The kitchen design is ready to go into production. Olena writes in the chat: light cabinet fronts. Taras writes in the same chat: dark ones. The designer opens the final approval field. In this hypothetical scene, who may approve the colour is still unresolved. Keep the handover paused until that authority is confirmed.
Ask the authorized client side who may approve this particular type of decision—and where that authority ends. Let participants’ comments reach the approver, then pass their explicit decision for the specific version into execution. This separates feedback from approval. The essential addition to the person’s name is: authorized to decide what?
In Atlassian’s DACI model, the Approver is the one person who makes a decision. Use that role definition to clarify whose explicit approval to seek for a particular decision. The definition does not establish legal authority to represent the client or require the same approver for every question. Have the client confirm both the person and the scope of their authority.
For changes, the Association for Project Management describes another decision route: a recommendation to approve, reject or defer goes to the sponsor and/or a wider governance board. That procedure also allows a governing body to decide. Accordingly, record which exceptions need additional or joint approval and where to send them. Both sources describe roles or procedures; the findings cited here do not establish their effectiveness.
1. The boundary belongs in the approval
Hypothetical worked example
Before: Hypothetical setup: Olena requests light kitchen fronts; Taras requests dark ones. The design is ready for handover to production, but authority to give final colour approval has not been assigned.
Decision: The designer pauses handover of the disputed design and asks the couple to define the approval arrangement. Both authorize Olena in writing to choose the colour within the approved budget, keeping budget changes as a joint decision. Olena then explicitly approves light fronts for the identified version.
After: Hypothetical state after the decision: the design record says, “Olena approves colour; light fronts selected; budget changes require Olena and Taras’s joint approval.” Handover to production is tied to this record. The observable change is the documented approval arrangement. No production or commercial results are specified.
Use approval within confirmed limits as the instruction for the work. Separately check whether the specific change affects costs or timing that require additional approval. Record the choice, version, approver and required additional approvals together. This identifies what is to be carried out and whose decision authorizes it. The procedure does not assess whether the choice itself is good.
What still needs resolving 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 still needs resolving before execution
Read the conditions in order. Use the first one that applies and stop there. Treat anything not yet checked as unresolved.
- Authority is missing, disputed or unchecked: Pause the disputed change. Ask the authorized client side to explicitly confirm the approver and their authority.
- The change is outside confirmed authority, an additional approval is missing, or scope is unchecked: Clarify the limits, including costs and timing. Obtain missing separate or joint approvals before carrying out the affected part.
- Conflicting instructions remain unresolved or have not been compared: Place them side by side. Ask the authorized approver to explicitly select an option for the current version. Keep the disputed part paused.
- Explicit approval is missing or unchecked: Ask the authorized person to explicitly approve the version and selected option in the agreed channel. Do not treat silence as consent.
- Otherwise—provisional next step: Based on your entries, consider proceeding only with the recorded change. Recheck if new instructions arrive or authority is disputed or transferred.
This self-assessment does not evaluate decision quality or business success. It does not replace contractual procedures or required joint approvals.
Before the next disputed change, place the conflicting instructions side by side and send the authorized client side: “Please confirm who approves [question], within which limits, and who decides exceptions. For [version], we have instructions for [option A] and [option B]. Please explicitly record the selected option and any required separate cost or timing approvals. Until then, [affected part] is paused.” Adapt the message to the agreed contractual and approval procedure; do not treat silence as consent.