Commitment Governance Reviews

Identifies where a project begins to become difficult to reverse. Used when a project, site, route, queue position, resource assumption, capital sequence, or infrastructure pathway may be shifting from preparation into commitment.

Core question: Where does exposure begin?

Typical output: No Material Exposure · Exposure Forming · Exposure Structurally Active · Escalate to Determination · Decision Spent / Escalate to Integrity Review

Determines whether a proposed commitment may be considered under the current evidence and authority boundary. Used before a hard-to-reverse action forms, such as site control, queue entry, drilling, excavation, injection, infrastructure placement, route fixation, capital escalation, or resource dependency.

Core question: May this commitment be considered?

Formal output: ADMISSIBLE · INADMISSIBLE

Admissibility does not mean approval. It means the commitment is eligible for governed consideration.

Classifies which posture remains defensible once a commitment is admissible to consider. Used when the Decision Authority needs to know whether proceeding, deferring, or refusing remains governance-defensible under the current evidence, uncertainty, dependency, timing, and authority conditions.

Core question: Which posture remains defensible?

Formal output: PROCEED-COMPATIBLE · DEFERRAL-INDICATED · REFUSAL-REQUIRED

This review does not command action. It classifies the posture available to the Decision Authority.

Defines what must be known before commitment-bearing action can proceed to formal review or escalation. Used when evidence supports interest, prospecting, comparison, or bounded verification, but may not yet support commitment.

Core question: What must be known before this threshold can be considered?

Typical output: Minimum evidence requirements · Evidence insufficiencies · Dominant uncertainty · Permitted bounded learning · Prohibited commitment-bearing actions

Tests whether an existing or emerging commitment remains defensible as evidence, assumptions, dependencies, authority, or precedent conditions change. Used after a commitment has begun, is hardening, or is being relied upon.

Core question: Does this commitment remain within its admissible basis?

Formal output: MAINTAIN · CONSTRAIN · RE-EVALUATE · TERMINATE

Commitment integrity governs persistence. A commitment that was once defensible may require constraint, re-evaluation, or termination if its basis changes.

Used before irreversible subsurface action.

This screen evaluates whether uncertainty has been reduced enough to justify drilling, trenching, excavation, or intrusive subsurface work.

Use before: geothermal drilling, critical minerals drilling, subsurface energy intervention, or frontier subsurface access.

Used before permanence-bearing injection or storage commitment.

This screen evaluates whether injection or storage should proceed before containment, injectivity, pressure evolution, fault behavior, plume movement, and long-horizon liability are sufficiently bounded.

Use before: CCS injection, subsurface storage, disposal, or other permanence-bearing reservoir commitments.

Used before a route, corridor, or access pathway becomes fixed.

Corridors often become commitments before they are recognized as infrastructure. This screen evaluates whether a corridor should harden before terrain, seabed, environmental, permitting, access, or logistics uncertainty is sufficiently resolved.

Use before: offshore wind routes, marine infrastructure corridors, transmission routes, pipelines, seabed systems, logistics pathways, or lunar mobility corridors.