Holacracy Community of Practice Archive, 2015-2019 Community Holacracy Web Site

 Thanks for clarifying your tension. I'm not an expert and these are just my personal thoughts. I can certainly understand why you would want to thoroughly understand your role, especially as a coach.  

As I see it, priorities and strategies are actually answers to questions. When someone becomes confused about the way they should make decisions within their role such that they support the purpose of the organization, or if there is a tension that decisions could be better aligned with the purpose of the organization, those questions are answered with priorities and strategies, usually (but perhaps not always) set by the lead link.

Also, I think that priorities and strategies could sometimes be interpreted as personal guidelines that each role determines for themselves in fulfilling their purpose, only to be changed if there is a tension associated with them. 
It occurs to me that the idea of setting priorities and strategies absent any tension could be a legacy of top down thinking.

Perhaps the constitution is vague on this point because it kind of depends on the situation. 

It makes sense for the lead link (as responsible for the whole circle) to be responsible for priorities and strategies within that circle. But there may be situations where others need to take that responsibility. Also, roles within the circle are supposed to have authority to do things their own way as long as the purpose of their role is filled, so giving the lead link absolute authority over strategies could be in violation of that IF there is no tension to resolve. 

I'm curious to know what others think about this.