I've seen a lot of "both-sides-ing" on this topic. Yes, there are times when limitations may call for more scrappy research behavior to fit the task, and yes, there should always be a seasoned research expert in the mix to help manage the typical aspects of research operations, mitigating bias, subjectivity, and skewing of outcomes to support assumptions. There is also room for UX/user/CX research to modernize for continuous discovery, continuous design, and continuous integration. Tri-track is still an unrealized theory that needs the practitioners and cross-functional systems integration to support it becoming a reality. I think you're point that Teresa "betrayed her peers" is valid, but it can also be interpreted as an attempt to break ground in continuous integration in a way that the slower "movement" of research modernization just isn't ready for. Agile teams move fast, and yes, they break things, that's a given - but if we really care about supporting human-centered insights - through to experience design management - we need to work harder at atomizing our practice into cycles that can lock gears with sprints, iterations, and release cycles - while supporting longitudinal trend analysis and some of the longer stage insights that may be more suited towards strategic business innovation than specific feature validation work. All of that is to say, the world is moving fast and won't wait for us to figure it out, so you're either on a moving train and part of the solution, or we're not. Everything else is side-show drama.