something you report on afterwards and starts being where the work gets done.
A project spans teams and a team spans projects — many-to-many, and the meetings in each are about different things. Collapsing them into one board forces a choice between who is accountable and what is being delivered. Both boards run on the same engine, and a team can be strained while every project it touches still ships.
Every team gets a room. The weekly lands, commitments are lifted out with names against them, and the board shows which teams are actually delivering what they said they would.
Every project gets a room. Status comes out of the meeting itself rather than a slide someone wrote the night before — so the board shows the position, not the presentation.
Every business judges health differently. meetapp.ai is configured to the dimensions and weights you already argue about in your own reviews — then holds every team to them consistently, across the whole book.
These are not invented dashboard metrics. Clarity of ownership, participation, alignment and follow-through are long-established constructs in organisational research. What has always been missing is a way to measure them without asking people to fill in a survey about themselves — self-reported, months late, and answered the way people wish things were. Reading the conversation measures the behaviour instead.
What the team committed to, against what actually shipped.
Commitments made in the room, and whether they land.
Whether the team leaves with the same understanding of what matters.
Impediments raised, owned and cleared.
How long a decision takes from raised to made.
Whether the whole room contributes, or three people do.
Weights sum to 100. The overall score is the weighted sum of what's visible — no hidden adjustments, no black box. Change what you measure and the rooms start listening for it.
Your board isn't a portfolio unless you call it one. It's a function, a pipeline stage, a client lifecycle, a delivery phase — whatever Monday morning is organised around, under whatever word your people already use: portfolio, book, programme, pipeline. Pick the axis and the board regroups: same rooms, same scores, triaged for whoever's accountable.
Filter the book, sort it worst-first, open a row, click a dimension through to the quote behind it, generate this week's digest. Every room here is the same engine reading a different conversation. Fictitious data, real engine.
Every team gets a room. The weekly lands, commitments are lifted out with names against them, and the board shows which teams are actually delivering what they said they would.
Every dashboard tells you what it knows. This one works on what it doesn't. The gap scanner runs continuously across the whole book, and everything it finds has an owner and a route home.
The agenda called for it; the meeting didn't reach it.
Asked for, acknowledged, not delivered.
Last signal is older than this dimension tolerates.
A commitment with no name or no date against it.
As an item to Ask, Confirm or Bring — leading the meeting.
As a request with a reply scaffold; the reply closes it.
A chase with the original ask quoted back.
A request that goes unanswered for three weeks doesn't leave the score unchanged — it lowers confidence in it. Data quality erodes the longer you go without the next update, and that erosion belongs on the screen, not in someone's head.
Status is assembled by asking six people the same question every Monday
A project looks green until the week the date moves, and then it was always red
Team health and project health are different questions answered by the same RAG column
The escalation arrives after the decision needed to prevent it was already possible