Suno's Spark incubator launched with a perpetual non-disparagement clause, a 60-day competitor exclusivity lock, binding arbitration, and a class-action waiver. The terms were co-authored by Suno's Chief Music Officer and Head of Creative Economy. Not design. Not product. The Head of Product Design posting describes "simple, joyful, and intuitive user experiences" and design system ownership. Trust & Safety reports through engineering. No policy design role exists on the Ashby board.
The Spark controversy created trust debt that a design leader would visibly own in the market. Creators, press, and the music industry now associate Suno's brand with extractive terms. But every public signal says the decisions that generated that debt sit in Legal, Music, and Business leadership. Design gets to style the page after the language is already locked.
If a warm path opens, spend your first conversation on decision rights. You need to know whether this role can shape creator-facing policy or only present it.
Five questions that surface whether design holds authority or just accountability:
Who drafted Spark's terms? Legal, Music, or Business? Did design review, gate, or veto any creator-facing language?
Who owns trust repair? If Suno softens the "Good Vibes Only" clause, does that come from Legal, the CMO's team, or the design org?
Does this role have decision rights over creator-facing terms? Not styling. Can the Head of Product Design change what a disclosure says, or only how it looks?
Where does creator experience sit? The PM, Artists & Creators role owns discovery and monetization. What does design own end-to-end?
Is there a design voice in incident learning? When a creator-trust failure hits press, who runs the response? Engineering T&S? Legal? Or does design have a seat?
If every answer routes to "we'd love your input" and nobody names a decision gate, you have your answer.