{"terms":[{"slug":"organizational-state","term":"Organizational state","href":"/organizational-state","definition":"At any point, an organization exists in a particular organizational state: how some relevant part of it is structured or operates at that time.","expansion":"Organizational state is how some relevant part of an organization is structured or operates at a given time: its processes, capabilities, systems, organizational structure, roles and responsibilities, information, or behaviors. It describes the arrangement, not the results. What that arrangement produces, operating within its context, is an outcome, and the framework keeps the two distinct.\n\nAn organizational state operates within a context and produces outcomes. The current state already produces outcomes, such as particular levels of service, cost, risk, customer experience, or compliance.\n\nDeliberate organizational change is a purposeful effort to alter organizational state. A redesigned process, new system, or changed organizational structure describes a change in organizational state. The resulting levels of service, cost, risk, or customer experience describe outcomes of that changed state. A changed organizational state does not guarantee better outcomes: it may produce less improvement than expected, different effects, or unintended consequences.\n\nThe same organizational state may produce different outcomes as the relevant contextual conditions change.\n\nThe framework names three organizational states. The current state is the relevant state at the point a change is taken up for deliberate consideration. The target state is the state the organization aims to create through the chosen direction. The realized state is the state that results from execution, and it may differ from the target state.","tier":2},{"slug":"current-state","term":"Current state","href":"/organizational-state#current-state","definition":"The current state is the relevant organizational state at the point a change is taken up for deliberate consideration.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"context","term":"Context","href":"/organizational-state#context","definition":"An organizational state operates within a context: the relevant conditions outside the organizational state under consideration that influence how that state operates and what outcomes it produces.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"outcome","term":"Outcome","href":"/outcome","definition":"An outcome is a condition or effect resulting from how that state operates within its context, in relation to something that matters to the organization or its stakeholders.","expansion":"An outcome is a condition or effect resulting from how an organizational state operates within its context, in relation to something that matters to the organization or its stakeholders: levels of service, cost, risk, customer experience, or compliance. It is not the thing that was built. A new system or redesigned process is a change in organizational state, and a changed organizational state does not guarantee better outcomes.\n\nAn organizational state, operating within its context, produces outcomes. An outcome describes the resulting condition or effect itself. A change in an outcome over time or relative to another organizational state may be understood as an improvement or deterioration.\n\nOutcomes may be desirable or undesirable, and intended or unintended. Relevant outcomes are not limited to those recognized or intended by the organization; an organizational state may also produce outcomes that are overlooked, misunderstood, unintended, or unobserved.\n\nThe framework distinguishes changes in organizational state from the outcomes those states produce. A redesigned process, new system, or changed organizational structure describes a change in organizational state. The resulting levels of service, cost, risk, or customer experience describe outcomes of that changed state. The realized state may produce less improvement than expected, different effects, or unintended consequences.\n\nIntent establishes the intended outcomes of a change. Execution produces the realized state, which produces the realized outcomes. The Change Gap Model considers the relevant outcomes of a change together as an outcome position, in light of the values, interests, constraints, and trade-offs through which they should be judged.","tier":2},{"slug":"change-need","term":"Change need","href":"/change-need","definition":"A change need is a problem, opportunity, constraint, or other condition that provides a reason to consider change.","expansion":"A change need is whatever gives an organization a reason to consider change: a problem, an opportunity, a constraint, or another condition. It may arise because current outcomes are inadequate, because changing conditions threaten outcomes that are presently acceptable, or because there is an opportunity for worthwhile improvement.\n\nBefore a change need is taken up, the organization is in a current state, operating within its context and producing outcomes. Deliberate organizational change is a purposeful effort to alter organizational state in response to a change need, in pursuit of outcomes considered valuable. The change begins when the need is taken up for deliberate consideration and intent starts to form.\n\nUnderstanding the change need is part of establishing intent. Intent is established by understanding the change need, determining which outcomes should be pursued in response, why those outcomes are valuable, whose interests they affect, how competing outcomes should be prioritized or traded off, and what constraints must be respected. How the change need is understood is therefore one of the ways an intent gap may arise.\n\nChange potential, the strongest outcome position reasonably achievable, is defined in response to the change need rather than within the intent that follows from it. It is the widest of the four positions in the Change Gap Model, and every later choice constrains it.\n\nThe change need is not a function of the Intent Loop, but how it is understood is not fixed. Exploring a direction or executing it may produce new evidence or insights that change how the change need, the intended outcomes, or the chosen direction should be understood. Where that changes what outcomes should be pursued or why, intent is being reconsidered.","tier":2},{"slug":"deliberate-organizational-change","term":"Deliberate organizational change","href":"/intent-integrity#deliberate-organizational-change","definition":"Deliberate organizational change is a purposeful effort to alter organizational state in response to a change need, in pursuit of outcomes considered valuable.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"intent","term":"Intent","href":"/intent","definition":"Intent is what the change is trying to achieve and why.","expansion":"Intent is what a change is trying to achieve and why. Establishing it means reasoning from the change need to a justified position on which outcomes should be pursued, why those outcomes are valuable, whose interests they affect, how competing outcomes should be prioritized or traded off, and what constraints must be respected. The outcomes established become the intended outcomes of the change.\n\nIntent is established by understanding the change need, determining which outcomes should be pursued in response, why those outcomes are valuable, whose interests they affect, how competing outcomes should be prioritized or traded off, and what constraints must be respected.\n\nThe intended outcomes provide the reference point for choosing a direction and for keeping execution connected to what the change is trying to achieve. This is also why the concept is framed as intent integrity: the reasoning across the change remains organized around the established intent.\n\nEstablishing intent constrains the possibilities available in response to the change need and may rule out stronger possibilities. An intent gap exists where the strongest outcome position reasonably achievable within the established intent is weaker than what could reasonably have been achieved in response to the change need. Poorly founded reasoning increases the expected loss but does not by itself establish that an intent gap exists. Potential lost at this point cannot be recovered downstream unless the intent and the reasoning that constrained it are reconsidered.\n\nSome intent must exist before a direction can be chosen, but intent can be reconsidered. Exploring a direction or executing it may produce new evidence or insights that change how the change need or the intended outcomes should be understood, and validation may call the intent into question. Where the outcomes to be pursued or the reasons for pursuing them change, intent is being reconsidered. Revising it does not weaken intent integrity when the reasons for doing so remain explicit and the reasoning downstream is reconnected.","tier":1},{"slug":"intended-outcomes","term":"Intended outcomes","href":"/intent#intended-outcomes","definition":"Intent is what the change is trying to achieve and why. It is established by understanding the change need, determining which outcomes should be pursued in response, why those outcomes are valuable, whose interests they affect, how competing outcomes should be prioritized or traded off, and what constraints must be respected. These outcomes become the intended outcomes of the change and provide the reference point for choosing a direction and keeping execution connected to what the change is trying to achieve.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"direction","term":"Direction","href":"/direction","definition":"Direction is the chosen way of pursuing the established intent.","expansion":"Direction is the answer an organization gives to how it will pursue what it has decided to achieve. It has two parts: the target state the organization aims to create, and the approach by which it proposes to move from the current state toward that target state. It rests on expectations that the approach will realize the target state and that the target state will produce the intended outcomes.\n\nChoosing a direction requires reasoning from an understanding of the current state to what target state the organization should aim to create, how it proposes to move toward that target state, why the chosen approach is expected to succeed, and why the target state is expected to produce the intended outcomes. That reasoning depends on evidence and assumptions about cause and effect, feasibility, behavior, context, adoption, and other conditions that influence whether the approach will work and how the target state will operate.\n\nA direction may be established at different levels of specificity. The target state and the approach may initially be broad or provisional and become more detailed as understanding develops. **Adding detail that remains consistent with the established target state and approach is further specification of the direction rather than a change to it.** Where the target state or the approach for reaching it changes, the direction is being reconsidered; where the outcomes to be pursued or the reasons for pursuing them change, intent is being reconsidered.\n\nThat distinction separates the many circumstances that can be addressed within the established direction from the significant divergence or emerging evidence that may require the direction or intent to be reconsidered.\n\nChoosing a direction constrains the possibilities available within the established intent. Where the strongest outcome position reasonably achievable within the chosen direction is weaker than what could reasonably have been achieved within the established intent, the difference is the direction gap. Potential lost in choosing direction cannot be recovered through execution unless the direction and the reasoning behind it are reconsidered.","tier":1},{"slug":"target-state","term":"Target state","href":"/direction#target-state","definition":"Direction is the chosen way of pursuing the established intent. It establishes the target state the organization aims to create and the approach by which it proposes to move from the current state toward that target state.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"approach","term":"Approach","href":"/direction#approach","definition":"Direction is the chosen way of pursuing the established intent. It establishes the target state the organization aims to create and the approach by which it proposes to move from the current state toward that target state.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"execution","term":"Execution","href":"/execution","definition":"Execution is the process of realizing the chosen direction in practice.","expansion":"Execution is the work of realizing a chosen direction in practice. It produces the realized state, the organizational state that results from execution, which may differ from the target state. The realized state, operating within its context, produces the realized outcomes. A changed organizational state does not guarantee better outcomes: it may produce less improvement than expected, different effects, or unintended consequences.\n\nThe chosen direction cannot determine every circumstance encountered in practice, so realizing it requires judgment about how to proceed within what has been established. Emerging evidence also needs to be understood in relation to the reasoning behind the direction and intent. Many circumstances can be addressed within the established direction, while significant divergence or emerging evidence may require the direction or intent to be reconsidered.\n\nEffective execution requires both realizing the chosen direction well in practice and maintaining continuity with the reasoning behind the change as execution unfolds. How effectively the direction is realized is not itself a property of intent integrity. During execution, intent integrity concerns the quality of the reasoning used to guide judgments and adaptations, and especially the continuity that keeps those judgments connected to the established direction and intent. This makes it possible to recognize significant divergence or emerging evidence and reconsider earlier reasoning when needed.\n\nContinuity may be lost during execution when significant divergence goes unrecognized or when emerging evidence that challenges earlier reasoning is not connected back to it. A change can therefore remain on schedule, within budget, and within approved scope while the reasoning behind it has become disconnected from the course of the work.\n\nStrong execution can realize the potential available through the chosen direction, but it cannot restore stronger possibilities already ruled out by intent or direction unless those earlier choices and the reasoning behind them are reconsidered.","tier":1},{"slug":"realized-state","term":"Realized state","href":"/execution#realized-state","definition":"Execution is the process of realizing the chosen direction in practice. It produces the realized state, the organizational state that results from execution.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"realized-outcomes","term":"Realized outcomes","href":"/execution#realized-outcomes","definition":"The realized state produces the realized outcomes and may differ from the target state.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"reasoning","term":"Reasoning","href":"/intent-integrity#reasoning","definition":"In this context, reasoning is the process through which judgments and choices are formed, connected, and reconsidered by assessing the reasons relevant to them.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"intent-integrity","term":"Intent Integrity","href":"/intent-integrity","definition":"Intent integrity is the quality and continuity of the reasoning that shapes and connects intent, direction, and execution as a change unfolds.","expansion":"Deliberate change requires an organization to establish what it is trying to achieve and why, choose how to pursue it, and realize that choice in practice. These elements are connected by the reasoning behind the change. Intent integrity asks two things of that reasoning: whether it is well founded, and whether it remains sufficiently available and connected as the change unfolds.\n\nIntent, direction, and execution are connected by the reasoning behind the change. That reasoning explains why particular outcomes are sought and why the chosen direction is expected to produce them, and provides a basis for judging whether the course of execution remains consistent with that logic. It continues to matter after the initial choices are made: it provides a reference point for interpreting new evidence, examining assumptions, and judging how the work should proceed as the change unfolds.\n\nIntent integrity has two components, and both are necessary. Quality concerns whether the reasoning is well founded. Continuity concerns whether it remains sufficiently available and connected as the change progresses. Well-founded reasoning loses its value if it becomes unavailable or disconnected from later reasoning, while continuity cannot compensate for reasoning that was weak to begin with.\n\nThe concept is framed as intent integrity because the reasoning across the change remains organized around the established intent. Intent provides the reference point for understanding and judging direction and for keeping execution connected to what the change is trying to achieve and why.\n\nMaintaining intent integrity does not mean that the original intent, direction, or earlier reasoning must remain unchanged. New evidence may challenge assumptions, weaken the case for the chosen direction, or change which outcomes are worth pursuing. In those cases, earlier reasoning may need to be revised. What matters is that such changes are recognized, their implications are considered, and the reasoning is reconnected where needed.\n\nIntent integrity can weaken in two ways: because reasoning is poorly founded when establishing intent, choosing direction, or making judgments during execution, or because continuity with that reasoning is lost as the change unfolds. During execution, continuity may be lost when significant divergence goes unrecognized or when emerging evidence that challenges earlier reasoning is not connected back to it. A change can therefore remain on schedule, within budget, and within approved scope while the reasoning behind it is weak or has become disconnected from the course of the work.\n\nOrganizational change takes place under uncertainty, with incomplete evidence, competing priorities, and different stakeholder perspectives. Judgment and trade-offs are therefore unavoidable. Intent integrity does not remove that uncertainty; it provides a basis for keeping the reasoning behind those judgments sufficiently well founded, available, and connected as the change unfolds.\n\n**Intent integrity is a property of the reasoning behind the change rather than of the outcome it ultimately produces.** The quality of that reasoning can be assessed before the eventual outcome is known, while continuity can be assessed as the change progresses. Strong reasoning can still lead to a disappointing outcome, and weak reasoning can sometimes lead to a good one. Outcomes therefore do not establish the level of intent integrity.\n\nIntent integrity can be supported by many roles, but responsibility for maintaining it should be clear. That responsibility may sit separately from decision authority. When significant divergence is identified or emerging evidence challenges the reasoning behind the change, it should be brought to those accountable for deciding whether execution should be corrected within the established direction or whether direction or intent should be reconsidered.","tier":1},{"slug":"quality","term":"Quality","href":"/intent-integrity#quality","definition":"Quality concerns whether the reasoning is well founded. High-quality reasoning uses relevant and reliable information, makes assumptions defensible, considers expected cause-and-effect relationships, values, constraints, and trade-offs, accounts for uncertainty, and reaches judgments and choices that are well supported by the reasons considered.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"continuity","term":"Continuity","href":"/intent-integrity#continuity","definition":"Continuity concerns whether reasoning remains sufficiently available and connected as the change progresses, so that later judgments and choices can be understood and evaluated in relation to the reasoning that preceded them, and earlier reasoning can be reconsidered when needed.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"change-gap-model","term":"The Change Gap Model","href":"/change-gap-model","definition":"The Change Gap Model distinguishes four outcome positions to show how the possibilities available to a change become progressively constrained and what is ultimately realized.","expansion":"The Change Gap Model is a way of reasoning about where the potential of a change may be lost or left unrealized. Establishing intent constrains the possibilities available in response to the change need, choosing a direction constrains them further, and execution produces a realized state within what remains possible. The model names the potential lost or left unrealized at each step, so that a disappointing outcome can be examined for where it arose rather than attributed to execution alone.\n\nWhen a change need is taken up for deliberate consideration, different responses could lead to different organizational states and combinations of outcomes. Some of these outcome possibilities would be stronger than others, although neither the full range of possibilities nor how they should ultimately be judged can be known perfectly.\n\nThe model distinguishes four outcome positions. The change potential is the strongest outcome position reasonably achievable in response to the change need. The intent potential is the strongest reasonably achievable within the established intent. The direction potential is the strongest reasonably achievable within the chosen direction. The realized outcome position is what the realized state actually produced.\n\nEstablishing intent constrains the possibilities available in response to the change need, and choosing a direction constrains them further. Intent potential cannot exceed change potential, and direction potential cannot exceed intent potential. Execution produces a realized state and its outcomes within what remains possible through the chosen direction.\n\nThe distances between these positions are the gaps. The intent gap is the potential lost in establishing the intent. The direction gap is the potential lost in choosing a direction. The execution gap is the potential left unrealized through execution that was available through the chosen direction. Together they span the change gap.\n\n**The three potential positions are not directly observable.** Potential is counterfactual: what could reasonably be achieved if the relevant choices and judgments were made as well as circumstances allow, not what the organization expects to achieve or has identified as desirable. The model does not require the organization to identify the potential positions, and the gaps cannot be calculated directly. Its purpose is to distinguish where choices may rule out stronger outcome possibilities and where execution may leave available potential unrealized. Practices that strengthen reasoning across intent, direction, and execution can increase the likelihood of preserving and realizing more potential without requiring those positions to be identified or measured.\n\nPotential lost upstream cannot be recovered downstream unless the reasoning that constrained it is reconsidered. Strong execution can realize the potential available through the chosen direction, but it cannot restore stronger possibilities already ruled out by intent or direction.\n\nThe three gaps point to different sources of potential loss or non-realization. Addressing the intent gap requires stronger reasoning about what should be pursued and why. Addressing the direction gap requires stronger reasoning about how the established intent should be pursued. Addressing the execution gap requires effective realization of the chosen direction and sound, connected reasoning as execution unfolds.","tier":1},{"slug":"outcome-position","term":"Outcome position","href":"/change-gap-model#outcome-position","definition":"An outcome position represents the overall combination of relevant outcomes, considered in light of the values, interests, constraints, and trade-offs through which they should be judged.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"potential","term":"Potential","href":"/change-gap-model#potential","definition":"Potential represents a conceptual limit: the strongest outcome position that remains reasonably achievable within the possibilities still open to the change.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"change-potential","term":"Change potential","href":"/change-gap-model#change-potential","definition":"The change potential is the strongest outcome position reasonably achievable in response to the change need.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"intent-potential","term":"Intent potential","href":"/change-gap-model#intent-potential","definition":"The intent potential is the strongest outcome position reasonably achievable within the established intent.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"direction-potential","term":"Direction potential","href":"/change-gap-model#direction-potential","definition":"The direction potential is the strongest outcome position reasonably achievable within the chosen direction.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"realized-outcome-position","term":"Realized outcome position","href":"/change-gap-model#realized-outcome-position","definition":"The realized outcome position is the outcome position actually produced by the realized state that results from execution of the chosen direction.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"intent-gap","term":"Intent gap","href":"/intent-gap","definition":"The intent gap is the potential lost in establishing the intent.","expansion":"The intent gap is the potential lost in establishing what a change should achieve. It arises when the strongest outcome position reasonably achievable within the established intent is weaker than what could reasonably have been achieved in response to the change need. Potential lost here cannot be recovered through direction or execution unless the intent and the reasoning behind it are reconsidered.\n\nEstablishing intent constrains the possibilities available in response to the change need. Intent potential cannot exceed change potential. Where the established intent rules out stronger outcome possibilities, the difference is the intent gap.\n\nAn intent gap may reflect how the change need was understood, which outcomes were considered valuable, whose interests were considered, how competing outcomes were prioritized or traded off, what constraints were applied, or the assumptions and judgments underlying those choices.\n\nPoorly founded reasoning when establishing intent increases the expected potential loss, but does not by itself establish that an intent gap exists. Because both change potential and intent potential are counterfactual positions, the intent gap cannot be indicated through a direct comparison of observable references in the same way as the execution gap. The model supports reasoned judgments, informed by available evidence, about whether potential may have been lost when intent was established, rather than providing a direct measure of that loss.\n\nMeeting the outcome targets does not establish that the intent was well founded. A change can meet its targets while potential was still lost in establishing the intent.\n\nAddressing the intent gap requires stronger reasoning about what should be pursued and why. Potential lost upstream cannot be recovered downstream unless the reasoning that constrained it is reconsidered.","tier":2},{"slug":"direction-gap","term":"Direction gap","href":"/direction-gap","definition":"The direction gap is the potential lost in choosing a direction.","expansion":"The direction gap is the potential lost in choosing how to pursue an established intent. Several target states and approaches could pursue the same intent, and some would achieve more than others. Where the strongest outcome position reasonably achievable within the chosen direction is weaker than what could reasonably have been achieved within the established intent, the difference is lost at the point of choosing, and execution cannot recover it.\n\nA direction rests on expectations that the approach will realize the target state and that the target state will produce the intended outcomes. Both are expectations about cause and effect, formed under uncertainty.\n\nA direction gap may reflect weak evidence, untested assumptions, inadequate consideration of alternatives, poorly understood relationships between the chosen approach, target state, and intended outcomes, or insufficiently examined trade-offs.\n\nPoorly founded reasoning when choosing direction increases the expected potential loss, but does not by itself establish that a direction gap exists. The gap is a difference between two potential positions, both of which are counterfactual. Outcome targets provide a practical reference point for reasoning about direction potential and, where the intended outcomes adequately represent the relevant outcome dimensions and the targets reflect sound judgments about what the chosen direction could reasonably achieve, may approximate it. They are not equivalent to it, and because both positions are counterfactual, the direction gap cannot be indicated through a direct comparison of observable references in the same way as the execution gap.\n\nEven when the chosen direction is realized as intended, the resulting outcomes may differ from what was expected, reveal important unintended effects, or prove less valuable than assumed. Differences between outcome targets and results should therefore be interpreted rather than attributed automatically to execution; they may reflect assumptions about how the target state would produce outcomes.\n\nAddressing the direction gap requires stronger reasoning about how the established intent should be pursued. Potential lost in choosing direction cannot be recovered through execution unless the direction and the reasoning behind it are reconsidered.","tier":2},{"slug":"execution-gap","term":"Execution gap","href":"/execution-gap","definition":"The execution gap is the potential left unrealized through execution that was available through the chosen direction.","expansion":"The execution gap is the potential left unrealized through execution that was available through the chosen direction. Unlike the intent and direction gaps, it can be indicated by comparing observable references, outcome targets with outcome results, although that comparison does not measure it directly and requires interpretation.\n\nAn execution gap may arise in two ways. The first is that the chosen direction is realized poorly or incompletely. The second is that reasoning continuity is lost during execution, so that significant divergence or emerging evidence is not understood in relation to the reasoning behind the direction and intent, and earlier reasoning is not reconsidered when needed.\n\nOnly the second source concerns intent integrity. How effectively the direction is realized is not itself a property of intent integrity. During execution, intent integrity concerns the quality of the reasoning used to guide judgments and adaptations, and especially the continuity that keeps those judgments connected to the established direction and intent.\n\nBecause the intent and direction gaps depend on counterfactual potential positions, they cannot be indicated through a direct comparison of observable references in the same way as the execution gap. Comparing targets with corresponding results can provide an indication of the execution gap, but does not measure it directly. The targets may not accurately or completely reflect what the chosen direction could reasonably achieve, the outcome results may not fully capture the realized outcomes, and the circumstances affecting those outcomes may have changed. A difference between targets and results therefore provides evidence of a possible execution shortfall, but requires interpretation.\n\nMeeting the outcome targets provides evidence that the targeted outcomes were realized as expected, but does not establish that the targets reflected direction potential, that the intent was well founded, or that the chosen direction preserved the potential available within that intent. A change can meet its targets while potential was still lost in establishing the intent or choosing the direction.\n\nAddressing the execution gap requires effective realization of the chosen direction and sound, connected reasoning as execution unfolds.","tier":2},{"slug":"change-gap","term":"Change gap","href":"/change-gap-model#change-gap","definition":"The change gap is the potential lost or left unrealized between change potential and the realized outcome position.","expansion":"","tier":2},{"slug":"outcome-references","term":"Outcome references","href":"/outcome-references","definition":"To connect the model with expectations and evidence in practice, organizations can use outcome references: an outcome baseline for current outcomes, outcome targets for the outcomes expected if the chosen direction is realized, and outcome results for realized outcomes.","expansion":"The potential positions in the Change Gap Model are not directly observable. Outcome references connect the model with expectations and evidence in practice: an outcome baseline for current outcomes, outcome targets for the outcomes expected if the chosen direction is realized, and outcome results for realized outcomes. These references are not equivalent to the outcomes or conceptual positions they inform.\n\nThe outcome baseline provides evidence about the current outcomes produced by the current state, before execution begins to alter that state.\n\nOutcome targets express the expected levels of intended outcomes if the chosen direction is realized. Because direction potential is counterfactual, it cannot be observed directly. Well-founded and sufficiently complete outcome targets can provide a practical reference point for reasoning about direction potential and, where the intended outcomes adequately represent the relevant outcome dimensions and the targets reflect sound judgments about what the chosen direction could reasonably achieve, may approximate it.\n\nOutcome results provide evidence about the realized outcomes and, when they adequately capture the relevant outcomes, provide a practical approximation of the realized outcome position.\n\nBecause both the intent and direction gaps depend on counterfactual potential positions, they cannot be indicated through a direct comparison of observable references in the same way as the execution gap. Comparing targets with corresponding results can provide an indication of the execution gap, but does not measure it directly. The targets may not accurately or completely reflect what the chosen direction could reasonably achieve, the outcome results may not fully capture the realized outcomes, and the circumstances affecting those outcomes may have changed. A difference between targets and results therefore provides evidence of a possible execution shortfall, but requires interpretation.\n\nMeeting the outcome targets provides evidence that the targeted outcomes were realized as expected, but does not establish that the targets reflected direction potential, that the intent was well founded, or that the chosen direction preserved the potential available within that intent. A change can meet its targets while potential was still lost in establishing the intent or choosing the direction.","tier":2},{"slug":"outcome-baseline","term":"Outcome baseline","href":"/outcome-references#outcome-baseline","definition":"The outcome baseline provides evidence about the current outcomes produced by the current state, before execution begins to alter that state.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"outcome-targets","term":"Outcome targets","href":"/outcome-references#outcome-targets","definition":"Outcome targets express the expected levels of intended outcomes if the chosen direction is realized.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"outcome-results","term":"Outcome results","href":"/outcome-references#outcome-results","definition":"Outcome results provide evidence about the realized outcomes and, when they adequately capture the relevant outcomes, provide a practical approximation of the realized outcome position.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"intent-loop","term":"The Intent Loop","href":"/intent-loop","definition":"The Intent Loop provides a structure for maintaining intent integrity through five functions: Intent, Direction, Execution, Validation, and Evolution.","expansion":"The Intent Loop organizes the work of maintaining intent integrity through five functions: Intent, Direction, Execution, Validation, and Evolution. Intent, Direction, and Execution correspond to the three fundamental elements. Validation uses evidence about emerging and realized outcomes to assess and reconsider the reasoning behind them. Evolution extends beyond the current change, using experience to strengthen the capability through which future change is undertaken.\n\nPreventing the loss of potential requires more than performing each part of the change well in isolation. As change unfolds, attention shifts between questions, roles, practices, and artifacts, and the reasoning connecting these elements can recede from view even when each part of the work is performed competently. Maintaining intent integrity therefore requires that this reasoning remain sufficiently well founded, available, and connected as the change progresses.\n\nThe functions have a logical order, but they can overlap and be revisited as the change develops. Reasoning may need to move back upstream as new evidence emerges. Exploring directions may expose weaknesses in the intent; execution may reveal divergence or produce evidence that challenges assumptions behind the direction or intent; and validation may call execution, direction, or intent into question. Reconsideration can extend as far upstream as the evidence warrants. Revising earlier reasoning does not weaken intent integrity when the reasons for doing so remain explicit.\n\nEach function addresses a primary vulnerability in maintaining intent integrity or strengthening the capability to maintain it over time, and each has a corresponding practice:\n\n| Function | Vulnerability | Practice |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Intent | Weak intent | Intent quality |\n| Direction | Weak direction | Direction quality |\n| Execution | Lost reasoning continuity | Intent tracing |\n| Validation | Assumed success | Outcome validation |\n| Evolution | Capability stagnation or erosion | Capability evolution |\n\nIntent quality reduces the expected intent gap. Direction quality reduces the expected direction gap. Intent tracing reduces the expected execution gap from lost continuity. Outcome validation establishes whether outcomes align with expectations and provides evidence for reconsideration. Capability evolution strengthens change capability for future change.\n\nThe Intent Loop is not tied to a linear or project-based lifecycle. Intent, direction, execution, and validation may recur throughout iterative and adaptive change at different levels and at different times as understanding develops. Intent, Direction, Execution, and Validation operate within the organization's existing change capability, while Evolution extends the scope of the loop beyond the current change.\n\nThe Intent Loop complements established disciplines and methods, which provide the practices and techniques through which the functions are carried out.","tier":1},{"slug":"function-intent","term":"Intent","href":"/intent-loop/intent","definition":"Establish what outcomes to pursue and why.","expansion":"","tier":4,"primaryEffect":"Reduces the expected intent gap"},{"slug":"function-direction","term":"Direction","href":"/intent-loop/direction","definition":"Choose what to change and the approach for changing it in pursuit of the established intent.","expansion":"","tier":4,"primaryEffect":"Reduces the expected direction gap"},{"slug":"function-execution","term":"Execution","href":"/intent-loop/execution","definition":"Realize the chosen direction in practice while keeping the course of execution connected to the reasoning behind the change.","expansion":"","tier":4,"primaryEffect":"Reduces the expected execution gap from lost continuity"},{"slug":"function-validation","term":"Validation","href":"/intent-loop/validation","definition":"Establish evidence about emerging and realized outcomes, compare it with expectations, and assess what it implies for the reasoning behind the change.","expansion":"","tier":4,"primaryEffect":"Establishes whether outcomes align with expectations and provides evidence for reconsideration"},{"slug":"function-evolution","term":"Evolution","href":"/intent-loop/evolution","definition":"Use experience from change to adapt, renew, and strengthen the capability through which future change is undertaken.","expansion":"","tier":4,"primaryEffect":"Strengthens change capability for future change"},{"slug":"intent-quality","term":"Intent quality","href":"/intent-quality","definition":"Intent quality concerns how well the change need is understood, how relevant and valuable outcomes are identified, whether affected interests and relevant perspectives are adequately considered, and how priorities, trade-offs, constraints, assumptions, and uncertainty are handled when establishing intent.","expansion":"Intent quality concerns how well an organization reasons its way to what a change should achieve and why: how well the change need is understood, how relevant and valuable outcomes are identified, whether affected interests and relevant perspectives are adequately considered, and how priorities, trade-offs, constraints, assumptions, and uncertainty are handled. It is the practice that reduces the expected intent gap.\n\nEstablishing intent requires reasoning from the change need to a justified position on what outcomes should be pursued and why. That reasoning includes how the change need is understood, the value and stakeholder implications of possible outcomes, and judgments about priorities, trade-offs, and constraints.\n\nIntent quality draws on decision quality as a foundation for well-founded reasoning and applies its principles to one choice: what outcomes should be pursued and why.\n\nThe practice does not identify the strongest reasonably achievable outcome position, nor can it guarantee that the established intent preserves all of the potential available in response to the change need. Its purpose is to strengthen the reasoning through which intent is established. Stronger reasoning should improve the likelihood of choices that preserve more of what remains reasonably achievable, so intent quality reduces the expected potential loss in establishing intent.\n\nIntent quality strengthens reasoning before outcomes become observable. Where outcomes emerge much later or cannot be measured or attributed reliably to a single change, it remains valuable even if outcome validation is delayed or more limited.","tier":3},{"slug":"direction-quality","term":"Direction quality","href":"/direction-quality","definition":"Direction quality concerns the alternatives, evidence, assumptions, expected causal relationships, uncertainties, and trade-offs considered when choosing the target state and approach through which to pursue the established intent.","expansion":"Direction quality concerns how well an organization reasons its way to a target state and an approach for reaching it, given the intent it has established: the alternatives, evidence, assumptions, expected causal relationships, uncertainties, and trade-offs it considers when choosing. It is the practice that reduces the expected direction gap.\n\nChoosing a direction requires reasoning from an understanding of the current state to what target state the organization should aim to create, how it proposes to move toward that target state, why the chosen approach is expected to succeed, and why the target state is expected to produce the intended outcomes. That reasoning depends on evidence and assumptions about cause and effect, feasibility, behavior, context, adoption, and other conditions that influence whether the approach will work and how the target state will operate.\n\nDirection quality draws on decision quality as a foundation for well-founded reasoning and applies its principles to one choice: how the established intent should be pursued. Decision quality includes attention to an appropriate frame, creative and doable alternatives, relevant and reliable information, clear values and trade-offs, sound reasoning, and commitment to action.\n\nThe practice does not identify the strongest reasonably achievable outcome position, nor can it guarantee that the chosen direction preserves all of the potential available within the established intent. Its purpose is to strengthen the reasoning through which direction is established. Stronger reasoning should improve the likelihood of choices that preserve more of what remains reasonably achievable, so direction quality reduces the expected potential loss in choosing direction.\n\nOne pattern that motivated the framework was analysis beginning after a direction had already been set, or after an early idea had gained momentum. By that point, work often focuses on what is needed to make the proposed direction succeed, with less attention to whether it is the right one to pursue.","tier":3},{"slug":"intent-tracing","term":"Intent tracing","href":"/intent-tracing","definition":"Intent tracing is the practice of maintaining continuity between the reasoning behind intent and direction and the course of execution, so that significant divergence and emerging evidence can be understood in relation to that reasoning and earlier reasoning can be reconsidered when needed.","expansion":"Intent tracing keeps the reasoning behind intent and direction connected to the course of execution, so that significant divergence and emerging evidence can be understood in relation to that reasoning, and earlier reasoning can be reconsidered when needed. It is the practice that reduces the expected execution gap arising from lost continuity.\n\nExecution inevitably brings situations that were not fully anticipated when the direction was established. Many can be addressed within the established direction, while others may significantly affect the target state or approach, or challenge the reasoning behind the intent. Intent tracing maintains the continuity needed to distinguish between them.\n\nReasoning continuity can be lost when the course of execution diverges from the chosen direction without the significance of that divergence being recognized, or when emerging evidence that bears on the reasoning behind the direction or intent is not connected back to it. Where divergence or emerging evidence is significant, the relevant reasoning can be reconsidered as far upstream as needed. Reconsideration may confirm what was already established or lead to a revision of direction or intent.\n\n**Intent tracing concerns more than traceability.** Whether needs, requirements, designs, and delivered components can be traced to one another is a separate question. Intent tracing keeps visible the reasoning that gives those elements significance: why the intended outcomes are being pursued, the assumptions and expected relationships behind the chosen direction, and how the course of execution relates to that reasoning. A requirement may remain traceable to its source even when the reasoning that made it important has changed or no longer holds.\n\nIntent tracing should be proportionate to the change. Continuity needs to be strongest where divergence or emerging evidence could materially affect the reasoning behind the direction or intent. How much reasoning needs to be retained and made accessible depends on the scale, uncertainty, and stakes of the change. The specific mechanism is secondary, provided the relevant reasoning remains sufficiently available and connected.\n\nIntent tracing reduces the expected execution gap arising from lost continuity. It does not address the part of the execution gap that arises from realizing the chosen direction poorly or incompletely, which is not itself a matter of intent integrity.","tier":3},{"slug":"silent-drift","term":"Silent drift","href":"/silent-drift","definition":"One form of lost continuity is silent drift: the course of execution gradually diverges from the chosen direction without the significance of that divergence being recognized.","expansion":"Silent drift is the course of execution gradually diverging from the chosen direction without the significance of that divergence being recognized. The work may still appear reasonable against immediate references such as the plan, specification, scope, or deadline while becoming progressively less connected to what the change was intended to achieve and the reasoning through which it was being pursued.\n\nExecution inevitably brings situations that were not fully anticipated when the direction was established. A technical constraint comes up, a workaround is suggested, and the discussion focuses on effort, time, or delivery risk. Each decision can make sense on its own, while the cumulative effect gradually moves the work away from what the change was meant to achieve. The project can still deliver what is in scope and be seen as successful, even though some potential has been lost along the way.\n\nSilent drift is one form of lost reasoning continuity, the characteristic vulnerability of the Execution function. The other is emerging evidence that bears on the reasoning behind the direction or intent not being connected back to it.\n\nWhere divergence is significant, the relevant reasoning can be reconsidered as far upstream as needed. Reconsideration may confirm what was already established or lead to a revision of direction or intent. What silent drift removes is the recognition that reconsideration is needed.\n\nIntent tracing maintains the continuity needed to recognize significant divergence. It keeps the reasoning behind intent and direction connected to the course of execution, so that divergence can be understood in relation to that reasoning and earlier reasoning can be reconsidered when needed.","tier":3},{"slug":"outcome-validation","term":"Outcome validation","href":"/outcome-validation","definition":"Outcome validation uses available evidence about emerging and realized outcomes to assess what outcomes are being realized, how they compare with expectations, and what they imply for the reasoning behind the change.","expansion":"Outcome validation establishes what outcomes a change is actually producing, compares them with expectations, and assesses what they imply for the reasoning behind the change. It guards against assuming success from delivery, implementation, or target attainment alone.\n\nOutcome validation uses available evidence about emerging and realized outcomes. Outcome results provide evidence about realized outcomes and can be compared with outcome targets, while relevant unintended outcomes and changes in context also need to be considered.\n\nDifferences between outcome targets and results should be interpreted rather than attributed automatically to execution. They may reflect how the chosen direction was realized, assumptions about how the target state would produce outcomes, changes in context, expectations that were poorly founded, or judgments about value, priorities, and trade-offs that need to be reconsidered.\n\nValidation can begin once meaningful outcome evidence becomes available. As evidence accumulates, it may confirm earlier reasoning or indicate that execution, direction, or intent should be reconsidered. Even when the chosen direction is realized as intended, the resulting outcomes may differ from what was expected, reveal important unintended effects, or prove less valuable than assumed.\n\nMeeting the outcome targets provides evidence that the targeted outcomes were realized as expected, but does not establish that the targets reflected direction potential, that the intent was well founded, or that the chosen direction preserved the potential available within that intent.\n\nOutcome validation may be delayed or more limited where outcomes emerge much later or cannot be measured or attributed reliably to a single change. That does not negate the value of maintaining intent integrity, because intent quality, direction quality, and intent tracing strengthen reasoning before outcomes become observable.","tier":3},{"slug":"change-capability","term":"Change capability","href":"/change-capability","definition":"Change capability is the capacity of an organization to undertake deliberate change.","expansion":"Every change is undertaken within the organization's existing capacity to change. That capacity is shaped by its people, knowledge, practices, governance, systems, and operating conditions, and it is not stable: without continued renewal it can erode even when it was previously strong.\n\nChange capability is shaped by the organization's people, knowledge, practices, governance, systems, and operating conditions. These conditions change over time: people leave, skills and knowledge are lost, information becomes outdated, practices lose relevance, systems and governance change, and new constraints emerge. Without continued renewal, capability can therefore erode even when it was previously strong.\n\nIntent, Direction, Execution, and Validation operate within the organization's existing change capability. Evolution extends the scope of the Intent Loop beyond the current change by carrying learning into future change capability.\n\nCapability evolution occurs when learning produces a persistent change that can support future work, such as improved decision practices, updated knowledge or organizational-state information, stronger governance, more effective methods, or better-prepared people.","tier":3},{"slug":"capability-evolution","term":"Capability evolution","href":"/capability-evolution","definition":"Capability evolution uses what is learned through change to adapt, renew, and strengthen this capability for future change.","expansion":"Capability evolution is using what a change has taught the organization to strengthen how it undertakes future change. The test is whether something persists beyond the initiative: improved decision practices, updated knowledge or organizational-state information, stronger governance, more effective methods, or better-prepared people.\n\nCapability evolution acts on change capability rather than returning directly to an earlier function of the current change. Its purpose is to carry learning into the capability through which future change is undertaken.\n\nWhat should be carried forward depends on what the change has revealed about both the organization and the way change was undertaken. That learning may concern the organization itself, the assumptions and criteria used to reason about it, the practices and governance through which change was undertaken, the knowledge developed during the change, or the information and documentation needed to maintain an accurate understanding of the organizational state.\n\nCapability evolution occurs when this learning produces a persistent change that can support future work. If learning remains confined to the initiative and does not change something that remains available for future use, change capability has not yet evolved.\n\nChange capability is shaped by people, knowledge, practices, governance, systems, and operating conditions, and these change over time. Without continued renewal, capability can erode even when it was previously strong. Capability evolution uses what is learned through change to adapt, renew, and strengthen that capability for future change.","tier":3},{"slug":"decision-quality","term":"Decision quality","href":"/intent-quality#decision-quality","definition":"Intent quality and direction quality draw on decision quality as a foundation for well-founded reasoning. They apply its principles to two distinct choices within organizational change: intent quality concerns what outcomes should be pursued and why, while direction quality concerns how the established intent should be pursued. Decision quality informs both, including attention to an appropriate frame, creative and doable alternatives, relevant and reliable information, clear values and trade-offs, sound reasoning, and commitment to action.","expansion":"","tier":5},{"slug":"delivery-success-and-outcome-success","term":"Delivery success and outcome success","href":"/delivery-success-and-outcome-success","definition":"Delivery success and outcome success are two different things: a change can be delivered successfully while the outcomes that justified it are not achieved.","expansion":"Organizations can successfully deliver change on time, within budget, and within scope while still failing to achieve the outcomes that justified the change. Disappointing outcomes therefore cannot always be explained by execution alone.","tier":2}],"edges":[{"from":"organizational-state","to":"context","claim":"An organizational state operates within its context and produces outcomes."},{"from":"organizational-state","to":"outcome","claim":"An organizational state operates within its context and produces outcomes."},{"from":"organizational-state","to":"deliberate-organizational-change","claim":"Deliberate organizational change is a purposeful effort to alter organizational state in response to a change need."},{"from":"organizational-state","to":"change-need","claim":"Deliberate organizational change is a purposeful effort to alter organizational state in response to a change need."},{"from":"organizational-state","to":"current-state","claim":"The current state is the state at the point a change is taken up; the target state is what the chosen direction aims to create; and the realized state is what execution produces, which may differ from the target state."},{"from":"organizational-state","to":"target-state","claim":"The current state is the state at the point a change is taken up; the target state is what the chosen direction aims to create; and the realized state is what execution produces, which may differ from the target state."},{"from":"organizational-state","to":"direction","claim":"The current state is the state at the point a change is taken up; the target state is what the chosen direction aims to create; and the realized state is what execution produces, which may differ from the target state."},{"from":"organizational-state","to":"realized-state","claim":"The current state is the state at the point a change is taken up; the target state is what the chosen direction aims to create; and the realized state is what execution produces, which may differ from the target state."},{"from":"organizational-state","to":"execution","claim":"The current state is the state at the point a change is taken up; the target state is what the chosen direction aims to create; and the realized state is what execution produces, which may differ from the target state."},{"from":"organizational-state","to":"outcome-baseline","claim":"The outcome baseline provides evidence about the outcomes of the current state before execution begins to alter it."},{"from":"organizational-state","to":"change-capability","claim":"Maintaining an accurate understanding of organizational state is part of change capability, and updating that information is one form of capability evolution."},{"from":"organizational-state","to":"capability-evolution","claim":"Maintaining an accurate understanding of organizational state is part of change capability, and updating that information is one form of capability evolution."},{"from":"current-state","to":"organizational-state","claim":"Current state is part of Organizational state."},{"from":"context","to":"organizational-state","claim":"Context is part of Organizational state."},{"from":"outcome","to":"organizational-state","claim":"An organizational state, operating within its context, produces outcomes."},{"from":"outcome","to":"context","claim":"An organizational state, operating within its context, produces outcomes."},{"from":"outcome","to":"intent","claim":"Intent establishes the intended outcomes a change is pursuing."},{"from":"outcome","to":"intended-outcomes","claim":"Intent establishes the intended outcomes a change is pursuing."},{"from":"outcome","to":"execution","claim":"Execution produces the realized state, which produces the realized outcomes."},{"from":"outcome","to":"realized-state","claim":"Execution produces the realized state, which produces the realized outcomes."},{"from":"outcome","to":"realized-outcomes","claim":"Execution produces the realized state, which produces the realized outcomes."},{"from":"outcome","to":"outcome-position","claim":"An outcome position brings the relevant outcomes of a change together in the Change Gap Model."},{"from":"outcome","to":"change-gap-model","claim":"An outcome position brings the relevant outcomes of a change together in the Change Gap Model."},{"from":"outcome","to":"outcome-references","claim":"Outcome references are the observable evidence used to reason about outcomes in practice: a baseline, targets, and results."},{"from":"outcome","to":"outcome-validation","claim":"Outcome validation is the practice that establishes what outcomes are being realized and what they imply."},{"from":"outcome","to":"change-need","claim":"A change need may arise because current outcomes are inadequate, threatened, or improvable."},{"from":"change-need","to":"intent","claim":"A change need is the reason intent is established. Deliberate organizational change begins when it is taken up for deliberate consideration."},{"from":"change-need","to":"deliberate-organizational-change","claim":"A change need is the reason intent is established. Deliberate organizational change begins when it is taken up for deliberate consideration."},{"from":"change-need","to":"outcome","claim":"It arises from the outcomes the current state produces within its context: because they are inadequate, threatened, or improvable."},{"from":"change-need","to":"current-state","claim":"It arises from the outcomes the current state produces within its context: because they are inadequate, threatened, or improvable."},{"from":"change-need","to":"context","claim":"It arises from the outcomes the current state produces within its context: because they are inadequate, threatened, or improvable."},{"from":"change-need","to":"change-potential","claim":"Change potential is the strongest outcome position reasonably achievable in response to the change need."},{"from":"change-need","to":"intent-gap","claim":"How the change need is understood is one source of the intent gap. Intent quality concerns, among other things, how well the change need is understood."},{"from":"change-need","to":"intent-quality","claim":"How the change need is understood is one source of the intent gap. Intent quality concerns, among other things, how well the change need is understood."},{"from":"change-need","to":"direction","claim":"Evidence emerging during direction, execution, or validation can change how the change need should be understood, which may require intent and the reasoning downstream to be reconsidered."},{"from":"change-need","to":"execution","claim":"Evidence emerging during direction, execution, or validation can change how the change need should be understood, which may require intent and the reasoning downstream to be reconsidered."},{"from":"change-need","to":"function-validation","claim":"Evidence emerging during direction, execution, or validation can change how the change need should be understood, which may require intent and the reasoning downstream to be reconsidered."},{"from":"change-need","to":"intent","claim":"Evidence emerging during direction, execution, or validation can change how the change need should be understood, which may require intent and the reasoning downstream to be reconsidered."},{"from":"deliberate-organizational-change","to":"intent","claim":"Deliberate organizational change has Intent as a fundamental element."},{"from":"deliberate-organizational-change","to":"direction","claim":"Deliberate organizational change has Direction as a fundamental element."},{"from":"deliberate-organizational-change","to":"execution","claim":"Deliberate organizational change has Execution as a fundamental element."},{"from":"deliberate-organizational-change","to":"change-need","claim":"Deliberate organizational change responds to Change need."},{"from":"intent","to":"deliberate-organizational-change","claim":"Intent is one of the three fundamental elements of deliberate organizational change, alongside direction and execution."},{"from":"intent","to":"direction","claim":"Intent is one of the three fundamental elements of deliberate organizational change, alongside direction and execution."},{"from":"intent","to":"execution","claim":"Intent is one of the three fundamental elements of deliberate organizational change, alongside direction and execution."},{"from":"intent","to":"change-need","claim":"Intent responds to a change need."},{"from":"intent","to":"intended-outcomes","claim":"Intent establishes the intended outcomes, which are the reference point for choosing a direction. Outcome targets express their expected levels if the chosen direction is realized."},{"from":"intent","to":"direction","claim":"Intent establishes the intended outcomes, which are the reference point for choosing a direction. Outcome targets express their expected levels if the chosen direction is realized."},{"from":"intent","to":"outcome-targets","claim":"Intent establishes the intended outcomes, which are the reference point for choosing a direction. Outcome targets express their expected levels if the chosen direction is realized."},{"from":"intent","to":"intent-gap","claim":"Establishing intent is where an intent gap may arise. Intent quality is the practice that reduces the expected intent gap."},{"from":"intent","to":"intent-quality","claim":"Establishing intent is where an intent gap may arise. Intent quality is the practice that reduces the expected intent gap."},{"from":"intent","to":"function-intent","claim":"The Intent function places this work within the Intent Loop."},{"from":"intent","to":"intent-loop","claim":"The Intent function places this work within the Intent Loop."},{"from":"intent","to":"intent-integrity","claim":"Intent integrity is framed around intent because the reasoning across the change remains organized around the established intent."},{"from":"intended-outcomes","to":"intent","claim":"Intended outcomes is part of Intent."},{"from":"direction","to":"deliberate-organizational-change","claim":"Direction is one of the three fundamental elements of deliberate organizational change, alongside intent and execution."},{"from":"direction","to":"intent","claim":"Direction is one of the three fundamental elements of deliberate organizational change, alongside intent and execution."},{"from":"direction","to":"execution","claim":"Direction is one of the three fundamental elements of deliberate organizational change, alongside intent and execution."},{"from":"direction","to":"target-state","claim":"Direction establishes a target state and an approach for reaching it from the current state."},{"from":"direction","to":"approach","claim":"Direction establishes a target state and an approach for reaching it from the current state."},{"from":"direction","to":"current-state","claim":"Direction establishes a target state and an approach for reaching it from the current state."},{"from":"direction","to":"intent","claim":"Direction is chosen in pursuit of the established intent, whose intended outcomes are the reference point for judging it."},{"from":"direction","to":"intended-outcomes","claim":"Direction is chosen in pursuit of the established intent, whose intended outcomes are the reference point for judging it."},{"from":"direction","to":"execution","claim":"Execution realizes the chosen direction in practice and produces the realized state, which may differ from the target state."},{"from":"direction","to":"realized-state","claim":"Execution realizes the chosen direction in practice and produces the realized state, which may differ from the target state."},{"from":"direction","to":"direction-gap","claim":"Choosing a direction is where a direction gap may arise. Direction quality is the practice that reduces the expected direction gap."},{"from":"direction","to":"direction-quality","claim":"Choosing a direction is where a direction gap may arise. Direction quality is the practice that reduces the expected direction gap."},{"from":"direction","to":"function-direction","claim":"The Direction function places this work within the Intent Loop."},{"from":"direction","to":"intent-loop","claim":"The Direction function places this work within the Intent Loop."},{"from":"target-state","to":"direction","claim":"Target state is part of Direction."},{"from":"approach","to":"direction","claim":"Approach is part of Direction."},{"from":"execution","to":"deliberate-organizational-change","claim":"Execution is one of the three fundamental elements of deliberate organizational change, alongside intent and direction."},{"from":"execution","to":"intent","claim":"Execution is one of the three fundamental elements of deliberate organizational change, alongside intent and direction."},{"from":"execution","to":"direction","claim":"Execution is one of the three fundamental elements of deliberate organizational change, alongside intent and direction."},{"from":"execution","to":"direction","claim":"Execution realizes the chosen direction and produces the realized state, which may differ from the target state."},{"from":"execution","to":"realized-state","claim":"Execution realizes the chosen direction and produces the realized state, which may differ from the target state."},{"from":"execution","to":"target-state","claim":"Execution realizes the chosen direction and produces the realized state, which may differ from the target state."},{"from":"execution","to":"realized-outcomes","claim":"The realized state produces the realized outcomes, about which outcome results provide evidence."},{"from":"execution","to":"outcome-results","claim":"The realized state produces the realized outcomes, about which outcome results provide evidence."},{"from":"execution","to":"execution-gap","claim":"Execution is where an execution gap may arise, against the potential available through the chosen direction."},{"from":"execution","to":"function-execution","claim":"The Execution function places this work within the Intent Loop. Its characteristic vulnerability is lost reasoning continuity: intent tracing is the practice that maintains continuity during execution, and silent drift is one form of losing it."},{"from":"execution","to":"intent-loop","claim":"The Execution function places this work within the Intent Loop. Its characteristic vulnerability is lost reasoning continuity: intent tracing is the practice that maintains continuity during execution, and silent drift is one form of losing it."},{"from":"execution","to":"intent-tracing","claim":"The Execution function places this work within the Intent Loop. Its characteristic vulnerability is lost reasoning continuity: intent tracing is the practice that maintains continuity during execution, and silent drift is one form of losing it."},{"from":"execution","to":"continuity","claim":"The Execution function places this work within the Intent Loop. Its characteristic vulnerability is lost reasoning continuity: intent tracing is the practice that maintains continuity during execution, and silent drift is one form of losing it."},{"from":"execution","to":"silent-drift","claim":"The Execution function places this work within the Intent Loop. Its characteristic vulnerability is lost reasoning continuity: intent tracing is the practice that maintains continuity during execution, and silent drift is one form of losing it."},{"from":"realized-state","to":"execution","claim":"Realized state is part of Execution."},{"from":"realized-outcomes","to":"realized-state","claim":"Realized outcomes is produced by Realized state."},{"from":"reasoning","to":"intent","claim":"Reasoning connects Intent to the other elements of change."},{"from":"reasoning","to":"direction","claim":"Reasoning connects Direction to the other elements of change."},{"from":"reasoning","to":"execution","claim":"Reasoning connects Execution to the other elements of change."},{"from":"intent-integrity","to":"reasoning","claim":"Intent integrity is a property of the reasoning that shapes and connects intent, direction, and execution, the three fundamental elements of deliberate organizational change."},{"from":"intent-integrity","to":"intent","claim":"Intent integrity is a property of the reasoning that shapes and connects intent, direction, and execution, the three fundamental elements of deliberate organizational change."},{"from":"intent-integrity","to":"direction","claim":"Intent integrity is a property of the reasoning that shapes and connects intent, direction, and execution, the three fundamental elements of deliberate organizational change."},{"from":"intent-integrity","to":"execution","claim":"Intent integrity is a property of the reasoning that shapes and connects intent, direction, and execution, the three fundamental elements of deliberate organizational change."},{"from":"intent-integrity","to":"deliberate-organizational-change","claim":"Intent integrity is a property of the reasoning that shapes and connects intent, direction, and execution, the three fundamental elements of deliberate organizational change."},{"from":"intent-integrity","to":"quality","claim":"It has two components: quality and continuity."},{"from":"intent-integrity","to":"continuity","claim":"It has two components: quality and continuity."},{"from":"intent-integrity","to":"intent-loop","claim":"The Intent Loop is the structure through which intent integrity is maintained, through five functions and their practices."},{"from":"intent-integrity","to":"intent-quality","claim":"Intent quality and direction quality strengthen the quality of reasoning. Intent tracing maintains its continuity during execution. Outcome validation provides evidence for reconsidering it."},{"from":"intent-integrity","to":"direction-quality","claim":"Intent quality and direction quality strengthen the quality of reasoning. Intent tracing maintains its continuity during execution. Outcome validation provides evidence for reconsidering it."},{"from":"intent-integrity","to":"intent-tracing","claim":"Intent quality and direction quality strengthen the quality of reasoning. Intent tracing maintains its continuity during execution. Outcome validation provides evidence for reconsidering it."},{"from":"intent-integrity","to":"outcome-validation","claim":"Intent quality and direction quality strengthen the quality of reasoning. Intent tracing maintains its continuity during execution. Outcome validation provides evidence for reconsidering it."},{"from":"intent-integrity","to":"silent-drift","claim":"Silent drift is one form of lost continuity."},{"from":"intent-integrity","to":"change-gap-model","claim":"The Change Gap Model shows where potential may be lost or left unrealized. Maintaining intent integrity strengthens the reasoning that helps preserve potential, without guaranteeing that it is preserved."},{"from":"quality","to":"intent-integrity","claim":"Quality is part of Intent Integrity."},{"from":"continuity","to":"intent-integrity","claim":"Continuity is part of Intent Integrity."},{"from":"change-gap-model","to":"change-gap","claim":"The change gap spans the intent gap, the direction gap, and the execution gap."},{"from":"change-gap-model","to":"intent-gap","claim":"The change gap spans the intent gap, the direction gap, and the execution gap."},{"from":"change-gap-model","to":"direction-gap","claim":"The change gap spans the intent gap, the direction gap, and the execution gap."},{"from":"change-gap-model","to":"execution-gap","claim":"The change gap spans the intent gap, the direction gap, and the execution gap."},{"from":"change-gap-model","to":"intent","claim":"Each gap corresponds to one of the three fundamental elements: intent, direction, and execution."},{"from":"change-gap-model","to":"direction","claim":"Each gap corresponds to one of the three fundamental elements: intent, direction, and execution."},{"from":"change-gap-model","to":"execution","claim":"Each gap corresponds to one of the three fundamental elements: intent, direction, and execution."},{"from":"change-gap-model","to":"change-potential","claim":"Change potential is defined in response to the change need, before intent is established."},{"from":"change-gap-model","to":"change-need","claim":"Change potential is defined in response to the change need, before intent is established."},{"from":"change-gap-model","to":"outcome-references","claim":"The potential positions cannot be observed. Outcome references connect the model with expectations and evidence in practice."},{"from":"change-gap-model","to":"intent-integrity","claim":"The model shows where potential may be lost or left unrealized. Maintaining intent integrity strengthens the reasoning through which potential is preserved and earlier choices are reconsidered, without guaranteeing that potential is preserved."},{"from":"change-gap-model","to":"intent-loop","claim":"The Intent Loop organizes the practices that reduce the expected gaps: intent quality, direction quality, and intent tracing."},{"from":"change-gap-model","to":"intent-quality","claim":"The Intent Loop organizes the practices that reduce the expected gaps: intent quality, direction quality, and intent tracing."},{"from":"change-gap-model","to":"direction-quality","claim":"The Intent Loop organizes the practices that reduce the expected gaps: intent quality, direction quality, and intent tracing."},{"from":"change-gap-model","to":"intent-tracing","claim":"The Intent Loop organizes the practices that reduce the expected gaps: intent quality, direction quality, and intent tracing."},{"from":"outcome-position","to":"outcome","claim":"Outcome position brings the relevant instances of Outcome together."},{"from":"potential","to":"outcome-position","claim":"Potential is the strongest outcome position reasonably achievable."},{"from":"change-potential","to":"intent-potential","claim":"Change potential constrains Intent potential, which cannot exceed it."},{"from":"intent-potential","to":"direction-potential","claim":"Intent potential constrains Direction potential, which cannot exceed it."},{"from":"direction-potential","to":"realized-outcome-position","claim":"Direction potential constrains Realized outcome position, which cannot exceed it."},{"from":"realized-outcome-position","to":"realized-state","claim":"Realized outcome position is produced by Realized state."},{"from":"intent-gap","to":"intent","claim":"The intent gap corresponds to intent, one of the three fundamental elements of change."},{"from":"intent-gap","to":"change-potential","claim":"It sits between change potential and intent potential in the Change Gap Model."},{"from":"intent-gap","to":"intent-potential","claim":"It sits between change potential and intent potential in the Change Gap Model."},{"from":"intent-gap","to":"change-gap-model","claim":"It sits between change potential and intent potential in the Change Gap Model."},{"from":"intent-gap","to":"change-gap","claim":"It is one of the three gaps that together span the change gap, alongside the direction gap and the execution gap."},{"from":"intent-gap","to":"direction-gap","claim":"It is one of the three gaps that together span the change gap, alongside the direction gap and the execution gap."},{"from":"intent-gap","to":"execution-gap","claim":"It is one of the three gaps that together span the change gap, alongside the direction gap and the execution gap."},{"from":"intent-gap","to":"change-need","claim":"It may reflect how the change need was understood, which outcomes were considered valuable, or whose interests were considered."},{"from":"intent-gap","to":"function-intent","claim":"Weak intent is the characteristic vulnerability of the Intent function. Intent quality is the practice that reduces the expected intent gap."},{"from":"intent-gap","to":"intent-quality","claim":"Weak intent is the characteristic vulnerability of the Intent function. Intent quality is the practice that reduces the expected intent gap."},{"from":"direction-gap","to":"direction","claim":"The direction gap corresponds to direction, one of the three fundamental elements of change."},{"from":"direction-gap","to":"intent-potential","claim":"It sits between intent potential and direction potential in the Change Gap Model."},{"from":"direction-gap","to":"direction-potential","claim":"It sits between intent potential and direction potential in the Change Gap Model."},{"from":"direction-gap","to":"change-gap-model","claim":"It sits between intent potential and direction potential in the Change Gap Model."},{"from":"direction-gap","to":"change-gap","claim":"It is one of the three gaps that together span the change gap, alongside the intent gap and the execution gap."},{"from":"direction-gap","to":"intent-gap","claim":"It is one of the three gaps that together span the change gap, alongside the intent gap and the execution gap."},{"from":"direction-gap","to":"execution-gap","claim":"It is one of the three gaps that together span the change gap, alongside the intent gap and the execution gap."},{"from":"direction-gap","to":"function-direction","claim":"Weak direction is the characteristic vulnerability of the Direction function. Direction quality is the practice that reduces the expected direction gap."},{"from":"direction-gap","to":"direction-quality","claim":"Weak direction is the characteristic vulnerability of the Direction function. Direction quality is the practice that reduces the expected direction gap."},{"from":"direction-gap","to":"outcome-targets","claim":"Outcome targets are the practical reference point for reasoning about direction potential."},{"from":"direction-gap","to":"outcome-validation","claim":"Outcome validation interprets differences between targets and results, which may reflect the direction rather than execution."},{"from":"execution-gap","to":"execution","claim":"The execution gap corresponds to execution, one of the three fundamental elements of change."},{"from":"execution-gap","to":"direction-potential","claim":"It sits between direction potential and the realized outcome position in the Change Gap Model."},{"from":"execution-gap","to":"realized-outcome-position","claim":"It sits between direction potential and the realized outcome position in the Change Gap Model."},{"from":"execution-gap","to":"change-gap-model","claim":"It sits between direction potential and the realized outcome position in the Change Gap Model."},{"from":"execution-gap","to":"change-gap","claim":"It is one of the three gaps that together span the change gap, alongside the intent gap and the direction gap."},{"from":"execution-gap","to":"intent-gap","claim":"It is one of the three gaps that together span the change gap, alongside the intent gap and the direction gap."},{"from":"execution-gap","to":"direction-gap","claim":"It is one of the three gaps that together span the change gap, alongside the intent gap and the direction gap."},{"from":"execution-gap","to":"function-execution","claim":"Lost reasoning continuity is the characteristic vulnerability of the Execution function. Intent tracing reduces the expected execution gap arising from lost continuity, and does not address the part that arises from realizing the direction poorly."},{"from":"execution-gap","to":"intent-tracing","claim":"Lost reasoning continuity is the characteristic vulnerability of the Execution function. Intent tracing reduces the expected execution gap arising from lost continuity, and does not address the part that arises from realizing the direction poorly."},{"from":"execution-gap","to":"silent-drift","claim":"Silent drift is one form of lost continuity during execution."},{"from":"execution-gap","to":"outcome-targets","claim":"Comparing outcome targets with outcome results provides an indication of the execution gap that requires interpretation. Outcome validation is the practice that interprets it."},{"from":"execution-gap","to":"outcome-results","claim":"Comparing outcome targets with outcome results provides an indication of the execution gap that requires interpretation. Outcome validation is the practice that interprets it."},{"from":"execution-gap","to":"outcome-validation","claim":"Comparing outcome targets with outcome results provides an indication of the execution gap that requires interpretation. Outcome validation is the practice that interprets it."},{"from":"change-gap","to":"intent-gap","claim":"Change gap spans Intent gap."},{"from":"change-gap","to":"direction-gap","claim":"Change gap spans Direction gap."},{"from":"change-gap","to":"execution-gap","claim":"Change gap spans Execution gap."},{"from":"outcome-references","to":"change-gap-model","claim":"Outcome references connect the Change Gap Model with expectations and evidence in practice."},{"from":"outcome-references","to":"outcome-baseline","claim":"The outcome baseline is evidence about the outcomes of the current state. Outcome targets are the practical reference for direction potential. Outcome results approximate the realized outcome position."},{"from":"outcome-references","to":"outcome","claim":"The outcome baseline is evidence about the outcomes of the current state. Outcome targets are the practical reference for direction potential. Outcome results approximate the realized outcome position."},{"from":"outcome-references","to":"current-state","claim":"The outcome baseline is evidence about the outcomes of the current state. Outcome targets are the practical reference for direction potential. Outcome results approximate the realized outcome position."},{"from":"outcome-references","to":"outcome-targets","claim":"The outcome baseline is evidence about the outcomes of the current state. Outcome targets are the practical reference for direction potential. Outcome results approximate the realized outcome position."},{"from":"outcome-references","to":"direction-potential","claim":"The outcome baseline is evidence about the outcomes of the current state. Outcome targets are the practical reference for direction potential. Outcome results approximate the realized outcome position."},{"from":"outcome-references","to":"outcome-results","claim":"The outcome baseline is evidence about the outcomes of the current state. Outcome targets are the practical reference for direction potential. Outcome results approximate the realized outcome position."},{"from":"outcome-references","to":"realized-outcome-position","claim":"The outcome baseline is evidence about the outcomes of the current state. Outcome targets are the practical reference for direction potential. Outcome results approximate the realized outcome position."},{"from":"outcome-references","to":"intended-outcomes","claim":"Outcome targets express the expected levels of the intended outcomes if the chosen direction is realized."},{"from":"outcome-references","to":"direction","claim":"Outcome targets express the expected levels of the intended outcomes if the chosen direction is realized."},{"from":"outcome-references","to":"execution-gap","claim":"Comparing targets with results provides an indication of the execution gap that requires interpretation. The intent gap and the direction gap cannot be indicated this way."},{"from":"outcome-references","to":"intent-gap","claim":"Comparing targets with results provides an indication of the execution gap that requires interpretation. The intent gap and the direction gap cannot be indicated this way."},{"from":"outcome-references","to":"direction-gap","claim":"Comparing targets with results provides an indication of the execution gap that requires interpretation. The intent gap and the direction gap cannot be indicated this way."},{"from":"outcome-references","to":"outcome-validation","claim":"Outcome validation is the practice that uses this evidence and assesses what it implies for the reasoning behind the change."},{"from":"outcome-baseline","to":"current-state","claim":"Outcome baseline provides evidence for reasoning about Current state."},{"from":"outcome-targets","to":"direction-potential","claim":"Outcome targets provides evidence for reasoning about Direction potential."},{"from":"outcome-results","to":"realized-outcome-position","claim":"Outcome results provides evidence for reasoning about Realized outcome position."},{"from":"intent-loop","to":"intent-integrity","claim":"The Intent Loop is the structure through which intent integrity is maintained."},{"from":"intent-loop","to":"function-intent","claim":"Its five functions are Intent, Direction, Execution, Validation, and Evolution."},{"from":"intent-loop","to":"function-direction","claim":"Its five functions are Intent, Direction, Execution, Validation, and Evolution."},{"from":"intent-loop","to":"function-execution","claim":"Its five functions are Intent, Direction, Execution, Validation, and Evolution."},{"from":"intent-loop","to":"function-validation","claim":"Its five functions are Intent, Direction, Execution, Validation, and Evolution."},{"from":"intent-loop","to":"function-evolution","claim":"Its five functions are Intent, Direction, Execution, Validation, and Evolution."},{"from":"intent-loop","to":"intent","claim":"The first three correspond to the three fundamental elements of change: intent, direction, and execution."},{"from":"intent-loop","to":"direction","claim":"The first three correspond to the three fundamental elements of change: intent, direction, and execution."},{"from":"intent-loop","to":"execution","claim":"The first three correspond to the three fundamental elements of change: intent, direction, and execution."},{"from":"intent-loop","to":"intent-quality","claim":"Its five practices are intent quality, direction quality, intent tracing, outcome validation, and capability evolution."},{"from":"intent-loop","to":"direction-quality","claim":"Its five practices are intent quality, direction quality, intent tracing, outcome validation, and capability evolution."},{"from":"intent-loop","to":"intent-tracing","claim":"Its five practices are intent quality, direction quality, intent tracing, outcome validation, and capability evolution."},{"from":"intent-loop","to":"outcome-validation","claim":"Its five practices are intent quality, direction quality, intent tracing, outcome validation, and capability evolution."},{"from":"intent-loop","to":"capability-evolution","claim":"Its five practices are intent quality, direction quality, intent tracing, outcome validation, and capability evolution."},{"from":"intent-loop","to":"function-evolution","claim":"Evolution acts on change capability rather than on the current change."},{"from":"intent-loop","to":"change-capability","claim":"Evolution acts on change capability rather than on the current change."},{"from":"intent-loop","to":"change-gap-model","claim":"The Change Gap Model distinguishes where potential may be lost or left unrealized; the loop organizes the practices through which that reasoning is maintained and reconsidered."},{"from":"function-intent","to":"intent-loop","claim":"Intent is one of the five functions of the Intent Loop, and corresponds to intent, one of the three fundamental elements of change."},{"from":"function-intent","to":"intent","claim":"Intent is one of the five functions of the Intent Loop, and corresponds to intent, one of the three fundamental elements of change."},{"from":"function-intent","to":"change-need","claim":"It responds to a change need and establishes the intended outcomes."},{"from":"function-intent","to":"intended-outcomes","claim":"It responds to a change need and establishes the intended outcomes."},{"from":"function-intent","to":"function-direction","claim":"It precedes the Direction function."},{"from":"function-intent","to":"intent-gap","claim":"Its characteristic vulnerability is weak intent, which increases the expected intent gap."},{"from":"function-intent","to":"intent-quality","claim":"Intent quality is the practice for this function."},{"from":"function-direction","to":"intent-loop","claim":"Direction is one of the five functions of the Intent Loop, and corresponds to direction, one of the three fundamental elements of change."},{"from":"function-direction","to":"direction","claim":"Direction is one of the five functions of the Intent Loop, and corresponds to direction, one of the three fundamental elements of change."},{"from":"function-direction","to":"function-intent","claim":"It follows the Intent function and precedes the Execution function."},{"from":"function-direction","to":"function-execution","claim":"It follows the Intent function and precedes the Execution function."},{"from":"function-direction","to":"target-state","claim":"It establishes a target state and an approach in pursuit of the established intent."},{"from":"function-direction","to":"approach","claim":"It establishes a target state and an approach in pursuit of the established intent."},{"from":"function-direction","to":"intent","claim":"It establishes a target state and an approach in pursuit of the established intent."},{"from":"function-direction","to":"direction-gap","claim":"Its characteristic vulnerability is weak direction, which increases the expected direction gap."},{"from":"function-direction","to":"direction-quality","claim":"Direction quality is the practice for this function."},{"from":"function-execution","to":"intent-loop","claim":"Execution is one of the five functions of the Intent Loop, and corresponds to execution, one of the three fundamental elements of change."},{"from":"function-execution","to":"execution","claim":"Execution is one of the five functions of the Intent Loop, and corresponds to execution, one of the three fundamental elements of change."},{"from":"function-execution","to":"function-direction","claim":"It follows the Direction function and precedes the Validation function."},{"from":"function-execution","to":"function-validation","claim":"It follows the Direction function and precedes the Validation function."},{"from":"function-execution","to":"realized-state","claim":"It produces the realized state, which produces the realized outcomes."},{"from":"function-execution","to":"realized-outcomes","claim":"It produces the realized state, which produces the realized outcomes."},{"from":"function-execution","to":"silent-drift","claim":"Its characteristic vulnerability is lost reasoning continuity, of which silent drift is one form."},{"from":"function-execution","to":"intent-tracing","claim":"Intent tracing is the practice for this function. It reduces the expected execution gap arising from lost continuity."},{"from":"function-execution","to":"execution-gap","claim":"Intent tracing is the practice for this function. It reduces the expected execution gap arising from lost continuity."},{"from":"function-validation","to":"intent-loop","claim":"Validation is one of the five functions of the Intent Loop. It has no corresponding fundamental element of change."},{"from":"function-validation","to":"function-execution","claim":"It follows the Execution function and precedes the Evolution function."},{"from":"function-validation","to":"function-evolution","claim":"It follows the Execution function and precedes the Evolution function."},{"from":"function-validation","to":"outcome-references","claim":"It uses outcome references, principally outcome results compared with outcome targets, and considers unintended outcomes and changes in context."},{"from":"function-validation","to":"outcome-results","claim":"It uses outcome references, principally outcome results compared with outcome targets, and considers unintended outcomes and changes in context."},{"from":"function-validation","to":"outcome-targets","claim":"It uses outcome references, principally outcome results compared with outcome targets, and considers unintended outcomes and changes in context."},{"from":"function-validation","to":"outcome","claim":"It uses outcome references, principally outcome results compared with outcome targets, and considers unintended outcomes and changes in context."},{"from":"function-validation","to":"context","claim":"It uses outcome references, principally outcome results compared with outcome targets, and considers unintended outcomes and changes in context."},{"from":"function-validation","to":"outcome-validation","claim":"Outcome validation is the practice for this function."},{"from":"function-evolution","to":"intent-loop","claim":"Evolution is one of the five functions of the Intent Loop. It has no corresponding fundamental element of change."},{"from":"function-evolution","to":"function-validation","claim":"It follows the Validation function and acts on change capability rather than returning to an earlier function of the current change."},{"from":"function-evolution","to":"change-capability","claim":"It follows the Validation function and acts on change capability rather than returning to an earlier function of the current change."},{"from":"function-evolution","to":"capability-evolution","claim":"Capability evolution is the practice for this function."},{"from":"intent-quality","to":"function-intent","claim":"Intent quality is the practice for the Intent function of the Intent Loop."},{"from":"intent-quality","to":"intent-loop","claim":"Intent quality is the practice for the Intent function of the Intent Loop."},{"from":"intent-quality","to":"intent-gap","claim":"It addresses weak intent and reduces the expected intent gap."},{"from":"intent-quality","to":"intent","claim":"It concerns the reasoning that establishes intent and its intended outcomes, starting from how the change need is understood."},{"from":"intent-quality","to":"intended-outcomes","claim":"It concerns the reasoning that establishes intent and its intended outcomes, starting from how the change need is understood."},{"from":"intent-quality","to":"change-need","claim":"It concerns the reasoning that establishes intent and its intended outcomes, starting from how the change need is understood."},{"from":"intent-quality","to":"decision-quality","claim":"It draws on decision quality, as does direction quality."},{"from":"intent-quality","to":"direction-quality","claim":"It draws on decision quality, as does direction quality."},{"from":"intent-quality","to":"quality","claim":"It strengthens the quality of reasoning, one of the two components of intent integrity."},{"from":"intent-quality","to":"intent-integrity","claim":"It strengthens the quality of reasoning, one of the two components of intent integrity."},{"from":"direction-quality","to":"function-direction","claim":"Direction quality is the practice for the Direction function of the Intent Loop."},{"from":"direction-quality","to":"intent-loop","claim":"Direction quality is the practice for the Direction function of the Intent Loop."},{"from":"direction-quality","to":"direction-gap","claim":"It addresses weak direction and reduces the expected direction gap."},{"from":"direction-quality","to":"target-state","claim":"It concerns the reasoning that chooses a target state and an approach in pursuit of the established intent."},{"from":"direction-quality","to":"approach","claim":"It concerns the reasoning that chooses a target state and an approach in pursuit of the established intent."},{"from":"direction-quality","to":"intent","claim":"It concerns the reasoning that chooses a target state and an approach in pursuit of the established intent."},{"from":"direction-quality","to":"decision-quality","claim":"It draws on decision quality, as does intent quality."},{"from":"direction-quality","to":"intent-quality","claim":"It draws on decision quality, as does intent quality."},{"from":"direction-quality","to":"quality","claim":"It strengthens the quality of reasoning, one of the two components of intent integrity."},{"from":"direction-quality","to":"intent-integrity","claim":"It strengthens the quality of reasoning, one of the two components of intent integrity."},{"from":"intent-tracing","to":"function-execution","claim":"Intent tracing is the practice for the Execution function of the Intent Loop."},{"from":"intent-tracing","to":"intent-loop","claim":"Intent tracing is the practice for the Execution function of the Intent Loop."},{"from":"intent-tracing","to":"execution-gap","claim":"It addresses lost reasoning continuity and reduces the expected execution gap arising from that cause, not the whole of it."},{"from":"intent-tracing","to":"silent-drift","claim":"Silent drift is one form of the lost continuity it guards against."},{"from":"intent-tracing","to":"continuity","claim":"It maintains continuity, one of the two components of intent integrity, between the reasoning behind intent and direction and the course of execution."},{"from":"intent-tracing","to":"intent-integrity","claim":"It maintains continuity, one of the two components of intent integrity, between the reasoning behind intent and direction and the course of execution."},{"from":"intent-tracing","to":"intent","claim":"It maintains continuity, one of the two components of intent integrity, between the reasoning behind intent and direction and the course of execution."},{"from":"intent-tracing","to":"direction","claim":"It maintains continuity, one of the two components of intent integrity, between the reasoning behind intent and direction and the course of execution."},{"from":"intent-tracing","to":"execution","claim":"It maintains continuity, one of the two components of intent integrity, between the reasoning behind intent and direction and the course of execution."},{"from":"silent-drift","to":"function-execution","claim":"Silent drift is one form of lost reasoning continuity, the characteristic vulnerability of the Execution function of the Intent Loop."},{"from":"silent-drift","to":"intent-loop","claim":"Silent drift is one form of lost reasoning continuity, the characteristic vulnerability of the Execution function of the Intent Loop."},{"from":"silent-drift","to":"execution-gap","claim":"It contributes to the execution gap arising from lost continuity."},{"from":"silent-drift","to":"intent-tracing","claim":"Intent tracing is the practice that addresses it."},{"from":"silent-drift","to":"continuity","claim":"It is a failure of continuity rather than of quality: the reasoning behind the direction may have been sound and simply stopped being connected to the work."},{"from":"silent-drift","to":"quality","claim":"It is a failure of continuity rather than of quality: the reasoning behind the direction may have been sound and simply stopped being connected to the work."},{"from":"silent-drift","to":"direction","claim":"It is a failure of continuity rather than of quality: the reasoning behind the direction may have been sound and simply stopped being connected to the work."},{"from":"silent-drift","to":"execution","claim":"The course of execution diverging from the chosen direction is not by itself silent drift; the drift is silent when the significance of that divergence is not recognized."},{"from":"outcome-validation","to":"function-validation","claim":"Outcome validation is the practice for the Validation function of the Intent Loop."},{"from":"outcome-validation","to":"intent-loop","claim":"Outcome validation is the practice for the Validation function of the Intent Loop."},{"from":"outcome-validation","to":"outcome-references","claim":"It uses outcome references, comparing outcome results with outcome targets, and considers unintended outcomes and changes in context."},{"from":"outcome-validation","to":"outcome-results","claim":"It uses outcome references, comparing outcome results with outcome targets, and considers unintended outcomes and changes in context."},{"from":"outcome-validation","to":"outcome-targets","claim":"It uses outcome references, comparing outcome results with outcome targets, and considers unintended outcomes and changes in context."},{"from":"outcome-validation","to":"outcome","claim":"It uses outcome references, comparing outcome results with outcome targets, and considers unintended outcomes and changes in context."},{"from":"outcome-validation","to":"context","claim":"It uses outcome references, comparing outcome results with outcome targets, and considers unintended outcomes and changes in context."},{"from":"outcome-validation","to":"execution","claim":"Its findings can send reasoning back to execution, direction, or intent, as far upstream as the evidence warrants."},{"from":"outcome-validation","to":"direction","claim":"Its findings can send reasoning back to execution, direction, or intent, as far upstream as the evidence warrants."},{"from":"outcome-validation","to":"intent","claim":"Its findings can send reasoning back to execution, direction, or intent, as far upstream as the evidence warrants."},{"from":"outcome-validation","to":"execution-gap","claim":"Comparing targets with results provides an indication of the execution gap that requires interpretation."},{"from":"outcome-validation","to":"capability-evolution","claim":"It provides evidence that capability evolution can carry forward into future change capability."},{"from":"outcome-validation","to":"change-capability","claim":"It provides evidence that capability evolution can carry forward into future change capability."},{"from":"change-capability","to":"capability-evolution","claim":"Change capability is what capability evolution acts on."},{"from":"change-capability","to":"function-evolution","claim":"The Evolution function of the Intent Loop is where change capability is strengthened. Its characteristic vulnerability is capability stagnation or erosion."},{"from":"change-capability","to":"intent-loop","claim":"The Evolution function of the Intent Loop is where change capability is strengthened. Its characteristic vulnerability is capability stagnation or erosion."},{"from":"change-capability","to":"function-intent","claim":"The Intent, Direction, Execution, and Validation functions operate within the organization's existing change capability."},{"from":"change-capability","to":"function-direction","claim":"The Intent, Direction, Execution, and Validation functions operate within the organization's existing change capability."},{"from":"change-capability","to":"function-execution","claim":"The Intent, Direction, Execution, and Validation functions operate within the organization's existing change capability."},{"from":"change-capability","to":"function-validation","claim":"The Intent, Direction, Execution, and Validation functions operate within the organization's existing change capability."},{"from":"change-capability","to":"deliberate-organizational-change","claim":"Change capability is the capacity to undertake deliberate organizational change."},{"from":"capability-evolution","to":"function-evolution","claim":"Capability evolution is the practice for the Evolution function of the Intent Loop."},{"from":"capability-evolution","to":"intent-loop","claim":"Capability evolution is the practice for the Evolution function of the Intent Loop."},{"from":"capability-evolution","to":"change-capability","claim":"It acts on change capability, and addresses capability stagnation or erosion."},{"from":"capability-evolution","to":"outcome-validation","claim":"It follows outcome validation in the loop, and works from what the change has revealed about the organization and the way change was undertaken."},{"from":"capability-evolution","to":"organizational-state","claim":"Part of what it carries forward is the information needed to maintain an accurate understanding of organizational state."},{"from":"capability-evolution","to":"function-intent","claim":"Its effect is on future change rather than the current one: the Intent, Direction, Execution, and Validation functions operate within existing change capability, while Evolution extends beyond the current change."},{"from":"capability-evolution","to":"function-direction","claim":"Its effect is on future change rather than the current one: the Intent, Direction, Execution, and Validation functions operate within existing change capability, while Evolution extends beyond the current change."},{"from":"capability-evolution","to":"function-execution","claim":"Its effect is on future change rather than the current one: the Intent, Direction, Execution, and Validation functions operate within existing change capability, while Evolution extends beyond the current change."},{"from":"capability-evolution","to":"function-validation","claim":"Its effect is on future change rather than the current one: the Intent, Direction, Execution, and Validation functions operate within existing change capability, while Evolution extends beyond the current change."},{"from":"decision-quality","to":"intent-quality","claim":"Decision quality informs Intent quality."},{"from":"decision-quality","to":"direction-quality","claim":"Decision quality informs Direction quality."},{"from":"delivery-success-and-outcome-success","to":"intent-integrity","claim":"Intent integrity is the quality and continuity of the reasoning that connects what a change delivers to what it was meant to achieve."},{"from":"delivery-success-and-outcome-success","to":"change-gap-model","claim":"The Change Gap Model shows how potential may be lost when establishing intent or choosing direction, or left unrealized through execution, so a change can be delivered as planned while potential was lost upstream."},{"from":"delivery-success-and-outcome-success","to":"outcome-validation","claim":"Outcome validation guards against assuming success from delivery, implementation, or target attainment alone."}]}