Documentation and training stay in Ryan org - development work does not belong there

September 23, 2026 at 4:05 PMstrategymedium

Situation

Ryan Smith raised that the breadth of what his org produces has outgrown the label customer engineering and asked what Peter sees the function as. Peter separated the container from the placement. On placement he gave a clear two-sided answer: documentation and training legitimately sit with Ryan org and he likes them there, and development work does not belong in that org. Gauntlet was the worked example - Peter thanked Ryan for building it, said that in a perfect world it lived under Justin and should have been built by Justin org, and said explicitly that he does not want the fact that Ryan built it to reshape Ryan world so that more of that happens. He also said forward-deployed engineering will likely grow to dwarf customer support in Ryan purview, and that the title would be VP of Engineering with owned scope explained separately - both of which he treated as secondary to the placement rule.

Reasoning

Capability created under duress should not become a permanent charter. An org absorbing orphan work when there is no better home is fine and Peter said so about documentation and training; an org becoming an attractor for a category that belongs elsewhere is not. The distinction is between work that has nowhere else to go and work that has a rightful owner who did not pick it up. Peter was deliberately indifferent to the naming question - is that customer engineering? fine, whatever - because the label is not what determines where work accretes.

Additional Context

Ryan had been told by Brian Dawson that the volume coming out of his org was impressive, and came to the 1:1 unsure what to call the function. Peter had already slotted Ryan for a VP title under the leadership-level collapse decided on 8/24. Ryan separately flagged he is going to try building an agentic team to automate the maintenance burden his org has accumulated.

Observed Evidence

Direct quotes from the 1:1. Peter confirmed and sharpened the scope in review: this is about training staying and docs staying, and dev not being right in Ryan org.

Matching Patterns

71%
Reclassify to Route - Decide Who Owns It, Then Give a Criterion Not a Verdict(reclassifies a naming question into a placement question, names Justin org as the rightful owner of the category)
55%
Name It Without Staffing It(ratifies forward-deployed growth as structure while it is still abstract)

Confidence Breakdown

33/35
Evidence
24/30
Pattern
19/20
Source
8/15
Corroboration

Reasoning Depth Analysis

Org Signal:Building something well does not earn the charter for its category. Org shape follows where work belongs, not where it happened to get done.
Who Affected:Justin Haynes, whose org is the rightful owner of development work; Ryan team, who keep documentation and training and stop taking on dev; anyone else absorbing orphan work on the same logic.
Precedent:Sets the general test for absorbed work - orphan is acceptable, attractor is not - and distinguishes it from the naming question, which Peter treats as noise.
Consequences:Real as a forward rule on what Ryan org takes on. It is not an instruction to move Gauntlet, which stays where it was built.
Timing:Ryan raised it; Peter had the VP slotting already done, so the placement answer was the part that needed saying.

Source

reflection

AI Confidence

84%

Related Context

🎥
Ryan <> Peter Weekly 1:1, 2026-09-18

fathom

There is some stuff like the gauntlet work. Should that have happened in your org? Honestly, between you and me, in a perfect world, no, that lives under Justin and should have been built by Justin org. I am glad you built it. Thank you. But I do not want to, because you built it, structure your world so that more of that happens.

🎥
Ryan <> Peter Weekly 1:1, 2026-09-18

fathom

Your team owning documentation? Yep. Same thing with training. And I like that, too. So I agree.

Outcome

No outcome recorded yet.

Decision ID: bc89d732-44a3-4522-8fc2-728c9af2c4ae