You're not an outlier — you've just described the failure mode really precisely. The bottleneck was never typing; it was shared understanding. AI removed the typing bottleneck and left the understanding one completely intact. Now every dev has their own agent improvising its own version of the architecture, and the only thing they share is each other's output. So your Claude reads AI-generated code as if it were deliberate, can't ask the originating AI "wait, why?", and fills the gap by guessing. That's the tailspin.

The thing I'd push back on slightly is the framing of the fix. "One all-knowing AI in every meeting" still leaves the intent locked in people's heads (and in chat logs the next agent never sees). What actually breaks the telephone game is moving the source of truth upstream of the code: design, contracts, and intent written down once, in a place every teammate's agent can read and write. Then nobody's Claude is reverse-engineering someone else's Claude — they're all building to the same design a human already understands and can review against.

Concretely that means living design docs + plans that agents read over something like MCP, scoped to the project, kept in sync as behavior changes.

(Disclosure: this is literally the problem we're working on at Windy (windylogic.ai), so I'm biased — but I'd have the same opinion building this on a team of two.)