Quality investment must serve velocity

Situation

Quality and automation investments are acceptable if the thesis is this will massively increase velocity in 3 months. Quality for its own sake is not the priority. Every quality investment should have a velocity payoff hypothesis attached.

Reasoning

CIQ needs velocity to survive. Quality is a means to velocity, not an end in itself. If focusing on tooling and automation will massively reduce issues and let the team run faster, thats a valid thesis to pursue. But quality work without a velocity hypothesis is not aligned with company needs.

Additional Context

Max concerned about quality bar. Peter response: you can focus on quality IF the thesis is it serves velocity. The NARF/CPackage alignment was an example of quality investment that serves velocity.

Observed Evidence

Peter: "If you want to focus on tooling and automation... with a thesis that in doing so, you are going to massively reduce the number of issues... Ill shake your hands on that thesis" and "I want the experiments that we run to be in the vein of, I expect faster output at the end of this experiment" and on NARF/CPackage alignment: Peter: "I want strategy. I want plans that, what Ill call hypotheses"

Confidence Breakdown