Oh Dear...
She insisted that a decision has to be "a conversation in a different part of the forest" as to the one around what Openreach's future governance should look like.
For myself I would have had great difficulty in hearing that actually said without (a) openly sniggering, and (b) deciding that whoever said it should be completely ignored.
Furthermore (having thought about this since this article appeared) I have arrived at the conclusion that for any organisation (in this case BT) to accept having a USO placed upon it for the provision of broadband it could only achieve it if it had complete control of the chain, and that complete control would be lost if BT and Openreach were divorced from one another.
How could BT fulfil the requirements of a USO if it did not (one way or another) control that part of the chain between the main network spine(s) and the final customers? It could be held hostage by the "local end provider" (for ease of understanding called Openreach) which (because it was not itself subject to the demands of a USO) could drag its feet and not provide unless the hamstrung provider (BT) paid a premium for its (Openreach's) services. That would have the immediate effect of forcing up broadband prices for BT customers and (very likely) downgrading the services available to other "providers".
I am not trying to argue that the existing structure and its operation are perfect, but it has become too much of an article of faith for a lot of people that completely separating BT from Openreach would be a cure - all for the perceived shortcomings of Britsh broadband provision. It could all to easily finish up being worse.
Chinese proverb: Be careful what you wish for, in case you get it.
Disclaimer; I never worked for BT.