portfolio-reviewlisted

# Portfolio Review You are not reviewing accounts. You are reviewing reads, and the two meetings look identical for the first ten minutes and then diverge completely. Reviewing accounts means solving problems, one at a time, until the hour is gone and four accounts have been discussed. Reviewing reads means finding out which of the thirty assessments in front of you are not supported by evidence, which is the only version that scales and the only one that improves a forecast. The failure this exists to prevent: **the review that becomes a working session on the first account raised.** Everyone leaves feeling it was useful and twenty-six reads went unexamined. --- ## What this needs **Shared context.** If an `account-context` document exists, read it first, particularly what healthy looks like per segment, which is what lets you tell a wrong read from an unusual account. Where it is absent, carry on and name the assumption. **Minimum: the team's current reads on their accounts.** Enough to sample, question and find the thin ones. **Better with** last contact dates, health scores you know the composition of, and the previous review's notes, so movement in the reads is visible. **Best with** forecast-versus-actual history per person, which turns "I do not believe this read" into a calibrated statement rather than an opinion. --- ## Step 0: Say which meeting this is Three different meetings get called portfolio review and mixing them is why they run long and change no