Nobody catches a structural mistake alone
A mistake in the structure can be caught in three places: in the sketch, by someone who could have built it; in the build, by me; or in a client's hands after it ships. For years only the last two
peer function
Meaning
A specific evaluative role performed by an individual who possesses comparable experience or expertise to the founder, providing precise and actionable feedback on work. Peer function distinguishes itself from general appreciation by offering analytical insight into the mechanisms of the work itself, rather than solely reacting to its outcome. It contributes to the witness of work by engaging in a critical assessment grounded in shared understanding.
Its boundary is where the feedback shifts from technical evaluation to personal opinion or generic praise.
Informational Role
An individual acting in a peer function provides information that is directly relevant to the improvement and refinement of a founder’s work. For example, a fellow developer reviewing code can identify specific efficiencies or flaws, offering input that a non-technical observer cannot. This feedback is not about encouragement but about the verifiable quality and effectiveness of the output.
The information exchanged is concrete and measurable.
Validation Context
The context for peer function involves a relationship where expertise is recognized and respected on both sides. This mutual respect allows for a more rigorous and candid exchange of feedback, as the founder trusts the peer’s judgment and the peer understands the founder’s intent. When a founder receives specific, technical suggestions from a trusted peer, it both validates their effort and provides clear pathways for improvement.
This validation is specific to the craft.
Cost of Absence
The absence of an effective peer function can impose a significant cost on a founder, primarily in the form of increased time and energy spent identifying and correcting errors that a peer could have quickly diagnosed. Without this critical input, a founder may operate in an echo chamber, risking the release of suboptimal work or the accumulation of undetected issues. This leads to higher rework costs and a potential loss of credibility when the work eventually faces a broader market witness.
The lack of informed critique leaves blind spots in the work.
Appreciation is not evaluation
Two things get filed under being seen: a person responding to the fact that you made something, and a person able to tell you which part of it works. Only the second one carries information, and I spent years reading