Tell us what you want AoC to examine and what kind of record exists around it.
Architecture of Commitment™ can be tested against a historical decision, project, initiative, simulation, transformation effort, or related decision sequence.
The objective is to provide the broad relevant record surrounding that environment so AoC can determine what the evidence supports, what patterns may be present, and where important uncertainty remains.
You do not need a perfect evidence package. If the record is incomplete, AoC can still analyze what is available and calibrate the result to the strength of the evidence.
A strong record may support a stronger and more complete diagnostic. A partial or limited record may still support useful preliminary observations, bounded hypotheses, important uncertainties, and identification of the additional evidence most likely to improve the analysis.
The strength of the conclusions will not exceed the strength of the evidence.
The principle is: remove unnecessary identity, preserve the evidence and the decision environment.
Fields marked with an asterisk are required.
Describe the situation at a high level. Do not include confidential evidence, names, sensitive details, or proprietary documents in this public form.
AoC can be compared against an existing understanding, analysis, debrief, postmortem, or interpretation of what happened.
The objective is not to reduce the environment to a small, pre-selected subset of evidence. Where practical, the later evaluation should use the broad relevant record so AoC can determine what is diagnostically significant.
A limited record can still be analyzed. The resulting findings will simply be calibrated to what that evidence can support.
Select broad categories that may exist. This is not an exhaustive list and does not determine what AoC will ultimately consider relevant.
This form begins the evaluation process by describing the environment and the kind of record that exists around it. The broad relevant evidence can be prepared, de-identified or pseudonymized, and transferred through an appropriate process afterward.
The objective is not to ask you to pre-select only the evidence you believe AoC needs. Where practical, the evaluation should preserve the broader relevant environment so AoC can determine what is diagnostically significant.
A secondary screen can check for obvious residual identifiers before diagnostic analysis. That screening does not certify that the information is fully anonymous. The submitting organization remains responsible for determining what information it is authorized to provide.
A limited evidence record does not automatically end the evaluation. AoC may still provide useful preliminary findings, bounded hypotheses, important uncertainties, and guidance on what additional evidence would most improve the diagnostic.
Submitting this inquiry does not by itself create a confidential relationship, evaluation agreement, license, or partnership.
See the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Establish the historical decision, project, initiative, simulation, or related sequence to be examined and the surrounding period that may be relevant.
Prepare the relevant documents, data, communications, context, and other evidence surrounding the environment. Avoid reducing the record to only the formal decision documents.
Remove unnecessary identifying information while preserving chronology, roles, authority, relationships, context, and commitments.
Use the appropriate agreed method to transfer the de-identified or pseudonymized record for the evaluation.
Screen the submitted record for obvious residual identifiers and confirm that de-identification has not removed critical decision structure.
Classify the record as Strong, Partial, or Limited and identify what the available evidence can reliably support.
AoC proceeds at the level the evidence supports. A limited record may still produce useful preliminary observations, patterns, bounded hypotheses, and identified uncertainties.
The Initial Diagnostic reports findings, confidence, limitations, competing explanations, important evidence gaps, and what additional information could materially improve the analysis.