Just before the kitchen design goes to production, Olena writes in the chat: “Light fronts.” Taras writes about the same design: “Dark.” In this hypothetical scene, the designer opens the final approval field. Whose decision belongs there? First, ask the client side to confirm who has authority to approve the colour.
Write the limit of the person’s authority beside their name. Which decisions may they approve? What needs additional approval, and who provides it? If someone handles the correspondence, separately confirm their authority to make this particular decision. Do not use their role in the chat as a substitute for that confirmation.
The final say needs a defined scope
Treat approval authority as an agreement about specific decisions. Allow participants to comment and pass those comments to the approver. Release work for execution on the basis of that person’s explicit decision for the identified version. Record a separate approval route for exceptions, while respecting required joint approvals and contractual procedures.
Hypothetical worked example
Before: Hypothetical setup: the kitchen design is ready for release to production. Olena wants light fronts; Taras wants dark ones. Authority to give final colour approval has not been defined.
Decision: Hypothetical decision: the designer pauses release of the disputed design and places the conflicting instructions side by side. He asks the couple to establish the approval procedure. Both authorize Olena in writing to choose the colour within the approved budget, keeping budget changes a joint decision. Olena explicitly approves light fronts for the identified version.
After: Hypothetical state after the decision: the design card reads, “Olena approves the colour; light fronts selected; budget changes require approval from Olena and Taras.” The approval identifies the relevant version. Release to production is tied to this record. This describes a change in the working arrangement; no production or commercial results are specified.
Give the pause a boundary too: hold the disputed part. Continue already approved parts only if they are independent of that choice. If the change exceeds the agreed authority, obtain the additional approval. If authority is disputed or transferred, have it confirmed again before carrying out the disputed change.
What to resolve before execution
Choose your situation to see the next step.
Confirm authority first
Pause the disputed change. Ask the authorized client side to explicitly confirm the approver and their authority.
Clarify approval scope
Check the agreed limits for this change. Obtain missing budget, timing, or joint approvals before carrying out the affected part.
Reconcile the instructions
Place the available instructions side by side. Ask the authorized approver to explicitly select an option for the current version. Keep the disputed part paused meanwhile.
Record the specific decision
Request explicit approval naming the version and selected option in the agreed channel. Do not treat silence as approval.
Provisional next step
Based on your entries, consider proceeding only with the recorded change. Recheck if new instructions arrive or authority is disputed. This check does not assess decision quality or business success.
What to resolve before execution
Check the recorded agreements for the current change. Read the cases in order and use only the first applicable instruction. Once that issue is resolved, start the check again. Treat unchecked information as unresolved.
- Authority is not explicitly confirmed, is disputed or has not been checked: Pause the disputed change. Ask the authorized client side to confirm who may approve this type of decision and the extent of their authority.
- The change exceeds confirmed authority, an additional approval is missing or scope has not been checked: Check the agreed limits, including cost and timing. Obtain missing budget, timing or joint approvals before carrying out the affected part.
- Conflicting instructions remain unresolved or have not been compared: Place the instructions for the current version side by side. Ask the authorized approver to explicitly select an option. Keep the disputed part paused meanwhile.
- Explicit approval is missing or has not been checked: Request approval in the agreed channel, identifying the exact version, selected option and approver. Record separate cost or timing approvals. Do not treat silence as approval.
- If none of the preceding cases applies: Based on your entries, consider proceeding only with the recorded change. Recheck if new instructions arrive or authority is disputed or transferred. This provisional guidance does not assess decision quality or business success.
Before the next disputed change, put the approval procedure in the task record and ask the authorized client side to confirm it. Use this wording: “Please confirm who may approve [decision type] for [task], and within what limits. Changes beyond those limits go through [separate approval route]. For the current version [version], we have these instructions: [options]. The affected part remains paused pending an explicit selection. Please record the selected option, version and approver, along with separate cost or timing approvals.” Do not treat an unanswered request as approval.