An independent, fixed-scope evidence review that determines whether your program's claims are provable — delivered as a written verdict you can act on, in four weeks.
Does the evidence support what this program claims — and would it survive scrutiny from someone with no stake in the answer?
Not "are your OKRs well-written." Not "is the framework being followed correctly." Those questions assume the program's premises. The Diagnostic tests them:
A - Do your key results actually represent the outcomes they were chosen to represent — or have they quietly become measures of activity?
B - Can the claimed results be traced to evidence — or only to narrative?
C - Where benefits are claimed, can they be attributed to the program — or only to the period in which it ran?
D - What did achieving the numbers consume — capability, capacity, institutional knowledge — and is that accounted for anywhere?
E - If the organization has changed since the metrics were set, do the metrics still describe it?
A leadership transition
Before the incoming executive certifies results they didn't produce.
A board challenge
When "show me the evidence" has been asked andnot answered.
A renewal decision
Before another year of funding goes to a program whose original business case has never been re-tested.
A diligence event
When claimed operational improvements are about to be priced into a transaction.
An AI deployment on unverified numbers
You're about to automate decisions against metrics nobody has verified. Automation doesn't repair a weak evidence base — it accelerates whatever it sits on.
If none of these is your situation, you probably don't need us yet. The Diagnostic responds to necessity, not curiosity.
A leadership transition
Before the incoming executive certifies results they didn't produce.
A board challenge
When "show me the evidence" has been asked andnot answered.
A renewal decision
Before another year of funding goes to a program whose original business case has never been re-tested.
A diligence event
When claimed operational improvements are about to be priced into a transaction.
An AI deployment on unverified numbers
You're about to automate decisions against metrics nobody has verified. Automation doesn't repair a weak evidence base — it accelerates whatever it sits on.
If none of these is your situation, you probably don't need us yet. The Diagnostic responds to necessity, not curiosity.
You receive a single decision-grade artifact: the Determination Memo. It states, in plain language:
Proceed
The claims are evidenced. No action required — and you now hold independent confirmation you can put in front of a board.
Proceed with conditions
The claims are substantially supported, contingent on specified conditions remaining true. Those conditions are named, in writing.
Re-underwrite
The program may be sound, but the current evidence cannot carry the claims being made. The business case needs to be rebuilt on what can actually be established.
Evidence insufficient
Theclaims cannot be established from what exists. Continuing to assert them is a decision — and it should be made knowingly, by name, at the right level.
Alongside the verdict: the evidence trail (what was examined, what it establishes, what it cannot establish), the exposure (which specific claims are unprovable, and what depends on them — decisions, budgets, commitments, compensation plans, public statements), and the boundary (what the Diagnostic did not examine and does not opine on).
There is no 80-page deck. There is no maturity score. There is a verdict, the reasoning behind it, and the names of the numbers you should stop repeating.
Before the clock
Evidence intake
On engagement, you receive a defined input checklist: OKRs sets and scoring history, the original business case, board and steering materials, metric definitions, etc. We confirm your submission is complete within two business days. Thefour-week clock starts on that confirmation — so the timeline never slips because of missing inputs.
Weeks 1–2
Examination
We test the claims against the evidence —representational validity, attribution, capability cost, temporal validity —and conduct three to five structured interviews with the people closest to the numbers.
Week 3
Determination
Findings are drafted and put through internal challenge review: every claim in the memo must trace to the evidence trail or it doesn't survive.
Week 4
Delivery
The Determination Memo is delivered to the commissioning authority, in person or by video, with a short working session for the questions itraises.
The Fee
$35–75K FIXED AT SCOPINT · CONFIRMED BEFORE WORK BEGINS
Most diagnostics price between $35,000 and $75,000, depending on program scope — the number of OKRs cycles, business units, and claimed-benefit lines under examination. No hourly billing, no change orders, no follow-on dependency.
For calibration: the conventional alternative — a strategy-house or Big 4 review —typically runs ten times that, takes a quarter or more, and is conducted by firms whose business model depends on what happens after the review. The fee here is the same whether the verdict is proceed or evidence insufficient— which is precisely why you can trust either one.
The fee doesn't buy time or analysis. It buys a verdict that can't be negotiated —if it could be, it wouldn't be one.
- Not OKR coaching, training, or transformation consulting
- Not an implementation, and not a path to one
- Not an audit, and not a substitute for one
- Not a vendor evaluation or a software selection
- Not a benchmarking exercise or maturity assessment
- Not reassurance
Advice assumes the numbers still mean what they meant. The Diagnostic exists for when that's exactly what's in doubt.
We do not sell the next phase. There is no next phase unless you commission it — and we may tell you not to.
The Diagnostic may conclude that the evidence does not support your program. That conclusion will be delivered in writing, to you, without softening.
If an unfavorable verdict would be unwelcome — if the organization needs a particular answer rather than a true one — do not engage us. There are firms that sell that product. They cost more,and their reports are worth less.
If, on the other hand, you are the person who will be held responsible for numbers you cannot currently prove — a verdict either way is the most usefulthing you can buy this quarter.
Roughly half of diagnostics end in proceed or proceed with conditions — in which case you now hold something genuinely rare: independent confirmation you can put in front of a board.
Where the verdict is re-underwrite or evidence insufficient, a fixed-scope Resolution engagement is available: rebuilding the measurement basis of the program on what can actually be established — or retiring it defensibly, with the evidence trail that makes the retirement stick.
Resolution is scoped by the verdict, priced separately, and never assumed. Many clients don't need it. That's the point of sequencingit this way.
A verdict is valid under the conditions it names — not on a calendar. Re-examination is warranted when scope expands, governance reconfigures, or execution accelerates beyond the conditions the verdict was issued under.
Engagements are limited to 2–3 concurrent diagnostics to preserve independence and depth.
:Copy-right/copy-claim (c) 2026 OKR Strategist™. | All Rights Reserved. | This site issues determinations of temporal permissibility under constitutional constraint. 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 Scrape, Sell or Share this Material or My Personal Information.
