In this post:
A short discussion about defining when your task or goal has satisfactorily been met.
Back in July of 2023, I wrote a post on Objectives and Key Results.
That post was overall about organizing goals into subordinate tasks that eventually get you to the goal.
I described the construction of task sets using a “[Subject] Verb Objective” structure as well as ensuring the clear inclusion of an Actor, who executes an Activity to desired End State within some clear Time Constraint.
For example:
Subject Verb Objective Time Constraint
[I] [Write] [Posts 55 and 56] [before the end of 31 January 2026].
In most situations, “I” is usually the Actor, so usually I’d drop it, but if you wanted to use this construct for a team, then you’d more likely keep that Subject intact.
In that July 2023 post, I wrote about the End State briefly: “The End State should be sufficiently clear so that it is not ambiguous when an OKR is satisfied. This is not a required feature of an OKR, but it is extremely helpful to contextualize the development of associated OKRs.”
In January 2026 – during which this December 2025 post is being written – I’d like to elaborate a bit on that topic.
In many cases, the sort of fidelity I’ve provided in the above example is sufficient: “You Do Thing by Deadline.”
But what about quality? How do we know that we really set out what we intended to do?
Using my blog as an example, there’s a difference between a well-written post and a just-written post, but either could be the result of the Task “Write Post X by End of Month.”
If we prefer well-written posts over merely complete posts, we should adjust the construction of our Task to that end. Unfortunately, it isn’t as simple as building that task as “Write Post X Well by End of Month.”
We need to define our End State more effectively.
Option 1: Use Metrics or Qualitative Descriptors
Using metrics is straightforward.
If your goal is to write or exercise more, you could create a task with a metric that defines when your task is complete.
“Write a Journal Entry” becomes “Write a Journal Entry with <499 words.”
“Go for a run” becomes “Go for a two mile run.”
Using Qualitative Descriptors can be a little looser but may also be helpful.
“Write a Military Essay” could instead be a task set including the below subordinate tasks:
“Tell them what you’re going to tell them,” “Tell them what you said you were going to tell them,” and “Tell them what you just told them.”
These don’t necessarily address quality, but they are better defined for what constitutes the task being satisfactorily completed.
Using metrics can be great for when you need to do something in bites or to a deadline.
Option 2: Use Gates
This option pits your action against a standard. Using this option likely requires that you go to another person or a policy document and find minimum thresholds for quality.
“Write 3rd Quarter Plan” becomes a task set:
“Draft 3rd Quarter Plan” → “Send to Supervisor Sam for Review and Feedback” → “Adjudicate Feedback and Return for Sam’s Approval”
“Run” becomes:
“Run X Distance Within Y Time Constraint in accordance with fitness guidance reference Z.”
These tasks or task sets might also come with deadlines that could be included in the End State.
Using Gates appeals to some authority which may have a different standard that you might personally enforce. Sometimes, our own standard may be too low or too high to be satisfactorily done, and having a Gate to make that determination can keep us from overthinking or underperforming.
Sometimes Gates and Metrics are the same thing.
I’m sure there are plenty of other ways to think about this, but if you’ve found yourself thinking a little longer than you might like about your tasks or weekly agendas, this could help.
72 Airman's Writings 