Event owner lens
Use this record to benchmark whether a comparable event makes the work after the room visible. The score is 45/100, so the next move is to benchmark the weakest pillars before repeating the format.
applied learning or working session agenda analysis
Harvard Edge 2026
This applied learning or working session in Technology / AI / Startup shows 35 visible agenda rows from harvard-edge.github.io and scores 45/100: a moderate design signal with incomplete evidence. The clearest public signals sit in Participation Architecture and Future-of-Work Fit; 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... A practical reading: For a reader, this is a comparison record more than a model to copy: it reads as an applied learning or working session, with the strongest visible signal in participation architecture and future-of-work fit 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 moderate design signal band. The strongest visible pillars are Participation Architecture, Future-of-Work Fit, and Learning Transfer; the thinnest visible pillars are Follow Through, Personalization, and Evidence Maturity. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Feedback, Network design, and Learning transfer. The extracted agenda preview includes 50 visible rows. The most common formats are Workshop, Unknown, and Break; the most common inferred purposes are Co Creation, Unknown, and Participant Work.
Eight-pillar fingerprint
Hover any pillar to see what it measures and, where it scored low, what the agenda is missing.
Participation Architecture?76
Participation Architecture - 76/100. 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?47
Problem Specificity - 47/100. A clear costly problem, objective, decision, or performance target.
Personalization?37
Personalization - 37/100. 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?43
Network Design - 43/100. Structured weak ties, bridge-building, mixers, and relationship persistence.
Learning Transfer?52
Learning Transfer - 52/100. Applied practice, feedback, workplace use, refreshers, and 30-90 day transfer.
Evidence Maturity?40
Evidence Maturity - 40/100. Baseline, comparison, follow-up, isolation, and attribution confidence.Missing: Add baseline measurement, comparison logic, tracking, or post-event impact reporting so effectiveness is not inferred only from format.
Future-of-Work Fit?73
Future-of-Work Fit - 73/100. 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 (37/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Journey Mapping • WorkshopBank · Group Energiser & Perspective-Changing Exercise - Paradigm... · Photo Storytelling
Network Design (43/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Fun Trust-Building Group Game for Team Connection - Izzat... · Exciting Group Trust Activity for Building Confidence... · PFP: September 2005
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
46 percent of the 50 classified blocks put participants to work; the rest broadcast, show, or handle logistics. That mix is what drives the participation score.
Participant workBroadcastShowcaseLogistics
all eventWorkshop on AI for Computing Systems DesignWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventAbout the WorkshopWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventNote: Research paper submissions are closed. Accepted papers are available on OpenReview.WorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventWorkshop ScheduleWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
7:00 to 8:00Coffee and RegistrationBreakPacing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
8:00 to 8:15Welcome and LogisticsOpeningOrientation+
Format · BroadcastOpeningFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
9:00 to 9:15Quick BreakBreakPacing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
9:15 to 10:00Traditional ML / Lightweight ModelsPresentationKnowledge 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 to 10:30Coffee BreakBreakPacing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
11:30 to 12:00LLM Agents Part 1PresentationKnowledge 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 to 1:30LunchMealPacing+
Format · LogisticsMealA pacing block. Can carry unstructured networking, not scored as participant work.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
2:30 to 3:30LLM Agents Part 2PresentationKnowledge 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
4:00 to 5:00Wacky Ideas / ProposalsPresentationKnowledge 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
5:15 to 6:00Roundtable DiscussionRoundtableDiscussion+
Format · Participant workRoundtableSmall-group discussion where attendees contribute directly rather than only listening.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventArchitecture 2.0 Online Community WorkshopWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventArchitecture 2.0UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventCompetitionUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventCall for PapersUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventResourcesUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventWorkshop on AI for Computing Systems DesignWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventAbout the WorkshopWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThe Architecture 2.0 workshop brings together researchers and practitioners exploring the intersection of artificial intelligence and computer systems. As AI continues to transform how we design, optimize, and evaluate computing systems, this workshop provides a venue for presenting cutting-edge research and fostering collaboration across the hardware stack.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThe workshop focuses on AI for Systems Design , spanning computer architecture, programming languages, and operating systems. We aim to bring together researchers and practitioners applying AI techniques to systems challenges, providing a platform for work-in-progress and completed research that advances the state of the art or opens new directions for AI-driven systems research.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThe workshop consists of two separate components: a Competition for students to create architecture and systems questions for evaluating and developing AI systems agents and a Call for Papers for research submissions. Both are part of the same workshop event.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventNote: Research paper submissions are closed. Accepted papers are available on OpenReview.UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventWorkshop ScheduleWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
7:00 to 8:00Coffee and RegistrationBreakWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
8:00 to 8:15Welcome and LogisticsOpening RemarksOrientation+
Format · BroadcastOpening RemarksFraming or welcome from the stage. Orients the room, not participatory.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
8:15-9:00Architecture 2.0 Introduction [[slides]](https://harvard-edge.github.io/asplos-26-arch-2-workshop/slides/Architecture%202.0%20Workshop%20Intro.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
9:00 to 9:15Quick BreakBreakWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
9:15 to 10:00Traditional ML / Lightweight ModelsUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventLightweight AI for Efficient Resource Management in Heterogeneous-Core Architectures [[paper]](https://openreview.net/forum?id=UW3xE65bLm) [[slides]](https://harvard-edge.github.io/asplos-26-arch-2-workshop/slides/LightweightAI-Arch2.0.pdf) Joshua Kim, Chaojie Zhang, Íñigo Goiri, Christopher Rossbach, Jovan StojkovicWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventCEO: A Causal Evaluation and Optimization Framework for Datacenter Management Policies [[paper]](https://openreview.net/forum?id=IwS1tv9VvP) [[slides]](https://harvard-edge.github.io/asplos-26-arch-2-workshop/slides/CEO%20Asplos.pdf) William Meng, Benjamin Lee, Yi Ding, Tianyi WuWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
10:00 to 10:30Coffee BreakBreakWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
10:30 to 11:15Keynote Address 1: Enabling AI-driven Full-Stack Co-Optimization of Distributed AI Systems for the Architecture 2.0 era [[slides]](https://harvard-edge.github.io/asplos-26-arch-2-workshop/slides/2026-03-23TusharKrishnaASPLOS-Arch2.0.pdf)KeynoteThought Leadership+
Format · BroadcastKeynoteA featured talk from the stage. Builds awareness and energy, produces no participant output on its own.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
11:30 to 12:00LLM Agents Part 1UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventA Multi-Agent-Assisted SoC Generation Methodology Leveraging Open-Source Hardware [[paper]](https://openreview.net/forum?id=jnCXorK5iD) [[slides]](https://harvard-edge.github.io/asplos-26-arch-2-workshop/slides/asplosworkshop-Tianyu.pdf) Zhuolin Li, Zhantong Zhu, Han Liu, Tianyu JiaWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventAccelOpt: A Self-Improving LLM Agentic System for AI Accelerator Kernel Optimization [[paper]](https://openreview.net/forum?id=r8eQi0hDoy) [[slides]](https://harvard-edge.github.io/asplos-26-arch-2-workshop/slides/acceloptarch202026.pdf) Genghan Zhang, Shaowei Zhu, Anjiang Wei, Zhenyu Song, Allen Nie, Zhen Jia, Nandita Vijaykumar, Yida Wang, Kunle OlukotunWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
12:00 to 1:30LunchMealWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsMealA pacing block. Can carry unstructured networking, not scored as participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
1:30 to 2:15Keynote Address 2: The New Golden Edge for the Computer Architect [[slides]](https://harvard-edge.github.io/asplos-26-arch-2-workshop/slides/shao-asplos-ai4arch-03-2026.pdf)KeynoteThought Leadership+
Format · BroadcastKeynoteA featured talk from the stage. Builds awareness and energy, produces no participant output on its own.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
2:30 to 3:30LLM Agents Part 2UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventArchAgent: Towards Agentic Architecture Discovery [[paper]](https://openreview.net/forum?id=55v65RPdL6) [[slides]](https://harvard-edge.github.io/asplos-26-arch-2-workshop/slides/ArchAgent%20ASPLOS%20Arch%202.0-1topdf.pdf) Raghav Gupta, Akanksha Jain, Borivoje Nikolic, Parthasarathy Ranganathan, Sagar KarandikarWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventEggMind: LLM-Driven Two-Dimensional Intelligence for Scalable Equality Saturation [[paper]](https://openreview.net/forum?id=5jY9ryobP7) [[slides]](https://harvard-edge.github.io/asplos-26-arch-2-workshop/slides/eggmind-presentation.pdf) Youwei Xiao, Chenyun Yin, Yun LiangWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventLLM-Augmented FPGA Timing Closure: Toward Intelligent Static Timing Analysis Agents [[paper]](https://openreview.net/forum?id=vWwgOQ1MMm) [[slides]](https://harvard-edge.github.io/asplos-26-arch-2-workshop/slides/Toward-Intelligent-Static-Timing-Analysis-Agents.pdf) Saher ElsayedWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
4:00 to 5:00Wacky Ideas / ProposalsUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
5:15 to 6:00Roundtable DiscussionRoundtableDeliberation+
Format · Participant workRoundtableSmall-group discussion where attendees contribute directly rather than only listening.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventDecisions: All accept/reject decisions will be made exclusively by the human members of the organizing committee. Submissions will be evaluated for relevance to the workshop theme, technical novelty, and clarity of presentation.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventAI-Assisted Feedback: In alignment with the workshop's focus on leveraging AI, the organizing committee will pilot ArchScholar, an AI-based review assistant that is custom-built on Archipedia: a corpus of computer architecture and systems literature spanning 50 years. This tool will be used to generate preliminary written feedback and reviews, which will be publicly posted on OpenReview. Importantly, the AI-assisted tool is used solely to support the review process and to provide individualized written feedback to authors; it does not determine final decisions. We welcome feedback from the community and hope to encourage thoughtful, constructive discussion around the use of AI-assisted reviewing as part of the workshop.Opening RemarksOrientation+
Format · BroadcastOpening RemarksFraming or welcome from the stage. Orients the room, not participatory.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventView accepted papers (OpenReview)UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventArchitecture 2.0 Online Community WorkshopWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
The Full Reading
Why It Ranks This Way +
Calibrated from GES design 47/100 and verified 45/100, then capped for no visible follow-up, tracking, or impact mechanism.
Reader Takeaway. For a reader, this is a comparison record more than a model to copy: it reads as an applied learning or working session, with the strongest visible signal in participation architecture and future-of-work fit 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: Participation Architecture, Future-of-Work Fit, and Learning Transfer. Weakest signals: Follow Through, Personalization, and Evidence Maturity.
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.
- Add baseline measurement, comparison logic, tracking, or post-event impact reporting so effectiveness is not inferred only from format.
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 harvard-edge.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.
- No baseline measurement is visible.
Score caps
- 42: No visible follow-up, tracking, or impact mechanism.
Review flags
- Fourth-loop score cap: No visible follow-up, tracking, or impact mechanism.
- No source-backed follow-up, validation, baseline, tracking, or impact evidence.
- 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.
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_www_asplos_conference_org_asplos2026_program_index_html_asplos_2026_worksho_546893"><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.