Ask who decided that your website and your app should say different things about the same product. Nobody did. No meeting, no ticket, no approval. The divergence was never a decision.
That is why it survives every review. There is no one who chose it, so there is no one to ask to undo it.
Here is how it emerges. Each team answers for delivering: the ticket closed, the feature shipped, the release on time. Each delivered what was asked. From the inside, every one of them looks like success.
The person who wrote the requirement answers for the same thing, that the task goes out. Nobody asks them whether what shipped did the job it was meant for.
Upstream there is a reference that exists but was never written down. Someone in the business knows what the service has to achieve for a customer. They break that knowledge into tickets, one per team, one per channel. Each ticket is a projection of a whole that was never stated, and you can’t rebuild the whole from its projections. Add up every correct ticket and you don’t get the outcome. You get a pile of correct tickets.
So the channels drift apart without anyone departing from anything. Every team did its part. The divergence is the expected output of a system that only checks the parts.
It also explains the missing accountability, and it isn’t a separate cause. You can’t hold anyone to an outcome that was never put into words. What’s left is task completion, because that is the only thing written.
This is why “align the teams” rarely works. The teams are already aligned, to their tickets. What’s missing is the thing the tickets were cut from.
The fix isn’t blame, and it isn’t another sync meeting. It’s writing the whole down: the short list of outcomes the company will stand behind for this service. Once it exists, tickets can be derived from it instead of invented beside it.
Before the next channel change ships, ask for the sentence its ticket was cut from. If nobody can produce it, the divergence is already in the plan.