To maintain a high-velocity operating model, Zeta establishes strict boundaries of authority and clear, non-bypassable arbitration pathways to resolve cross-axis conflicts.
1. Primary Decision Rights
The following matrix defines which Partner roles hold final, non-bypassable decision authority over key enterprise processes:
| Decision Domain | Final Authority Holder | Veto Power Holder | Governing Council |
|---|---|---|---|
| SOW Pricing & Signing | GTM Partner | Engagement Partner (Delivery feasibility) | Engagement Readiness Council (ERC) |
| Platform Core Roadmaps | Capability Partner | PAC / Senior Partner (Platform Architecture) | Platform Architecture Council (PAC) |
| Squad Staffing & Allocation | PPM / Portfolio Management | Competency Partner (Certification verification) | C3M Council / PPM |
| Uptime & SRE Incident Veto | Competency Partner (SRE CoE) | None (Absolute operational sovereignty) | SRE Site Assurance |
| Inner-Source Repatriation | Platform Maintainers | Capability Partner (P&L owner) | Platform Architecture Council (PAC) |
2. Standard Cross-Axis Conflict Scenarios & Arbitration
When objectives conflict across the horizontal (execution) and vertical (capability/talent) axes, partners must follow codified arbitration pathways rather than engaging in ad-hoc, relationship-dependent compromises.
2.1 Scenario A: GTM Partner vs. Engagement Partner (Bespoke Customer Requests)
- The Conflict: A GTM Partner wishes to promise a major, non-standard software feature to a client bank to close a high-value subscription contract. The Engagement Partner objects because the feature cannot be configured using standard platform variability points and will require a high-cost, bespoke code fork.
- The Arbitration Pathway:
- The feature request is formally submitted to the Platform Architecture Council (PAC) for a gap analysis.
- If the PAC determines the feature is a generic capability that belongs in the platform, the Capability Partner can choose to co-sponsor and fund its core R&D.
- If the PAC determines the feature is bespoke and cannot be generalized, the request is routed to the Engagement Readiness Council (ERC).
- The ERC either:
- Vetoes the request and directs GTM to sell a standard solution.
- Approves the request only under a high-margin, bespoke surcharge SOW, with the custom execution assigned to a dedicated Customer-Release team (EWT), ensuring the core Platform remains untouched.
2.2 Scenario B: Competency Partner vs. Engagement Owner (Practitioner Rotation)
- The Conflict: A Competency Partner (Chapter Steward) wants to rotate a senior software engineer out of an active Customer Product squad to complete a mandatory certified platform training program or work on a core Product Line. The Engagement Owner (EO) objects, claiming that losing the engineer will cause the squad to miss an active SOW delivery milestone.
- The Arbitration Pathway:
- The dispute is formally logged with the Portfolio Program Management (PPM) office.
- The PPM evaluates the active SOW risk against the Chapter's overall talent utilization metrics.
- If a certified, pre-integrated replacement HAT member is available in the reserve pool, the PPM schedules the rotation immediately, minimizing onboarding lag.
- If no replacement is available, the PPM structures a transition plan: the engineer's rotation is delayed by a maximum of 14 business days, and the Chapter Steward must provide dedicated, automated Agent support to the squad to offset the temporary capacity reduction.
- The C3M Council serves as the final arbitration endpoint if PPM cannot resolve the scheduling conflict.