Set Lab-to-Production Boundary — Nothing Ships Without Engineering Productization

Situation

Established with Bjorn that nothing from Greg's Innovation Group/Lab (Cedric) goes directly to production. Everything must pass through Engineering for productization, validation, and integration with build/signing pipelines. CIQ does nothing with RLC-Performant until the lab produces something viable.

Reasoning

Greg has been vague about what 'performant' means — more 'be better' than a concrete plan. Having the lab prove viability first forces clarity before engineering commits resources. The interface definition creates accountability on both sides: the lab must produce something production-worthy, and engineering must productize what comes through. Rather than fighting Greg on the lab's existence, channel it into a useful structure with clear handoff criteria.

Additional Context

Bjorn raised concern that Cedric hasn't delivered anything and that the lab shouldn't report to Greg. Peter initially had the same reaction but evolved to seeing value in Greg proving the performant space — with the critical condition that nothing bypasses Engineering's productization process. This precedes the scheduled meeting (from Exec Prioritization) to formally define the Innovation Group → Engineering handoff process.

Observed Evidence

Direct quotes from Peter in Slack DM with Bjorn. Peter explicitly states the boundary condition (no direct lab-to-production path), the conditional engagement (nothing until lab produces something), and the strategic value (defines an interface that hasn't existed). Bjorn aligned: 'Cedric hasn't delivered anything.'

Matching Patterns

Confidence Breakdown

Reasoning Depth Analysis