Most orgs don’t actually have (or want) accountability symmetry because they’d have to give up the comfort of ambiguity. There's rarely a mechanism to audit past decisions, objectively assess people or projects, or enforce meritocracy. Performance reviews (for people and projects) are usually narrative-driven theater: selective memory, flattery, politics and spin, and a lot of “effort counts” rationalizations. Almost no one asks the simple questions (of a person or a project): Did what we expected to happen, actually happen? If not, what went wrong?

That’s what led to Collaborate by Contract (CBC). A desire to create a hierarchical map of decisions and commitments, and to force the hard questions and clarity upfront, and leave a record behind. Everyone in the org should be able to answer, at any moment: What are we doing, and why, and how, and with whom. Ideally, everyone in the org should be able to point to some artifact that can answer those questions. Without that agreement, you’re not managing execution, you’re managing stories (i.e., it's just theater IMHO).