Obviously "improve X metric" is not a plan, but without any key results to evaluate against, it's easy for things to be "done" poorly or to not be targeted at something that matters, particularly as orgs get larger.
They do say that teams have long term objectives and metrics, so maybe those are what is used for evaluation, but it definitely feels weird.
It depends who is calling the shots on what to build. If it's the business or a product manager, then some engineer is going to be rewarded or punished for the impact (or lack thereof) that is already locked in, and all that's left is politicking about who it's going to be.
In this case they're pretty clear that the teams are supposed to have complete ownership of product chunks, so it does feel a bit odd that they're accountable for delivering and not for outcomes.
Obviously "improve X metric" is not a plan, but without any key results to evaluate against, it's easy for things to be "done" poorly or to not be targeted at something that matters, particularly as orgs get larger.
They do say that teams have long term objectives and metrics, so maybe those are what is used for evaluation, but it definitely feels weird.