What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 6pm Tuesday 9am - 6pm Wednesday 9am - 6pm Thursday 9am - 6pm Friday 9am - 4pm

Latrice Prater & The CORE Advisory Group, Round Rock, TX (2026)

08/31/2026

Most founders I talk to have a document somewhere with the right information in it. Revenue, team structure, offers, what's working and what isn't operationally. The document got built at some point when things felt chaotic and someone needed a place to put the pieces.

Nobody opens it anymore. Not even the person who made it.

I don't think this is a discipline problem. I think it's a design problem. A document full of operational data is exactly the kind of thing a neurodivergent brain sees as noise when there's no built-in structure telling you where to look first, what to do next, and showing you that something changed when you did the thing. Information without that structure doesn't get used. It gets filed and forgotten, and you go back to running the business on feel.

I built the CORE Operating Map because I was that person, full of strategy, no way to make it visible enough for anyone else, or future me, to actually use. I needed something live instead of static. Something I could see change as the year unfolded, instead of a document describing a year that stopped being accurate in March. Something that didn't require me to go find it and remember why I'd built it.

So here's what the Map is, specifically: a live, built-together working session where we go through foundation, mission, the real offers, actual capacity, and the numbers you've been meaning to look at more carefully. I take what comes out of that session, build the first draft, review it, and hand you back something with a progress bar your whole team can see, broken into quarters so you're only looking at what's actually relevant right now. When you complete something, you see it close. When a quarter shifts, you update it, and the whole thing adjusts.

This isn't a document. It's the structure that holds the document alive.

Optional six- or twelve-month accountability if you want someone checking back in to make sure the plan is surviving contact with your actual calendar, because a plan without that tends to quietly die the same way the midnight version always did, just with better formatting.

If your business plan currently lives in your head, in a doc you haven't opened since you w

08/28/2026

You've never found a planner that held your attention past week two. That's not a you problem.

Every planner you've tried assumed the same things: that you'd remember to open it, update it regularly, hold context across sessions, and feel motivated by looking at an incomplete list. Some brains work that way. A neurodivergent brain, in my experience, does not — at least not reliably, and not without a structure that does some of that holding for you.

I built the Neural Planner for myself before I ever thought about selling it. I'd been through every productivity app, every time-blocking system, every version of the Sunday-planning routine that was supposed to set up my week. They'd work for a few days, sometimes two weeks if I was really disciplined. Then they'd stop getting opened, and I'd be back to running everything from memory and momentum — which is a genuinely exhausting way to run a business and not a sustainable one.

What I needed was a system that lived where I already was, structured the information in a way I could actually engage with, and made using it feel better than not using it. So I built that.

I showed it at a mastermind without planning to. Someone asked if I was selling it. I said no. That happened twice more, across two different communities, before I took the hint. I listed it. Someone signed up within the first few days.

It's $9.99 a month, or $75 for the year, with a seven-day free trial. Not a course. Not a workshop. Not a system you'll use for two weeks and forget. A planner built for the way your brain actually works, not the way productivity culture assumes everyone's brain works.

If you've tried the bullet journal, the time-blocking app, the elaborate color-coded system, and all of them fit like shoes that were almost the right size, comment "PLANNER" and I'll send you the link to try it for a week, no commitment until you decide you want to keep it.

The seven-day trial is real, no card until you decide to stay. I'm not interested in trapping anyone into a subscription for a planner they didn't find useful. The trial is there because I know what it feels like to sign up for something, try it for three days, and realize it was

08/26/2026

Regular would mean one thing at a time, in sequence, fully completed before the next one starts. I've never functioned that way, and every system I tried to force myself into that shape with failed, usually within two weeks.

What actually works: sprints. A couple of hours here, a call there, a pivot to something else, then back. The output doesn't look like what you'd expect from someone operating across multiple things simultaneously; it looks like someone who's always producing something, because that's exactly what's happening.

I'm not multitasking. I'm cycling. Multitasking means divided attention. Cycling means your brain gets a fresh angle on each thing every time you return to it, and the constraint of switching creates focus instead of destroying it, if you build the right structure around it.

I spent a long time treating this as a flaw I needed to fix. It took getting into environments where the measure was deliverables, not hours or optics, to realize: this is just how I work. It's not a problem. It's a pattern. The right structure makes it an advantage. The wrong one makes it look like I can't commit.

I've stopped trying to be regular. I've started building environments where what I actually am is what produces the result.

08/24/2026

In a feedback session last week, someone told me I was the "good cop."

We'd just gotten off a call with two team members who hadn't been meeting expectations — missed deliverables, ignored processes, the kind of repeated pattern where the conversation can't stay optional anymore. The director was pi**ed. The other lead was matter-of-fact. And apparently I was the one who made them feel like there was still a path forward while being completely clear about what hadn't been working.

I didn't plan that. I didn't think about which role to play. It's just how I have those conversations, because I've had enough of them to know that people who feel scolded stop listening, and people who feel seen in the problem keep hearing you even when you're saying the hard thing.

The director said afterward: you're really good at communication. I said: I grew a whole agency. Yeah. I already know.

I want to unpack what was actually happening, because I don't think "good at communication" is the right frame. What I've gotten good at — through years of running a team, through the kind of operational hard knocks that either teach you or cost you — is understanding that most performance problems aren't motivational. They're structural or relational, usually both. When someone isn't doing the thing they're supposed to do, my first move is questions, not conclusions. What happened here? Did I miss something? Is there a barrier I don't know about?

Sometimes the answer is about the person. More often it's about the system around them — a process that was never actually made clear, an expectation that existed in someone's head and never got documented, a tool that was supposed to help and made things harder instead.

You can't tell which one you're dealing with if you start from the conclusion. You have to start from the question.

That's not good cop. That's diagnostic habit. And it's the same one I bring into every client engagement, because whether the person in front of me is a team member who missed seventeen deliverables or a founder who can't figure out why their org keeps breaking, the method is the same: find out what's actually happening before you decide what to do about it.

08/21/2026

I built a planner for myself and didn't tell anyone about it for months. Then I showed it at a mastermind and everyone asked if they could buy it.

I'd been using it the whole time — not because I was planning to sell it, but because every other planning system I'd tried had stopped working for me by week two. Usually because it assumed I'd open it voluntarily every morning, remember where I left off, and update it without any external prompt. My brain doesn't do those things reliably without a structure that accounts for them. So I built one that does.

Someone at the mastermind asked me why I wasn't sharing the things I was building. I said because I built them for me. She said that was exactly why I should share them — because the thing built for you, by you, because nothing else fit, is almost always the thing other people have been looking for and couldn't find.

So I started sharing. The response was consistent across two different communities: are you selling this? I finally put it out there. Someone signed up within days.

I keep coming back to the same pattern in how everything I've built that actually works got made: I needed something, I couldn't find it, I built the version I needed, and then I looked up and realized other people were sitting with the same problem. The CORE Operating Map. The Team Performance Audit. The Neural Planner. None of these started as products. They started as solutions to problems I was personally tired of having.

This is the sequencing that makes the difference between something that sounds good and something that actually sells. A tool built because you thought you should offer something requires a lot of convincing. A tool built because you desperately needed it and couldn't find it sells to the people who have the same problem — and they recognize it immediately, because you're describing it from exactly where they're standing, not from the outside looking in.

What's the thing you built for yourself — a process, an internal system, a workaround — that you've never considered could be something other people need?

The coach who told me to start sharing what I was building said it plainly: you're building things other p

08/19/2026

I told an employer I have commitment issues before I agreed to stay long-term. Not as a disclaimer. As a negotiating position.

Here's what I actually said: I can see myself here. I can see giving this real attention. But financially, can you meet me somewhere that makes that worth it? Because commitment isn't free, and I'm not going to perform loyalty to a number that doesn't reflect what I know I can produce.

For most neurodivergent founders and leaders I know, "commitment issues" is a phrase we've heard about ourselves our whole lives in a tone that implied something was wrong with us. Can't stick with anything. Too many projects at once. The attention doesn't hold.

What nobody said — and what I've had to figure out the hard way — is that the attention doesn't hold when the environment doesn't hold it. It's not a character flaw. It's a sensible response to being asked to stay invested in something that isn't giving you enough back — enough novelty, enough challenge, enough financial honesty, enough room actually to use what you're good at.

When all of those things are present, "commitment issues" disappears. Not because you fixed yourself. Because you finally found something worth committing to, on terms that are honest about what you need.

I think more ND founders should say out loud what they need before they agree to something — not after six months of quiet dissatisfaction, but at the front. It's not unprofessional. It's the most efficient thing you can do. The right environment meets you there. The wrong one tells you immediately, by not knowing how to respond.

What's one thing you wish you'd named at the front of a professional relationship before you found out the hard way it wasn't there?

Here's what I know about ND founders specifically on this: we've been told our whole lives that we're too much, too scattered, can't commit. So we often under-ask. We take what's offered and manage the gap quietly, instead of naming what we need at the front and letting the other party decide if they can meet it. The naming feels risky. The not-naming has costs that are just slower to show up.

08/17/2026

The same person who "struggles to follow through" in one environment ships everything on deadline in the right one. That's not inconsistency. That's information — about the environment, not the person.

I've watched this play out too many times to call it a coincidence. The team member who "lacks initiative" was overridden every time they showed it. The founder who "can't delegate" was never in a structure that made delegation safe to try. The person who "keeps starting things and not finishing" was working in a system that rewarded starting and made finishing feel invisible.

None of these are character diagnoses. They're structural descriptions. And the only way you get to the right fix is to be honest about which one you're actually looking at.

What's one performance pattern in your team that you've been treating as a people problem — that might actually be a structure problem?

08/14/2026

The most underused content format for founders who build things is also the simplest: show the problem, then show what you built for it.

I've been building AI tools for clients and my own work for a while now. My content strategist pointed something out in our last meeting that I haven't stopped thinking about since: I have been treating content and building as two completely separate activities, when the building is actually the content.

The cleaned-up explanation of the concept comes after. The interesting thing is the moment where I looked at a broken system, understood exactly what was causing it, and built something specific to fix it. That's not abstract. That's the actual diagnostic in action — the problem, the pattern, the build, in sequence. And it's the exact thing that demonstrates what executive systems consulting actually looks like when it works, better than any caption I could write about it.

I think this matters for ND founders specifically, because so much of what we build exists because the standard thing didn't exist or didn't fit, and we needed it to, so we made it. That's not a productivity hack. That's a structural diagnosis followed by a structural solution. Which is exactly what thought leadership in this space should look like — not "here are five tips," but here's what was breaking, here's what I understood about it, here's what I built because of that understanding.

If you've built something for your business because nothing on the market actually solved the right problem — that's a post. Probably twenty posts. The diagnostic you put in a spreadsheet because the app wasn't built for your brain. The system you created to replace a meeting nobody found useful. The workflow you built on a Sunday because Monday kept going wrong for the same reason.

Most of us have been building content-worthy things and not treating them as content, because the building didn't feel like it needed an audience. It does. The audience for "here's what I built because what I needed didn't exist" is large, and it's the right audience for what we're selling.

What's one thing you built internally because nothing off the shelf actually fit? Tell me what it re

08/12/2026

I've been part of building something with a few people from my mastermind network — a directory. Not a list of every service provider we could find. A matching tool. You answer three questions about what's actually breaking, and it connects you to two or three specific people whose lane is exactly that problem.

The reason it exists is the same reason most referrals fail: "I know someone who does that" is not the same as "I know exactly who you need for this."

For neurodivergent founders specifically, the wrong consultant isn't just unhelpful. It's expensive in a particular way — because most of us already carry a high internal cost for starting a new working relationship. The trust-building, the explaining-yourself, the recalibrating when someone doesn't get how you think. That's not small overhead. Ending up with the wrong person doesn't just waste the money. It wastes the capacity it cost to get started, and it teaches you, one more time, that asking for help was a mistake.

The right fit, on the other hand, is the thing that makes everything else cheaper to run. The right person already knows how to work with a brain like yours. They don't need you to perform competence for them before they'll take you seriously. They start from the assumption that you're brilliant and the system around you is what's broken — and they know which system to look at first.

I think about fit before I take on almost any client now. Not "can I help them" — I can usually see the answer to that quickly. It's "am I the right person for where they are right now?" Getting that wrong costs both of us.

What's the worst-fit working relationship you've ever been in — and what was the actual mismatch?

I built the prototype for Find My Operator in a single afternoon because someone from my mastermind network sent me a document describing what she wanted. I took it to Claude, asked for an HTML prototype, and we had something to show people within a few hours. Not because I'm exceptionally fast, but because the problem was already fully described, and the build was just the structure that held it.

That's the same move I make with every client engagement. The problem gets described precise

08/10/2026

I was talking to a director I work with about all the operational gaps I could see in her business — and I could see them fast, because that's how my brain works. By the end of the conversation she said something that stopped me cold: "I wish there was a gamified way I could go into a system and it would just tell me here's what you need to do next."

My ADHD brain said: well, why can't there be?

So I built one. A diagnostic that takes your industry, your role, and your department, runs you through twelve questions, gives you an operational score, identifies your strongest domain and your biggest current gap, and then assigns you specific tasks — not suggestions, tasks — to close it. You complete a task, you get points. Your score goes up. The system shows you where to go next, in the order that actually matters. You're not staring at a seventy-slide deck of recommendations figuring out which one to start with. You're at level two, working toward level three, one move at a time.

She tested the prototype the same day I sent it. By the next morning she'd already started working off it — and I had to remind her it wasn't the real build yet.

The reason this matters beyond the one thing I built: most operational diagnostics are designed for linear thinkers who can read a report, extract the priorities, hold them in working memory, and execute in sequence. That works for some people. For a neurodivergent brain, a report is where good information goes to stop existing. You need the system to hold the sequence for you, show you only what's next, and give you something that feels like progress when you do the thing — because that feeling is what actually keeps the loop going.

Information isn't the bottleneck for most ND CEOs. The structure around the information is.

What operational system in your business has the right information inside it that nobody — including you — actually uses?

The director tested the prototype the next morning and messaged me that she'd already started working off it. I had to tell her it wasn't the real build yet. That's the tell — when someone starts using a prototype before you've finished it, the problem was real and the structure was the missing piece, not the information inside it.

Latrice Prater & The CORE Advisory Group

08/31/2026

08/28/2026

08/26/2026

08/24/2026

08/21/2026

08/19/2026

08/17/2026

08/14/2026

08/12/2026

08/10/2026

Address

Opening Hours

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Listing takedown request

Monday	9am - 6pm
Tuesday	9am - 6pm
Wednesday	9am - 6pm
Thursday	9am - 6pm
Friday	9am - 4pm