Commitment thresholds must be binary — 'done' or 'not…

When This Fires

• When defining completion criteria for any commitment (A commitment contract needs five elements)
• When existing commitments feel like you're "sort of" meeting them — the criteria are ambiguous
• When rationalizing partial compliance ("I did most of it...") — tighten the threshold
• Complements A commitment contract needs five elements (five-element contracts) with the binary-threshold quality standard

Common Failure Mode

Gradient criteria: "I'll eat healthier." At what point is "healthier" achieved? The gradient allows any improvement, no matter how trivial, to count as compliance. Binary alternative: "No processed sugar Monday through Friday. Weekend: unrestricted." Now each day has a binary evaluation: sugar or no sugar. No interpretation needed.

The Protocol

(1) For each commitment, write the completion criterion. (2) Apply the binary test: "Can someone who has never met me evaluate whether this criterion is met, using only the criterion and observable evidence?" (3) If the criterion requires judgment, interpretation, or subjective assessment → rewrite until it doesn't. Convert "good quality" to measurable specifications. Convert "regularly" to "X times per week." Convert "better" to a specific threshold. (4) The final criterion should produce identical evaluation results regardless of who applies it — you, your accountability partner, or a stranger. (5) When tempted to soften a criterion ("most days" instead of "5 out of 7") → that softening is creating the rationalization space that will undermine compliance.