Confidence numbers stay human and per-leader - Brady translates them, Engineering does not remap to his scale

Situation

Bjorn brought Brady Dibbles push for a uniform, consistent cross-team definition of the confidence column. Peter rejected it in a DM thread on 7/29 evening and repeated the same ruling to Nathan on 7/30. Confidence is a human thing. That is why we call the column that. It is not computed immutable expectation of delivery for a reason. Justin is risk averse, so he will not put a 99 when he can imagine millions of ways for something to go wrong. Another leader might. The team will learn over time what Justins 90 means. On Bradys ask: the real and only question is what does Brady want to do with these numbers that he cannot do - what is he going to do with a 95 different than a 90. If Brady wants to turn the numbers into high/medium/low or into ranges in his own process that is fine, but that is him translating, not asking Engineering to fit an arbitrary mapping. If he wants a structured definition of exactly what high/medium/low means, now he is losing the experience of engineering leadership and having a function fill out his numbers. Peter also rejected high/medium/low outright: the minute you have high/medium/low it is not functional enough and you end up with twelve gradations and the same problem. And he told Bjorn to test it empirically - ask Duane if he can work with the numbers Justin is providing, the answer will be yes.

Reasoning

The confidence column exists to carry a senior engineers experience-based judgment, compressed into a number they can produce in four seconds and therefore keep current daily near a target date. A formula or a cross-team standard would strip out exactly the thing that makes the number worth having. Peter also named the second-order cause: Brady is WHY someone like Justin will not put high numbers down - if you are working with someone you feel is constantly looking for things to say you were doing wrong, you rapidly start communicating lower numbers. So a uniform standard would not fix calibration, it would drive the numbers down. The translation burden belongs on the consumer of the data, not the producer.

Additional Context

Same 45-hour window in which the TPS report was repointed at the ENGD board and Peter re-derived both boards from purpose at the Engineering Weekly. This is the third distinct attempt in a week by a peer function to make an engineering artifact serve their process shape. Peter also read the ask as a level signal to Bjorn: it is the sort of question a junior PM would ask, not a VP of prod.

Observed Evidence

Direct quotes across two sources one day apart. Slack 7/29: Confidence is a human thing. That is why we call the column that. Fathom 7/30: no, you do not [need them to mean the same thing]. Plus the empirical test instruction: Ask Duane if he can work with the numbers Justin is providing. The answer will be yes.

Matching Patterns

Confidence Breakdown

Reasoning Depth Analysis