Artifact Standards 1–16

I need to prepare a T1 Intake Form for a new initiative going through governance review. Below are the materials I have.

Please populate each section from my materials:
- Submission Information: date, submitter role, sponsoring executive, routing category (Fast-track / Standard / Strategic / Emergency / Discovery)
- Problem or Opportunity: the current-state problem in plain language — not the proposed solution
- Expected Outcome: what will measurably change, naming the specific person, process, or metric that will be different
- Why Now: urgency driver — if mandatory, name the specific statute, regulation, audit finding, or contract; if time-sensitive, name what changes if deferred 90 days
- Rough Sizing: estimated cost and timeline with confidence levels (High/Medium/Low); organizational impact — which teams, roles, or users are affected
- Known Dependencies: what this work depends on and what other work depends on it
- What We Are Not Doing: what the organization is explicitly choosing not to prioritize if this is approved

For any field you cannot populate from my materials, list it as a gap and state what information is needed. Do not invent information. Label inferences as inferences.

[Paste your project materials here — SOW, emails, kickoff notes, budget request, slide deck, or any combination]

Every submission enters through this form. Required fields are marked. Incomplete submissions are returned, not held. The clock on the review cycle starts when the submission is complete.

Submission Information

Problem or Opportunity

What specifically is the organization trying to solve or capture? Describe the current-state problem in one paragraph. Do not describe the proposed solution here.

Expected Outcome

What will be measurably different in the operation if this work succeeds? Name a specific person, process, or metric that will change — and how.

Why Now

Is this mandatory, time-sensitive, strategic, or discretionary? What is the driver? If mandatory, name the specific statute, regulation, audit finding, or contract obligation.

Rough Sizing

Known Dependencies

What does this work depend on? What other work depends on this?

What We Are Not Doing

If this is approved, what is the organization choosing not to prioritize instead? Name it explicitly.

Routing Guide — EPMO Use Only

I need to prepare a Cost-Benefit Analysis for a project going through governance review. Below are the materials I have.

Please build a complete CBA with both required sections:

Section 1 — Financial Case:
- Baseline current-state metrics with measurement source and date measured
- Benefit projections by category: hard savings, cost avoidance, revenue protection or growth, risk reduction, productivity gains — with Year 1/2/3 estimates, confidence levels, and evidence basis for each projection
- Cost projections: implementation (labor, vendor, licensing), ongoing support and maintenance, training, integration and technical debt, decommission costs
- 3-year summary: total benefits, total costs, net benefit, ROI, payback period

Section 2 — Tangible Case:
- For each major benefit: what specifically changes, who confirms it (named individual), within what timeframe, and how it will be measured
- Adoption assumption: state explicitly what adoption rate is assumed in productivity projections; show what the return looks like at 50% and 75% adoption
- Name the Outcome Owner — the individual in the business accountable for confirming benefits materialized at Step 11

Label numbers that cannot be evidenced from my materials as estimates. List gaps explicitly. Do not invent figures.

[Paste your project materials here — SOW, budget requests, vendor proposals, financial projections, or any supporting documentation]

The CBA has two required sections. Both must be complete before the proposal advances to prioritization. A financial section without a tangible section is incomplete.

Section 1: Financial Case

Baseline — Current State

Benefit Projections

Cost Projections

Summary

Section 2: Tangible Case

For each major benefit category in Section 1, complete one row below. If a financial benefit cannot be connected to a tangible outcome field, it should be treated as speculative.

Adoption Assumption

State explicitly what adoption rate is assumed in the productivity benefit projections. What does the return look like at 50% adoption? At 75%?

All eight items must be confirmed before the project is formally started. Items that cannot be confirmed push the start date, not the governance decision.

The Eight Confirmations

Sign-Off

Opens when the CBA is built and does not close until all projected benefits have been confirmed or formally assessed. It is a living document, not a post-project artifact.

Benefit Entries

Adoption Tracking

I need to produce a Tollgate Decision Record for a governance session that just concluded. Below are my meeting notes [or transcript].

Please build the Decision Record with:
- Session information: date, chair, attendees, next session date
- For each decision item reviewed: proposal name, recommendation that entered the session, decision outcome (Proceed / Proceed with Conditions / Hold / Return for Clarification / Decline / Stop), rationale in 2–3 tight sentences, named sponsor, named outcome owner, next action with owner and date
- Conditions Tracking Register: for any Proceed with Conditions decision, list each condition — what it is, who owns it, the deadline

This is the official record of what the governance forum decided, not a meeting summary. Keep rationale factual and direct. Flag any decision where the outcome or rationale is unclear in my notes so I can confirm before distributing.

[Paste meeting notes or transcript here]

Produced during or immediately after each governance session. Distributed within 24 hours. This is the official record of what the governance forum decided — not a meeting summary.

Decision Item

Conditions Tracking Register

Evidence & Retention

This record — paired with the Authorization Checklist’s segregation-of-duties confirmation (T3, item 8) — is the primary audit evidence for what the governance forum decided. Meeting memory is not a retention strategy.

Weights should reflect current planning cycle priorities. Review and validate weights at the start of each planning cycle. Scores are set before the ranked output is visible. Overrides are documented separately — never embedded in the scores.

Scoring Scale: 1 = Minimal  ·  3 = Moderate  ·  5 = Strong

Scoring Sheet

Override Documentation

I need to prepare a Health vs. Value Review for an upcoming governance session. Below are the project’s current status data, RAID log, and any sponsor or outcome owner notes I have.

Please build both required sections:

Section 1 — Health Review (Project Manager perspective):
- Schedule: % complete vs. planned, variance, status (Green/Yellow/Red)
- Budget: actuals vs. forecast, variance, status
- Scope: changes since authorization, variance, status
- Open risks above threshold: count and current status
- Critical path dependency status
- One-sentence health summary: the single issue that most threatens delivery if unresolved
- Health escalation required? Yes/No

Section 2 — Value Review (Sponsor perspective):
- For each key CBA assumption identified in my materials: current status (Valid/Revised/Invalidated), evidence, and implication for value
- Value indicators with status: CBA hypothesis validity, adoption readiness, outcome owner engagement, benefits forecast vs. original CBA, any external factors that changed
- Value escalation required? If yes, recommended option: Continue as planned / Adjust scope or approach / Pause and reassess / Stop

Flag anything in my materials that is unclear or missing that I need to confirm before the governance session.

[Paste project status data, RAID log, and sponsor/outcome owner notes here]

Two sections. Both are required at each governance cycle. Section 1 is led by the project manager. Section 2 is led by the sponsor. These are different questions and they should not be presented in the same breath.

Section 1: Health Review

Project Manager leads. Is the project executing as planned?

Health summary — the one issue that, if unresolved, most threatens delivery:

Health Escalation Required? ☐ Yes  ☐ No

Section 2: Value Review

Sponsor leads. Is the investment still aimed at the right outcome?

Value Escalation Required? ☐ Yes  ☐ No  — Options: Continue as planned / Adjust scope or approach / Pause and reassess / Stop

Conducted at the end of each major governance cycle — typically quarterly. Designed to complete in 90 minutes and produce two or three specific, owned action items. Not a status review. An examination of the governance model itself.

Q1: What Improved This Cycle?

Q2: What Did Not Work as Intended?

Q3: What Do We Not Yet Know?

Governance Health Metrics

Improvement Actions

Use one guide per interview. Record what was said verbatim in the “Said” column and what you observed about how it was said in the “Observed” column. Do not interpret during the conversation — capture first, analyze later.

Core Questions

Follow-Up Notes — What came up that warrants a follow-up conversation or deeper exploration?

Synthesis Note (complete after all interviews) — What pattern did this interview confirm, complicate, or contradict?

Built from interview observations and direct observation — not from existing documentation. Complete the map first, then compare it to documented processes. The gap between this map and existing documentation is where the work begins.

How Work Enters

Where Decisions Are Made

Known Bypass Routes

Map vs. Documentation Gap — Where does this map differ from existing process documentation?

Working document — not for distribution. This map is for the practitioner’s use only. It informs every coalition-building decision before any governance change is proposed.

Informal Authority

Coalition Requirements

One row per active or proposed work item. Missing information is flagged, not fabricated. Complete the inventory before proposing any governance changes.

Inventory Summary

One page. Post where submitters can see it. Consistency in classification matters more than precision — apply the same rule to every submission.

Edge Cases

Every gap in the inventory goes here. Do not hold inventory items pending this information — flag and continue. This log is the primary argument for why intake discipline is needed: every blank field is a decision made without the information needed to make it well.

Log Summary

Post this where submitters can see it. The routing decision is made at submission and confirmed by the EPMO at triage.

These are the minimum required fields for a submission to be considered complete. Incomplete submissions are returned, not held.

Required Fields

Recommended Fields