---
type: Concept
title: OKR Tree Structure
description: How PMOS structures Objectives and Key Results as a tree that links strategy to initiatives and to the agent runs that move them.
tags: [okr, strategy, planning, measurement]
timestamp: 2026-06-28
---

# OKR Tree Structure

**Situating context:** PMOS routes agent work, and work without a strategic anchor is how silent
drift starts. This concept defines the OKR tree so every initiative — and ultimately every agent run
— can be traced to a measurable objective. It informs the `okr` skill, OKR instance files under
`/planning/okrs/`, and how the Acceptance Gate judges strategic fit.

## The tree

PMOS models strategy as a tree, not a flat list:

```
Objective (qualitative, directional — the "what we want to be true")
└── Key Result (quantitative, measurable — the "how we'll know")
    └── Initiative (a unit of work — owns a PRD + eval rubric)
        └── Agent run (a single execution against the initiative's contract)
```

- **Objective** — a qualitative, time-boxed statement of intent. Inspirational and directional;
  carries no number itself. *"PMOS agent output is trustworthy enough to ship without rework."*
- **Key Result** — a quantitative, measurable outcome that proves the objective is being met.
  Each objective has 2–5 KRs. *"Human correction rate per agent run < 0.5 by end of Q3."*
- **Initiative** — a concrete body of work expected to move one or more KRs. Each initiative owns a
  PRD ([prd skill](/skills/prd.skill)) and an eval rubric
  ([eval-rubric skill](/skills/eval-rubric.skill)).
- **Agent run** — the leaf: one execution against an initiative's pre-run contract, logged to
  `agent_runs`.

## Edges carry meaning

The value of the tree is in its edges. Every node must answer "what is my parent?":

- A KR with no parent objective is an orphan metric — measuring something nobody decided matters.
- An initiative with no parent KR is **unanchored work** — the structural seed of silent drift.
  PMOS treats unanchored initiatives as a red flag at intake, not a detail to fill in later.
- An agent run inherits its strategic justification from its initiative's KR. This is what lets the
  Acceptance Gate ask "is this the *right* thing?" with a concrete reference.

## Key Results measure outcomes, not output

A KR measures a **change in the world**, not a count of work done. "Ship 5 features" is output;
"reduce human correction rate to < 0.5" is an outcome. Output-based KRs invite the watermelon-flag
failure: green activity numbers hiding red strategic reality. Pair this concept with
[anti-optimism reporting](/okf/core/concepts/okr-anti-optimism.md) and the
[watermelon flag](/okf/core/concepts/watermelon-flag.md) — they are the defenses that keep KR
self-reporting honest.

## The north star sits above the tree

PMOS's north-star metric — **human correction rate per agent run** (lower is better) — is the
standing measure the tree exists to move. Quarterly objectives change; the north star persists.
Individual KRs should ladder toward it, directly or indirectly.

## Cadence

- OKRs are set per planning period (PMOS's first set: `okrs-q3-2026.md` under `/planning/okrs/`).
- KRs are reviewed on the PM's regular cadence; objectives are reset each period.
- The OKR file is an **operational instance** — it lives under `/planning/`, not in OKF. This
  concept is the timeless *structure*; the quarterly file is the dated *content*.

## Amendment — the second anchor class (D59, 2026-07-18)

Initiative anchoring generalizes: an initiative anchors to a KR **or** to a declared
[health budget](/okf/core/concepts/health-anchors.md) (`health:<id>` from the closed registry in
`/planning/okrs/health-budgets.md`). Health work is a budget, not an outcome bet — forcing it
under a KR corrupts both. The tree's KR discipline is unchanged for outcome work.