> Phrasing the whole discussion in terms of 'metrics' to justify the common-sense conclusion that junior people need more direct supervision is clearly sugarcoa

> Phrasing the whole discussion in terms of 'metrics' to justify the common-sense conclusion that junior people need more direct supervision is clearly sugarcoating it for junior recipients for whom the message is intended. This line of reasoning will never not make my blood boil. "Well of course it's not data driven but we have to pretend it is for the juniors while the seniors know the truth", what absolute hogwash. Say what you mean or I'll assume what you believe what you say. Yout don't get to have it both ways. They said it's based on data so you don't get to pretend it was intuition (on top of which the people exercising the "intuition" have a vested interest in WFO).