But we've already agreed on this!
I completely understand that reaction. You've done the prep work, you've discussed it and you already started development. If you reopen decisions, it starts to feel like you're chasing your tail. You're losing time you don't have.
Yesterday, I wrote about making room for those conversations after handover. How we start them can make a big difference.
If I say, "This calendar design doesn't work," I'm asking someone to defend their work before we've even discussed the problem. A much better conversation starter is to explain what we've learned so far. If the next available appointment takes quite a few key presses and you didn't account for it in the design review, now's the time to have that conversation. Now you have something specific to discuss. The earlier agreement was based on what you knew then. Testing gave you information you didn't have.
That doesn't make the whole design wasted work. Much of it is still useful. Perhaps you can keep the calendar and add a way to jump to the next available slot, reducing the many many key presses to just one.
Before starting over, it's best we understand how much actually needs to change. This keeps the conversation focused on the patient's task and the delivery impact. We can also answer questions like what would happen if we left it for now and what would a fix involve.
That previous agreement still matters. People planned around it and changing direction has a cost.
But I'd rather account for that cost openly than keep building something because we agreed to it before we understood the whole problem.