They are determinative criteria used to establish whether internal permission to act still exists under conditions where authority, consequence, and time no longer move together.
These Determination Criteria do not direct, compel, or substitute for board, officer, or fiduciary decision-making; they establish only whether permission to act remains valid under present conditions.
These Determination Criteria exist to answer one fundamental question:
Whether execution remains internally legitimate — meaning the continued enactment of an already-authorized strategic initiative, transaction, program, or operational commitment already in motion — before action crosses into irreversibility.
These Criteria do not assist leaders in deciding what to do
They do not sequence decisions.
They do not improve judgment, speed, or confidence.
They establish whether deciding itself remains institutionally permissible under the determinative conditions that presently exist.
Each application of these Criteria produces a determination that holds independently of confidence, urgency, or narrative pressure, Is fixed for the conditions assessed, and cannot be reinterpreted through explanation or outcome for the conditions assessed.
Human authority governs what follows. The boundary itself does not move.
These Criteria articulate formal recognition of already-present determinative conditions, refusal enforcement , and continuity preservation where permission still holds — exercised episodically, under mandate, and only when governability has already become uncertain.
These Criteria are not advisory systems.
They are not governance frameworks.
They are not compliance platforms, monitoring tools, or decision engines.
These Criteria do not detect emerging risk, anticipate failure, surface early signals, track trends, provide warning, or offer advantage.
They do not reconcile contradictions, impart coherence, or stabilize weak premises.
They do not embed into workflows or accompany execution.
They cannot be tuned, customized, or optimized.
They establish only whether action remains permissible under the conditions that already exist.
Any system that presupposes legitimacy assumes conditions that no longer apply.
These Criteria are invoked only when that assumption has already failed.
They operate only on conditions already present, binding, and consequential; they do not observe, monitor, or infer future states.
In environments where execution can proceed faster than authority can be verified, a protector refusal function within internal governance boundaries becomes necessary.
These Criteria serve that function.
They exist solely to prevent execution from continuing past the point where legitimacy can survive it.
This role is:
- not advisory
- not operational
- not managerial.
It binds action by clarifying the loss of permission, when permission can no longer be assumed.
When permissibility fails, execution does not slow.
It stops.
These Criteria do not operate inside execution.
They operate at the boundary — where reversibility is no longer assured and traditional governance assumptions have collapsed.
They issue formal internal determinations scoped exclusively to present and determinative conditions where:
• Authority, consequence, and time are decoupled — conditions under which decisions can be made faster than their legitimacy can be verified, traditional governance sequencing no longer holds and governance assumptions have collapsed.
• Accountability increasingly arrives after commitment — conditions under which fiduciary exposure cannot be mitigated through reversal, correction, explanation, justification, or subsequent performance.
• Refusal capacity has begun to thin — conditions under which formal authority still exists, but stopping can no longer be exercised without destabilizing mandate, role, or personal position.
• Authorization by a traceable mandate holder no longer exist — conditions under which action proceeds by diffusion, inheritance, precedent, or momentum rather than by an explicit, current, and inspectable grant of authority.
• Continuation has become the default — conditions under which inaction itself now requires justification, and stopping is perceived as deviation rather than as a protected exercise of duty.
Nothing here intervenes in execution.
Nothing here carries decisions forward.
These Criteria bind authority by clarifying the loss of permission, not by directing action. Action remains external.
Most organizational damage does not occur because leaders act recklessly.
It occurs because action continues after the system has lost the capacity to govern its own commitments.
At that point confidence substitutes for permission, near-misses are misread as proof, acceleration becomes justification, optimization accelerates collapse, and accountability concentrates rapidly on a small number of named individuals after reversibility is gone.
These Conditions exist to surface that condition while refusal remains mandate-bound, legally and structurally possible.
These Criteria do not derive legitimacy from intelligence, automation, or sophistication.
They derive it from explicit internal mandate, not from artificial intelligence, automation, or sophistication.
Their value does not increase with usage.
Their presence does not imply continuous invocation.
They are invoked only when reality imposes constraint.
When permission holds, these Criteria remain dormant.
When permission fails, they refuse.
Determinations may be repeatable.
Authorization is not.
Certain decisions permanently alter system state and carry fiduciary or regulatory consequence.
No system should automate permission where reversal is impossible.
Automation ends at determination.
Responsibility remains human.
This separation is deliberate.
It is a safety boundary, not a capability gap.
These Criteria are not invoked continuously.
They are invoked only when conditions demonstrate that governability has already become compromised as recognized by the organization’s own fiduciaries — not when opportunity appears, advantage is sought, or timing feels favorable.
Episodic invocation reflects when reality imposes constraint, not bespoke logic, monitoring, or platform adoption.
All invocations begin the same way:
A determination is made as to whether execution may continue — or must stop.
Until that determination exists, nothing within this determination process proceeds.
These Criteria do not create authority.
They preserve or withdraw internal permission to act.
They do not replace leadership.
They restore the conditions under which leadership can function.
They are not impressive by design.
They respond to necessity, not opportunity.
:Copy-right/copy-claim (c) 2026 OKR Strategist™. | All Rights Reserved. | This site describes a bounded determination architecture. Nothing herein constitutes advisory, fiduciary, managerial, or execution services. | No authorization, delegation, or ratification of action is provided or implied. | Unauthorized use, reproduction, or misrepresentation of this material is strictly prohibited. New York, USA. | Do Not Sell or Share this Material or My Personal Information.