Three-tier board hierarchy formalized — Strategic EPICs / Value Drivers / Tactical Jira

May 5, 2026 at 8:10 PMoperationalhigh

Situation

Aligned with Bjorn on a 3-tier hierarchy: Strategic Board (EPICs requiring CEO-level prioritization), Value Drivers Board (GTM stories), and Tactical Boards (Jira execution). The current PPL board converts to the Strategic Board. Top ~50 only; anything below is wasted prioritization that will need redoing by the time it is worked on. Greg agreed to disagree-and-commit once Peter+Bjorn document the rules and walk him through.

Reasoning

Yesterdays push to Bjorn landed: he agrees the 674-item PPL is broken and wants the fix. The 3-tier structure is the cleanest way to keep Product strategically focused while Engineering uses Jira for execution visibility. Engineering Jira hygiene (with confidence scores alongside dates) is the price of admission — without it, Product cannot stop using PPL as a tactical tracker. This week three layers (docs/deals/board) now use the same lever: externalize friction back to the requester so layers stay clean. Brady role change is the personnel consequence; D2 coaches him into the new behavior before Bjorn formalizes the role change. Greg disagree-and-commit is the political mechanism: he can drill into Jira for granularity but the strategic board stays clean.

Additional Context

Articulated across three Fathom meetings 5/5: C-Suite Sync (8:30), Eng Weekly Sync (10:52), Peter/Bjorn 1:1 (12:31). Action items: Peter to engineer Jira hygiene + document rules with Bjorn + meet with Greg. Bjorn to curate board for strategic relevance. Companion to 5/4 PPL decision (89723bbb-c519-4130-a059-bbd993c002f5).

Observed Evidence

Three Fathom meetings within 4 hours articulating the same structural agreement. Explicit Peter action items: improve Jira tracking, schedule meeting with Bjorn to document rules, meet Greg jointly. Bjorn agreed in 1:1 to curate new items for strategic relevance. Greg agreed to disagree-and-commit once explained.

Matching Patterns

95%
PPL realignment (5/4)(direct execution of yesterday decision, same lever applied, same people involved)
80%
What vs How framework (2/8)(same Product-Engineering layering principle, extended to board structure)

Confidence Breakdown

32/35
Evidence
28/30
Pattern
19/20
Source
14/15
Corroboration

Reasoning Depth Analysis

Org Signal:Product owns strategy, Engineering owns execution visibility via Jira. Greg can disagree-and-commit but not override the layering.
Who Affected:Brady (role change consequence), Nathan (Jira hygiene owner), Engineering directs (must update tickets within 48h with confidence scores), Greg (loses granular drill-in on PPL but gets it via Jira)
Precedent:Three-week pattern of externalizing friction to the requester now extends to the board layer. Establishes that any future requests to mix strategy and tactics on one board will be rejected.
Consequences:Real consequences — board overhaul actually happens, role change for Brady follows. Not just rhetoric.
Timing:Now because: (1) yesterdays push to Bjorn landed, (2) OLAMA/VLLM Jira hygiene gap (Nate out, tickets stale) exposed the cost of current structure to leadership, (3) Brady role redefinition is being staged

Source

reflection

AI Confidence

93%

Related Context

🎥
Peter/Bjorn Weekly

fathom

The board will be realigned to its original purpose: a strategic tool for prioritizing initiatives. Only items requiring a strategic trade-off decision belong on the board. All tactical details will live in Jira.

🎥
Engineering Weekly Sync

fathom

New board hierarchy: Strategic Board (EPICs) → Value Drivers Board (GTM stories) → Tactical Boards (engineering execution). The JPD board will be converted into the new Strategic Board.

🎥
C-Suite Sync

fathom

Simplify the list to high-level strategic initiatives. Consolidate all RLC-AI work into a single item: RLC AI V 0.8. This enables C-suite to focus on strategic prioritization, while engineering uses internal tools for detailed tracking.

Follow-up Todos

Suggest follow-up todo

Joint meeting with Greg to walk through new board rules

@Bjorn

From: Peter/Bjorn 1:1 5/5 action item. Both Peter and Bjorn to attend. Convert Gregs disagree-and-commit verbal alignment into documented commitment.

Why: Greg agreeing in C-Suite Sync is not the same as Greg holding the line when he wants granular drill-in. The walk-through is where Peter+Bjorn jointly set the expectation that Greg uses Jira for granularity, not the strategic board.

Done

Outcome

No outcome recorded yet.

Decision ID: 5f7b2b6a-bfbb-45e5-b3b6-a1308959add0