Commitment Formalization¶

Commitment Formalization is the third step of the Commitment Design System (CDS). Its purpose is to freeze refined intent into an accountable commitment — a commitment that can be executed, governed, and evaluated without repeatedly re-discovering meaning or re-negotiating intent.

Commitment Formalization does not guarantee outcomes. It ensures the commitment is explicit, owned, and governable.

Purpose¶

Commitment Formalization exists to:

Convert the Intent Package into a binding commitment (internal or external).
Make ownership and decision rights explicit.
Define governance and change protocol so adaptation is not escalation-by-default.
Align deliverables and evidence (what will be produced vs how value will be validated).
Set expectations for risk posture, revisit triggers, and accountability.
Produce a commitment object that execution runtimes can run without inventing missing intent.

Boundaries¶

Commitment Formalization is complete when the group can say:

“We know who is committing, and who is accountable for what.”
“We know what is being committed — and what is explicitly not.”
“We know how change will be handled.”
“We know how value will be evaluated (not just what will be delivered).”
“We know what conditions force us to revisit or re-formalize.”

Commitment Formalization is not complete when:

The commitment depends on implied understanding (“we all know what we mean”).
Ownership is distributed but accountability is unclear.
Change is handled through informal escalation and surprise.
Evidence of value is missing or defined as “shipping”.

Core outputs¶

Commitment Formalization produces the Commitment Envelope artifact. It is the canonical output schema for commitments in CDS and the handoff object into execution.

The Commitment Envelope is designed to be:

explicit (what is committed and by whom)
governable (how change and decisions work)
inspectable (why this commitment was reasonable at the time)

Process¶

Commitment Formalization can be lightweight (internal alignment) or formal (RFP/SoW/contract). Regardless of format, it follows the same substages.

Step 1: Name the parties and roles¶

Make explicit:

who is committing (teams/orgs)
who is accountable (by dimension)
who decides changes (decision rights)
who must be consulted (domain voices, risk/compliance)

Step 2: Write the commitment statement¶

Produce a short statement that includes:

intended outcome (from the Intent Package)
scope boundary (in/out)
horizon (timebox or checkpoints)
quality bar (what “done” must include beyond shipping)

Step 3: Separate deliverables from evidence¶

Define:

deliverables (what will be produced)
evidence (how value/acceptance will be demonstrated)
acceptance approach (who accepts and on what basis)

Step 4: Confirm constraints and tradeoffs¶

Carry forward:

non-negotiable constraints (and their owners)
accepted tradeoffs and sacrifices (and their owners)
any “do not regress” conditions that must remain protected

Step 5: Define governance cadence¶

Decide:

checkpoints (frequency)
decision forum (who attends)
what is reviewed (signals, risks, drift)
how decisions are recorded

Step 6: Define the change protocol¶

Make change explicit:

what counts as a change (scope, constraints, signals, timeline)
how change is proposed and evaluated
who approves
what happens when change is rejected
“fast path” for urgent change

Step 7: Define risk posture and escalation paths¶

List:

top risks and early signals
mitigation/rollback posture (conceptual level)
escalation path when risks materialize

Step 8: Set revisit triggers and expiry¶

Specify:

events/signals that trigger re-entry to Meaning Discovery or Intent Refinement
commitment expiry or renewal point (if relevant)
what must be re-confirmed when revisiting

Step 9: Formalize the agreement¶

Choose the appropriate formalization mechanism:

internal agreement (recorded commitment)
delivery agreement (engagement charter, working agreement)
procurement/legal agreement (RFP response, SoW, contract)

The mechanism can differ; the commitment envelope content stays consistent.

Commitment Envelope artifact¶

A minimal Commitment Envelope includes:

Parties, roles, and decision rights
Commitment statement (outcome + boundary + horizon + quality bar)
Deliverables
Evidence & acceptance
Constraints & non-negotiables
Tradeoffs accepted
Governance cadence
Change protocol
Risk posture & escalation
Revisit triggers & expiry

This artifact is intentionally not a detailed delivery plan. It is the binding reference that execution uses to stay coherent.

Core quality checks¶

Use these checks before execution begins.

Accountability checks¶

Accountability is explicit (not “shared” by default).
Decision rights exist for changes, acceptance, and tradeoffs.

Commitment clarity checks¶

Commitment statement is short, specific, and boundary-aware.
In/out scope is explicit and does not rely on implied understanding.

Value and acceptance checks¶

Evidence of value is defined separately from deliverables.
Acceptance criteria and acceptance owner exist.

Governance checks¶

Cadence is defined and includes review of signals, risk, and drift.
Decision recording exists (even lightweight).

Change protocol checks¶

Change is defined and routable.
There is a non-escalation path for normal change.

Risk and revisit checks¶

Top risks and early signals are named.
Revisit triggers are explicit and plausible.

Common failure patterns¶

Commitment by implication: “we all know” replaces explicit boundaries and roles.
Accountability diffusion: many contributors, no accountable decider.
Deliverables-as-value: shipping is treated as acceptance without evidence.
Governance theater: meetings exist but decisions and changes are unmanaged.
Escalation-as-change-control: every change becomes a conflict.
Frozen intent in a moving world: no revisit triggers, so drift accumulates silently.

Transition to execution¶

The Commitment Envelope is the handoff object into execution runtimes. Execution should not need to re-invent intent; it should implement and validate what the commitment envelope defines.

When CDS is used with a delivery runtime (e.g., a software delivery runtime), the Commitment Envelope becomes the runtime’s input contract.