The NGD board never bends to serve the TPS report - the report changes, and pulls from two data sources if it has to

Situation

In the 7/29 Baek 1:1, Baek surfaced the live consequence of repointing the TPS report at the Engineering Deliverables (NGD) board: most of Ryan Smiths work does not belong on NGD under the cross-functional-coordination definition, so Ryans work no longer appears in the report. Baek offered the ruling - under no circumstances should the NGD board change to accommodate it - and Peter took it, then extended it with the remedy: if the TPS report is not showing Ryans work, then the TPS report needs to change and maybe pull from two data sources or whatever, but the NGD board stays the same. Peter also named the recurring pattern he is fighting: almost daily somebody is using these boards for something different than what he said they were for.

Reasoning

The NGD board is a definition and the TPS report is a view over it, so accommodation can only run downhill - letting the view dictate the definition is exactly how the board acquired competing purposes in the first place. Peter did not simply refuse: he supplied the concrete escape hatch so nobody has a reason to ask again, because Ryans work being invisible is a genuine problem that just belongs at the reporting layer rather than the data-model layer. Same shape as his ruling the day before that Jira is subordinate to the design - tools and views bend, definitions do not. He separately accepted that the communication failure is his (I recognize that in failing to land it sort of with a bunch of people, the messaging around it is wrong; I havent had this much trouble making a structural change in 20 years) while refusing to let that concession touch the substance: what people are actually doing is trying to figure out how his process solves their problem, and the answer to all of those is it does not.

Additional Context

Direct downstream consequence of the 7/24 decision handing mainline TPS report ownership to Ryan pointed at the NGD board, and of the 7/28 re-ruling of both board purposes. Ryan repointed the report on 7/28, so this is the first pressure on the new arrangement. Baek also gave Peter process feedback in the same conversation - that hearing out specific use cases and guiding where they belong might land the model faster than restating it. An existing todo tracks switching mini-me off Peters private TPS fork to the mainline report once Ryan repointed it, which has now happened.

Observed Evidence

Verbatim exchange in the recorded 7/29 Baek 1:1. The ruling was voiced first by Baek and then adopted and extended by Peter with the two-data-sources remedy.

Matching Patterns

Confidence Breakdown

Reasoning Depth Analysis