1 min lesson
Deferring to v2 without sounding like you're cutting corners
Take this case and make the call: "A customer pushes back: 'your v1 only handles the simple cases - that's not a real solution.' How do you respond without sounding defensive or like you're cutting corners?"
Step 1 of 2
Deferring to v2 without sounding like you're cutting corners
Saying "we'll handle that later" sounds like dodging. Tying every deferral to the agreed success metric makes it sound like judgment, because it is.
"V1 migrates the 80% of files that follow your standard pattern and proves green CI on every one. The 20% with custom escapes I'm deliberately leaving for v2 - they're rare, risky and I don't want them holding up the win we agreed to measure. We'll do them by hand or with a tighter pass once the skeleton's trusted."
Tie the MVP to the metric and the first version is already measurable. If the agreed target was "95% of files migrated with green CI," then v1 reports its own number against that target on day one. A walking skeleton that can't tell you whether it's working isn't a skeleton - it's a guess.
This mindset isn't only for the build onsite. The decomposition round wants a walking-skeleton MVP as the answer. The system-design round wants you to scope a skeleton, then harden it. The paid onsite literally rewards getting something thin live and defensible over something grand and broken. It's the same instinct everywhere: ship the sliver, prove it, expand.