Ownership
Who owns the workflow after the prototype works
Status disclosure
Planned study
Public research brief. No findings are published as completed fieldwork. The study plan may still change. Fieldwork has not begun.
Which initiatives deserve a production owner, and which should remain experiments or be stopped?
Product, operations, and platform teams can stand up prototypes faster than they can attach them to a decision. Experiments accumulate. Baselines, owners, and kill criteria do not. This brief frames promotion from lab to workflow as a governance problem, not a model-quality problem.
Success is described as model quality rather than a change in an owned operating metric.
The person who can demo the work is not the person who would be accountable if it failed in production.
Leadership cannot tell a funded workflow from a sandbox that has not yet found a home.
How we would work it
Attach each initiative to a decision, a baseline, an owner, and the evidence that would invalidate it.
Refuse production language until exception handling, review, and recovery have a named operator.
Treat stopping an unowned experiment as a clean decision, not a political failure.
What has to be true
- Is there a named owner for the workflow after the prototype works?
- What measured change would justify continued investment in 90 days?
- What evidence would be enough to stop without inventing a new committee?