A committed delivery is no longer supported by the same project conditions.

A material dependency changed after the original commitment. Epistema makes the resulting date, cost, scope, and delivery-risk implications visible so the accountable sponsor can decide what happens next.

Decision preparation

Candidate paths, with their trade-offs made visible.

Epistema can structure possible responses to a changed commitment. It preserves the assumptions, evidence gaps, risks, and decision owner so the accountable person can choose.

Accept revised date

Move delivery to July 10 while retaining the full feature set.

Assumption: Customer accepts the revised date.
Risk: Customer commitment slips by 10 days.

Partially supported

Reduce scope

Protect the June 30 date by reducing the committed feature set.

Assumption: Reduced scope can recover the schedule and is acceptable to the customer.
Risk: Customer receives less capability than originally committed.

Requires analysis

Recover the dependency

Seek a credible recovery plan or an alternative dependency.

Assumption: The partner can provide a viable recovery plan or substitute.
Risk: Recovery effort may add cost without restoring the date.

Unsupported candidate

Decision boundary: These are candidate paths, not Epistema recommendations. Option selection, authorization, and commitment mutation remain with the accountable decision owner.

What changed

The critical dependency moved from June 15 to July 10, 2026.

Financial impact

The estimated cost basis increased by $25,000, from $120,000 to $145,000.

What remains true

The original commitment remains recorded. It is not automatically invalidated.

Decision impact

One change affects several dimensions of the commitment.

Target commitment2026-06-30 customer delivery

ScheduleCustomer date at risk

Cost+ $25,000

ScopeFeature set A may require reduction

RelianceDependency basis changed

Assurance boundary

Epistema surfaces the decision. It does not make it.

The readout identifies a material change, looks up the directly affected commitment, and requests reassessment. It does not silently rewrite history, invalidate the commitment, authorize a transition, or propagate the change to unrelated commitments.

Proof basis: This page represents the fixture-backed project-commitment reassessment readout. The underlying evidence and regression test are available in the repository; the page is a management-facing representation, not a live customer decision.

See the Workflow Value Ledger Inspect the technical proof