One thing really worth addressing from the post that I don't think author accepted, and I see this a lot with engineers:

> "That did introduce tension for our team because we were supposed to be taking experimental bets for the platform’s future. These bets couldn’t be baked into product without hacks or shortcuts in the typical quarter as was the expectation."
If I can pump one learning into engineers' and PMs' heads it's this: intermediate deliverables are not optional no matter how cutting-edge your team is.
You will never succeed if your pitch to leadership is "give us a budget for the next N years and expect no shippable products until the end of N years". Even if you get approved somehow at the beginning, there's a 99.5% chance your team/project will be killed before you get to N years.
Again, once again for the audience in the back: there is no such thing as a multi-year project without convincing, meaningful intermediate deliverables.
To clarify, that doesn't mean "don't have multi-year roadmaps", it means "your multi-year roadmaps must deliver wins at a consistent cadence".
Understanding this will carry you a lot further in the industry.
As a fairly cutting-edge R&D team part of your job is to figure out what slice of this is shippable (and worth shipping). If you're coming up empty you are not ready to pitch this to execs.