Case kit 1: the migration two teams refuse to adopt

Leans: IC track · Laws in tension: Influence, Buy-In, Timing · Camps: escalation path vs coalition path

This case is currently wired into the deck, guide, and board as case 1. Read the full case text from `case-bank.md`, case 1, out loud at the case slot (about 5 minutes).

To run it in the other slot, or to restore it after a swap: replace the four case slides in `slides/week-5-case-clinic.md` (the brief, the laws in tension, the both-tracks bridge, and the prepare-your-camp activity) with the slide block below, re-render the deck, and rename the case frame on the activity board with the labels below. The decision sheet in `worksheets.md` works unchanged for every case.

Slide block (Marp)

The slides for this case, on brand and ready to present. Click the deck, then use the arrow keys. Open full screen.

## Case: the migration two teams refuse to adopt
    A senior engineer with no title built the shared payments client everyone approved. Six months later, two squads still run their old copies.
    
    One squad lead resists openly. The other agrees in every meeting and schedules nothing. Security updates for the old SDK end in eight weeks.
    
    You will now hear the full case, one page, 5 minutes. Listen for what has already been tried.
    
    ---
    
    ## Case: the laws in tension
    - Influence: she has no title over anyone, and being right has not moved them
    - Buy-In: they approved the library; did they ever accept the engineer?
    - Timing: a right move at the wrong moment still fails
    
    Three laws, and they do not point to the same move.
    
    ---
    
    ## One migration, both tracks
    Whether you lead a team of reports or lead technical direction without reports, this case is yours.
    
    The IC track runs on exactly this: scope grows through influence, not headcount.
    
    An EM's failed reorg fails the same way as this migration: people heard the idea, but they did not accept the person.
    
    ---
    
    <!-- _class: activity -->
    ## Activity: prepare your camp
    Assigned camps, 10 minutes. One camp builds the escalation path: ask the managers to order it. The other builds the coalition path: win the engineers without escalating.
    
    Build your opening and your best evidence from the case text.
    
    Challenge: what is the other camp's strongest attack on you?

Board frame labels

• Frame title: Case: the migration two teams refuse to adopt
• Camp A zone: Escalation camp. Sub: ask the managers to order it. Post your opening and your best evidence from the case text, one sticky each.
• Camp B zone: Coalition camp. Sub: win the engineers without escalating. Post your opening and your best evidence from the case text, one sticky each.
• Decision zone question: Would your 3 lines survive the cross-examination you just watched?

Facilitator notes

What has already been tried (they should hear these in the read): a demo, a step-by-step migration guide, migrating the first service herself, five polite reminders, and a manager offering to escalate.

Cross-examination questions:

• Escalation camp: the order lands Monday. What does the work Tarek's squad delivers under protest look like, and who maintains it in a year?
• Escalation camp: you spend your manager's authority on a library. What do you ask for next time, and what will it cost then?
• Coalition camp: eight weeks, two squads, and your first coalition conversation has not happened yet. Show me the calendar.
• Coalition camp: Tarek's incentive is his monthly deadline. What currency do you actually hold that he values?

Debrief: expect the room to split on time pressure, not on principle. The interesting question to surface: who changed their answer because of the eight-week clock, and would they choose differently with six months?

← Case bank Facilitator guide