[yumiatlead]

Love the honesty, especially around process docs describing the ideal not reality. The thing I'd push on: your agents learned data retention questions are dangerous because the history existed in the data. But what about the stuff that never gets written down at all, like whose informal veto actually kills a project? Curious if you hit that wall. Someone else wrestling with the same problem:https://behaviorgraph.com/blog/posts/the-layer-every-enterpr...

[andychen32]

I think this would be solved via the team/personal context layer.

imagine the hierachy: enterprise context, team context and then personal context. each of the layer above can read/write to the layer below. while the layers below cannot access layers above

the personal context layer, for example, would have access to all your meetings and slack dms.

if a group of executives decide in a private meeting to kill a project. that should be saved in their personal context layer. And an agent proactively detects the difference from the enterprise context and asks: "would you like to change enterprise context" something like that

[yumiatlead]

I agree for something like quietly killing a project. That can live in a personal or team context layer at first.

But starting a new project is a different class of problem. That is not just about storing a decision. It is about adoption across the organization.

You can record that a few executives want something to happen. But that does not tell you who will drive it, who will resist it, which teams need to buy in, or how the change actually propagates. At that point, you are no longer dealing with just team or personal context. You are dealing with organizational behavior.

That is where I think the real gap still is.