Refuse to write the RLC-AI contrivance down - say it to Justin, Nathan and Andrew, never in a company-wide channel

Situation

Nathan asked Peter to post the full rationale for the deliberately contrived RLC-AI Spark build into the public RLC-AI channel. Peter declined outright and said he would say it to Justin, to Nathan and to Andrew, but would not write it anywhere the whole company can see. The same boundary appears in Slack the same morning, where he told Brett that he wanted the message going to Brett, Andrew and Jeff rather than wider, and said plainly that it is not a message for the whole company.

Reasoning

The build is intentionally not what CIQ would normally ship - latest driver, one benchmark, no long-term supportability - and the reason it is acceptable is a narrow, time-boxed commercial goal. Written down and broadcast, that rationale reads as a standard rather than an exception, and it is exactly the kind of thing that outlives its window. Keeping it verbal to the three people who must execute it preserves the exception without eroding the norm.

Additional Context

Runs alongside the earlier decision not to publicly defang Dawson in the product channel. Peter told Justin the reason plainly: because we are calling this thing RLC-AI, and because we are playing a little fast and loose with what RLC-AI is.

Observed Evidence

Direct quote from the Fathom transcript plus two corroborating Slack messages the same morning setting the same distribution boundary.

Matching Patterns

Confidence Breakdown

Reasoning Depth Analysis