Main idea

One team needs a rule that belongs to another: the mandatory fields of a closing form, a backup policy, a contractual limit. The rule has an owner — the team that evolves it, knows why it exists, and answers for it.

Consulting the rule where it lives means relying on it without claiming to own it: the knowledge keeps belonging to the other team. Copying means bringing an independent version into your own space — frozen at a date, possibly reworded — and becoming responsible for how it is used.

Copying is sometimes still the right choice: freezing the exact version a decision rests on, rewording it for a particular use, keeping it available if the original team reorganizes. But the difference between the two lies less in the move than in the responsibility it shifts.

Why it matters

It gives a question to ask before copying: am I ready to answer for this version once the original has moved? If not, it was consulting that was needed.

It also explains why orphaned copies are so common: you copy to save time, without noticing you have just accepted a maintenance burden.

Nuances and limits

The transfer is not complete: the owning team remains responsible for the rule itself, while whoever copies it answers only for the use they make of their version. The two responsibilities coexist, and it is in the gap between them that divergence settles.

Open questions

• How does an organization make visible the copies each team has become responsible for without knowing it?