Decision Input Log¶
Document — instantiates Stakeholder Mapping and Engagement
A durable record of each stakeholder input, its decision implication, whether it was accepted or rejected, and the reason — the ledger that makes engagement auditable after the fact.
The Decision Input Log is the durable ledger of what stakeholder input did to the decision. One entry per input: its source, the substance, the decision implication, a disposition — accepted, rejected, deferred — and, crucially, the reason. The one idea that makes it this mechanism is that it is a record of outcomes, not a process for gathering them: where the Consultation Process runs the live loop and the Engagement Matrix plans the contact, the log is the persistent artifact those channels feed, the thing you can open six months later to answer "why did you reject our concern?" It also records where stakeholder stakes collided and how the tradeoff was struck, so conflicts are documented rather than quietly resolved and forgotten.
Example¶
A widely used open-source library proposes relicensing from a permissive license to a copyleft one. The maintainers open a public RFC, and input arrives from every direction. Each item goes into the log. Downstream Company X: relicensing would break their proprietary fork — rejected, with the reason that the project is prioritizing contributor reciprocity over closed-source reuse, plus an offer of a 12-month transition window. Packager Y: the SPDX metadata and headers must be updated — accepted, folded into the release checklist. A contributor: worries about dual-licensing complexity — deferred, pending legal review.
The log also carries a tradeoff note where two stakes openly collide: commercial redistributors versus the contributor community who want reciprocity. It records that the maintainers chose the contributors' interest, and why. Months later, when a redistributor complains that "nobody listened," the maintainers point to the entry — the concern is there, weighed, answered. The engagement is auditable because it was written down.
How it works¶
The log is a disciplined document, not a mailbox:
- One entry per input. Source, substance, decision implication, disposition, reason — every field filled, or the entry is incomplete.
- Rejections carry reasons, not just acceptances. The honesty of the whole record lives in the rejected entries: an input log that only records what was adopted is a highlight reel.
- Conflicts are annotated, not smoothed. When two stakeholders' stakes are incompatible, the entry names the collision and records which way the tradeoff went and why.
- It is contemporaneous. Written as decisions are made, so it records reasoning rather than reconstructing a flattering story afterward.
Tuning parameters¶
- Entry granularity — logging every comment or only decision-relevant ones. Fine granularity is complete but heavy; coarse granularity risks dropping an input that later matters.
- Disposition taxonomy — how many outcome categories (accepted / rejected / deferred / partially adopted). More categories capture nuance but complicate the record.
- Visibility — public log versus internal. Public logs maximize accountability; confidential ones protect parties who face retaliation or privacy risk.
- Conflict-annotation depth — whether collisions are merely flagged or fully reasoned. Deeper annotation aids legitimacy but exposes contested judgment calls.
- Linkage — whether entries link to the specific requirement, mitigation, or spec they changed. Linking makes traceability concrete; it also takes maintenance.
When it helps, and when it misleads¶
Its strength is that it is the archetype's guardrail against stakeholder theater: it proves, or disproves, that input shaped the decision, and it defuses the "you never listened to us" grievance by showing the concern, weighed, with a reason. A convention like the public-sector "You said, we did" report is exactly this ledger made visible.[n1]
Its failure mode is becoming a post-hoc justification — written after the fact to look responsive, curating the record to flatter a decision already made rather than to document reasoning honestly. Its value is only as good as the candor of its rejected-with-reason entries; a log full of accepted trivialities and silent on the hard rejections is worse than none, because it launders neglect as diligence. The guarding discipline is to log rejections with real reasons, keep the record contemporaneous, and — where openness would expose a stakeholder to retaliation — protect the entry's confidentiality without dropping the substance.
How it implements the components¶
decision_traceability— each entry links a specific stakeholder input to its disposition and the reason, which is exactly this component: the auditable chain from input to decision change or reasoned non-adoption.conflict_surface_map— the tradeoff annotations record where stakeholder stakes collided and how each collision was resolved, surfacing conflicts on the record instead of burying them.
It does not gather the input or design who is engaged (engagement_plan, engagement_depth_rule — the Engagement Matrix and Influence/Interest Grid), and it does not discover the parties (stakeholder_map — the Stakeholder Mapping Workshop); the log records outcomes, it does not run the engagement.
Related¶
- Instantiates: Stakeholder Mapping and Engagement — the log is the traceability record that makes engagement honest.
- Consumes: Consultation Process and other channels supply the inputs and dispositions the log records.
- Sibling mechanisms: Stakeholder Mapping Workshop · Influence/Interest Grid · Responsibility Mapping Matrix · Engagement Matrix · Consultation Process · Advisory Group · Community Engagement Forum · Participatory Design Session
Editorial Notes¶
Form Classification¶
Form family: Record, Log & Register
Rationale: Decision Input Log operates as a durable record, ledger, register, or trace whose value depends on preserving actual state or history because it a durable record of each stakeholder input, its decision implication, whether it was accepted or rejected, and the reason — the ledger that makes engagement auditable after the fact.
Independent corroboration: The frozen evidence defines Decision Input Log as 'A durable record of each stakeholder input, its decision implication, whether it was accepted or rejected, and the reason — the ledger that makes engagement auditable after the fact', so its operative form is Record, Log & Register.
Review outcome: Independent reviewer agreement; high confidence.
Origin Attribution¶
Primary origin: Public Administration & Policy
Origin pattern: Cross-disciplinary synthesis
Present-day reach: Multi-domain
Rationale: Public consultation practice cohered durable logs pairing stakeholder submissions with accepted, rejected, or deferred dispositions and reasons, often reported as 'you said, we did.'
Related originating lineages:
- Law & Governance — Administrative fairness supplied reason-giving and reviewability for ignored or rejected input.
- Organizational & Management Science — Stakeholder management generalized disposition logs to organizational decisions.
Review resolution: Public consultation practice cohered durable logs pairing stakeholder submissions with accepted, rejected, or deferred dispositions and reasons, often reported as 'you said, we did.'
Review outcome: Reconciled after independent review; high confidence.
Notes¶
[n1] "You said, we did" is a widely used public-engagement reporting format in which an organization publishes what stakeholders raised alongside the action taken (or the reason for inaction). It is the visible form of a decision input log, and its credibility depends on honestly reporting the concerns that were not acted on. ↩