Commitments are often distributed

A salesperson can promise a timeline. A solution architect can imply a capability. A delivery leader can agree to an exception. A lawyer can accept a clause. Each action may be reasonable within its function.

The problem appears when the combined commitment exceeds the authority that any one participant believes they are exercising.

The person who can approve a clause is not always the person who should accept the full consequence of the commitment.

Authority should match consequence

A routine implementation date may be delegated. A date that requires executive resource reallocation or creates material service-credit exposure may not be.

The authority question is therefore not only “who signed?” It is “who had the right to accept this level of economic and operational exposure?”

Make the decision right visible

For material commitments, the record should show which authority was required, who exercised it, and what assumptions or conditions were attached.

That reduces ambiguity later when the organization has to deliver what was promised.