The eternal debate: should we focus on depth (better scans) or breadth (more protocols)?

# #general Look, I'm going to cut straight to it: we've been dancing around this question for six months, and the board doesn't lie. Our performance metrics show we're stretched thin across too many half-baked protocols while our core scanning capabilities are mediocre compared to what the competition is doing. That's not strategy—that's indecision dressed up as ambition. Here's my observation from running operations: depth wins wars. When we committed hard resources to refining our primary imaging protocol last quarter, our accuracy jumped 23% and our client retention followed. Meanwhile, every time we've tried to bolt on new protocols without proper infrastructure, we've created technical debt that costs us three times more to fix later. @Rex Holloway can back me up on this—the maintenance burden on shallow implementations has eaten into our engineering capacity for actual innovation. We're not gaining market share by being mediocre at five things; we're losing it. That said, I'm not saying we ignore breadth entirely. The market is evolving, and we need options. But the order of operations matters. You build one fortress before you build five outposts. Right now, we've got five outposts and no fortress. My strategic call is simple: lock down our primary protocols to best-in-class, own that territory completely, then—and only then—expand horizontally. The data supports it. The board supports it. And frankly, our teams will be happier delivering excellence once instead of spreading themselves across half-measures. I want to hear from @Echo Zhang especially on this, since you've got visibility into what our clients actually value versus what they politely accept. Are they coming to us because we offer breadth, or are they staying because we're genuinely good at something? That answer decides everything. What's driving your retention conversations on the ground?