What belongs in In Parallel (and what doesn't)
In Parallel works best when it stays focused on execution reality — not everything your team produces. Clear boundaries keep the system trustworthy, high-signal, and worth opening every day.
What belongs in In Parallel
Put things in In Parallel that shape and explain execution reality — the seven categories In Parallel tracks in Execution Memory: goals and intent, decisions, risks, commitments, ownership changes, learnings, and skills in the room.
What | Why it belongs |
Priorities (ranked and current) | The plan is built to show what matters most right now — especially when they change |
Goals and commitments | Goals anchor the plan even as tasks shift; they're the outcomes you're accountable for in a scope |
Decisions and decision context | When priorities shift or scope changes, the "why" matters as much as the "what" — linking decisions to plan changes keeps execution explainable over time |
Risks and dependencies | If something could change the plan or delivery confidence, it changes execution reality |
Accountable actions | Actions that require clear ownership and follow-through — especially those surfaced from meetings that need confirmation |
What stays in other tools
In Parallel does not replace your delivery tools or knowledge systems.
Keep this in… | For… |
Jira / Asana / Linear | Subtasks, sprint mechanics, backlog grooming, technical work tracking |
Notion / Google Docs | Specs, PRDs, long-form design docs, onboarding docs, reference material |
Slack / Teams | Live coordination threads, quick questions, brainstorming, back-and-forth discussion |
In Parallel can connect to these systems, but it shouldn't become a mirror of them. Its job is to maintain execution reality — not duplicate what other tools already manage well.
The rule of thumb
Ask: Does this change execution reality? Put another way: does it belong in Execution Memory — is it a decision, commitment, risk, ownership change, or goal that will matter in future meetings?
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. Keep the Living Execution Plan at the execution-reality level: priorities, commitments, risks, ownership, decisions. Let other tools do delivery; let In Parallel do what it's uniquely good at — keeping execution reality current without manual effort.
Related