I want to propose an idea to someone pretty high up on the ladder of a company as a third party developer.
I don't work for the company but this stackexchange sub seems to be the most appropriate. I simply need approval from them to develop a third party application abides by their current rules.
This is normally a standard query for this department, but because they're currently changing these rules, my query got bumped up the ladder.
Generally, they approve anything that doesn't break any rules. But my idea happens to be directly affected by these new policy changes.
As a result, my normally standard query got bumped up the ladder.
Person A (the lower level employee) initially rejected my request. I ask him to elaborate on which features I can and cannot use and my query got bumped to the higherup (Person B)
Person B backs up Person A in rejecting the request while simultaneously contradicting himself by approving a slightly altered request, which does the same thing but makes the software less efficient.
The intention was to get person A to see the inconsistency in their questionable decision. Considering many of their approved project use a similar, less efficient system. Person A likely realized this, which is why he bumped it up.
By all accounts they'll be looking for a good reason to reject my idea, but can't because they want to hold all developers to the same standard.
The question: How should I approach person B, explain to him Person A, Person B and the rulebook contradict eachother and the rule is pulled out of thin air, in a non-insulting manner, so that they hopefully give my proposal a closer look.
And explain the logical inconsistency with Person B also contradicted himself while initially reviewing the query. Likely due to skimming over it without paying attention to what's actually going on.
I'm okay with rejection. I just need a straight answer out of these people that's actually based on something so that I know what I can and cannot do.