You've set kill criteria. You know what conditions would justify killing the project. But when those conditions arrive, you find yourself renegotiating with your own rules.
"The numbers are close enough." "We just need another month." "The market is about to turn."
Kill criteria without enforcement mechanisms are strategic intentions, not decision rules. They tell you what you should do without creating the conditions that make you do it. Implementation scientist Peter Gollwitzer identified why: abstract goals collapse under pressure unless they're linked to concrete triggers.
Why Good Intentions Fail
Gollwitzer's research on implementation intentions demonstrates a consistent pattern: people who specify when and where they'll act are two to three times more likely to follow through than people who only specify what they'll do.
The mechanism is automatic cueing. When you link an action to a specific trigger ("If X, then Y"), the trigger becomes a signal that bypasses deliberation. You don't have to decide in the moment—the decision was made in advance.
Without that link, every decision moment becomes a fresh negotiation. And in those negotiations, your present-moment self—facing sunk costs, status quo bias, and identity investment—will consistently overrule your past self's strategic assessment.
A state is a measurable condition. A date is a specific time. Together, they create an enforceable trigger.
"If we haven't hit [state] by [date], we execute [action]."
The Anatomy of Enforceable Criteria
States and dates work because they remove ambiguity at the moment of evaluation. Compare:
Vague: "We'll reassess if things aren't working."
Enforceable: "If monthly revenue hasn't exceeded $50K by March 31, we present the wind-down plan to the board by April 7."
The first allows indefinite renegotiation. The second creates a specific trigger that demands a specific response.
State Requirements
For a state to be enforceable, it must be:
- Observable: Multiple people can verify it occurred (or didn't)
- Binary: It either passed or failed—no "partial credit"
- Pre-specified: Defined before you have the data
Bad states: "Things feel better." "We're making progress." "The team seems more confident."
Good states: "NPS above 40." "Three enterprise pilots converting to paid." "Retention above 85% at 90 days."
Date Requirements
Dates must be:
- Specific: A calendar date, not "soon" or "in a few months"
- Near enough to prevent drift: Far enough to be fair, close enough to create urgency
- Immovable: Moving the date should require the same process as changing the strategy
The Premortem Lock
Psychologist Gary Klein's premortem technique pairs powerfully with states and dates. The method: imagine it's the future and the initiative has failed. What would the failure look like?
That imagined failure provides the state. Then you add the date to create the trigger.
- Imagine failure: "It's 6 months from now. This initiative failed. What does that look like concretely?"
- Extract the state: "The leading indicators of failure would be..." (specify measurable conditions)
- Set the date: "By [date], if we see [state], we execute [action]."
- Assign accountability: Who is responsible for calling the trigger if it fires?
Fighting the Renegotiation Instinct
Even with states and dates, the temptation to renegotiate will be strong when the trigger fires. Some operational defenses:
Public Commitment
States and dates shared with stakeholders are harder to walk back. The social cost of changing the rules mid-game creates enforcement pressure.
Automatic Escalation
Design the system so that hitting the trigger automatically escalates to a higher authority. If the trigger fires, the decision isn't whether to act—it's whether to override the pre-agreed process.
Third-Party Accountability
Designate someone outside the project to hold the criteria. Their job is to call the trigger when it fires—not to judge whether it should have been set differently.
"A good kill criterion is one you'd be embarrassed to renegotiate in front of your board."
Applying States and Dates
1. Define the State
What observable, binary condition must be true for continuation to be justified?
2. Set the Date
By when must that state be achieved? (Specific calendar date)
3. Specify the Action
If the state is not achieved by the date, what happens? (Be specific)
4. Assign Accountability
Who is responsible for evaluating the state and initiating the action?
5. Make It Public
Who else knows about this commitment? (Stakeholders, board, advisors)
State: 1,000 weekly active users with 40%+ Day-7 retention
Date: 90 days post-launch (June 15)
Action: If state not achieved, present pivot-or-kill analysis to board within 10 days
Accountability: Head of Product calls the trigger; CEO presents analysis
Public commitment: Shared with investors in March update
When to Adjust vs When to Hold
States and dates aren't meant to be rigid in the face of genuinely new information. The question to ask: "Is this new information that changes the analysis, or is this motivated reasoning dressed as insight?"
Legitimate adjustments involve new data that wasn't available when you set the criteria. Motivated adjustments involve reinterpreting existing data to avoid an uncomfortable conclusion.
A useful test: would you have set different criteria if you'd had this information from the start? If yes, adjustment may be warranted. If no, you're probably renegotiating.
Previous: Kill Criteria: Setting Exit Points Before You Need Them
Next: The Endowment Trap: Why We Overvalue What We Have
This article is for educational purposes and does not constitute business or investment advice. Strategic decisions should be made with appropriate professional counsel.