Damen — Action-First Title Policy

Situation

Set clear position on Damen's request for an AI ownership title: titles are granted AFTER impact is proven, not as a motivator to drive it. Directed that Damen should escalate issues with other teams publicly rather than absorbing work and complaining privately. Asked Justin to get Damen to define specifically what 'owning AI' means and what title he wants.

Reasoning

Giving a title to motivate work creates a dangerous precedent — signals that lobbying for titles is how you advance, rather than demonstrating impact. The 'escalate, don't absorb' directive is about organizational hygiene: if Damen silently does work belonging to another team, the problem never gets surfaced and fixed. Requiring a specific definition forces Damen to think through what he actually wants. Protects Justin from making a premature commitment that could be hard to reverse.

Additional Context

Damen is driving AI work (benchmarking, prototyping, kernel tuning) and wants an official title to formalize his role. Justin brought this to Peter in their weekly 1:1. The request is currently vague — no specific title or scope defined.

Observed Evidence

Fathom: 'A title is granted after impact is proven, not as a motivator to drive it.' 'Damen should escalate issues with other teams publicly, not just absorb the work and complain privately.' 'The request is unclear. Peter needs a specific definition of what owning AI means and what title is desired.'

Matching Patterns

Confidence Breakdown

Reasoning Depth Analysis