R2 — Engineer explicit kill criteria into every multi-month engagement; date + metric in writing; converts open-ended commitment to bounded prospect
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.
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]]).
How to apply:
- Define metric(s) at proposal stage. Metrics must be observable by the client, not just by Candid.
- Set the kill date at proposal stage. Default: 90 days for retainer engagements; project midpoint for fixed-scope.
- Write the kill clause into the contract, not the cover letter.
- 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.
Depends on
- reference Shefrin & Statman 1985 (JoF) — disposition effect; narrow-framing / mental accounting of each vendor as separate account
- reference Fourfold pattern of risk preferences — the cognitive signature observed in GC sales conversations
- reference Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, Dirks 2004 (JAP) — competence violations repair via apology; integrity violations repair via denial; opposite mechanisms