What belongs in In Parallel (and what doesn’t)

In Parallel works best when it stays focused: it’s for execution reality, not everything your team produces. Clear boundaries keep the system calm, trustworthy, and high-signal.

What belongs in In Parallel

In Parallel is designed to maintain a living execution plan per scope—so it should contain the things that shape and explain execution reality.

Put these in In Parallel:

1) Priorities (ranked and current)

The plan is built to show what matters most right now—so priorities belong here, especially when they change.

2) Goals and commitments

Goals/commitments are the outcomes you’re accountable for in a scope. They anchor the plan even as tasks change.

3) Decisions and decision context

When priorities shift or scope changes, the “why” matters as much as the “what.” Decisions should be captured and linked to plan changes so execution stays explainable over time.

4) Risks and dependencies

If something could change the plan or delivery confidence, it belongs here—because it changes execution reality.

5) Accountable actions (not granular tasks)

In Parallel should hold actions that require clear ownership and follow-through—especially the ones that show up from meetings and need confirmation.

6) “What changed” (snapshots)

Every meaningful plan update creates a snapshot, which is the cleanest way to review change and stay aligned.

What should stay in other tools

In Parallel does not replace your delivery tools or knowledge systems. Keep these in their native tools:

Delivery detail (Jira/Asana/Linear/etc.)

subtasks and ticket breakdowns
sprint mechanics
backlog grooming
technical work tracking

In Parallel can connect to these systems, but it shouldn’t become a mirror of them.

Documentation (Notion/Docs)

specs and PRDs
long-form design docs
onboarding docs
reference material

Real-time discussion (Slack/Teams)

live coordination threads
brainstorming
negotiation and back-and-forth
quick questions and clarifications

In Parallel may connect to Slack/Teams, but its purpose is to turn signals into execution clarity—not to become another chat surface.

A simple rule of thumb

Ask: “Does this change execution reality?”

If it helps answer:

What are we doing now?
What changed?
Who owns it?
What’s at risk?
Why did we decide this?

…it belongs in In Parallel.

If it’s primarily:

work detail,
documentation,
or conversation flow,

…it belongs in the tools built for those purposes.

Common mistakes (and how to fix them)

Mistake: Using In Parallel as a task dump

Symptoms:

the plan becomes long and unreadable
priorities get buried
stakeholders can’t tell what matters

Fix:

keep task granularity in delivery tools
keep In Parallel actions limited to accountable “execution moves”
ensure priorities are small and ranked

Mistake: Treating meeting transcripts as the product

Symptoms:

people scroll raw text instead of reviewing decisions/actions
“what changed?” becomes unclear

Fix:

rely on post-meeting reports and snapshots, not raw transcripts
confirm decisions/actions in the report review step

Mistake: Putting strategy narratives in the plan

Symptoms:

the plan reads like a slide deck
reality and aspiration get mixed

Fix:

keep the plan grounded: priorities, commitments, risks, ownership, changes
keep strategy documents where they belong (docs/decks)

Best practices for healthy boundaries

Keep each scope small enough that the plan is legible.
Use snapshots as the default review mechanism.
Keep stakeholders on high-signal views: priorities, risks, decisions.
Let other tools do what they’re good at; let In Parallel do what it’s uniquely good at: maintaining execution reality.