Separate normal variation from strategic change
Not every variance justifies a review. The file compares the event with expected ranges, its duration and its effect on the criteria supporting the decision.
A review becomes necessary when the option ranking, accepted risk or execution capacity changes materially.
Read the previous decision before judging it
The original record recalls the evidence available, assumptions, rejected alternatives and reservations. This reading prevents new information from becoming a retrospective accusation.
- Original question and context
- Selected option and alternatives
- Critical assumptions
- Accepted risks
- Planned reopening conditions
Reopen only what has changed
If a commercial assumption is invalidated, the review focuses on the dependencies, options, budget and timetable that are genuinely affected.
The method returns to Observe, Structure and Decide as an intellectual loop. Each stage uses the relevant workspaces and connects with the organisation’s processes.
| Change | Analysis to reopen | Question |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence or source | Observation and scope | Is the evidence reliable and material? |
| Assumption | Sensitivity and scenarios | Does the choice remain preferable? |
| Risk | Exposure and response | Is acceptance still valid? |
| Capacity | Allocation and timing | Can the commitment still be executed? |
Formalise the new version
The revised decision retains what is confirmed, describes what changes and explains why. It states new commitments, risks and the next review condition while preserving the previous version.
Workspaces relevant to this question
Each workspace answers a specific question and contributes to the same decision file. Combined information remains sourced and checked before the trade-off.
Frequently asked questions
Should a strategy be reviewed on a fixed date?
A cadence can help, but material signals defined in advance are more effective at triggering a relevant review.
Why can a reasonable decision later be revised?
A decision may have been reasonable with the information available and then evolve as conditions change.
How should the review loop be organised?
Use a working discipline: check affected assumptions, compare relevant options and document the new trade-off.