[cestith]

That's when you suggest that the historical accuracy of the proposals should be weighed to determine the degree of certainty in future proposals from various sources, right?

Let's say person A gives longer estimates but is accurate within 10% more than 95% of the time. Let's say person B gives estimates half as long, but the team runs over by 75% a quarter of the time and by 150% about half the time. Whose proposals should the stakeholders choose?

If your company is making decisions based on estimates, the accuracy trend on those estimates is a far more important metric than lines of code, number of commits, story points, or nearly any other metric they're keeping.

[ziml77]

You'd need to be very strategic in how you point that stuff out. Because straight up saying that numbers from those people have been consistently wrong throws the people bringing them forth under the bus and it will make the people who you're giving the proposals to feel like you're telling them that they are doing a bad job at evaluating proposals given that they did give the final approval on all of them.

You're probably better off just playing the game and making up good sounding numbers. You're less likely to have half the company resenting you and making your life difficult.