I met this week with an executive I first interviewed back in March for The Agentic Awakening: After our first conversation, my impression was clear: he was deeply AI-pilled, and the management team was committed to the transition. They had already formed an AI leadership committee and a cross-functional enablement team spanning engineering, IT, security and infrastructure. They were measuring adoption and had stopped treating AI as a simple tool rollout. But the organization was still struggling to convert. Small, modern squads were demonstrating what was possible. The harder challenge was moving long-established teams responsible for mission-critical infrastructure, an eight-year-old codebase, and hardware-related projects. The promise was visible locally, but it had not yet translated into company-wide productivity. At the time, they were roughly five months into the awakening. This week, five months after that initial conversation, the progress was astonishing. The engineering organization has shifted from thinking about building applications to thinking about building factories. Engineers have considerable freedom to shape their working environments. They can choose among multiple agent harnesses and are encouraged to consume the tokens needed to get the job done, rather than treating token usage as something to minimize. The company measures both AI usage and engineering productivity, then makes the results transparent across the organization. The purpose is not simply to rank people. It is to help every engineer understand where they stand, find colleagues achieving better results, and learn how they work. According to the company’s measurements, engineering delivery has now reached roughly 3× its previous level. That creates an entirely different leadership question. The immediate temptation is to capture the productivity dividend through cost reduction. For some companies, that will be the right answer. But the more consequential opportunity is growth: accelerating the roadmap, responding to customers faster, entering adjacent markets, and pursuing ideas that previously could not justify the engineering investment. Once engineering can deliver at 3×, the constraint moves again. The question is no longer whether the organization can build enough. It is whether the rest of the company can identify and absorb enough valuable opportunities to use the new capacity well.