See I find that counter intuitive. If you hear the term “high level” people should expect “high level”. Something of a low standard such as vague announcements should be considered a low level since its low... They are setting up for failure again if they give us a low level announcements despite explicitly saying high level.High Level in development usually means more of the 'surface details', the 'tip of the iceburg'. It has nothing to do with quality. Its the level you use for your boss who likely doesn't know programming or at least the inner workings of the program. When it comes to 'low level' discussion (though i've usually heard it called 'in depth', but that does imply 'lower than the surface') its more of the nitty gritty, the many smaller details that make the project work . The inner cogs of how it works. How the people actually making the program talk about the project.
I could be wrong, but its how I instantly read it when they said high level. English can be a really weird language as yes, if they're using high level in the context of quality you'd be entirely right. But when in the context of development, a high level discussion is usually the opposite of an 'indepth' one.
Not saying you’re right or wrong, but if you are indeed right then they need to readjust how they are setting expectations. I can see upward of 95% of people who receive this news to expect literally “high” as exactly that.
It’s like me saying “Definitive high level content, definitely lots of content guaranteed” then saying “oh sorry, that’s in-house lingo which means we haven’t got much to say at all”.
Even with you explaining it to me, I can’t help but feel the terms contradict the examples. Again, not saying your wrong. But using in-house vocabulary that close to no one else will understand is a set up for failure. Despite being consistent with their track record.