Today

The exact pattern called out in the PIP across both projects. Senior judgment = recognizing the decision needs other voices, even when you're confident in your own answer.

'Apply critical review and take full accountability for all submitted work, including AI-assisted output.' Pyrite work caused cleanup costs because of this. Never let AI output ship under your name without you having understood and approved every change.

ACP-trigger. The boundary between exploration and committed work is the TDD. Cross it deliberately. For Design Service: also present TDDs in a state ready for that team to actually approve.

Senior engineers champion processes and bring the team along; they don't bypass them. Socialize first; adopt after.

Status, risks, scope changes — visibility before someone has to ask. Make it boringly predictable.

Before any handoff: scope, acceptance criteria, who to ask, how to validate. Use the delegation gate every time. 'Confidence in your ability to delegate / manage junior or contractor work has not yet been established' is in the eval verbatim — every clean delegation builds that confidence back.

Scope alignment, communication, prioritization, process adherence. If Sean has to step in, the system you set up failed; rebuild it.

'Independently recognize when decisions require escalation … without being prompted.' That little voice that says 'maybe I should loop in X' — always honor it.

Design Service trigger: apology was issued, but Megan had to actually undo the confusion. The apology is the easy part; the repair message — explicitly walking back, re-aligning stakeholders, posting in the same channels where the confusion landed — is the senior part.

Monorepo (~1yr, no follow-up), mentorship program (promoted, no follow-through), Design Service (resulted in issues). Maggie called this out specifically as evidence against 'Influences and Increases Group Effectiveness.' Every open initiative either gets a documented next step or a written close — never a quiet death.

Maggie's exact phrasing: 'you have tended to focus on ways of working rather than the delivery roadmap.' Process improvements are great when they unblock the roadmap, not as a substitute for shipping it. Every evidence entry now gets tagged roadmap or WoW — keep the ratio heavy on roadmap.

'Demonstrated difficulty managing more than one project concurrently when multiple workstreams needed to be handled.' If you're touching more than two projects in a day, write down where you stand on each at EOD. Pick the smallest concurrent surface area possible.

Maggie: 'efforts in this area have at times introduced unnecessary complexity or refactoring.' Before any refactor or architectural change: write the problem, the value, what you're explicitly NOT doing. Default to the simplest thing that solves the stated problem.

AI-assisted Pyrite work created cleanup costs for Mac and others. Run the PR / AI gate on every AI-assisted commit. If you can't explain a line in plain English, it can't ship under your name.

When Eli stood in for Sean: attendance was inconsistent, organizational skills were lacking, follow-through was insufficient. USAFacts is intentional-hybrid Tue/Wed/Thu in-office; senior presence is part of leadership. Hold yourself to the meeting-and-follow-through bar you'd want from Sean.

Design Service: Friday meetings already in place with Erica and Craig before Megan had met. For Design Service especially: align via Megan / Sean. Do not seed parallel conversations.