The diagnosis-delivery gap: when evidence cannot become differentiated commitment

Purpose This paper examines why organizations can generate highly differentiated diagnostic evidence yet make undifferentiated resource commitments. It asks how strategically meaningful distinctions are lost as evidence moves from diagnosis and recommendation through allocation, commitment and delivery. Design/methodology/approach Theory building. The diagnosis-delivery gap is developed by integrating research on resource allocation, strategy implementation, evidence-based management, organization design and organizational justice. A descriptive audit of 200 administrative records from a capability development program illustrates the data conditions required to trace conversion. The extract is not used to test the propositions. Findings Four mechanisms compress resolution: delivery indivisibility, allocation legitimacy, split authority and horizon mismatch. The paper distinguishes diagnostic, recommendation, allocative and delivery resolution and separates variety, alignment and fidelity as components of each. In the administrative extract, ten diagnostic dimensions are complete for all 200 participants while allocation, commitment and delivery fields are unpopulated, so the record cannot establish whether diagnosis altered provision, or whether individualization was genuine or symbolic. Practical implications Senior leaders should assess delivery modularity, decision rights, allocation rules, override visibility and conversion traceability before investing in more sophisticated diagnostic or recommendation systems. Originality/value The paper introduces resolution as a missing dimension in evidence-led execution, showing that the strategic value of analytics depends on the organization’s capacity to preserve meaningful distinctions through allocation and delivery.