Principal Product Manager, AI Products

We need to output HTML fragment with sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. Only include sections that have real specific content. We need to parse the posting. We need to extract sections: - About the role: The posting includes description of mission, Healthcare Map, etc. That's about the role/company. We can put that under About the role. - Responsibilities: The bullet list under "You will accomplish these outcomes through the following responsibilities:" then list items: Own the thesis..., Build first versions..., Deploy forward..., Propose and defend..., Set the pattern. Those are responsibilities. - Requirements: The "What You Bring To Komodo Health (required)" list: Builds the first version..., AI native..., Forward deployed instinct..., Zero to one at Principal scope..., Excellent written communication..., Ability to leverage AI tools... Those are required qualifications. - Qualifications: Might be overlapping with requirements. Could treat "Additional skills and experience we’d prioritize (nice to have)" as Qualifications or Skills. The instructions: Use headings for sections like Qualifications, Skills. We need to decide. We have "Additional skills and experience we’d prioritize (nice to have)" list: Healthcare or regulated data experience..., Time at a company through a platform transition..., Experience retiring a product without losing its customers..., Experience interacting with, managing, or building with AI agentic workflows. Those could be Skills or Qualifications. We also have Pay: The pay range details: San Francisco Bay Area And New York City $245,000—$288,000 USD; All Other US Locations: $213,000—$250,000 USD. Also mention performance-based bonuses, equity awards, benefits. So we have Pay and Benefits sections. Benefits: The paragraph about benefits: comprehensive health, dental, vision insurance; flexible time off and holidays; 401(k) with company match; disability insurance and life insurance; leaves of absence. Schedule: Not explicitly mentioned. There's hybrid work model description: "Where You’ll Work" includes hybrid model, hubs, etc. That could be considered Schedule? But schedule usually refers to work hours, remote/hybrid. The posting includes hybrid work model. Could treat as Schedule? However instructions: only include Schedule if posting actually states them. It does state hybrid work model, hubs, etc. So we can include Schedule section with that content. We must not repeat job title as heading. No Job ID. We must remove boilerplate: cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate, duplicated lines, application instructions. The posting includes Equal Opportunity Statement and privacy notice; we should remove that. Also remove "Komodo's AI Standard" maybe not needed? It's about AI expectations; could be part of About the role or maybe Skills? But we can keep as part of About the role? It's about AI standard; could be part of About the role or maybe Skills. But we need to preserve all substantive information; we can include it under About the role or maybe a separate section like "AI Expectations". But we only have allowed headings; we could incorporate into About the role or Skills. Probably include in About the role as it's part of company culture. We must not invent or summarize away detail. Must preserve all substantive information. So we need to include all details from the posting, except boilerplate. Let's extract content: About the role / company description: "We Breathe Life Into Data At Komodo Health, our mission is to reduce the global burden of disease. And we believe that smarter use of data is essential to this mission. That’s why we built the Healthcare Map — the industry’s largest, most complete, precise view of the U.S. healthcare system — by combining de-identified, real-world patient data with innovative algorithms and decades of clinical experience. The Healthcare Map serves as our foundation for a powerful suite of software applications, helping us answer healthcare’s most complex questions for our partners. Across the healthcare ecosystem, we’re helping our clients unlock critical insights to track detailed patient behaviors and treatment patterns, identify gaps in care, address unmet patient needs, and reduce the global burden of disease. As we pursue these goals, it remains essential to us that we stay grounded in our values: be awesome, seek growth, deliver “wow,” and enjoy the ride. At Komodo, you will be joining a team of ambitious, supportive Dragons with diverse backgrounds but a shared passion to deliver on our mission to reduce the burden of disease — and enjoy the journey along the way. The Opportunity at Komodo Health Komodo Health's AI Platform and Services organization builds the platform every AI product at Komodo runs on: agent infrastructure, evals, data context, and the surfaces customers touch. Small pods build on shared primitives and ship in weeks. Product managers here build the first versions of what they propose and to iterate alongside their teams quickly. The suite that built this business was designed for an analyst at a screen. The platform underneath it now reasons. Our flagship product Navigator runs investigations that used to take a person weeks, and an ai-augmented product suite interoperates with it to streamline workflows. We are just getting started. What the next generation of the suite actually is remains an open question, and today it needs ownership. That question is this seat. You will define the next generation of Komodo's product suite and prove it by building it. The current surfaces are your material and your distribution. The mandate is what comes after them. Principal here means your answer sets the pattern for every surface that follows. Looking back on your first 12 months at Komodo Health, you will have… Put a thesis on record for what the next generation of the suite is, argued in working software customers have touched, and won cross-functional and leadership support for it. Built the first version of at least two new products from that thesis yourself, then ran a pod of four or fewer from prototype to GA with no dedicated project management. Those products live in customer environments, with measurable revenue, adoption, or retention impact. Made the current suite smaller. At least one existing legacy solution retired or folded into its successor, without customer churn." That is a lot; but it's part of About the role and also responsibilities? Actually the "Looking back on your first 12 months..." is outcomes; could be responsibilities. But we already have responsibilities list later. We need to avoid duplication. The posting includes both a narrative of outcomes and then a list of responsibilities. We should preserve all substantive information; we can include both but ensure not duplicate same content. The outcomes list is somewhat similar to responsibilities but more specific outcomes. We could treat the outcomes as part of Responsibilities (maybe as a paragraph). Then the bullet list after "You will accomplish these outcomes through the following responsibilities:" is more specific responsibilities. We can combine. Thus for Responsibilities we can include: - Put a thesis on record for what the next generation of the suite is, argued in working software customers have touched, and won cross-functional and leadership support for it. - Built the first version of at least two new products from that thesis yourself, then ran a pod of four or fewer from prototype to GA with no dedicated project management. - Those products live in customer environments, with measurable revenue, adoption, or retention impact. - Made the current suite smaller. At least one existing legacy solution retired or folded into its successor, without customer churn. - Own the thesis for what customers touch. Study how they actually work, decide what should exist, and revise the argument as models improve. - Build first versions with AI tools and platform primitives. Bring engineering in to scale what shows value, and drop what does not. - Deploy forward. Work inside customer environments where necessary, scope in real time during contracting cycles, and treat deployment as part of the product. - Propose and defend the shape of the growing portfolio. As the new generation lands, you decide what the existing solutions become. - Set the pattern. Your architecture and your build habits become how the surface pods around you work. That covers all. Now Requirements (What You Bring To Komodo Health (required)): - Builds the first version. You will show us something you built, not something you managed, and the interview includes building. - AI native at product depth. You can reason at a low level about the AI products you intend to ship: context and grounding, evals and quality gates, agent behavior, and cost. Using chat tools to work faster is the baseline everywhere, so it earns nothing here. - Forward deployed instinct. Comfortable inside customer environments and contracting cycles, with the judgment to commit responsibly in real time. - Zero to one at Principal scope. 9+ years in product, including at least one product you conceived and shipped that earns real revenue today. We will ask what existed before it, and what was retired to make room for it. - Excellent written communication. Your reasoning gets adopted because it is clear. - Ability to leverage AI tools (Gemini, ChatGPT, Cursor, etc.) to enhance personal productivity, streamline workflows, or improve decision-making. Now Additional skills and experience we’d prioritize (nice to have): - Healthcare or regulated data experience (claims, EHR, patient journeys, provider analytics). - Time at a company through a platform transition. - Experience retiring a product without losing its customers. - Experience interacting with, managing, or building with AI agentic workflows. We could put these under Skills or Qualifications. Since we have both Requirements and Qualifications headings allowed, we could treat Requirements as required qualifications, and Qualifications as nice-to-have. Or we could treat Requirements as required, Qualifications as nice-to-have. Let's decide: Use Requirements for required, Qualifications for nice-to-have. Or Skills for nice-to-have. The instruction says headings: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. So we have separate headings for Requirements, Qualifications, Skills. We need to allocate content appropriately. We have required items (must have). Those go under Requirements. We have nice-to-have items (additional skills). Those could go under Qualifications or Skills. Which is more appropriate? Usually Qualifications are nice-to-have, Skills are specific abilities. But we can split: Qualifications could be healthcare experience, platform transition, retiring product, AI agentic workflows. Skills could be maybe ability to leverage AI tools? But that's already in required. Hmm. We could put the nice-to-have list under Qualifications. And maybe Skills could be left empty? But we must not emit a heading with filler/placeholder text. So we should only include Skills if there is real specific content for it. Do we have any specific skills content not already covered? The posting mentions "Ability to leverage AI tools (Gemini, ChatGPT, Cursor, etc.) to enhance personal productivity, streamline workflows, or improve decision-making" which is a skill. That's already in required. Could also be considered a skill. But we already have it under Requirements. Could move it to Skills and keep Requirements without that? But then we would lose required content. Better to keep required in Requirements, and maybe Skills could be something else like "AI native at product depth" etc. But those are also required. Given the instruction to prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones, we could combine Qualifications and Skills into one section? But we must follow headings; we can omit headings if no content. So we could have only Requirements (required) and maybe Benefits, Pay, Schedule, About the role, Responsibilities. That's five sections. That's acceptable; we don't need to use Qualifications and Skills if no distinct content. However we have nice-to-have content; we could incorporate them into Requirements as "Preferred" but that would blur required vs preferred. But we could add a subsection under Requirements for "Preferred qualifications". But the instruction says use

• for any list of duties/requirements/benefits. It doesn't forbid mixing required and preferred in same list. But we should preserve all info; we can include them under Requirements as well, maybe label them as "Preferred". But that might be considered adding interpretation. Safer to create a Qualifications section for nice-to-have. Thus we will have: - About the role - Responsibilities - Requirements (required)