A Fallback Is Only Real If It Can Carry the Service

Zaidan’s continuity plan makes decision authority and permitted changes explicit. Cristiano’s update format puts uncertainty beside the decision it could affect. Together, they point to a practical gap: a team may know who can switch—and what remains uncertain—without knowing whether the fallback can actually sustain the service.

For one critical workflow, run a short disruption rehearsal. Name the trigger and authorized switch, mark which unknowns could change the next step, and check what capacity the alternative can reliably provide. If it cannot meet an essential commitment, make that limit visible rather than quietly treating the backup as equivalent. Assign an owner to review the result and a condition for changing or retiring the fallback.

That keeps a contingency usable without turning it into a promise the available resources can’t support. What would you test first: the decision boundary, the uncertain information, or the fallback’s actual capacity?