Confidence in this partner was earned eighteen months ago, in the due diligence, the pitch, the early proof points. Nobody's verified since that it still holds. The partnership hasn't obviously gone wrong, so the original confidence has simply carried forward, unexamined, expected to still be true because nothing has forced anyone to check.

Capability and commitment aren't static, though. A partner's own priorities shift, their resourcing changes, the person who championed the relationship on their side may have moved on. None of that necessarily shows up in the day-to-day interactions, calls still happen, emails still get answered, but the underlying capacity to deliver on what was originally promised can have quietly moved further than anyone's tested.

The risk isn't that the partner acted in bad faith. It's that both sides can continue operating in good faith on an assumption that was true once and has never been revisited since.

Signs this is happening

• This partner's capability or capacity to deliver hasn't been directly tested since the relationship began
• Joint plans still assume commitments made at signing, without a check on whether they still hold
• The partner's own business or priorities have visibly changed since the agreement, without a corresponding review on your side
• Your team and the partner's team would likely describe the current commitment differently if asked separately

This condition rarely appears alone. It's frequently paired with partners never measured the same way, since without a consistent standard to test against, a capability gap has nothing to be measured against.

What it points to

This reflects an Exposure gap, capability and commitment resting on assumptions carried forward from signing rather than current evidence. The Partner Capability & Commitment Review tests what a partner can currently support, and what they're genuinely prepared to commit to.

Not sure this is exactly your situation?