Something I have not been able to settle, and I would rather hear how other people handle it than keep arguing with myself about it.
A service model decision gets made and accepted. This application realises that business service, this is the owner, this is what is in scope. Over the following months things get built on top of it. Change assessments reference it. Impact calculations assume it. Reporting is cut by it.
Then it turns out to be wrong, and someone overturns it.
Correcting the original record is the easy half. The half I have never seen handled well is everything downstream that was already decided while the wrong answer was in force. Those conclusions do not un-make themselves, and usually nobody can even enumerate them.
Two postures, and I can argue both.
Block. Nothing that rested on the contested decision moves until a named person has reviewed it. It is the honest one, and it stops a bad conclusion propogating. It also quietly teaches everyone not to open the review in the first place.
Flag. Let things keep running, but mark everything downstream as provisional until it is settled. Keeps the estate moving, except that provisional is a status everyone learns to ignore within about a month.
What do you actually do? I am particularly interested if anyone has made the second one stick, because I suspect it only works if the flag has teeth somewhere that people care about.
