Or name it something uncomfortable that no one likes 🤓

We stop designing for the feature and start designing for the business problem. Coming up with new ideas and models to solve the problem.

The takeaway: Name your bounded context towards the problems in the problem space, not the solutions in the solution space.

By shifting the Bounded Context name to something like "Seat Reservation Optimisation," and clearly stating the goal—to fill the cinema efficiently while allowing choice—we immediately changed the modelling conversation....

Many teams default to naming a context "Seat Selection." But that's a solution. Why are we selecting seats? Because we want to give ticket buyers the best possible experience, while also ensuring the cinema is filled efficiently (for example, having a rule avoiding single, unbookable seats)....

I focus a lot on naming the bounded context and the underlying problem descriptions because that frames the entire design discussion.

We often confuse the product design (solution space) with the problem space. A clear example from the session: reserving cinema tickets....

I would just reply the following:
youtu.be/7v2GDbEmjGE?...

Precisely. Often, the initial resistance against a decision is based on untested assumptions or internal friction, making the reasons for opposition "fictional" until proven. Even when a decision goes wrong, the AAP gives us an opportunity to improve the process when a decision has a bad outcome.

This is where leadership and management must step in to manage and facilitate the underlying conflict, not the process itself.

The AAP is a structural mechanism, but its success relies entirely on the quality of our collaboration and mutual trust.

highlighting a deeper issue: a fundamental misalignment or a cultural dynamic where one team's priorities override the health of the shared system. We must wonder why a team decides against advice from the team that must do the work for them?

The benefit of the AAP is not to guarantee consensus; it is to force transparency.

If the PET advises, "We cannot support this right now," and the SAT still proceeds and logs the advice in the ADR, the AAP has done its job. It provides a clear diagnosis,

But here is the critical distinction: If the SAT proceeds without genuinely seeking and weighing the PET's advice on capacity, timing, or existing solutions, it's not a healthy display of autonomy—it's a breach of the Trust Contract, and they are accountable for that breach as well!

A Stream-Aligned Team (SAT) wants new technology that the Platform Engineering Team (PET) must build and own. Should the PET own the ADR? Can the SAT decide against the PET's explicit advice? Theoretically, yes. The SAT holds the decision right and the accountability!