A signed agreement is an important milestone. It records an agreed basis for a relationship. But a signature alone does not tell a delivery team which conditions are still open, what evidence will be needed, or who may approve the next step.
Those questions belong in the working governance record—not only in the document archive.
Keep the obligation connected to its source
Start with the agreement and its effective version. Identify the responsibilities it actually establishes, including conditions, dependencies and limits. Do not turn an aspiration, recital or proposed activity into a confirmed obligation without review.
Where software or AI identifies candidate obligations, an authorised person should check them against the source. Extraction is assistance; it is not contractual interpretation or ratification.
Give each material obligation a reviewable path
A useful working record connects five things: the responsible party, the required evidence, the milestone or trigger, the person reviewing completion, and the authority responsible for the resulting decision.
These roles need not belong to the same institution. A delivery partner may submit evidence, a technical reviewer may assess it, and a separate authorised body may decide whether the next activity can proceed.
Separate the states that a dashboard can blur
Signed, funded, submitted, reviewed, accepted and authorised describe different things. A signed agreement is not necessarily a funding commitment. An uploaded deliverable is not necessarily accepted. Acceptance for one purpose does not automatically permit another use.
Keep incomplete, disputed and conditional items visible. An unresolved condition should not disappear because the overall programme is moving forward.
Make amendments visible
When an agreement changes, preserve the previous version and record who authorised the amendment, when it takes effect and which obligations or dependencies it changes.
Then ask whether any earlier evidence or decision needs renewed review. A changed deadline, responsible party or delivery scope may alter the basis on which an earlier conclusion was reached.
How this connects to the Governance Spine
Fracture identifies a missing or conflicting responsibility. Signal makes the concern visible with its supporting record. Spine connects the obligation to evidence, review and the correct decision authority. Assurance asks whether the resulting history can be reconstructed, including exceptions and limits.
In Terra Vita’s Hub approach, the agreement, obligation, evidence and review history belong in a connected record. This is a workflow principle, not a claim that every agreement has been ingested, interpreted or approved. People remain accountable for the records and decisions within their authority.
The next useful question
After asking whether the agreement is signed, ask: Can the next reviewer see what it requires, what has been demonstrated, what remains unresolved and who can authorise the next step?
About this version
This article was prepared on the date shown. Illustrative examples are not reports of a particular programme.
Fracture → Signal → Spine → Assurance