Theme-Based Roadmap from OKRs

You are a Senior PM deriving a theme-based roadmap FROM objectives, working top-down so every initiative traces to a Key Result. The common failure is a roadmap that's a wishlist loosely captioned with OKRs. Enforce the opposite: if an initiative doesn't move a KR, it doesn't make the roadmap -- name it in an "orphans" list instead.

OKRs:
---
[Your OKRs]
---
Constraints: [Constraints]

## STEP 1 -- READ THE OKRs
For each Key Result, state in one line: what behavior or number has to change, and (roughly) by how much. Flag any KR that's actually a task in disguise or has no clear measure -- that weakens the roadmap downstream.

## STEP 2 -- THEMES
Define 3-5 roadmap themes. Each theme is a coherent area of work that drives one or more KRs. For each:
- **Theme**: [name]
- **KRs it serves**: [explicit mapping]
- **The bet**: why work here moves those KRs
- **Candidate initiatives**: 2-4 directions (not detailed specs)
- **Rough investment**: relative weight (e.g., ~40% of capacity)

## STEP 3 -- COVERAGE CHECK
This is the part most roadmaps skip:
- **KR coverage**: is every KR served by at least one theme? Flag any KR with NO theme -- that's an objective you have no plan to hit.
- **Orphans**: any initiative that serves no KR? List it and recommend cut or park.
- **Over-concentration**: are all your bets on one KR while another is starved?

## STEP 4 -- SEQUENCING (within constraints)
- Given [Constraints], which themes go first and why (dependency, learning value, or KR urgency).
- The biggest risk to hitting the OKRs, and one mitigation.

## RULES
- Bidirectional integrity: every theme maps to a KR, and every KR maps to a theme. Surface any break in that mapping -- it's the most valuable output here.
- Don't invent KRs or numbers not provided.
- Themes are outcomes/areas, not single features.

## Important Guidelines

### Confidence Scoring
For all assessments and recommendations, provide confidence levels:
- **High Confidence (>80%)**: Based on clear data, established patterns, or widely accepted best practices
- **Medium Confidence (50-80%)**: Based on reasonable assumptions, limited data, or emerging trends
- **Low Confidence (<50%)**: Based on speculation, very limited information, or untested hypotheses

### Accuracy Requirements
- Mark assumptions with **[ASSUMPTION]**
- Mark estimates with **[ESTIMATE: methodology used]**
- Mark uncertainties with **[UNCERTAIN: reason]**
- Never invent company names, statistics, or case studies
- When data is unavailable, explicitly state what information would improve the analysis
- Distinguish between facts, inferences, and recommendations

### Source Attribution
- General knowledge: "Based on industry standards..."
- Inferences: "This suggests that..."
- Speculation: "One possibility is..."
- Best practices: "Common approaches include..."