Artifact: Delivery-vs-Growth Trade-off Memo — The Streaming Migration Lead

A decision on who leads a stretch assignment, with the trade-off stated explicitly -- exercises co-01, co-05. Everline and every name here are fictional; every detail is an illustrative, constructed example.

The decision: Maya leads the streaming migration, with Jordan available as a design-review resource, not the implementer.

What's being traded: near-term speed for future team capability. Jordan would very likely deliver this specific migration faster and with fewer false starts -- Jordan has done something structurally similar before. Giving it to Maya means a slower path to done and a real chance of needing a course-correction Jordan wouldn't have needed. What it buys: this is exactly the "proposes a design approach and defends a trade-off" next-level behavior Maya's growth plan names -- leading a real migration under real stakes is a categorically different practice opportunity than a design note reviewed in a 1:1.

The mitigation for the deadline risk: Jordan reviews Maya's design before implementation starts, so the deadline risk from a possible course-correction is caught early, not discovered at the end.