The Writing Program (WP) at Saint Louis University has striven to create a course that draws on a richer disciplinary understanding of writing and rhetoric. The standard course structure, from which instructors are asked to fashion their own syllabi, asks students to pursue a scaffolded semester-long project. As they pursue the scaffolded assignments, which result in 20-25 pages of writing, students continually rethink and revise their projects and the position(s) they might take. They are encouraged not just to learn but also to change their minds. The innovation in these assignments comes from reconceiving writing as the laboratory in which thinking occurs rather than the delivery system of the results of thinking (i.e., the familiar argumentative product). This approach grew as a response to a complex set of expectations, including the local curricular expectations, current disciplinary expectations, and departmental staffing changes. Because managing these expectations presented challenges for both the WP administrator (WPA) and instructors, this essay is written from the dual perspective of both: Paul (WPA) and Laura (the graduate instructor whose course is the essay's ultimate focus). Laura also will discuss how her approach to the course implemented and expanded upon the course's innovations in order to respond to: (1) programmatic assessment; (2) feedback from her colleagues across the WP; and (3) her own experiences teaching two sections of English 1900 in the 2017-2018 academic year.