Correct me if I am wrong (I only have public records at my disposal)
Even H1 uses a cross-link role to gather tensions from partners, so the human part of it seem to be left out of the equation. They bring it into governance at a higher layer of abstraction.
So the two alternative strategies I see at play here are:
Encode: everything that's partner related is out of governance only stuff that's relevant for the operations serving the purpose directly via GCC or stuff realated to the Anchor were cross links are gathers to glue the various spaces (Encode got rid of the circle representing the association space, which it had in the past if I remember correctly)
H1: bring everything to governance as soon as the slightest nuance of a role definition is theoretically (EDIT: sorry not theoretically but practically since everything is still tension based) conceivable.
Both approaches have their trade offs in my opinion. H1 requires you to be a "Ferrari organization in holacracy" (and if they are not I wonder who should be) Encode's approach is probably safer for a beginner organization provided the alternative tension processing pathways are well defined (and if I get it correctly, that is part of their offer model too so it makes sense)
Did I get it right?