Cary

Many founder requests start with: "Do you know someone who could help?"

I am finding that the harder work often comes before the introduction: deciding what you actually need that person to help with.

When an AI product recommends who to contact for a professional goal, there is a difficult product tradeoff. One recommendation reduces decision work. It can explain: - why this person fits the goal
- why the timing matters
- the most credible relationship path
- what to say first But one answer can also hide uncertainty. A ranked shortlist gives users more control, but it may return the original decision back to them. My current view is to lead with one recommendation, explain the reasoning, and keep two or three alternatives available when the user wants to compare. This question comes from our work on Netlio, but I think the tradeoff applies to many AI products that recommend actions rather than information. Which approach would make you more willing to act: one reasoned recommendation or a transparent shortlist?

When people have a new professional goal, most tools make it easier to find more names

I think that order is often backwards

Someone already in your network may have the context, trust, or path needed to help. The problem is not always a lack of contacts. It is that the relevant relationship is difficult to see when a new goal appears.