One faction writes the official definitions behind key metrics through the formal governance process, so later analysis reflects its view of the business while rivals must argue through the same process.
Borderline: whether this move is justified depends on the situation, and only the person in it can judge.
An example
Almost anything with an email address counted as a qualified lead at a business-software company, and its head of sales operations believed the company was overpaying for leads that never closed. She drafted a stricter definition requiring a budget, a timeline, and a named buyer, and took it through the data council in the January cycle, three months before the annual split of marketing budget. Her proposal showed the effect on each channel: direct campaigns would lose a fifth of their count, reseller referrals a third. She invited the head of reseller sales to the council meeting, accepted an amendment counting referrals that arrived with a signed reseller agreement, and agreed to report both definitions side by side for four quarters. The council approved it. In April the budget moved toward the channels whose leads closed, and the reseller channel, after the amendment, kept most of its share.
Why it works
Writing the definition is the earliest point of influence: once "qualified lead" counts what one view of the business values, every later report makes that view look better. Arguments framed in other definitions look weaker in official reporting, and changing a definition is costly, since the challenger must go through the same governance process and carry the burden of proof. Going through the formal process, with effects shown and affected groups in the room, keeps this a fair advantage. It depends on moving first, a credible case for the definition, and a governance process others can use too.
The thinking behind it
Herbert A. Simon Administrative Behavior (1947) treats decisions as built on premises the organization supplies and notes that whoever controls those premises influences the decisions. A metric definition is a premise for every budget decision that uses the metric. Writing it through the formal process, with its effects shown, is legitimate influence over the premises; changing it so close to a decision that others cannot respond is control of them.
Richard H. Thaler Thaler and Sunstein's Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (2008) argues that the way options are presented always influences choice, so there is no neutral design. A data dictionary is part of an organization's choice architecture: what counts as a qualified lead shapes where the money goes. Because no definition is neutral, the fair practice is to show every affected group its effect and give it a voice.
When it fits
Metric definitions that drive budgets, targets, or allocations, loose enough that a better definition would change decisions, suit it. You need standing in the data governance process, a definition you can defend on its merits, and the analytic capacity to show its effect on every group it touches.
How to use it well
Propose the definition early, well before the decision it will drive, through the formal governance process. Show its effect on every affected group in numbers, and invite those groups to the meeting where it is decided. Accept amendments that improve it. Report the old and new definitions side by side for several quarters so anyone can see the change. Publish the rationale with the definition, and keep a record of who proposed what and when. Then let the numbers argue in later decisions, and support others' change requests on the same terms.
What it costs and where it backfires
Winning the definition makes you the owner of its flaws: if the new measure misjudges a channel, the damage is traced to you, and rivals who lost the fight will contest every number built on it. It stops being fair when a definition is changed so close to an allocation that others cannot respond, when its effect on a group is hidden, or when challenges are routed to the person who wrote it. That turns governance into an ambush, and the next independent auditor will find it.
When it is used on you
Read the definition behind any metric that drives an allocation, and ask when it changed and who proposed it. Show the effect of the change on your group in numbers. Go to the governance meeting and propose amendments. If the change came too late for you to respond, ask for the decision to be run on both definitions.