How to monitor a commitment
Proposal, commitment, delivery and outcome are not the same thing. Understand what needs to be clear to monitor a public decision.
From proposal to outcome
These states distinguish what people want to do, what has been committed to, what has been carried out and what has had its effects examined. They are not stages automatically approved by the website.
Proposal
Something people want to do.
Commitment made
A responsible party and conditions have been defined.
Delivery recorded
There is evidence of implementation.
Outcome assessed
The effect produced has been examined, with the method and its limitations.
Completing construction work does not automatically demonstrate that it solved the problem. An indicator improving after a policy does not, by itself, demonstrate that the policy caused it.
Does delivery prove the outcome?
Optional exercise. Illustrative situation, not a real project.
A construction project has been completed and its implementation is documented. Whether it solved the problem has not yet been assessed.
What a public record needs to answer
The model's first purpose is to improve understanding of a decision. The twelve fields below are monitoring questions, not data from a real project. Missing information must remain identified as missing.
- Problem
- What need exists and how it was identified.
- People and location
- Who is affected and which differences matter.
- Value protected
- Why the intervention matters.
- Alternatives
- What was compared and why this course was chosen.
- Commitment
- What will be delivered, with a defined scope.
- Responsible parties
- Who decides, funds, implements, verifies and is accountable.
- Resources
- Initial and recurring costs, funding sources and uncertainties.
- Dependencies
- Authorisations, people, systems and other required outputs.
- Evidence
- Sources used and their limitations.
- Outcomes
- What changes in the person's life beyond the activity carried out.
- Monitoring
- Status, deviations, justifications and action taken.
- Challenges
- How to report an error and receive a response.
When a commitment changes or is interrupted
Hypothetical monitoring example. A service network committed to adding a shift at facilities A and B. In this example, management is responsible for decisions to change the plan and each local coordinator for implementation. These roles are illustrative; they do not define the powers of a real public body.
Month 1: initial commitment
RecordThe document provides for an additional shift at both facilities.
How to read itThis version remains available to compare the original commitment with subsequent decisions. Expansion at A and B remains the reference for what was promised.
Month 2: review
RecordA management note postpones expansion at B because of a staff shortage, without giving a new date. The coordinator at A states that the shift has opened.
How to read itThe postponement and its justification remain linked to the initial record. B's new date is still not provided. The opening at A is a statement by the coordinator, with operation not yet verified.
Month 3: partial interruption
RecordManagement records the suspension of expansion at B. The existing service remains the responsibility of the local coordinator.
How to read itThe note does not report costs already committed or the conditions for resuming expansion. These gaps remain visible. Suspending expansion does not mean ending the existing service.
In the hypothetical check at the end of month 3, the initial document and both notes were consulted. No report was found that would allow verification that A's shift was operating. This describes the scope of the search; it does not demonstrate that the shift stopped operating.
The history makes it possible to identify a documented change and interruption without erasing the original commitment. It does not yet allow the entire promise to be considered fulfilled. Missing information does not become zero or an accusation. Halting expansion also does not demonstrate that its resources are available for another purpose.
Reputation needs context
A delivery record is relevant. It needs to be considered alongside case difficulty, available resources, actual responsibilities and measurement limitations.
An aggregate score may serve as a supporting summary if its use is justified and validated. It should allow inspection of its components, weights, missing data and uncertainty. It should not automatically produce punishment, rewards or exclusion.
People should not receive an overall score for citizenship, value or worthiness.
An intact record does not guarantee truthful information
Signatures, timestamps, event logs and cryptographic mechanisms can help detect changes and verify authorship.
These tools do not guarantee that information corresponds to reality. A recorded contract may have been poorly implemented. A signed measurement may be wrong.
The technical choice should start from the risk and the need for verification, with attention to privacy, cost, interoperability and correction. Record integrity and the truth of its content are different problems.
Participation requires clear limits and a response
Consulting citizens can reveal priorities and experiences that management does not see. The consultation needs to show the share of resources over which there is a choice, existing obligations and the consequences of alternatives.
A group responding to a poll does not automatically represent the entire population. Participation should include ways of hearing from people with less time, access or capacity to organise.
The consultation's outcome needs a response: what was adopted, what was not and why.
The origin and scope of this method
The original whitepaper proposes describing projects through scope, resources, responsible parties and evidence of implementation. This explanation develops that idea as an educational tool, drawing on OpenGov3's public conceptual foundation. The record and the four states present the current method, not a reproduction of the original document's entire institutional design.
This page does not announce monitored projects, certified implementers, partnerships or audits currently under way. The whitepaper's mechanisms remain subject to investigation; its original document is preserved.
The hypothetical history on this page is a new editorial adaptation of sections 4 to 6 of whitepaper 2.0. Facilities, months and documents are fictional. It is not a transcription of the author's words or monitoring of a real intervention; it establishes no sanction, team replacement or electoral rule.
Original whitepaper: scope, resources and monitoring (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
This topic in the model
A public commitment links the choice of a project to monitoring its implementation. Under OpenGov3's proposal, responsibilities, resources, changes and evidence would need to remain accessible after the vote.