Given the framing, I need to ask: what was the impact of the updated requirements, or has there not yet been sufficient time to tell?
As my career progressed, I got a better handle on the genuine cultural issues behind some of the customer-level differences. For example, one particular category of user had very different career progressions / longevity in different parts of the overall organisation (heroes in one part, zeros in the other, approximately). This affected the relative prioritisation of the relevant requirements by the respective customers, and the perceived value and affordability of solutions, in a way that overshadowed the tech-focussed arguments younger-techie-me would have made.
a) what a relatively mundane value-add via co-ordination looks like. Something like this is impossible to communicate without so much context but these stories are happening in every single pocket of a giant org.
b) What the artistry of it is. It's not easy and can take years to understand a single co-ordination problem well enough that you push single pebble and cause the right avalanche of change
c) Why anyone who is looking for impact inevitably gets drawn into it, independent of their feelings of whether they personally enjoy it or not (spoiler alert: I have never met anyone who has told me this was their true passion from birth. All of us wade into it reluctantly and eventually develop the internal motivation to make it satisfying).