Mechanism

The Locked Forward Target That Makes All Other Mechanisms Function

Why every execution system fails without a committed destination — and how locking one changed everything.

596,903
Lines of production code across 10 systems
29
Average commits/day vs. industry median of 2
76.3%
Primary development rate (non-rework)
0.0027%
Probability of staying on track after 100 decisions without locked Vision

The Problem

Every execution system assumes you know where you're going. Scrum assumes a product vision exists to derive sprint goals. Lean Startup assumes you have hypotheses to test. EOS assumes strategic priorities exist. Nobody checks whether the prerequisite is actually in place. The system runs but produces nothing coherent — sprints complete without product progress, experiments run without learning, rocks get done without strategic advancement. Practitioners blame the system. The real problem: they never had the prerequisite the system assumed.

When I tried to execute at high velocity without a locked target, the math destroyed me. At 29 commits per day, I was making hundreds of implicit decisions daily. Each decision either advances toward the target or diverges from it. If each decision has a 90% probability of being correct against an unclear target, after 100 decisions the cumulative probability of remaining on track is 0.90^100 = 0.0027%. Unclear direction doesn't just slow you down — it guarantees divergence at execution speed.

The aspiration trap made it worse. I could write "revolutionize the industry" on a whiteboard and feel aligned while remaining completely unable to evaluate any actual tradeoff. Aspirational vision creates the appearance of direction without the reality of decision criteria. The vision exists on a poster; it does not exist in execution.

What Vision Actually Is

Vision in CEM is the decision criterion for everything. Not aspirational. Not motivational. Operational. It answers three questions before execution begins: Where exactly are you going? What does 80% of scope look like? What exists when you're done?

What it provides:

  • Binary evaluation criterion — for any action, "does this advance Vision?" has a yes or no answer
  • Prioritization standard — between options, "which advances Vision more?" orders alternatives

What it does not provide:

  • Implementation detail — Vision defines destination, not route
  • Emotional motivation — Vision is operational, not inspirational

A locked Vision has four components: End State Description (what exists when complete), Scope Boundary (the 80% frame — what's in and what's out), Success Criteria (verifiable conditions), and User Definition (specific actors with specific needs — not abstract "users"). The word "locked" is intentional. Not defined. Not established. Locked. Between Regroups, the direction is committed. The question "is this the right direction?" is closed. Only "does this advance the direction?" remains — and that question has fast answers.

The 80% Market Scope Frame

I define Vision through a specific frame: 80% of what exists in the market. This frame does four things.

It anchors concretely — "80% of scope" is researchable. I examine existing solutions, identify their features, and define which 80% I will implement. Vision becomes concrete through observation rather than imagination.

It bounds scope — 100% is impossible, and pursuing it guarantees incomplete execution. 80% is achievable, and achieving it creates functioning outputs.

It enables speed — competitors pursuing 100% move slowly. Delivering 80% faster captures position while competitors polish the last 20%.

It simplifies decisions — does this feature exist in 80% of comparable solutions? If yes, include. If no, exclude. The frame provides algorithmic answers to scope questions.

This is what made PRJ-01 possible. End state: a Customer Data Platform with webhook ingestion, identity resolution, lead enrichment, consent tracking, and monetization routing. Scope: 135 database tables, 20 external integrations. Success criteria: process leads from multiple sources, maintain TCPA/CCPA compliance, route to partners. Users: performance marketers managing lead generation operations. That's not aspiration — that's a locked target I can execute against.

What the Data Shows

Vision clarity correlated directly with execution efficiency across the portfolio.

Project Vision Clarity Days to MVP Bug Rate
PRJ-05 Clear market reference 4 days 0.0%
PRJ-03 Guide Clear vertical target 4 days 19%*
PRJ-04 Clear analytics scope 5 days 11.5%

*PRJ-03's higher bug rate reflects a deliberate clean-slate rebuild, not Vision confusion.

Projects with locked Vision from day one executed directly. PRJ-01's two-phase development tells the full story — the outsourced Phase 1 helped clarify what the system should become. Once Vision locked, the takeover phase achieved 1,195 commits in 42 days.

Decision speed evidence confirmed the mechanism. Industry median: 2 commits/day. CEM average: 29 commits/day. Multi-project peak: 132 commits in a single day across 4 projects. Single-project peak: 89 commits/day. That velocity is only possible when decision criteria are pre-established through locked Vision. An operator who must deliberate direction at each decision point cannot achieve this.

Rework patterns revealed Vision clarity in a different way. Design polish accounted for 7.2% of the portfolio — healthy iteration making the system better match the locked target. Vision-confusion rework (architectural pivots, feature reversals, scope oscillation) was not observed. The 76.3% primary development rate confirms Vision was locked well enough that most work advanced directly toward it.

How to Apply It

1. Define Before You Execute Specify end state, scope boundary, success criteria, and user definition. Write them down in concrete language — not abstract aspiration. "A customer data platform that ingests webhooks from multiple sources" is operational. "Revolutionize the industry" is not.

2. Use the 80% Frame Research existing solutions in your space. Identify their features. Define which 80% you will implement. This converts "I want to build something great" into "I will build these specific capabilities." The frame makes Vision researchable rather than imaginable.

3. Lock, Don't Just Define Commit to the Vision. Between Regroups, it is fixed. Constant revision destroys velocity — each revision invalidates prior decisions, requiring re-evaluation of accumulated work. Once locked, the question "is this the right direction?" is closed. Only "does this advance the direction?" remains.

4. When Vision Is Unclear, Stop Do not execute without Vision. Execution without direction is motion without progress. If you cannot state your end state, scope, success criteria, and user definition, you are not ready to execute. Clarify first. Then lock. Then move.

References

  1. Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup. Crown Business.
  2. Wickman, G. (2012). Traction: Get a Grip on Your Business. BenBella Books.
  3. Schwaber, K. & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide. Source
  4. Sieber & Partners (2022). "Productivity Estimation for Development Teams." Study of 3.5M commits across 47,318 developers: median developer commits twice per day. Source
  5. Keating, M.G. (2026). "Regroup." Stealth Labz CEM Papers. Read paper
  6. Keating, M.G. (2026). "80% Premise." Stealth Labz CEM Papers. Read paper