Plain-language entry to the research

Make sure you're ready before the decision, not after.

Ready means the decision is clear, the evidence is usable, the right people have authority, the time and money are real, and someone owns what happens next.

By Evan Micheal FosterPublished July 10, 2026Updated July 19, 2026

Decision Readiness25-point diagnosticApplied IVA

What this page answers

A plain-language and technical explanation of the evidence, authority, capacity, funding, and responsibility needed before a major decision can move.

Main claim

The score is a designed diagnostic and structured conversation, not a validated benchmark or outcome guarantee.

Designed 25-point diagnostic

Five dimensions, each scored from zero to five, with critical gates preserved.

Evidence

The decision question, source records, assumptions, and unresolved facts are documented.

Authority

The owner, approver, required consultation, and escalation path are named.

Capacity realism

Labor, timing, systems, handoffs, and implementation burden are visible.

Funding sufficiency

Funding assumptions, restrictions, timing, match, and continuing cost support implementation.

Accountability

Immediate actions, owners, records, obligations, and review dates after approval are defined.

Architecture lineage

A five-part diagnostic built from the broader IVA record requirements.

IVA's self-published Architecture Record v1.1 defines the five ledgers and proposed record requirements. The Matrix links documents to evidence, authority, capacity, funding, obligations, and accountability. Decision Readiness applies a designed scoring rubric to those five conditions and identifies the specific missing record, owner, funding decision, or review point.

It is deliberately simpler than the full Structural Value Unit system and does not publish proprietary valuation or diagnostic methods.

Evidence status

Designed diagnostic, not a benchmark.

The 25-point score is a designed scoring rubric for structuring one decision and identifying unresolved conditions. It has not yet been normed to a defined population or validated as a predictor of delay, rework, implementation completion, reversal, burden, or other outcomes.

A total score must not hide a critical zero. Missing legal authority, absent funding, an unowned implementation path, or an unsafe action remains a gate even when other dimensions score well. Benchmark language requires a scoring manual, trained raters, inter-rater reliability, prospective outcome data, versioning, sample transparency, and independent review.

Appropriate now: diagnose one bounded decision, surface missing conditions, document accepted gaps, and guide the next evidence or ownership action.
Requires validation: predictive claims, comparisons across organizations or sectors, percentiles, cut scores, and statements that a higher score causes better outcomes.

Commercial application

Use the research here. Buy the help that matches the visible problem.

Free screen