Peter Computex condition: product must be production-ready, not a POC

Situation

For the proposed early-June Computex Fuzzball-on-DGX-Spark announcement, Peter set one engineering-side condition: the product must be production-ready (not just a POC). Bjorn separately set the GTM-cadence gates (max 6-week lag between announcement and delivery; sufficient PR-runway for Lindsay and Cathay). Peter held the engineering line cleanly and let Bjorn hold the product-marketing line.

Reasoning

Engineering CTO holds one narrow veto: shippability. POC versus production-ready is a real distinction — announcing at Computex with only a POC trains the market to expect us to deliver something we do not have. That is engineerings call. The GTM-cadence questions (how long between announcement and delivery is acceptable, how much PR runway Lindsay and Cathay need) belong to Bjorn as Head of Product and Lindsay as Marketing. Peter held the line narrow and let Bjorn hold his lane. Same pattern as 3/21 Fuzzball SaaS GTM gate — marketing gated on engineering reality, with Peters condition staying inside the engineering domain.

Additional Context

Forced by Wesleys weekend POC + Computex calendar in early June + NVIDIAs interest (including a potential DreamWorks introduction). The Impromptu Zoom Meeting bundled all three conditions in the summary; correction made the per-owner attribution explicit.

Observed Evidence

Per user correction: of the three conditions captured in the Fathom summary, only the production-ready gate is Peters; the 6-week lag and PR runway are Bjorns GTM conditions.

Matching Patterns

Confidence Breakdown

Reasoning Depth Analysis