Decision Regime Transitions¶
Decision regimes are not static.
As strategy clarity and commitment safety change, the decision regime must change as well.
This section defines how and when transitions between decision regimes are allowed, and how they must be handled to avoid systemic failure.
Regime transitions are themselves decisions.
Treating them as implicit or gradual shifts creates hidden risk.
Why Regime Transitions Matter¶
Many delivery failures occur not because a decision system is wrong, but because:
- a decision system outlives the conditions it was designed for
- teams silently operate under mixed regimes
- autonomy is assumed before it is safe
- forced-commitment systems remain in place after risk has passed
Without explicit transition rules, teams oscillate between:
- over-control and chaos
- learning theater and rigid execution
- governance overload and local risk-taking
Regime Transitions Are Not Continuous¶
Decision regimes do not change sprint by sprint.
They change only when structural conditions change, such as:
- strategy clarity materially increases or erodes
- dependencies are introduced or removed
- commitments become reversible or irreversible
- external constraints appear or dissolve
Treating regime changes as gradual mood shifts undermines decision integrity.
Authority for Regime Transitions¶
Changing a decision regime requires explicit authority.
By default:
- regime declaration authority sits with the same body that controls commitment
- teams may propose regime changes
- teams may not unilaterally assume a different regime
This prevents:
- premature autonomy
- avoidance of forced decisions
- quiet erosion of commitment safety
The Regime Transition Contract¶
All regime transitions are governed by a single contract:
- the Decision Regime Transition Contract
This contract authorizes:
- entry into a new decision regime
- exit from the current decision regime
- activation or deactivation of decision systems
Required Decision Statement¶
A valid regime transition decision must be expressible as:
We are transitioning from {CURRENT DECISION REGIME}
to {TARGET DECISION REGIME}
because {OBSERVABLE CHANGE IN STRATEGY CLARITY OR COMMITMENT SAFETY}.
This transition is invalid if {REVERSAL CONDITION} occurs,
in which case we will {RETURN OR ADJUST ACTION}.
If this statement cannot be written:
- the regime transition is not authorized
- the current decision system remains in force
Allowed Transitions¶
Not all transitions are equally safe.
The following transitions are common and expected:
- Learning-Safe → Forced-Commitment
when commitments become unavoidable - Learning-Safe → Commitment-Protection
when clarity increases faster than dependencies - Forced-Commitment → Commitment-Protection
when strategy stabilizes after commitment - Commitment-Protection → Autonomous
when dependencies are reduced and reversibility increases
These transitions reflect reduced decision risk, not increased maturity.
High-Risk Transitions¶
The following transitions carry elevated risk and require strong justification:
- Learning-Safe → Autonomous
risks skipping explicit commitment - Forced-Commitment → Autonomous
risks delegating unresolved strategic conflict - Autonomous → Forced-Commitment
risks sudden centralization without clarity
High-risk transitions must be treated as forced decisions, even if the target regime is lighter.
Transitional States Are Temporary¶
Mixed regimes are allowed only as temporary states.
Examples include:
- autonomy within protected boundaries
- learning inside constrained scope
- execution under provisional permission
These states must:
- be explicitly declared
- have a clear exit condition
- not become default operating modes
Permanent hybrid regimes are a sign of unresolved decision failure.
Signals of Misclassification¶
The following signals indicate that the current regime may be wrong:
- repeated escalation despite declared autonomy
- learning outcomes that cannot change committed work
- frequent change authorization requests
- governance acting as a decision substitute
- delivery friction without strategic disagreement
When these signals appear, reassessing the regime is safer than optimizing execution.
Relationship to Other Parts of the Framework¶
Regime transitions:
- are informed by contextual analysis
- may activate or deactivate governance contracts
- constrain which practices and tools are safe to use
- affect how delivery systems should be designed
They do not replace:
- contextual driver reassessment
- maturity evaluation
- delivery diagnostics
They act as a decision-level control loop.
Key Takeaway¶
Decision regimes must change when reality changes.
The most dangerous decision system is the one that was correct yesterday.
Explicit regime transitions ensure that decision systems evolve with context, rather than lag behind it.