Main idea

Between the idea dropped in a meeting and the committed topic lies an intermediate state whose content is badly described. What distinguishes a serious candidate from an idea is neither the maturity of its solution — a candidate may still sit entirely in the problem space — nor the clout of whoever carries it.

It is the writing down of its condition for moving up. A serious candidate states what is missing before it can be committed: a scope to reduce, a technical feasibility to confirm, an acceptable cost of error to set, a signal to confirm. As long as that gap is named, promoting the topic becomes a verifiable observation rather than a matter of mood. Without it, a topic moves up because it came up again, or because the pressure came back.

A serious candidate also carries what already justifies it — available signals, an envisioned value, a reason to be looked at now rather than in six months. But it is the condition for moving up that makes it operative, because it is the only part that says what to do next.

Why it matters

It turns the intermediate stage into a discovery work queue rather than a waiting room. Each candidate carries an open question, and therefore a task: settle that question.

It also gives a test to apply to any list of "soon" topics: if none of them states what is missing, the list prepares nothing — it memorizes.

Nuances and limits

The written condition can fill up with comfort conditions — "when we have time", "when the strategy is clear" — that never get verified and make promotion as arbitrary as before.

And some topics get committed without their condition being cleared, under outside constraint: a strategic customer signs, a regulation lands. The condition is then not met, it is bypassed — which also has to be written down.

Open questions

• Who confirms that a condition for moving up has been met, when it bears on a feasibility only the developers can judge?