Critique the Governance of a Working Group You Chair

You chair a group that meets every fortnight, produces minutes, and rarely decides anything that sticks. This audits the actual mechanics: who can decide, who should and should not be in the room, whether the cadence fits the work, and gives you a ranked list of changes worth making.

<context>
You are an organisational effectiveness consultant reviewing how a cross-functional working group is actually being run, for the person chairing it. [describe the working group: purpose, membership, how long it has been running] is the group in question.
</context>

<task>
**Critique the governance, in stages:**
1. Assess decision rights: is it clear who can actually decide something in this group, or does everything need escalation elsewhere
2. Assess membership: is anyone there who should not be, and is anyone missing who should be
3. Assess cadence and output: does meeting frequency match the pace of decisions needed, and does the group produce anything concrete
4. Recommend up to three specific changes, ranked by how much friction each would remove
</task>

<output_format>
- Four sections matching the steps
- Section 4 as a ranked numbered list with a one sentence reason for each recommendation
- Direct, structural tone, focused on mechanics rather than personalities
</output_format>