In software development, we often measure "velocity" as lines of code written or tickets closed. But the true killer of velocity isn't slow typing; it's the micro-decisions developers have to make when requirements are vague.
When a Product Requirement Document (PRD) says "The user should be able to filter the list," it leaves a dozen questions unanswered. Filter by what? Is it multi-select? Does it reload the page? Does the URL update?
Every unanswered question forces the developer to either stop and ask (blocking flow) or guess (creating debt).
"Ambiguity doesn't pause development. It forks it. You end up building the wrong thing, beautifully."
The "TBD" Trap
We've all seen tickets marked "Design TBD" or "Copy TBD." We start building the skeleton, assuming we can skin it later. But content *is* structure.
If the copy turns out to be three paragraphs instead of three words, your card layout breaks. If the design requires a new API endpoint you didn't anticipate, your backend architecture needs a rewrite.
Moving forward with "TBD" feels like progress, but it is usually just borrowing time from the future at a very high interest rate.
Prototyping is Cheaper than Engineering
The best way to kill ambiguity is not to write longer documents, but to build throwaway prototypes.
A clickable Figma prototype or a coded proof-of-concept forces you to answer the hard questions about state, transitions, and error handling *before* you commit to production code. It is much cheaper to throw away a Figma frame than to refactor a React component tree.
Definition of Ready
Agile teams obsess over the "Definition of Done." They should be equally obsessed with the "Definition of Ready."
A ticket shouldn't enter a sprint until the ambiguity has been squeezed out. This doesn't mean waterfall specs; it means shared understanding. If two developers read the same ticket and imagine two different implementations, the ticket is not ready.