Every other HQ has a board about its subject. This one is about your own work, and it is the only place in the platform where that is measured.
The board covers a period, defaulting to this month, and the period applies to every tile on it at once.
The numbers
Tasks done. Completed within the period.
Doing. In progress right now.
Planned. Queued and not started.
Upcoming. Open and due now or later.
Completion rate. The share of your tasks that actually got finished.
Meetings. Recorded and analysed.
Calendar events. Everything that appeared on the grid.
AI conversations. Threads with the assistant.
Pins saved. Things you kept.
One thing about the task numbers
They cover both ordinary tasks and engineering issues, unified into one set, so somebody working across both does not have to add two figures together and hope the definitions matched.
They deliberately exclude pure personal to-dos. An undated, unassigned, unestimated note to yourself is not project work, and counting it would make completion rate mean nothing at all, since anybody could improve it by writing more reminders.
The charts
Tasks by source. Where your work actually comes from: the Cockpit, a meeting, a chat mention, a huddle, the assistant, engineering, sales, your own department, or nowhere identifiable.
This is the most interesting tile on the board and the least expected. Most people are wrong about where their work originates, usually by a wide margin. A bar dominated by chat mentions describes a completely different working life from one dominated by sprint issues, and the two justify different habits and different defences of your time.
Task velocity. Completions over time. The shape matters more than the level: a saw-tooth means you work in bursts, a flat line means steady throughput, a sustained decline means something worth investigating.
Meetings by source. Five kinds: NearSync, in person, Google or Microsoft, WhatsApp, and web chat.
The last two are the tell for any customer-facing team. Meetings arriving from WhatsApp and from the website are inbound demand, and a change in their share is a marketing signal that shows up here well before it shows up in the pipeline.
Meetings by type. Which kinds of meeting you actually have, as opposed to which kinds you believe you have. The gap is usually instructive.
Calendar activity. Events over time. The honest measure of how meeting-heavy a period was, which is otherwise a matter of opinion.
AI message volume. How much you are using the assistant, over time.
What to do with it
Once a month, not once a day. These are shape measurements. Checked daily they are noise, and reacting to noise is worse than not looking.
Read completion rate against velocity. A high rate with low velocity means you are completing a few things carefully. A low rate with high velocity means you are creating faster than you finish, which is the more common problem and the one that quietly builds a backlog nobody notices until it is large.
Read tasks by source against how you feel. People who describe their week as reactive almost always have a source chart dominated by chat and Cockpit items. That is a fixable problem, and the fix is upstream of the task list: fewer channels, better routing, clearer ownership.
Read calendar activity against task velocity. The month where meetings went up and completions went down is not a mystery. Having both on one screen is what lets you make that argument to yourself, and to somebody else if you need to.
Where the numbers come from
Worth knowing, because it explains a few surprises.
Tasks come from a unified view over ordinary tasks and engineering issues, with pure personal to-dos excluded. That is why the count here can differ from the number of rows you see in Plan.
Meetings counts recorded and analysed sessions, not everything in your calendar. A day of meetings with no recorder shows up under calendar events and not under meetings.
Calendar events counts everything on the grid, which includes the HQ calendars. If the number looks implausibly high, it is counting sprint boundaries and article publish dates alongside your actual meetings.
AI conversations counts threads rather than questions, so a long working session is one.
Setting the period
The period control at the top applies to every tile at once, which matters more than it sounds.
This month is the default and the right one for a routine check.
Last month is the honest one, because a month in progress always looks worse than it will end up, and comparing a half-finished month against a complete one is how people talk themselves into feeling behind.
A quarter is where the charts start being readable. Task velocity and meetings by source both need enough points to have a shape, and a month rarely provides them.
Change it once, read everything, and change it back. Comparing tiles across different periods is the fastest way to reach a wrong conclusion.
Four questions it answers well
"Where does my week actually go?" Calendar activity against task velocity, read together.
"Am I finishing things or collecting them?" Completion rate against the planned and doing counts. A growing Planned column with a flat Done column is the clearest early warning of overcommitment available anywhere in the product.
"Is inbound demand changing?" Meetings by source, watching the WhatsApp and web chat bars over three months.
"Am I reactive or directed?" Tasks by source. It is the most confronting tile and the most useful one.
What is deliberately absent
No comparison to anybody else. There is no team board and no ranking, because task counts across roles are not comparable and presenting them as though they were would be actively misleading.
No targets. Nothing here has a goal line, because a goal line on a count of tasks produces smaller tasks.
No streaks. Nothing rewards consistency for its own sake.
Everything absent is absent for the same reason: this measures the shape of your work, and every gamification device would distort the shape it is measuring.
What it is not
It is not a performance measure, and it produces nonsense when used as one.
Task counts vary enormously by role. Completion rate rewards whoever writes the smallest tasks. Meeting counts reward whoever attends the most meetings, which is rarely the person contributing most.
It is a mirror for your own working habits. That is a genuinely useful thing to have and a considerably narrower one than a scoreboard.
Did this answer your question?
No, ask a person