ED3 in Practice · P5 · P6 · Level 4

The Async Review Protocol

A step-by-step process for making decisions without a meeting. Write the proposal, circulate it, collect input, decide, record. No room required.

Most decisions don't need a room. They need a clear proposal, enough context for people to evaluate it, a defined window for input, and one person willing to make the call. The problem isn't that teams can't decide asynchronously — it's that they don't have a protocol for it. Without structure, async decision-making drifts into endless comment threads, unanswered documents, and the quiet assumption that silence means someone else will deal with it.

The Async Review Protocol solves this by giving teams an explicit, repeatable process: one person writes the proposal, the team reviews it within a bounded window, input is collected in a structured format, the owner makes the call, and the decision is recorded. It takes the rigor of the Decision Brief and applies it to decisions that never need to enter a calendar.

"The best decision meetings are the ones that never happen — because the decision was made in writing, in less time, with better thinking."


Why it works

The Async Review Protocol operationalizes the two principles that move teams from Level 3 (ED3 Sync) to Level 4 (ED3 Async). It forces decisions onto the record with explicit ownership and dissent (P5) — eliminating the silence-as-consensus trap. And it replaces the meeting with a document (P6) — eliminating the read-out entirely. The meeting only happens if the protocol fails, which means every meeting that does get called has a clear reason to exist.

Async also produces better decisions. When people write their input instead of speaking it, they think more carefully. When they read at their own pace, they engage more deeply. And when there's a defined deadline, the decision doesn't drift — it lands. The protocol doesn't just save time. It improves the quality of the thinking.


The protocol — five steps

Follow these steps for any decision that doesn't require real-time deliberation. Most don't.

01

Write the proposal

The decision owner writes a short document: what's being decided, why now, the options considered, the owner's recommendation, and the deadline for input. This is essentially a Decision Brief — but instead of attaching it to a meeting invite, it stands on its own. If you can't write it clearly, the decision isn't ready to be made — sync or async.

02

Circulate with a review window

Send the proposal to the relevant stakeholders with an explicit deadline: "Input due by Thursday 5pm. Silence after the deadline means no objection." The window should be proportional to the decision's weight — 24 hours for routine calls, 48–72 hours for significant commitments. State the deadline in the first sentence, not buried at the bottom.

03

Collect structured input

Reviewers respond in writing with one of three positions: Approve (no concerns), Approve with comments (concerns noted but not blocking), or Block (a specific objection that must be resolved before proceeding). Require blockers to name what would resolve their objection. Vague discomfort is not a block — it's a comment.

04

Decide and record

After the review window closes, the owner makes the call. If there are no blocks — the decision is made and logged. If there are blocks — the owner resolves them directly with the blocker (a quick call, a revised proposal, or a documented override with reasoning). The decision, any dissent, and the resolution all go on the record.

05

Announce the outcome

Send a brief summary: what was decided, who owns it, what happens next, and when it will be reviewed. This closes the loop. No follow-up meeting. No "let's discuss this more." The decision is made, recorded, and communicated — and everyone gets their time back.


The async proposal format

Use this structure for the written proposal. It's a Decision Brief adapted for async — every field is designed to eliminate the need for a meeting.

Decision What is being decided? One sentence, committing verb. Same as a Decision Brief.
"Decide whether to renew the Acme contract for 12 months at the proposed 15% rate increase, or negotiate a 6-month extension."
Owner One person. The person who will make the final call after the review window closes.
"Rachel Torres, VP Partnerships"
Context Why this decision, why now. Keep it short — three to five sentences. Link to supporting documents if needed.
"Acme contract expires April 30. They've proposed a 12-month renewal at $230K (15% above current rate). Our usage has grown 40% year-over-year. Switching vendors would take 8–12 weeks and disrupt the Q3 product launch."
Options The realistic choices, each with its key tradeoff.
"A: Renew 12 months at $230K — continuity, no disruption, higher cost locked in.
B: Negotiate 6-month extension at current rate — buys time to evaluate alternatives, but Acme may not agree.
C: Begin vendor transition — saves long-term cost but risks Q3 timeline."
Recommendation The owner's preferred path and reasoning.
"I recommend Option B. The 6-month extension gives us leverage and time without committing to the increase. If Acme declines, we fall back to Option A — still better than disrupting Q3."
Review window The exact deadline for input. State it in the first line. Include the silence clause.
"Input due by Wednesday, April 2 at 5pm ET. Silence after the deadline means no objection. Respond with: Approve, Approve with comments, or Block (with what would resolve it)."
Reviewers Name every person whose input is needed and why. Keep it small — async doesn't mean everyone.
"Rachel Torres — Owner/Decider
James Park — Finance (budget impact)
David Kim — Product (Q3 timeline risk)"

When to use async — and when not to

The protocol works for most decisions. But not all. Use these signals to decide whether a decision should go async or stay in a room.

Go async when...

The options are clear and well-documented
The owner has a recommendation and can articulate the tradeoffs
Stakeholders need time to think, not a live debate
The decision is important but not emotionally charged
Getting everyone in a room would take longer than the review window

Keep it sync when...

The options are ambiguous and need real-time exploration
There's significant disagreement that needs to be heard, not read
The decision involves difficult interpersonal dynamics
Speed is critical — the decision can't wait 48 hours

When in doubt, start async. If it breaks down — if blocks can't be resolved in writing or the comment thread spirals — escalate to a meeting using the Escalation Ladder. The async attempt wasn't wasted: the proposal becomes the meeting's pre-read, and everyone arrives with context.


When people push back

"People won't respond in time." — That's what the silence clause is for. If they don't respond by the deadline, they've chosen not to object. The first time someone misses a deadline and a decision goes through without them, the behavior corrects itself.

"Writing takes longer than just talking about it." — Writing takes longer for the owner. Reading takes less time for everyone else. And the thinking is better because writing forces clarity. The total time investment across the team is lower, not higher.

"Some things need real-time discussion." — Absolutely. That's what the Escalation Ladder is for. The protocol doesn't eliminate meetings — it makes them the exception rather than the default. Every meeting that survives the async filter has earned its place.

Download the protocol

The complete async review template — proposal format, reviewer response options, and outcome announcement. Ready to use in any tool.

Download (.md) →