Christian Ullrich
Last updated: 2026-02-08
Decision standards describe the minimum conditions a set of decisions must meet to function as a defensible basis for commitment when work, money, scope, or responsibility becomes difficult to reverse. They do not exist to improve decision quality, align stakeholders, or develop organizational capability. Their sole purpose is to make visible whether execution is proceeding in accordance with explicit, owned, and binding decisions.
The standards are applied at moments when commitment is tested or tightened. A commitment gate is any point at which reversing a choice would be costly, disruptive, or politically difficult. Outside such moments, the standards have no role. Their value comes from limited, situational use, not from repetition, rollout, or cultural adoption.
Decision standards do not prescribe how decisions are made. They do not define who participates, how long discussions take, what analysis is required, or how agreement is reached. All of that remains the organization’s responsibility.
The standards assess only what exists in writing at the moment commitment is relied upon. They do not judge effort, competence, or intent. If a decision set does not meet the standard, the issue is factual and procedural: the decisions are not explicit enough to carry commitment as written.
Decision standards are applied to existing material. No preparation, workshops, training, or pre-alignment are required. The material is read as-is to determine whether the decisions it contains are explicit, owned, internally consistent, and stable enough to be relied on.
If the decision set does not meet these conditions, execution may proceed, but it will lack a defensible basis. The resulting ambiguity is no longer hidden. Correction, narrowing, or explicit reversal becomes unavoidable rather than implicit.
The standards function as constraints, not guidance. They are not tailored, explained, or softened when applied. They are not debated in context. Either the written decisions meet the conditions, or they do not. Attempts to reinterpret or contextualize the standard at the moment of commitment obscure the very ambiguity the standard is meant to surface.
The standards do not make decisions. They make the state of decisions visible.
Decision standards are applied by whoever controls or relies on the commitment. Applying a standard does not transfer decision ownership or responsibility. It does not imply authority over the content of decisions, only over whether those decisions can be treated as binding.
Applying a standard within a single commitment does not imply broader adoption or institutional rollout. Each use is a discrete act tied to a specific situation. Repeated use of the same standard is itself a decision and should be treated as such.
Decision standards do not govern the delivery of work. They govern the validity of the decisions that direct that work. When execution slows, rework increases, or commitments reopen, the standard helps determine whether the issue lies in delivery or in decision integrity.
As work progresses, decisions may be corrected, narrowed, or reversed. Whenever a materially binding decision changes, the same standard can be applied again to assess whether the updated decision set remains explicit and stable enough to rely on.
Decision standards are deliberately blunt. They trade comfort for clarity. Applying them will surface ambiguities that were previously tolerated and may slow, narrow, or halt initiatives that relied on implicit agreement. That outcome is not a failure of the standard. It is evidence that ambiguity has been prevented from becoming irreversible damage.