Assign Owen to Max AI tooling for definitive performance evaluation

Situation

Decision in Ryan 1:1 (Wed 5/6 12:30 PM) to assign Owen Wood to Max Spevack AI tooling projects on Max return from leave (~3 weeks). Definitive evaluation to resolve conflicting team feedback — Ryan sees senior Golang underutilized; Bjorn questions value; Max and Nathan have called recent work AI slop. Peter confirmed in DM with Ryan: We will get it rolling.

Reasoning

Team feedback on Owen has split — cannot make retention decision on conflicting signal. Hypothesis is that poor performance is direction quality not skill ceiling. Max AI tooling is the cleanest test case: it is well-defined, it is high-stakes, and Max will give the most unfiltered read. Pairing Owen with the harshest critic (Max) AND the person Owen wants to work with eliminates the alibi — if it does not work with Max, the answer is clear; if it works, conflicting feedback was about misallocation. Pattern: when in doubt on a contested person, force a clean test with measurable criteria, do not seek consensus.

Additional Context

Owen is already on the 4/15 Employee Watch List (high importance, pending). Max is on leave for 3 more weeks. Ryan reported Owen is chomping at the bit to work with Max. Action item assigned to Peter in Fathom: Define Owen AI tooling project w/ Nate; assign Owen to Max on his return.

Observed Evidence

Ryan 1:1 Fathom action item explicitly assigned to Peter to define Owen AI tooling project with Nathan and assign Owen to Max on Max return. Slack DM with Ryan immediately after confirms Peter intent: We will get it rolling. Conflicting feedback explicitly captured in meeting summary (Bjorn questions value, Ryan sees senior Golang, Max+Nathan call work AI slop).

Matching Patterns

Confidence Breakdown

Reasoning Depth Analysis