Event owner lens
Use this record to benchmark whether a comparable event makes the work after the room visible. The score is 37/100, so the next move is to benchmark the weakest pillars before repeating the format.
broadcast-heavy conference agenda analysis
Topoinvis Workshop 2026
This broadcast-heavy conference in Technology / AI / Startup shows 24 visible agenda rows from topoinvis-workshop.github.io and scores 37/100: a thin but inspectable design signal. The clearest public signals sit in Future-of-Work Fit and Evidence Maturity; the main limits are Follow Through and Personalization. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Feedback, Network design, and Learning transfer. The public record does not show follow-up or tracking, so the score should be read as design intent rather... A practical reading: For a reader, this is a comparison record more than a model to copy: it reads as a broadcast-heavy conference, with the strongest visible signal in future-of-work fit and evidence maturity and the biggest open question around follow through and personalization. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence. This page is an original public-evidence analysis, not a copy of the source agenda or an endorsement of the event. The score places the visible agenda in the thin outcome architecture band. The strongest visible pillars are Future-of-Work Fit, Evidence Maturity, and Network Design; the thinnest visible pillars are Follow Through, Personalization, and Problem Specificity. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Feedback, Network design, and Learning transfer. The extracted agenda preview includes 39 visible rows. The most common formats are Unknown, Presentation, and Break; the most common inferred purposes are Unknown, Knowledge Transfer, and Pacing.
Eight-pillar fingerprint
Hover any pillar to see what it measures and, where it scored low, what the agenda is missing.
Participation Architecture?30
Participation Architecture - 30/100. Participant work, contribution, interaction, and alternatives to passive broadcast.
Follow Through?5
Follow Through - 5/100. Owners, dates, commitments, progress checks, and accountability after the room.Missing: Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
Problem Specificity?26
Problem Specificity - 26/100. A clear costly problem, objective, decision, or performance target.Missing: Name the costly problem, decision, or performance target the gathering is meant to move.
Personalization?21
Personalization - 21/100. Role, path, goal, preparation, or connection tailoring for participants.Missing: Create role-based paths, prepared questions, tailored breakouts, or participant-specific next steps.
Network Design?38
Network Design - 38/100. Structured weak ties, bridge-building, mixers, and relationship persistence.
Learning Transfer?27
Learning Transfer - 27/100. Applied practice, feedback, workplace use, refreshers, and 30-90 day transfer.
Evidence Maturity?42
Evidence Maturity - 42/100. Baseline, comparison, follow-up, isolation, and attribution confidence.
Future-of-Work Fit?57
Future-of-Work Fit - 57/100. Value against time, hybrid reality, accessibility, AI, and meeting load.
Fix the gaps
Field-tested exercises matched to this agenda's weakest pillars, from the exercise library.
Follow Through (5/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Mental Toughness Workshop • WorkshopBank · 15% Solutions • WorkshopBank · Network Patches
Personalization (21/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Journey Mapping • WorkshopBank · Group Energiser & Perspective-Changing Exercise - Paradigm... · Photo Storytelling
Problem Specificity (26/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: 0 - “Two Person Scene” Theory · Challenge Axis - Knowmium: The Un-Training Consultancy · Fist to Five • WorkshopBank
Agenda Preview
The actual agenda we captured. Every block is classified by format and purpose. Open any block to see how we read it; the colored edge shows whether it is participant work, broadcast, logistics, or a showcase.
Room vs wrapper
8 percent of the 39 classified blocks put participants to work; the rest broadcast, show, or handle logistics. That mix is what drives the participation score.
Participant workBroadcastShowcaseLogistics
all eventRegistrationRegistrationLogistics+
Format · LogisticsRegistrationCheck-in and logistics, not agenda content.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
9:00-9:10General introductionPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
9:10-9:40Introduction to topological methods for data analysisPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
9:40-10:00Introduction to ParaViewPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
10:00-10:30Coffee BreakBreakPacing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
10:30-11:00Overview of TTK’s featuresPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
11:00-11:30General usage of TTK: ParaView, Python, VTK/C++, C++PresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
11:30-12:00Step-by-step example: segmenting medical data with merge treesPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
12:00-12:30Step-by-step example: extracting filament structures with the Morse-Smale complexPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
12:30-14:00Lunch BreakBreakPacing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
14:00-15:00Writing a module for TTK: a simple examplePresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
15:00-18:00Work groupsPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
16:00(Coffee will be served at )BreakPacing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
18:00-19:00Conclusion and group photoPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
19:00-20:00Hackathon TopicsPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventAuthor InstructionsUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventRegistrationRegistrationLogistics+
Format · LogisticsRegistrationCheck-in and logistics, not agenda content.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventTravel & VenueUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventAccommodationUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventTTK HackathonUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventTopoInVis 20192019, Nyköping, SwedenUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventThe TTK hackathon will take place the day prior to the TopoInVis workshop (Sunday, June 16, 2019). It will be organised by Dr. Julien Tierny, the lead researcher and developer of TTK library.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
9:00-9:10General introductionUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
9:10-9:40Introduction to topological methods for data analysisUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
9:40-10:00Introduction to ParaViewUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
10:00-10:30Coffee BreakBreakWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
10:30-11:00Overview of TTK’s featuresUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
11:00-11:30General usage of TTK: ParaView, Python, VTK/C++, C++UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
11:30-12:00Step-by-step example: segmenting medical data with merge treesUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
12:00-12:30Step-by-step example: extracting filament structures with the Morse-Smale complexUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
12:30-14:00Lunch BreakMealWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsMealA pacing block. Can carry unstructured networking, not scored as participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
14:00-15:00Writing a module for TTK: a simple exampleUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
15:00-18:00Work groupsUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
16:00(Coffee will be served at )BreakWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
18:00-19:00Conclusion and group photoUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
19:00-20:00Hackathon TopicsUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventTTK makes topological data analysis accessible to end users thanks to easy-to-use plugins for the visualization front end ParaView. Thanks to ParaView, TTK supports a variety of input data formats. Check out the video tutorials to see TTK in action.TrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThe registration fee for participating TTK hackathon is SEK 1500, please visit the registration page for details. You have the option of registering only for the hackathon or you can register along with TopoInVis workshop which will start a day later from June 17 to 19.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventCall for book chaptersUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
The Full Reading
Why It Ranks This Way +
Calibrated from GES design 30/100 and verified 31/100 with no fourth-loop cap.
Reader Takeaway. For a reader, this is a comparison record more than a model to copy: it reads as a broadcast-heavy conference, with the strongest visible signal in future-of-work fit and evidence maturity and the biggest open question around follow through and personalization. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence.
Strongest signals: Future-of-Work Fit, Evidence Maturity, and Network Design. Weakest signals: Follow Through, Personalization, and Problem Specificity.
How This Agenda Could Improve +
- Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
- Create role-based paths, prepared questions, tailored breakouts, or participant-specific next steps.
- Name the costly problem, decision, or performance target the gathering is meant to move.
Fastest next move: Add named owners, dated next steps, and a visible continuation path before treating the event as outcome-ready.
Role-Specific Reading +
Sponsor lens
Look beyond exposure. Strong sponsor value would show qualified interaction, problem work, buyer learning, customer evidence, or follow-up. The practical sponsor move is to look for structured introductions, buyer-seller fit, and relationship persistence.
Designer lens
The agenda is useful as a pattern sample from topoinvis-workshop.github.io. Redesign attention should go first to the lowest-scoring pillars; in practice, turn the thinnest agenda blocks into participant work.
Executive lens
Treat the visible agenda as an operating plan. The executive move is to require owners, dates, and evidence before treating the event as strategic. If owners, proof, and follow-through are not visible, the public record does not yet prove strategic movement.
Aggregator lens
Treat the source URL as evidence, not decoration. The data-product move is to label the source boundary clearly before ranking the record before ranking or syndicating the record.
What GES Means Here +
The Gathering Effectiveness Score is a strict 0-100 public-evidence reading of the agenda across eight pillars. It rewards visible participant work, follow-through, transfer, network design, and proof mechanisms more than polish, speaker fame, attendance, or satisfaction.
Visible mechanisms: Participant work, Feedback, Network design, Learning transfer.
Evidence boundary: Scores reflect visible agenda/source evidence and should not be read as proof of causal event impact.
Limitations, Score Caps, and Review Flags +
Limitations
- No visible follow-up, progress monitoring, or longitudinal tracking.
- Passive stage formats dominate the visible agenda.
- No baseline measurement is visible.
Score caps
- No fourth-loop score cap applied.
Review flags
- No source-backed follow-up, validation, baseline, tracking, or impact evidence.
- Stage-only agenda: mostly panels/keynotes/presentations with no visible participant work or commitments.
- No tracking, validation, feedback, or impact measurement found in the visible source text.
- High cleanup rate: many extracted rows were hidden or merged as fragments.
- Original category was unknown; publication category is inferred.
Is this proof the event worked? +
No. This is a strict public-evidence reading of the agenda. Proof would require baseline, comparison, follow-up, attribution, and impact evidence beyond the listing.
What should a reader inspect first? +
Start with the source URL, then compare the eight pillar scores against the agenda rows. The biggest opportunities usually sit in follow-through, evidence maturity, and participant work.
Why publish weak records? +
Weak records are part of the map. They show where public agendas still describe sessions and speakers more often than outcomes, commitments, transfer, or proof.
How should I use the rows? +
Read the agenda rows as the visible design trace: formats, purposes, and evidence labels show what the public source made inspectable, not everything that happened in the room. This is a source-grounded interpretation of the public agenda record, not a copy of the source, and not an endorsement of the event.
Embed the verified badge +
This record is in the hand-verified gold set. Copy the snippet below to embed the verified badge on your own site.
<a href="https://unitedwetransform.com/events/evt_2026_topoinvis_workshop_github_io_2026_program_html_2019_ttk_hackathon_topoinvis"><img src="https://unitedwetransform.com/badge/ges-verified.svg" alt="GES verified by United We Transform" height="40"></a>Where To Go Next
Compare this agenda against other Technology / AI / Startup events scored on the same eight pillars.