Sample report
Two founders. One team. Different realities.
Meet a fictional cofounder pair. Their report shows what every Our360 team receives — responses anonymized as Person A and Person B — so click through the six dimensions to see how perception gaps surface.
Commitment & Alignment
spread 0.0 — the two founders see this nearly the same way.
Mutual Accountability
spread 1.8 — the biggest gap in how they read the team.
Perception overlay
Six dimensions
Mutual Accountability
spread 1.8We hold each other to high standards and address misalignments directly rather than avoiding them
gap 2We name missed commitments early, not long after the fact
gap 2We give feedback about specific behavior and its impact, not vague judgments
gap 1We own our part when something goes wrong, rather than deflecting
gap 2What this means
The biggest gap in the report — 1.8 points — and it isn’t about effort, it’s about visibility. Person A believes standards are being upheld and slips get named early (4s and 5s). Person B experiences the opposite (2s and 3s). When one founder thinks accountability is happening and the other doesn’t feel it, misses usually get discussed — but only in one direction, or only in private. This is the first conversation your coach would open.
Conversation prompt
When a commitment slips, how quickly do we name it?
Narrative insights
Aligned on where you're going. Split on how you hold each other to it.
Start with what's working: your commitment to a shared direction is airtight. Both of you rate the company's vision a perfect 5, and your averages on commitment are identical. You are not misaligned on the destination — which means every gap below is a disagreement about the journey, and those are solvable.
The pattern worth your attention runs through two dimensions at once. Person B rates your conflict as direct and productive (4.3) but experiences accountability as weak (2.5). Person A reports the mirror image: conflict feels filtered (2.8) but accountability feels strong (4.3). Read together, these aren't two separate gaps — they're one loop. One of you is likely raising issues in a way that doesn't register as candor to the other; the other is likely holding standards in a way that doesn't register as accountability. Each of you is doing the work — and neither is feeling it from the other side.
The risk if nothing changes: filtered feedback plus invisible accountability is the classic recipe for a slow drift that surfaces suddenly — usually during a high-stakes moment when there's no slack to absorb it. The opportunity: teams with your commitment scores almost always close these gaps quickly once they're named, because nobody is protecting a different agenda.
Where a coach would start: one conversation about the accountability gap, using the statement “we name missed commitments early” as the entry point — it carries the single largest gap in the report, and it's behavioral, not personal.
Every real report includes narrative insights like these, generated from your team's actual scores, gaps, and written reflections — then unpacked with your coach in the debrief.
How to read this report
These founders average a healthy-looking 3.8 overall — but the average hides the story. They're genuinely aligned on commitment and vision, while accountability shows a 1.8-point spread: Person A believes they hold each other to high standards; Person B doesn't experience it that way. Neither is wrong. That gap — not the scores themselves — is the first conversation their coach would open in the debrief. Real reports also include the team's written reflections in their own words, shown without attribution.
All data on this page is fictional.