Back to the relevant topic at hand: we're still reading the feedback and comments posted over here!
There are a lot of points being brought up and I know it's not exciting at all but our response remains the same:
Every change or adjustment that occurs – whether or not it makes a lick of sense from an outside perspective, "outside" here meaning not being internally a part of ATA/PIMD development – is done so for good reason backed by data. We trust the data and make assumptions and create experiments based off of that.
Now, if the change/adjustment/whatever else does well as defined by qualified metrics, we keep on heckin' doing it. If it doesn't and is clearly unsustainable – as some of you are trying to say – by the same barometer, we re-adjust and forge a different way forward.
That is as much of a response I can garner to address these concerns. We see you, we hear you, we'll make changes if it makes sense (based on our data) to make those changes.
Despite the disagreements between our views, I'd like to say I genuinely appreciate this respectful and professional response. For me personally, this is what I have been seeking from the beginning. Thank you, Marceline