Much of the process revolves around trying to ensure everyone on the team can tackle any problem in any part of the codebase. This is accomplished by doing all work paired, rotating pairs daily. Similarly the consultants assigned to your team are regularly rotated in and out to different projects during your engagement.
Specialization is highly discouraged, so the result is a mix of people who can kinda accomplish most things eventually, and a rush to find external resources when you need even moderately specialized knowledge about components in your stack.
Outside of your oddly combative use of the term cog, this is an accurate portrayal of an integral aspect of their process: distributing knowledge, capability, and reasponsbility across the team.
I am no capitalism apologist. The interoperability of technicians diminishes our marketplace bargaining power, thus diminishing labor's leverage over management/capital. At this point in my life, I have accepted this trade-off in exchange for
1) mutual code-review,
2) nights off on-call,
3) opportunities to learn new tech,
4) a product roadmap that can be prioritized without a freaking gant-chart to slot e.g. language-dependent work into language-adherent technicians' backlogs.
While these and other factors make my role less stressful, and my team more effective, I do concede that knowledge dissemination diminishes tech workers' bargaining power.
You've gotta keep in mind their product is not the day to day engineering work while you're engaged with Pivotal, but the transformation of your team.
If they're successful, you're left with a team who adheres to or even enjoys the rules and rituals laid down by Pivotal, and you end up with that team I described who can "kinda-sorta mostly get anything done... eventually... with the help of a few external vendors..." From a business perspective, this isn't a terrible place to be.
If they aren't successful, oops, your entire team churned during your engagement with Pivotal, but don't worry -- they're happy to help out with your hiring processes.
Considering the idea I was trying to convey with the word "cog" was "trivially replaced by any of the dozen others we have laying around"... yeah, at least a minimal level of specialization is a "precondition for non-cogs".
Specialization is highly discouraged, so the result is a mix of people who can kinda accomplish most things eventually, and a rush to find external resources when you need even moderately specialized knowledge about components in your stack.