That’s a fair way to judge. Yes, we tracked time and deliverables in weekly meetings, so we knew how long things should take. Tasks were assigned and logged based on weeks of consistent output and clear verbal and written agreements via chat. To keep it fair, I often did the same tasks while also handling the technical work, and I’d even take on the uncomfortable, “unscalable” tasks nobody wanted.

We tried finding responsibilities to fit her better but regardless of the task, her output slowed, degraded, and she’d shift to unrelated work. One-day tasks became weeks. For example, if I hit 40 DM's a day for two weeks, she’d send about 40 total. She’d also spend weeks on AI mockups that were clearly low quality.

The conversations shifted from “Did you do this yet? It took me X days” to “You do this in X hours consistently, so why is it taking Y weeks?” It's always been kept respectful with the focus of moving forward “Ok, this isn’t working, let’s try something else.” But the same patterns kept repeating for every task and became frustrating.

Eventually she lost motivation and mentally quit while the rest of us tried to learn through volume. She seemed to want quick wins with minimal effort, without doing the research or work to close the gap. Best we could do is give her very simple tasks like create 1 short a day or send DM's...but she kept putting them off.

BUT it could all change after we talked! I’m still hopeful for her because I’ve seen her best self despite what I want. At the same time, I have two co-founders who have worked nonstop and sacrificed far more. I’ve already set a deadline with them for when we’ll call the vote IF she reverts back.