[clairity]

i've always liked the challenge of, and gravitated towards, being the synthesizer on group projects, because while it meant extra work for me, it also imparted deeper understanding.

you literally get smarter from having to consider disparate perspectives. this is a lesson that's always stuck with me.

and it seems to uncover a gap elided in your conclusion:

> "Amazon's leadership makes better decisions than their competitors in part because they are routinely supplied with better arguments than their competitors."

i suspect better argument came not only from (an initial) concise writing by the narrator but the revision process incorporating other people's perspectives?