Definitions should be versioned like code

The most expensive artifacts in a federal data environment are not systems. They are terms (availability, readiness, obligated, complete), each with an owner who believes their reading is the common one.

Governance is where that gets settled, and governance fails when it is treated as a documentation exercise. A definition without an owner, a change history and a review path is a suggestion.

We version definitions like code. Each has a steward, a written meaning, an authoritative source, and a record of every change with the reason attached. When two systems disagree, the disagreement is traceable to a decision rather than to an accident.

This sounds bureaucratic. In practice it removes an enormous amount of recurring argument, because the question shifts from whose number is right to which definition the question intends.

The test remains the same: two offices, same question, a month apart, one answer, and the ability to see why.