PPL is being misused — push Bjorn to realign it to strategic priorities

Situation

The Product Priority List has drifted from a strategic-priority list (epic-level) into a granular project tracker, obscuring strategic priorities (RLCAI on Spark buried at #88) and creating bottlenecks (Ollama package delayed to May 15). Peters position: PPL must return to defining company strategy at epic level; granular tasks belong in JIRA. Will engage Bjorn directly to realign — this is the framing decision; the implementation is the negotiation with Bjorn.

Reasoning

JIRA hygiene at the engineering level (4/15-4/30) does not work if PPL above it is also a granular tracker — fixed the bottom but the top is still leaking. Bradys engineering velocity rationale conflates two purposes: strategy (what matters) vs progress reporting (what is moving). Granular items in PPL hide strategy by burying it; thats why RLCAI on Spark sits at #88. This pairs with the Engineering-veto decision (D2): both are about restoring clean separation between Product (defines priority/strategy) and Engineering (executes via JIRA). When the layers blur, accountability blurs. Engaging Bjorn rather than mandating directly: Bjorn owns Product, Peter owns Engineering — peer alignment, not unilateral.

Additional Context

Companion decisions this session: D1 (docs process) and D2 (Engineering veto) both restore Product-Engineering layer separation. Direct precedents: 2026-04-30 Jira-as-system-of-record enforcement, 2026-04-18 Quality initiatives must be ticketed visible work, 2026-04-15/17 Jira Hygiene Mandate. The cost of PPL misuse just became visible to leadership when the May launch cadence had to be set against a PPL that buried RLCAI.

Observed Evidence

Direct quote to Greg: this is an incorrect use of the tool. Concrete examples: RLCAI on Spark buried at #88; Ollama package delayed to May 15. Action: realign with Bjorn.

Matching Patterns

Confidence Breakdown

Reasoning Depth Analysis