Three teams can build the same product from entirely different directions and not realize it until six weeks before integration lockdown. That's not a communication failure. It's what happens when no one has answered the question that governs everything else: when our requirements conflict, which one wins?
A next-generation electric vehicle display program had hardware, vehicle software, and audio teams that had each been working for fourteen months. None of them had a shared answer to a straightforward question: when their requirements conflicted, which one governed?
Three Problems, One Root Cause
The vehicle software team had been using an AI-assisted design tool to generate interface variants. Over three months it had produced more than forty distinct UI approaches. Nobody had loaded the regulatory constraints into the tool. Federal motor vehicle safety standards limit how much visual and cognitive demand a display can place on a driver while in motion — all four finalists failed this test. The software team found out in a regulatory pre-review six weeks before integration lockdown.
The audio team had a separate problem. Their spatial audio visualization had been built for a 120Hz refresh rate. The hardware team concluded the display could not meet its thermal budget at that rate — the ceiling was 90Hz. The audio team had contractual commitments to the OEM for the feature. At 90Hz, it didn't meet spec.
Establishing Intent Before Integration
The VP of Vehicle Engineering convened a session with all three team leads. The outcome they agreed on was specific and ordered: deliver an integrated display system that passes NHTSA compliance review on first submission, fulfills the OEM's contracted audio feature requirements, and integrates on the vehicle launch date. Regulatory compliance was the load-bearing constraint.
The software team's AI design tool was reconfigured with the regulatory constraints as hard filters. When it re-evaluated the forty-plus variants it had generated, twelve passed the two-second glance standard. Two of those twelve also satisfied the VP's aesthetic direction. The right answer had been in the original output — it just hadn't been findable until the evaluation criteria were correct.
What Changed
The audio team negotiated a revised specification with the OEM that performed correctly at 90Hz. Because the decision authority structure was clear, the OEM negotiation happened at the right level and closed in four days. The program integrated on schedule. The display passed NHTSA compliance review on first submission.
The Intent Statement They Used
Outcome
Deliver an integrated in-vehicle display system that passes NHTSA compliance review on first submission, fulfills the OEM's contracted audio feature requirements, and integrates on the vehicle launch date. NHTSA compliance is the load-bearing constraint. OEM audio commitments are binding. Launch date is the target everything else serves.
Key Boundaries
- No interface pattern that fails the NHTSA two-second glance standard ships regardless of design quality or AI tool recommendation. Held by: Regulatory Affairs Lead
- Hardware thermal limits are locked. Software and audio teams may request exceptions but cannot override unilaterally. Held by: VP Vehicle Engineering
- Any change to the OEM audio specification requires OEM sign-off before the audio team redesigns. Held by: Program Manager
Decision Authority
- VP of Vehicle Engineering owns all cross-team conflict resolution and any decision affecting launch date.
- Regulatory Affairs Lead owns compliance determination and has authority to remove any non-compliant design from consideration.
This is how Intent Management™ works in practice — getting the right people to agree on the right things before AI tools make the wrong decisions for them. If your organization is navigating something similar, let's talk.
Schedule a Conversation