Very appreciative of your thorough response. So here's the real scenario, as briefly stated as I can.
The Tension arises from a few of our Areas/Centers - consider it from a business model sort of like local operating entity (just don't say the word franchise!). The institutional history includes long-held distrust of a board/excom making demands of the local units re: operational policy and procedure - and in particular about those units being somehow unable to ask for or get what they want.
The specific request comes from a new 'Area Steward' who, in request to sign the 2016 annual agreement, balked at the idea that MKP USA Support Services can make changes in operational policy that affect Areas. That of course, has been true for years, that the Board could enact change during the course of the year that affected the local unit in dynamic response to conditions.
In discussions with the individual the idea of getting Area approval was discussed, but the local units do not in fact any have operational authority beyond putting into action what the central organization allows. Getting an approval from the Areas, in democratic-style voting is a concept I think even this individual saw as troublesome.
Hence, the colleague bringing up the advice process and somehow requiring all authority-empowered Roles to have to use it when making any operational change regarding the local units. Which of course is a great majority of what operations does, and finding a way to parse out the grey areas would be challenging.