Decision Authority Research Board Brief →
Governance Gap Diagnostic

Three names.
Do they exist?

Named Stop Authority requires three distinct people. This diagnostic checks whether your organization has named all three.

Question 1 of 3
01 — The Stop Authority

Who, by name, can halt your most consequential automated decision the moment something unexpected happens?

The Stop Authority is named in advance. Not a role. Not a committee. A person. If no name exists, continuation is the default.

A One specific person, named in writing, with documented stop authority.
B A senior leader would make the call, but it is not formally assigned. Authority exists in practice. Not on paper.
C It is unclear. Multiple people might be involved.
02 — The Hold Authority

After a stop is invoked, who is responsible for ensuring the decision stays halted until a governance response arrives?

The Hold Authority is distinct from the Stop Authority. A stop that no one owns becomes a stop that dissolves. If the hold requires a convening, it has already failed.

A A named individual, different from whoever invoked the stop, holds the decision in suspension.
B The same person who stopped it is also responsible for maintaining the hold. Stop and hold are not separated.
C There is no defined hold mechanism. The stop would likely dissolve informally.
03 — The Release Authority

Who has the documented authority to resume the decision — and is it a different person from whoever stopped it?

If the person who stops can also release, the stop is a delay, not a governance event. Release must carry documented rationale and consequential exposure.

A A third named individual holds release authority, separate from both stop and hold. Release requires written rationale.
B A senior person would authorize resumption, but it is not formally separated or documented.
C There is no defined release process. Continuation resumes when pressure requires it.