# Miro

> Evaluate Miro as a shared review surface for an approved concept hierarchy and its relationship ledger.

Review a source-backed concept map with stable IDs, explicit relationships and an evidence handoff.

Website: https://miro.com/

Evaluate Miro when a team needs to inspect and revise the arrangement of a conceptual explanation together. The useful question is whether reviewers can connect each visible relationship to the approved source packet and preserve that evidence as the layout changes. Treat the canvas as a drafting and review surface, with an evidence ledger beside it.

The current [AI help](https://help.miro.com/hc/en-us/articles/28782102127890-Miro-AI-with-Diagrams-and-mindmaps) describes diagram and mind-map generation, including editable board objects and hand-drawn diagram digitization. Browser, desktop and mobile use are listed. Confirm the chosen workspace’s available operations before building the evaluation around them.

## Proposed concept-map evaluation

Use the fictional museum notes in the [source-grounded mind map workflow](/guides/workflow/source-grounded-ai-mind-map). The visitor overview contains Access, Booking and Volunteer assistance. Volunteers assist with bookings during staffed hours; bookings do not depend on volunteers. Supply these as a concept table and a relationship table, rather than a vague request for a museum map.

Ask the operator to produce three sibling branches under Visitor information and a labeled assists-with crosslink from Volunteer assistance to Booking. This is a proposed test, not a hands-on finding. Inspect whether the hierarchy remains understandable after a reviewer moves the branches and whether the evidence IDs remain available in the review packet.

A draft that places Booking beneath Volunteers changes the meaning. Correct it against the source notes, then preserve the decision in the ledger. Do not treat the board’s ability to move objects as evidence that the original arrangement was accurate. The owner still decides which concepts and relationships belong in the explanation.

## Review collaboration, not just generation

Have a second reviewer work from the same source register. Ask them to identify the evidence for one node and one crosslink, then explain an unresolved item. This checks whether the evidence handoff survives team use. If reviewers cannot recover a source location without asking the original author, improve the companion notes before expanding the map.

Use the [explanatory diagram workflow](/guides/design/ai-explanatory-diagram-from-text) for a single comparison or sequence intended for delivery. Review its export separately from the board view, at the size where readers will encounter it. The map and the source ledger should have matching versions; a revised board must not silently refer to an obsolete relationship table.

## Account fit and boundaries

The [pricing page](https://miro.com/pricing/?edition=starter) lists free access with limited editable boards and AI exploration, alongside paid tiers. Confirm workspace limits and the intended review format in the actual account. This profile does not promise a particular export or collaboration permission for every plan.

Compare [Napkin AI](/tools/napkin-ai) when the main output is one text-derived visual rather than an evolving shared concept map. Keep the same approved labels and relationships across the comparison. Miro fits when the team benefits from arranging, inspecting and revising a shared explanation while retaining its source record. This conceptual-map test does not validate software topology, the truth of the source documents or the behavior of every available AI diagram type.

---

_Source: https://agentscamp.com/tools/miro — Tool on AgentsCamp._