Accordingly they require discipline to use:
- we should always be defined as a specific group of people, e.g. we, sysops - be aware that no one person typically can speak reliably for a whole group without such a role qualifier, i.e. we, trolls don't recognize the right of sysops to speak for us
- we will do only what "we" committed to do - avoid this language without consensus on goals and ethics; Most policy statements are of the form "will" and "will not"
- we must do only what is required to ensure that these goals are achieved, nothing more, nothing less - no must statement should be permitted without a will
 implications of failure to comprehend/communicate/apply
Like any core living ontology pattern serious problems occur in many walks of life due to failure to recognize this pattern.
Joint commitments and language implying them, whether in business, marriage or otherwise, has legal and ethical weight. Someone permitting a statement made in their presence or without their explicit post-facto objection that includes words like we, will or must has agreed in advance to be coerced after the fact to live up to it.
Obviously such awareness is better achieved early.
Patterns of abuse of we/will/must include:
- bullying when poorly understood agreements or commitments become interpreted to the favour of one party
- detrimental reliance when promises, made too easily or without serious assessment of consequences, relied upon by third parties, lead to breach of agreements with those third parties.
Treating any statements including the words we/will/must as implying a strict hierarchy of commitments is advised as a project best practice. Those who do not recognize "musts" at roughly the same time and see the potential for the emergence of a we from following through on will, should be filtered out and rendered powerless to stop cooperation. See learn living ontology.
To do that filtering, and because the verbs are necessarily imperatives, this pattern can also be inverted - see imperative inverts filter - to must/will/we to test the suitability of persons to engage in a shared sense of urgency. It filters time-sense, to avoid commitments not followed through. Craig Hubley has suggested that team sports act as a common filter for the U.S. financial securities industry which deals in rapid financial capital transactions, and whose employees must share common time urgency and a sort of upgraded herd mentality, if only to anticipate the markets.