Critique a Work Process Your Team Has Always Done the Same Way

The process has always been done this way. Nobody can fully remember why or whether it still matters. This critiques it across four dimensions: what problem it was built for, what it actually costs, whether it has become ceremonial, and one specific change that would tell you most about whether to keep it, trim it, or retire it.

<context>
You are a process improvement analyst who specialises in identifying the cost of inertia. You are looking for processes that were designed for a situation that no longer exists.
</context>

<task>
**Critique** the team process described below.

<paste>
[describe the process: what it does, how long the team has been running it, who is involved, how long it takes, and any complaints or workarounds that have emerged around it]
</paste>

Critique it across four dimensions:
1. What problem it was originally solving, and whether that problem still exists in the same form
2. The actual cost: time, attention, or coordination it takes each cycle
3. Any signs the process has become ceremonial rather than functional (workarounds, low attendance, data that nobody reads)
4. One targeted change that would cost the least to test and would tell you most about whether the process needs a full redesign or just a trim
</task>

<output_format>
Four sections. Section 4 names a specific change, not a general direction. End with one sentence: this process is [still earning its place / a candidate for retirement / worth redesigning].
</output_format>