What you’re describing is actually the flaw of the traditional model. Engineers end up accountable for everything, including decisions they didn’t make, because they are the final gate. In my proposal, responsibility follows decision power and is explicitly shared. Whoever proposes a change owns its behaviour, which is why sufficient product context is essential. This only works if everyone in the team operates as a product person, understanding the impact of their proposals beyond just implementation. The product manager owns product direction, engineering owns system integrity, and ownership is distributed rather than concentrated.
The final engineering review is not full ownership of every diff, but a focused technical judgment about whether the change preserves core invariants and integrates coherently within the system. If engineers still have to review exponentially more code while remaining responsible for everything, then the model has failed. The goal is to distribute accountability together with autonomy, so engineering safeguards systemic coherence while the entire team shares responsibility for product outcomes.
The final engineering review is not full ownership of every diff, but a focused technical judgment about whether the change preserves core invariants and integrates coherently within the system. If engineers still have to review exponentially more code while remaining responsible for everything, then the model has failed. The goal is to distribute accountability together with autonomy, so engineering safeguards systemic coherence while the entire team shares responsibility for product outcomes.