CUST.1:4.3 - Make the consequential decisions governable
Before an irreversible promise, identify who can contribute and decide the following matters in this case. These are decision-bearing contributions, not a mandatory headcount or organization chart.
| Contribution | What must be made available | Boundary that must not be decided silently elsewhere |
|---|---|---|
| Customer result and acceptance | The useful result, relevant participants and an intelligible acceptance basis. | A provider’s convenient demonstration must not replace the customer’s required result. |
| Local realization | A feasible way to obtain that result in the customer’s actual setting. | A local workaround must not become a promise of general availability or permanent support. |
| Common offering and family | A reasoned decision to admit, limit, defer or reject a common contribution. | One sale must not determine the supported family without its consequences. |
| Repeatable delivery and support | A method, preparation and assistance that another qualified performer can obtain. | A manual or handover must not conceal continuing dependence on its author. |
| Resources and economics | The work, capacity, funding and continuing burden of each alternative. | Commercial enthusiasm must not waive an unavailable resource or conceal unfunded work. |
| Evidence and permitted use | The grounds, permissions and assurance needed for the consequential claim or action. | Delivery success must not certify its own broad repeatability, safety or reuse rights. |
Name the person or group with actual authority for each live decision, the inputs they need, the next decision time and the conditions they may not waive alone. The person making the customer promise needs the joined answer, even when another party supplied each contribution. A roadmap intention is not that answer.
One competent person may supply several contributions. Keep the distinctions visible in the decision itself: “I can implement this locally; I have not committed the product team to support it.” Seek independent judgement when incentives, uncertainty or consequences make self-approval unreliable, or when applicable professional conditions require it. The independence may concern one consequential evidence claim rather than every small change. Reconsider bundled responsibilities when workload, value at risk or disagreement makes the arrangement ineffective.
When actual positions, assignments or enabling relations must change, use OCE.5 — Define Organization Positions and OCE.6 — Establish Holder Assignments and Enabling Relations for Organization Change. Receive an arrangement with real decision rights, capability, time and access, then use it here. Naming six roles does not supply any of those conditions. If a required authority or resource is absent, narrow or defer the dependent promise while preserving independent permitted work.