INDEPENDENT · WEEKLY · TELEGRAM

The truth about your development. Once a week.

Everything you know about your development, you know secondhand. MIRADOR shows it directly and independently, in numbers, including the AI-written code piling up underneath your product faster than anyone can read it.

Book a 30-minute call See a sample report

MIRADORweek 14

Verdict

×1.5slower

than promised, but still moving

▮ BREACHSign-up is broken: confirmation codes aren’t reaching some new users

Measured against three reference points
vs. yesterday		+4%
vs. promised		×1.5
vs. norm		p38

p38 = slower than about 6 of 10 comparable teams

This period

~30% of the quarter’s effort went into rebuilding one piece — twice
A third of new code shipped without a second review
Subscription billing rests on one person

Every number traces back to its source fact

COMPUTED BY CODE, NOT AI
READS IN 5 MIN
SCOPE ALL REPOSITORIES

What it is

Three questions, answered every week

MIRADOR answers three questions: does your product work, is it moving, and how fast is development going.

01
Does it work?
The chain from visitor to payment, end to end.
MEASURED ASchain · visitor → payment · end to end
02
Is it moving?
Progress this period, against three reference points.
MEASURED ASmerged work · 7-day window
03
How fast?
How long a typical task takes from start to shipped, against what the team promised.
MEASURED ASlead time, p50 · vs. promised

Once a week (or more often, if you like) a report lands in your Telegram. The headline first: what happened to the product this period. Then the breakdown. Five minutes to read, and you can get on with your day.

Written so you understand it: in your language, in terms that make sense; the wording is shaped to how you talk about your business. And technically correct: your tech lead won’t find an error in it.

What’s happening

One of your biggest costs, known secondhand

Development is one of your largest costs, and almost everything you know about it, you know from other people. That’s simply how it reaches you: you have no other source.

With AI it only got worse. There is more code than anyone can read, and a layer is growing inside your company that no one controls. That layer is already in your product.

Dev analytics tools exist, but they’re built for the team and speak its language. A report in your language doesn’t exist. You have no independent, outside view. And certainly no regular one: looking once is not the same as seeing every week.

90%of developers now write code with AI^*
8×more duplicated code blocks in 2024: copied instead of written once^‡
45%of AI-written code fails security review — unchanged in two years^§

and only 18% of companies measure its effect^†

The report

What you actually read

First: is it moving, and how fast. Then the main highs and the main lows. At the end, the full detail, if you want to dig in.

A team of seven. Three weeks now on a new section. All that time, confirmation codes haven’t been reaching some new users; they can’t register. Over the quarter, about 30% of effort went into rebuilding one piece of the product that was rewritten twice. New releases ship, on average, 1.5× slower than promised. A third of new code reached production bypassing a second reviewer — most of the bugs come from there. Your strongest developer hasn’t written a line in two weeks and isn’t taking tasks. Subscription billing rests on one person: if they leave, that part of the business stops.

An example of what you read

You choose the cadence. We recommend no less than once a week and no more than once every two days: less often loses touch with what’s happening; more often turns into noise.

Does it even work

This is the first thing that gets lost

A team spends a month on a big feature while the product’s registration is broken. The confirmation code doesn’t arrive. The form crashes when you type into it. They count every click in a product that half the people simply can’t open.

Everyone owns their piece, and everyone is right within it. No one watches the whole chain; it has no owner.

MIRADOR watches the product as a chain. If the chain breaks, that stands first in the report, above any numbers about speed or effort.

The order is simple. First, does the thing the product exists for actually work. Then everything else.

arrived4,180
registered212
got the code—breaks here
logged in—
did the thing—
paid—

Against what

A verdict needs a reference point

A verdict with no reference point is worthless. We measure against three at once.

Against your product yesterday+4%
The same method every period, so you can see whether it got better or worse.
Against what the team promised×1.5
The deadlines and tasks it named itself, against what actually shipped.
Against the normp38
A team this size with this product usually delivers about this much. p38 means slower than about six of ten such teams.

No single reference point is a verdict on its own. Divergence across all three is a reason to dig in.

Who’s visible

Everything in your code repository — in full

People, groups, parts of the product. Who did what, how much, and with what result. Not a sample, not a self-report — full detail.

Access levels are configurable: you decide who on your team sees which part of the report.

The report shows what was done, not what kind of person someone is. We don’t rate people and we don’t make HR decisions; that stays with you.

It doesn’t work in secret. MIRADOR is a bridge between you and the team, and both sides need the bridge. The team knows about the report and receives its part. Without that, in a month you’ll be reading pretty numbers instead of the truth.

What the team gets

The report works for both sides

The team sees the report too — that’s a condition of the work, not an option.

For the tech lead, it provides something they can’t get otherwise: independent numbers for the conversation with the owner about tech debt, deadlines, and people.

Not to argue the case in words — to show it.

Why you can trust it

The numbers are computed by code, not AI

Every value, change, ranking, and flag is computed by ordinary code. AI only phrases what’s already been computed (strictly through templates) and helps make sense of the hard parts in words you understand.

AI does not compute the numbers. It does not look at your codebase directly. It does not make decisions.

This is enforced mechanically, not by an instruction in a prompt. Three lines of defense:

01
On input, the model sees only a fact-list: metric, value, period, change, source. Nothing else. The task is set literally as “write text from this list.”
02
The model doesn’t print numbers. It writes prose with slots for the values, and the program fills them in after generation. It physically cannot get a number wrong — it never writes one.
03
Before sending, a check pulls every number and name out of the finished text and matches them against the allowlist. No match means the report doesn’t go out: it goes back for regeneration.

The third line works on manual edits too: you can rewrite the wording and tone, but you can’t push a wrong number through.

An invented number in a sent report isn’t “unlikely” — it’s blocked. Every figure traces back to its source fact, and “where’s this from?” always has an answer.

Who it’s for

MIRADOR makes sense if

development is a real monthly cost for you, not a one-off contract job;
you’re not an IT person, but the product is IT;
the team has at least three developers, a tech lead, and a QA engineer;
all the work lives in one code repository (no “it’s on my laptop”);
you and the team are ready for openness in both directions.

If something here is missing, the report will be either inaccurate or unnecessary. We’ll say so on the first call, not after you’ve paid.

What’s next

Development is the first area, not the only one

MIRADOR is built as a platform: the rules of privacy and trustworthiness are set once at the foundation and apply to everything plugged in above it. Process control, a knowledge base, and team analytics are added as modules, with no new project and no new vendor.

DevelopmentLive
Process control Next
Knowledge base Next
Team analytics Next

Pricing

Two products. One doesn’t require the other.

One-time assessment

$8–15k

fixed, named before we start

15–20 pages and a 90-minute walkthrough. Less than a week’s cost of the team it examines. For when you want one deep look at what has piled up.

Book a call

Subscription

$1.5–4k

per month

A report in your Telegram at the cadence you choose. For when you want to see the picture continuously.

Book a call

No client logos here — engagements run under NDA. The proof is the method: every figure in the report traces back to a source fact, and your tech lead can check every one.

One more thing

The cheapest improvement we know

We see the same thing again and again: someone poured hundreds of thousands into a product and never once opened it.

So, from time to time, our system asks you to open your own app and walk it through by our method, from sign-up to closing a deal, and to say what you think. Your feedback goes to the team along with the report.

Often that one thing decides whether your product succeeds. And it is the cheapest improvement we know.

How to start

30 minutes → read-access under NDA → first report

That’s the whole path. On the first call we’ll tell you honestly whether MIRADOR fits — before you pay.

Book a 30-minute call hello@mayday.software

MIRADOR

MIRADOR — an independent weekly report on whether your product works, whether it moves, and how fast development is going.

Show this screen — anyone can scan it

Sources

*DORA / Google Cloud. State of AI-assisted Software Development, September 2025. ~5,000 practitioners surveyed.
†LeadDev. AI Impact Report 2025: the effect of AI dev tools is measured by 18% of organizations.
‡GitClear. AI Copilot Code Quality, January 2025. 211M changed lines across 2020–2024: in 2024, the rate of blocks with five or more duplicated lines grew 8×.
§Veracode. GenAI Code Security Report, July 2025: 45% of generated code introduces OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities (100+ models). An early-2026 update (150+ models) gives the same result.