Commitment-Protection Decision Systems¶
This section defines the decision system used when decisions are made under conditions of high strategy clarity and low commitment safety.
In this regime, direction is understood and agreed upon, but commitments are expensive to reverse.
The primary decision challenge is no longer what to do, but how to protect existing commitments while executing.
Decision Regime Context¶
This decision system applies when:
- strategic direction and trade-offs are clear
- execution requires significant, shared, or irreversible commitments
- dependencies and constraints are real and active
- changing direction is costly or destabilizing
In this context, reopening foundational strategy decisions creates more risk than it resolves.
Primary Decision Failure This System Prevents¶
The Commitment-Protection Decision System exists to prevent one dominant failure:
Eroding strategic commitments through ungoverned change during execution.
This failure typically appears as:
- scope creep justified as “learning”
- sequencing changes that break dependencies
- local optimizations that violate system-level intent
- strategy debates reintroduced mid-delivery
The Commitment-Protection Decision System¶
This system governs changes to committed work, not initial permission to start.
It is implemented through two tightly scoped contracts:
- a Commitment Protection Contract
- a Change Authorization Contract
These contracts are lighter than Quadrant B contracts, but more binding than those used in learning-safe contexts.
The Commitment Protection Contract¶
Purpose¶
The Commitment Protection Contract exists to make strategic invariants explicit and protect them during execution.
It defines:
- what must not be violated
- which commitments are non-negotiable
- what constitutes unacceptable deviation
Authority¶
The Commitment Protection Contract has authority over:
- strategic boundaries
- non-negotiable outcomes
- dependency integrity
It has no authority over:
- day-to-day execution decisions
- local optimization within boundaries
Required Decision Statement¶
A valid commitment protection decision must be expressible as:
We are committed to {STRATEGIC OUTCOME OR BET},
and during execution we will not violate {DECLARED INVARIANTS}.
Any proposal that threatens these invariants requires explicit authorization
via {CHANGE AUTHORIZATION MECHANISM}.
If this statement cannot be written:
- strategy clarity is weaker than assumed
- the decision regime may be misclassified
The Change Authorization Contract¶
Purpose¶
The Change Authorization Contract exists to govern exceptions, not normal flow.
It determines when a proposed change:
- is safe within existing commitments
- requires escalation
- or must be rejected
Authority¶
The Change Authorization Contract has authority over:
- approving or rejecting changes that affect commitments
- sequencing changes that impact dependencies
- authorizing controlled deviation
It has no authority to:
- redefine strategy
- expand commitments by default
- bypass declared invariants
Required Decision Statement¶
A valid change authorization decision must be expressible as:
We are authorizing a change to {AFFECTED COMMITMENT OR SCOPE}
because {JUSTIFIED REASON},
accepting {DECLARED IMPACT AND RISK}.
This authorization is revoked if {REVOCATION CONDITION} occurs,
in which case {CONTAINMENT OR RECOVERY ACTION} will be taken.
If this statement cannot be written:
- the change is not authorized
- execution must proceed without it
Gates in the Commitment-Protection System¶
This regime uses change gates, not entry gates.
A change gate exists whenever:
- a proposed decision threatens declared invariants
- dependencies or commitments would be altered
- reversibility would be reduced
Passing a gate requires:
- a valid Change Authorization decision statement
- explicit acceptance of impact
Skipping a gate constitutes a breach of commitment protection.
Failure Semantics¶
Failure in this regime is characterized by:
- erosion of trust in commitments
- instability caused by uncontrolled change
- delivery slowdown due to repeated re-alignment
Failure does not justify:
- reopening foundational strategy debates
- switching to learning-safe decision systems
- bypassing commitment protection in the name of speed
The correct response to failure is to tighten invariants or reduce scope, not to reclassify the regime casually.
Relationship to Other Parts of the Framework¶
Interaction with Contextual Drivers¶
Contextual Drivers explain why commitments are costly.
They do not authorize deviation from them.
This decision system governs how those constraints are respected during execution.
Interaction with Stable Rules¶
This system reinforces rules related to:
- honoring commitments
- making change explicit
- containing irreversible decisions
Violations here accumulate systemic damage even when delivery appears successful.
Interaction with Governance Contracts¶
Governance contracts may reference or enforce commitment protection, but they must not substitute for explicit change authorization decisions.
When governance is repeatedly invoked to resolve change disputes, it indicates a failure of this decision system.
Interaction with Practices and Tools¶
Delivery practices operate freely within declared invariants.
When practices require frequent exception handling, either the invariants are unrealistic or the decision regime has shifted.
Transition Signals¶
A transition out of this regime may be appropriate when:
- dependencies are reduced
- commitments become reversible
- teams can safely stop or reshape work
- execution risk decreases materially
At that point, continued reliance on protection mechanisms may create unnecessary friction.
Key Takeaway¶
The Commitment-Protection Decision System exists to ensure that:
once commitments are made, they are honored deliberately rather than eroded accidentally.
Its success is measured by stability under execution pressure, not by flexibility.