Project states & relationships · 20 October 2026
What makes the next step possible?
Imagine preparing a workshop. The slides are finished, the agenda is agreed and the room is booked. The preparation looks complete. Then somebody discovers that the facilitator is committed to another event at the same time.
More polishing of the slides will not resolve that problem. Nor would another round of approval. Somebody needs to free the facilitator, find a suitable replacement or change the date.
Now vary the example. The facilitator is available, but the equipment test was performed in a different room. Or everybody approved an agenda, but the participants received an earlier version. These situations might all be reported as “not ready”. That label conceals the most useful information: what is missing, and what kind of action could supply it?
Different obstacles need different remedies
Producing something establishes that an output exists. It does not, by itself, establish that the output is suitable, that people are working to the same version, or that somebody can use it when needed.
A plan contributes something else: an account of intended actions and their conditions. Agreement can settle which version people have committed to. Evidence can support a claim about a particular object or situation. Available people, equipment and access make some actions feasible. Authority matters where a decision or commitment requires it.
These contributions can support each other, but none automatically supplies the others. A beautifully documented agreement can concern an impractical plan. A correct measurement can concern the wrong object. Two individually feasible jobs can require the same person at the same time.
| What is missing? | A useful response |
|---|---|
| The workshop materials omit an essential exercise. | Complete or revise the materials. |
| The equipment test concerns another room. | Establish whether the evidence applies, or check the intended room. |
| Organiser and participants have different agendas. | Reconcile the versions and communicate the agreed one. |
| The facilitator is booked elsewhere. | Resolve the competing commitment. |
| Extra expenditure exceeds the organiser’s delegated authority. | Obtain the necessary decision, or choose an option within that authority. |
The distinction matters because effort can otherwise accumulate in the wrong place. More detail does not release a scarce resource. More agreement does not repair a faulty object. A new status report may describe a missing decision without bringing that decision any closer.
Ready for whom, to do what, when?
The workshop materials may be ready to send to a colleague for review while still being unsuitable for participants. The room can be ready for an equipment check before it is ready to receive the audience. “Ready” is a relationship between the present situation and an intended action, rather than a permanent property of a document or object.
Naming that action gives the discussion a useful boundary. Instead of asking whether the whole workshop is ready, ask whether the facilitator can run the opening exercise with these participants, in this room, at the agreed time. That question makes the relevant conditions easier to identify and the irrelevant ones easier to leave alone.
Time and version belong in the question. Yesterday’s test may remain perfectly adequate; a changed room or equipment configuration may make it inapplicable. The issue is whether the evidence still supports the proposed use, not simply whether it is recent.
A favourable result is one contribution
The fictional Solway measurement-and-acceptance example makes a precise version of this distinction. A measurement record can be usable, apply to the requested object and fall within the supplied criterion, while authorisation remains unestablished. The model keeps those claims separate. A favourable comparison does not itself grant permission to proceed; an absent authorisation record does not prove that no authorisation exists elsewhere.
That is useful beyond the example: describe what a check establishes closely enough that another person can judge what remains.
Enough for the action
This need not become another compulsory checklist. Routine work often rests on trusted evidence, standing arrangements and delegated authority. Requiring fresh paperwork for every settled condition can delay the work without improving the decision.
Nor must everything be finished before anything proceeds. A review needs an inspectable draft; it does not need a publication-ready document. Some work can continue while another condition is resolved, provided the people involved understand the limits and the consequences are acceptable.
The practical discipline is modest: name the next action, identify the unresolved condition that could change it, and direct effort towards that condition. A handover is more useful when the recipient can see what they can now do, what remains uncertain and who can resolve it.