⚙ Hi {{first_name_tally|Operator}},

AI is compressing everything. Code that took weeks now takes hours. Analysis that took days now takes minutes. But here's what's not compressing: the time it takes to make decisions about what to build with all this new speed.

I've been watching companies where disagreements still take thirty days while their market window closes in thirty seconds.

Why does that happen (and what infrastructure actually fixes it).

- Rameel

Everyone’s got access to ChatGPT. Few know how to get results that don’t sound like a middle-manager wrote them.

That’s where Momentum’s Prompt Library comes in — a private vault of prompts actually used in the field. Not “10 ways to boost productivity.”

We’re talking revenue ops reports, outbound campaigns, investor updates, even product specs.

All written, tested, and refined by operators who already made AI pull its weight. Stop guessing at magic words. Start stealing the ones that work.

Every disagreement in your company takes thirty seconds or thirty days. Same decision. Same people. The difference is whether you built infrastructure before the fight started.

I've been trying to figure out why this is true. Decision speed explains 18% of the variance in company growth rates—not strategy, not hiring, not product quality. How fast you decide. But that stat didn't help me understand the mechanism until I dug into how a $150 billion company died because truth couldn't travel faster than fear.

The thesis: Decision infrastructure—pre-agreed arbiters, real-time data, and execution discipline—is becoming the defining competitive advantage of the 2020s because it makes arguments irrelevant instead of making them better.

Without infrastructure, every conflict devolves into who talks loudest, who's been there longest, who can build a coalition by Thursday.

In 2007, Nokia held 49% of global mobile phone market share. By 2013, they sold their handset business to Microsoft for scraps.

The iPhone didn't kill Nokia. Fear did.

Here's what actually happened inside Nokia between 2007 and 2013, reconstructed from organizational research: Nokia's middle managers were terrified of delivering bad news or contradicting superiors. Leadership set unrealistically bold targets backed by terrifying reputations. When the iPhone launched in January 2007, Nokia had the data showing they were years behind. Their internal reports documented the gap. Engineers knew. Product managers knew. The people building the phones knew.

The information existed. It just couldn't travel.

Middle managers buried pessimistic data under false optimism because telling the truth was more dangerous than lying. Research found "organizational fear was grounded in a culture of temperamental leaders and frightened middle managers, scared of telling the truth." Top management was directly lied to—not by malicious actors, but by rational people in a system that punished honesty.

Think about what that means operationally. You're a middle manager at Nokia in 2008. You have data showing your team is 18 months behind Apple on touchscreen responsiveness. Your quarterly review is in three weeks. Your VP has a reputation for "shooting the messenger."

Do you:

A) Present the data honestly and risk your job

B) Massage the data to show "progress" and hope someone else raises the alarm

Most people chose B. Everyone chose B. And the result was that by the time leadership saw the real numbers, catching up was structurally impossible. Apple had already captured the premium market. Android was eating the low end. Nokia had resources, talent, distribution, brand recognition.

What they didn't have was infrastructure that let truth travel faster than politics.

Nokia had no pre-agreed arbiter for what mattered (market share? profit margin? engineering benchmarks?). They had no system for receipts over theories (middle managers could bury data with no consequences). They had no execution discipline (decisions got relitigated based on whoever had leadership's ear that quarter).

The mechanism that killed Nokia is the same mechanism killing companies today—just faster. Markets move in months now, not years. The window between "we have a problem" and "it's too late" has compressed. You don't have six years to figure out that truth isn't traveling. You have six months.

Remote work destroyed the informal decision infrastructure most companies were running on. The hallway conversation that resolved disagreements before the meeting. The ability to read the room and know when to push. The lunch where you built coalition with the CFO before Friday's exec meeting. All gone.

What replaced it: Zoom fatigue, endless Slack threads, and the growing realization that consensus-building doesn't scale through video calls.

Companies are splitting into two categories. Infrastructure companies built formal systems to replace informal ones—pre-agreed arbiters, real-time data, execution discipline. Consensus companies are trying to recreate hallway conversations on Zoom and losing talent to confusion.

The gap is widening every quarter.

GitLab shows what this looks like under pressure. Engineer Kamil Trzciński argued for an integrated DevOps platform. Leadership disagreed and decided on separate products. Most engineers would have stopped there.

Kamil kept pushing with data even after the decision.

GitLab has a principle: "disagree, commit, and disagree." You execute the decision immediately—no dragging your feet, no passive resistance. But you continue presenting evidence if you still believe you're right. The system protects dissent after the decision because the arbiter is clear: customer data and platform usage, not seniority or who argued loudest in the meeting.

Kamil kept bringing data like:

Leadership eventually caved in. Which resulted in GitLab CEO Sid Sijbrandij saying:

That's infrastructure enabling decisions that get better over time because truth can still travel after you commit.

Infrastructure sounds rigid. Aren't you just creating corporate bureaucracy? Won't this slow us down?

I thought that too. Then I noticed something strange: the companies with the most infrastructure consider MORE alternatives, not fewer. Three to five options simultaneously versus one or two for slow firms. They're processing more information through cleaner pipes.

GitLab's "disagree, commit, and disagree" is the opposite of bureaucracy—it's protected dissent. You can keep pushing back after the decision as long as you execute and bring receipts. Bureaucracy says "the decision is final, stop questioning it." Infrastructure says "the decision is implemented, but truth can still travel."

Teams with decision infrastructure make decisions 35% faster while maintaining higher quality. Organizations with clear decision roles are 6.8 times more likely to be high-performing. The mechanism: infrastructure lets you process more information faster because you're not arguing about what evidence matters every single time.

I did the math on what this means over five years.

Company A has decision infrastructure and makes decisions in 1 day average. That's 250 decisions per year, 1,250 over five years.

Company B has no infrastructure and makes decisions in 10 days average. That's 25 decisions per year, 125 over five years.

Company A executes 10x more decisions in the same timeframe. But it's not just quantity—each decision has downstream effects. Product iterations where Company A ships 10x more features and learns from users faster. Market opportunities where Company A captures windows before they close. Hiring where Company A fills roles 10x faster, compounding their talent advantage. Pivots where Company A can test more strategic bets.

By year five, Company A isn't 10x better. They're in a different league entirely.

The decision velocity gap for companies like Amazon, Netflix, and Tesla becomes so large that catching up is structurally impossible. Nokia had six years to close the gap with Apple. They couldn't do it. You probably have six months.

These aren't personality traits. They're infrastructure you can build Monday.

Don't say "I'm concerned about customer retention with this pricing change." Say "Yesterday we tested the new pricing with 50 users. 32% churned within 48 hours. Here's the exit survey data." Receipts end arguments. Theories extend them. When you show the screen recording of three customers dropping off at checkout, the argument ends in thirty seconds.

For product decisions, it's customer usage data and retention. For financial decisions, P&L and unit economics. For hiring, revenue-per-employee versus industry benchmarks. The arbiter needs to be agreed before tension exists—not during the argument, not after someone escalates to the CEO. If you're arguing about what the arbiter should be, you've already lost. Now you're arguing about how to argue, which is where organizational energy goes to die.

After the decision, track outcomes and document what broke. Let data argue next time instead of re-justifying. Infrastructure without execution is process theater. GitLab's "disagree, commit, and disagree" works because execution happens immediately while evidence continues flowing. High-performing teams require explicit discussion of rationale before the decision. After? Execution.

If you're building or operating a company right now: Can you make critical decisions in thirty seconds or does it take thirty days?

For your next disagreement, pick your arbiter before the meeting starts. Is this a P&L decision? Customer data decision? Velocity decision? Agree on the arbiter before tension starts, before anyone's raised their voice, before positions have hardened.

When disagreement happens, show receipts—show the customer who churned, the P&L that broke, the feature that missed the window.

By 2030, decision infrastructure will be as foundational as financial infrastructure or legal infrastructure. Companies that don't have it will be unable to compete. The infrastructure stack will become standardized: real-time data systems capturing customer behavior, financials, and execution; decision frameworks with arbiters pre-agreed before tension; outcome tracking showing what worked, what broke, what to iterate; cultural norms that reward infrastructure-building instead of politics.

The companies building this now will have a five-year head start that becomes insurmountable. The companies waiting will be case studies in how consensus culture killed competitive advantage.

What I'm still working through: there's a version of this that becomes too rigid. You pick your metrics, optimize for them, and eventually make decisions that look good on paper but feel wrong in practice. I don't have a clean answer for when to change the arbiter. I'm watching for the moment when the metric stops serving the decision and starts driving it.

Most operators think their job is winning arguments.

I used to think that too.

Your job is making arguments irrelevant. Nokia had the talent and resources to beat the iPhone. They died because truth couldn't travel faster than fear. Spotify spent a year beta-testing one policy and gained 16 years of productivity. GitLab created the first DevOps platform because an engineer could keep presenting evidence after the decision.

The best operators never justify. They built the system that justifies for them.