SOP-072 — Cross-Director arbitration

SOP · owner: COO. Layer: SOP/Runbook (docs/canon.md). The COO’s procedure for holding the deciding call when two COO-cluster Directors hold conflicting positions, and producing a binding, written resolution. Ownership-overlap conflicts surfaced by the Handoff Register reconciler route to canon RACI, not peer-negotiated prose (interface-contract-spec.md §3.1; README R8) — this SOP handles the operational Director conflicts inside the cluster.

Interface Contract

Inputs: conflicting position A (SOP / audit / threat model / plan) ← from <cluster Director> · trigger: review requested
Inputs: conflicting position B (SOP / audit / threat model / plan) ← from <cluster Director> · trigger: review requested
Outputs: binding arbitration call → to Quality & Risk Director · trigger: arbitration decided
Outputs: binding arbitration call → to Process Engineer · trigger: arbitration decided
Outputs: binding arbitration call → to Security Director · trigger: arbitration decided
Outputs: binding arbitration call → to Project Manager · trigger: arbitration decided
Outputs: arbitration decision record → to Archivist · trigger: artifact approved
Outputs: rule/process-gap commission → to Golden Rule / Process Engineer · trigger: review requested
Handoff trigger (in): two cluster Directors hold conflicting positions on a shared artifact or decision
Handoff trigger (out): the COO issues a binding call (decision · rationale · what each Director must do · revisit condition)
Definition of Done before handoff:
- [ ] Conflict named precisely — which two Directors, which artifact/decision is at issue (not “they don’t agree”)
- [ ] Both positions read from source (the SOP / audit finding / threat-model entry / project plan), not reconstructed from memory
- [ ] Governing constraint identified and applied first — a Golden Rule, an HR policy, an ADR, or an established priority order — before judgment
- [ ] Binding call states: decision · governing rationale · what each Director must do next · the revisit condition (an ambiguous ruling is not a ruling)
- [ ] Decision recorded as a dated entry in docs/decisions/ (date · parties · decision · rationale · follow-up actions)
- [ ] If the conflict revealed a policy/process gap, the appropriate owner is commissioned (Golden Rule for rules — GR-3; Process Engineer for SOPs)
- [ ] Compliance follow-up slotted into the next SOP-071 cadence review
- [ ] Decision record handed to the Archivist (0 drift)

Trigger notes. review requested (the conflicting positions arriving for a call; the rule/process-gap commission) and artifact approved (the decision record to the Archivist) are registered. arbitration decided is proposed this wave (reported to Operations) — a point-to-point COO → cluster Director phrase governing the binding call. The two input edges declare placeholder producers (<cluster Director>), making this the COO’s conflict fan-in (spec §3.1.1 R1).

Purpose

Resolve cross-Director conflicts with a binding call, not a both-sides summary — the governing constraint applied before judgment, the decision recorded, the compliance monitored — so a fresh COO instance could arbitrate from this SOP without the incumbent. The COO’s arbitration decision is binding within the cluster.

When to use

When two COO-cluster Directors hold conflicting positions — e.g. the Process Engineer’s proposed SOP fails Q&R’s conformance standard; the PM’s delivery plan under-weights the Security Director’s threat posture; an audit finding contradicts a runbook. Not for ownership-overlap conflicts the reconciler surfaces (those go to canon RACI), and not for cross-cluster conflicts with the CPTO/CGEO (those route through SOP-073 step 0).

Flow

flowchart LR
  A["Name the conflict<br/>precisely"] --> B["Read both positions<br/>from source"]
  B --> C["Identify the governing<br/>constraint (GR / policy / ADR / priority)"]
  C --> D{"Constraint<br/>decides it?"}
  D -->|yes| E["Apply the constraint"]
  D -->|no| F["Apply COO judgment"]
  E --> G["Issue binding call +<br/>record in docs/decisions/"]
  F --> G
  G --> H["Monitor compliance<br/>(next cadence)"]
  classDef s fill:#1d4ed8,color:#fff,stroke:#1e3a8a
  classDef d fill:#0f766e,color:#fff,stroke:#134e4a
  class A,B,C,E,F,G,H s
  class D d

Text fallback: name the conflict precisely → read both positions from source → identify the governing constraint (a Golden Rule, an HR policy, an ADR, an established priority order). If the constraint decides it, apply it; if not, apply COO judgment. Issue the binding call and record it in docs/decisions/. Monitor compliance at the next cadence review — an ignored call escalates immediately (SOP-073).

Steps

Name the conflict precisely. Which two Directors, which artifact or decision is at issue. If the conflict is vague (“they don’t agree”), sharpen it before proceeding.
Read both positions from source. Open the relevant SOP, audit finding, threat-model entry, or project plan each Director is working from. Understand the constraint each operates under before forming a view — do not reconstruct from memory.
Identify the governing constraint. Most cross-Director conflicts have a tiebreaker: a Golden Rule, an HR policy, an existing ADR, or an established priority ordering. Apply the governing constraint before applying judgment.
Issue a binding COO call. State the decision, the governing rationale, what each Director must do next, and the condition under which the decision would be revisited. An ambiguous ruling is not a ruling.
Record the decision. Add a dated entry to docs/decisions/ (create on first use; naming <YYYY-MM-DD>-<short-descriptor>.md; minimum: date · parties · decision · rationale · follow-up actions). If the conflict revealed a policy/process gap, commission the owner — Golden Rule for a rule (GR-3, co-create), Process Engineer for an SOP.
Monitor for compliance. At the next SOP-071 cadence review, confirm both Directors acted on the decision. An ignored COO call escalates immediately (SOP-073).

Roles / approvers

Run by the COO (the deciding call inside the cluster). The two Directors supply their positions and act on the call. Golden Rule / Process Engineer are commissioned when a gap is revealed. The Archivist preserves the decision record. The COO does not write the SOP, conduct the audit, or build the threat model the conflict is about.

Guardrails

Binding, not both-sides — apply the governing constraint first; issue a real call, not diplomatic prose that papers the conflict over (CR-4).
Read from source — both positions from the actual artifact, not from memory.
Overlaps go to canon RACI — ownership-conflict overlaps the reconciler surfaces are not peer-negotiated here; they escalate to the C-suite head / Principal (R8).
Ignored calls escalate — an unactioned arbitration decision is an immediate SOP-073 escalation, not a Director grace period.
Best available model always (GR-1); co-create rules, never one-shot (GR-3); personal info is PA-only.

See also: docs/units/coo-cluster/operating-model.md · interface-contract-spec.md (§3.1 overlaps → canon RACI) · docs/canon.md (RACI) · docs/handoff-triggers.md · SOP-071 / SOP-073.