{"id":1123,"slug":"rule-engineer-explicit-kill-criteria-into-engagements","title":"R2 — Engineer explicit kill criteria into every multi-month engagement; date + metric in writing; converts open-ended commitment to bounded prospect","kind":"rule","scope":"business","status":"current","audiences":["kevin","candid-team"],"topics":["psychology-aversion","entrepreneur-cognition","persuasion-design"],"reference_body":"**Rule:** Every multi-month engagement specifies, **in writing**, the date and the metric at which the GC can walk away. This converts the engagement from an open-ended disposition-effect trap into a bounded prospect. It pre-empts the \"we just kept paying\" horror story that becomes a future GC's once-burned data point.\n\n**Why:** Without kill criteria, the engagement sits in the disposition-effect trap ([[shefrin-statman-1985-disposition-effect-narrow-framing]]) — the GC will be reluctant to walk away from a partial loss and will instead double down (the cell-2 risk-seeking limb of the fourfold pattern, see [[fourfold-pattern-risk-preferences-gc-cognitive-signature]]). The engagement becomes the kind of vendor experience that *creates* future integrity-violation framings ([[kim-ferrin-cooper-dirks-2004-competence-vs-integrity-trust-repair]]).\n\n**How to apply:**\n- Define metric(s) at proposal stage. Metrics must be observable by the client, not just by Candid.\n- Set the kill date at proposal stage. Default: 90 days for retainer engagements; project midpoint for fixed-scope.\n- Write the kill clause into the contract, not the cover letter.\n- At the kill date, **proactively offer** the walk-away. This is counterintuitive but generates the strongest commitment-and-consistency signal in Cialdini terms when the client opts to continue.","rationale_body":null,"metadata":null,"links":{"outgoing":[{"slug":"research-brief-risk-aversion-post-failure-may-2026","title":"Research brief: risk aversion, loss aversion, and post-failure decision patterns in GC and trades-business decision-makers (May 2026)","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"relates-to"},{"slug":"shefrin-statman-1985-disposition-effect-narrow-framing","title":"Shefrin & Statman 1985 (JoF) — disposition effect; narrow-framing / mental accounting of each vendor as separate account","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"depends-on"},{"slug":"fourfold-pattern-risk-preferences-gc-cognitive-signature","title":"Fourfold pattern of risk preferences — the cognitive signature observed in GC sales conversations","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"depends-on"},{"slug":"kim-ferrin-cooper-dirks-2004-competence-vs-integrity-trust-repair","title":"Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, Dirks 2004 (JAP) — competence violations repair via apology; integrity violations repair via denial; opposite mechanisms","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"depends-on"}],"incoming":[{"slug":"rule-target-peer-coached-contractor-persona-with-explicit-qualification","title":"R3 — Target the peer-coached contractor as highest-value persona; explicitly qualify BTA/EOS/Vistage/TAB membership in discovery; staff for the persona's information environment","kind":"rule","scope":"business","link_type":"relates-to"}]},"created_at":"2026-05-25T13:13:31.087Z","updated_at":"2026-05-25T13:13:31.087Z"}