Ignore AMD until someone escalates - and decline to have an opinion on whether to confront them

Situation

Brady reported that Whitney at AMD is not answering his emails, is talking only to Greg, and is not specific about what she is asking for, and that the lack of a program cadence is becoming a blocker. Peter said his statement to Greg is that he will ignore AMD completely until somebody tells him he cannot. When Brian argued that someone should tell AMD they are a bad partner, Peter said he does not mind that happening but explicitly declined to hold an opinion on it, naming it a company strategic question and pointing Brian at Bjorn - while volunteering his read that Bjorn will agree with Brian on the diagnosis.

Reasoning

Engagement costs attention and AMD is not paying it. With no specific ask and no responsive counterpart outside the CEO channel, there is nothing concrete to work on, so the answer is to stop spending rather than to chase harder. The abstention is deliberate rather than evasive - Peter already holds and has voiced a view to Greg, hands Brian the disconfirming read that Bjorn will back him, and then withholds his own vote because the confrontation decision is not his lane. Until somebody tells me that I cannot is the escape hatch that keeps this a default posture rather than a closed door.

Additional Context

Sits alongside the earlier AMD decision to constrain the commitment to lab validation on an MI300 - this is disengagement from relationship management, not from the technical commitment. Peter also declined to create the regular program-management sync Brady asked for.

Observed Evidence

Direct quotes from the Fathom transcript covering both halves - the disengagement posture and the explicit refusal to opine on the confrontation.

Matching Patterns

Confidence Breakdown

Reasoning Depth Analysis