Midway through a team run three things come up at once. A teammate that was denied a command asks a peer to run it instead. A second teammate wants to bring in a helper of its own. And you decide that the teammate with the clearest grasp of the problem ought to take over as lead. Which of the three can actually happen?

The principle — a team coordinates work; it does not redistribute authority. Every one of these three asks for authority to move, and each is refused by a rule of its own.

Why the key is correct — take them one at a time. The relay: a teammate can't approve a permission prompt or supply consent on your behalf, and a teammate that was denied an action can't relay it to another teammate to bypass the check. The refusal attaches to the action, so passing it sideways changes nothing about it. The recruiting: teammates cannot spawn their own teammates. Only the lead can manage the team. And the handover: the main session is the lead for its lifetime. You can't promote a teammate to lead or transfer leadership — and a session has exactly one team, scoped to that session, so there is nowhere for leadership to move to. Three requests, three documented refusals. They read as one answer because all three are about who may act rather than who is able.

Why the others are wrong — each of the three concedes two and keeps the one that feels most reasonable, which is how the mistake is actually made. The relay looks safe because a peer really is a separate session with approvals of its own, and that is precisely the bypass the rule anticipates. The recruiting looks harmless because the teammate is trying to help, but membership is the lead's. And the handover looks like ordinary delegation, when leadership is fixed for as long as the session lives.

Remember this — inside a team, consent, membership and leadership are all yours through the lead, and none of the three can be handed over.

Sources — Anthropic's Claude Code documentation on orchestrating teams of sessions.