Commit b52f57ed authored by Saurabh Chopra's avatar Saurabh Chopra
Browse files

Clarify interlock cap scope and P1/E1 confidence mapping 

Addresses two GitLab Duo review findings on the quarterly planning
pages: the interlock cap is stated at org level with a link to the
resource allocation framework, and the mapping from a 100% interlock
commitment to a 90% tracker row is explained.

Co-Authored-By: default avatarClaude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
parent 0f4a17d1

content/handbook/engineering/data-engineering/priorities-tracker.md

+1 −1
Changes for content/handbook/engineering/data-engineering/priorities-tracker.md: 1 added line, 1 removed line.
Original line number Diff line number Diff line
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ Each rule on this page exists because one of these has already happened somewher 


**"Isn't this another process on top of the interlock?"** No. The interlock covers the few large cross-functional items and stops at commitment. This page covers what happens below and after: how a team picks and sizes its own rows, how dependencies get settled, and how committed work is run and closed. Where the interlock has a rule, we use it as written.



**"My team has four engineers. How many rows?"** Three to five, ranked, with committed rows inside the ceiling. The interlock's cap of one P1/E1 and two P2/E2 per 20 engineers means a four-person team holds at most one committed cross-team row at a time. That limit is intentional.

**"My team has four engineers. How many rows?"** Three to five, ranked, with committed rows inside the ceiling. The interlock's [resource allocation framework](/handbook/product-development/how-we-work/r-and-d-interlock/#resource-allocation-framework) caps commitments at the org level: at most one P1 or E1 and two P2 or E2 per 20 engineers, unless a VP approves an exception. Shared across the org's teams, that usually leaves a four-person team with at most one committed cross-team row at a time. That is a consequence of the cap rather than a separate rule, and it is intentional.



**"I can't get to 80% confidence on something leadership wants committed."** Say so on the row, in the Change log. The row becomes aspirational, or the appetite grows, or the scope shrinks until you can. Committing at 50% and calling it 80% undermines everything downstream, because every other number on the tracker assumes that one is honest.

content/handbook/engineering/data-engineering/quarterly-planning.md

+2 −0
Changes for content/handbook/engineering/data-engineering/quarterly-planning.md: 2 added lines, 0 removed lines.
Original line number Diff line number Diff line
@@ -134,6 +134,8 @@ Every row is either committed or aspirational, and the whole quarter's committed 


The tracker has no 100% option. In practice a 100% commitment means either the estimate is padded or a risk is being ignored. If nobody is willing to put 80% behind a row, it is aspirational, however important it feels.



Interlocked items map onto these tiers rather than adding a fourth. A P1 or E1 item is a 100% commitment to the company and is planned inside the tracker as a 90% row, the tracker's top tier: the 100% is the promise we make outward, the 90% is the forecast we plan around. P2 and E2 items are 80% rows, and P3 and E3 items are aspirational at 50%.



### What status means



| Status | Meaning |