Christian Ullrich
January 2026
Decision standards are applied at commitment gates as constraints. They define the minimum conditions a decision set must meet to be accepted as binding when a commitment carries legal, financial, operational, or reputational consequences. They do not exist to improve decision quality, increase alignment, or develop capability. Their sole function is to determine whether execution can legitimately proceed.
Decision standards apply only at gates and at moments when binding decisions are challenged, corrected, or reversed. A gate is any point at which a decision becomes costly or impossible to reverse. Outside such moments, the standards have no authority. Their effectiveness comes from limited use and clear consequences, not from repetition or cultural adoption.
The standards do not prescribe how decisions are made. They do not define participants, discussion formats, deliberation length, or analytical requirements. All of that remains the organization’s responsibility. The standards assess only what is written at the point of commitment. If the decision set fails the standard, the failure is procedural and factual, not a judgment of effort, competence, or intent.
Decision standards are applied to existing material without preparation. No workshops, training, or pre-alignment are required. If the decisions are not explicit, owned, internally consistent, and binding as written, the gate does not pass. The correct response is correction by the decision owners or an explicit stop or reversal of the commitment.
Standards function as rules, not guidance. They are not explained, tailored, or softened during application. They are not debated in the moment. Either the decision set meets the conditions or it does not. Any attempt to contextualize or interpret the standard at the gate undermines its role as a constraint.
Decision standards are owned by the authority that controls the gate. Ownership confers the right to accept or reject a decision set as a valid basis for execution. It does not imply responsibility for making the decisions themselves.
Applying a decision standard at one gate does not imply broader rollout or adoption. Each use is a discrete act tied to a specific commitment. Applying the same standard repeatedly is itself a decision and must be treated explicitly.
Decision standards must not be turned into processes, workflows, assessments, or improvement initiatives. They are not used to evaluate teams, rank projects, score maturity, or drive behavior change. Turning a standard into an ongoing process weakens its authority and invites compliance theater.
Decision standards remain relevant after a gate is passed. Decisions continue to be made, corrected, narrowed, or reversed during execution. Whenever a binding decision is materially changed or challenged, the same standard applies again to determine whether the updated decision remains explicit, owned, and binding.
The standards do not govern delivery work. They govern the validity of the decisions that direct that work. When execution stalls or commitments reopen, the standard is used to determine whether the failure is due to delivery or to decision integrity.
Enforcement is part of the standard. Decisions that no longer meet the conditions are treated as non-binding until they are corrected or explicitly reversed by the appropriate owner. This prevents drift, silent reinterpretation, and informal rollback under pressure.
Decision standards are blunt by design. They trade comfort for clarity. Organizations that apply them must accept that some initiatives will slow, narrow, or stop. That outcome is not a defect. It is evidence that ambiguity has been prevented from becoming irreversible damage.