The renewal depends on proving faster delivery without asking leaders to accept unverified evidence.
The CTO wants a broad proof of value, while the security leader protects review integrity and repository boundaries.
Who you’d be doing this for
“My CTO asked whether we’re shipping faster or just making review louder, and I need an answer I trust.”
Zuzana Popov · Director of Engineering
He leads several teams in the renewal cohort and must recommend whether to continue funding Cursor for the next planning cycle.
What is at stake
The renewal committee sees 64% weekly activity but conflicting evidence on whether review quality is holding. You must weigh a broad value proof against the strict verification needed for a binding renewal plan.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- throughput proof vs review confidence
- broad cohort vs defensible sample
- procurement speed vs evidence quality
- automation insight vs human verification
Why Cursor
Cursor’s enterprise value story rests on agent-assisted changes that developers can validate and engineering leaders can defend.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 42 more at Cursor, or browse every organization.
This is the setup. The work is inside.
Running it puts you in the room: the full situation and its constraints, stakeholders who push back in their own words, and the decisions that are yours to make. What you produce becomes a Day One Plan — work you can show someone instead of describing.