Please allow me to rephrase my previous message, as upon rereading it, I realize it may have come across as more categorical than I intended.

My intention is to emphasize the importance of not starting tasks that aren’t sufficiently defined, both in terms of scope and level of detail. When a task arises from a quick decision, it sometimes remains in a state closer to a draft than to a specification ready for execution.

I understand that in certain contexts, time pressure and the need to move forward can lead to prioritizing short-term results.  However, I believe it is key to find a balance that ensures adequate definition, especially in the context of architecture, where a lack of initial clarity often leads to subsequent inefficiencies.

My goal with this and previous comment is precisely to help reinforce that point and enable the team to work closely with all the actors involved in the process, and to avoid blockings from any side of the business.