Why term-by-term approval can miss the real problem
Consider four terms: an 18% discount, a 45-day implementation, a 99.99% SLA and a custom integration. Each may be permitted in isolation.
The commercial problem appears when they interact. The discount reduces the room for delivery variance. The implementation window compresses staffing choices. The custom integration increases technical uncertainty. The SLA makes failure more expensive.
Nothing unusual has to happen for the deal to become fragile. The combination itself can be enough.
Interaction Risk is a deal-level problem
Most approval systems are good at thresholds. They can ask whether a discount exceeds 20%, whether a liability cap is outside policy, or whether an SLA is non-standard.
Those checks are necessary. They are not sufficient when the economic effect emerges across terms.
The unit of judgment has to be the combined commitment—not only the exception that triggered the workflow.
What the decision should look like
The right response is not automatically “block the deal.” Often the deal can be repaired with one small change.
Extend implementation to 60 days. Phase the SLA during transition. Price the custom integration separately. Reduce the discount if the aggressive delivery date must remain.
The commercial value of the control comes from finding the lowest-friction change that restores a sensible commitment.
Why this matters for revenue teams
Sales wants room to execute. Finance wants margin. Legal wants risk to make commercial sense. Delivery wants a promise it can actually keep.
Interaction Risk is where those interests meet. A useful system should make the trade-off visible before the customer receives the promise.