# Block C: Pain / Gain / Give Synthesis

**TNN 2026 Cohort Retreat — From Map to Orientation**
**Block C — "How do we work together, and what would help?"**

> Source: group report-backs from National, State (Region 1), and Regional groups. These are summaries. To be reconciled against the actual sticky-note text once collected.

---

## The headline

Two different asks of the network surfaced, and they don't fully overlap. One is relational: a brain trust, a home base, people who understand the work. The other is financial: diversify funders, build the case, create pass-through capacity. The "how we work / who holds what" question has to carry both at once.

## Pain (what's hard)

- **Being misunderstood.** Few people outside the room get the work, inside the Lilly world and the broader systems each person navigates (State, Sp4).
- **Funder concentration.** Too dependent on the same funder, wanting to chase different money (National).
- **No clear case.** Hard to articulate to outside funders why the work is worth funding (State, Sp3).
- **Everyone doing everything.** Bandwidth lost when people work outside their expertise (National).

## Gain (what the network already gives)

- **A brain trust** to bring work back to for feedback. The strongest theme, named in all three groups.
- **Reflection and refinement** that improves each person's own projects (Regional, Sp5).
- **Resource and wisdom sharing,** including a clearer picture of how each person actually does their work.
- **Camaraderie** that materially helps the work, not just morale.
- **A home base** that persists beyond any one job (Sp6, even if he left Augsburg).
- **Practitioner craft:** how to convene well and seed trust so a group goes deeper faster (Nate's question, Sp6).

## Give (what members bring)

- **Capital and pass-through.** Some have money to move; Katie can hold and redistribute as a foundation, with legal work to sort (National, State).
- **Range of expertise,** from toe-in-the-water church work to upstream meta work (National).
- **The bridger role itself.** Most in the room are bridgers; a few hold both bridger and practitioner roles.
- **Access.** For example, asking Lilly to convene other prospective funders into the room (State).

## What would help (Block C move 3, the outputs question)

- **A fundable case.** A short "why this work is worth funding" artifact for funders outside the current circle. The State group thought this could move quickly.
- **A capability map.** Plain answers to "how do y'all do what you do," so expertise is visible and people can specialize.
- **A small carry team.** Who holds what, so not everyone holds everything. The specialize-for-bandwidth instinct showed up on its own.
- **Pass-through mechanics.** Worth scoping the legal path on a foundation as a redistribution channel.

## Structural note

Three of these are the same shape in different clothes. Funder concentration is single-point dependence. Taking the case to outside funders is a brokerage move into a new cluster. Specializing so everyone has bandwidth is division of labor.

The fundable-case and what-the-network-provides material feeds the August Lilly report directly.