← All meeting governance guides
Governance practice · Practical guide
Decision Register vs Action Tracker: Know the Difference
A decision is an authorised outcome; an action is a commitment to do something. Combining them without distinction obscures both institutional memory and operational accountability.
1. Record decisions as authoritative outcomes
Capture the approved wording, date, decision-making body, source meeting, authority and any effective date. A decision may be complete when approved even if implementation takes months.
2. Record actions as execution commitments
Capture deliverable, owner, deadline, status, blockers and completion evidence. Some actions follow a formal decision; others are routine follow-ups. Never present a pending task as an approved resolution.
3. Connect rather than duplicate
Give decisions and actions different IDs. Link each action to its authorising decision where relevant and link both to the source meeting. This avoids conflicting copies of the same decision.
4. Preserve supersession and reassignment
When a later decision replaces an earlier one, retain both with an explicit relationship. When an action changes owner or deadline, retain a history of the change.
5. Ask two different review questions
Review whether past decisions remain current, then separately review which actions are overdue or blocked. These are complementary but distinct governance controls.
Worked example
DEC-008 approves a new volunteer policy. ACT-021 assigns the legal lead to publish it; ACT-022 assigns the coordinator to brief volunteers. Both actions reference DEC-008 and the approved meeting record.
Review checklist
- Precise decision wording
- Action owners and deadlines
- Source links
- Supersession history
- Separate review of overdue actions
This is operational guidance, not jurisdiction-specific legal advice. Follow your own governing documents. SecretAIry demonstrates human-reviewed workflows with fictional sample records, not customer data.