Material changes INTERNAL PREPARATION — FICTIONAL LOCAL EXAMPLE Material-change assessment candidate — dated comparison from 2026-10-12 to 2026-10-19. Observed change: R1, the decision to propose workstream-A mobilisation, moved from blocked because the required assurance record was not received to ready because it was reported received. The evidence text changed. This is a candidate for professional materiality judgement, not an automatic finding that the underlying assurance is valid, that authority exists, or that advice, a commitment, or a release should be rewritten. Affected proposed work: the next ordinary pre-read, and any internally prepared exception brief, can make the changed R1 question explicit: what checking establishes validity and actual authority before a mobilisation proposal is considered? Nadia prepares and Maya reviews any exact internal briefing. The prior reviewed briefing’s one-period qualification is superseded only insofar as two dated periods now permit a comparison; its cautions about evidence, authority, and non-issuance remain. Unaffected issues: R2 is classified unchanged and remains an undecided scope choice with no client instruction. R4 is unchanged and remains a proposed but unconfirmed meeting window. R3 is uncertain, not a change finding: validation remains unobserved and technical evidence missing. These issues may shape questions for the competent steering process, but do not establish changed contract scope, client demand, rights, payment, tooling, meeting acceptance, or programme outcome. Unknown remains unknown. PRIOR REVIEWED INTERNAL PREPARATION — NOT CLIENT ISSUANCE { "draftId": "ca2f1da2-c4fe-4561-b49f-63a0a6592b3d", "key": "708d22bcf240bdda16a69144f0c91a9ed69bcc70e270b15440500bb0c4d25967", "version": 1, "runId": "a146581b-32b1-4dd1-a4f2-eb2724c8f6c8", "inputKey": "ab673839bbfbdbd7051b5f94d50c56312fa0b5353a28ad57629324a18711dd1b", "period": { "prior": null, "current": "2026-10-12" }, "body": "Current-period decision briefing — supplied period 2026-10-12 only.\n\nChanged: no period-to-period conclusion is available. The supplied comparison contains one current period and no prior period; it reports no comparison items. Accordingly, no issue can responsibly be described as newly changed, improved or worsened.\n\nUnchanged: no cross-period unchanged issue can be identified for the same reason. The existing monthly steering meeting and action register remain the competent process comparator described in the authored service brief; that is a service-design fact, not proof that a current client process occurred or continued unchanged.\n\nUncertain/current reported issues: R1 records workstream-A mobilisation as blocked because the required assurance record was not received, with no basis for release judgement. R2 records optional workstream-B scope as open and no client instruction received. R3 remains unknown because validation was not observed and technical evidence is missing. R4 is open because the proposed review window has no recorded diary acceptance.\n\nImplications: nothing in this record supports releasing A, resolving B, treating C as ready, or treating the meeting window as confirmed. A competent existing pre-read/meeting can proceed with the four questions. Any prepared exception brief remains a proposed internal decision input, not existing service delivery. Wait for the responsible decision-maker or evidence owner where the register identifies one: Nadia/assurance evidence for R1, fictional client sponsor for R2, fictional specialist reviewer for R3, and fictional programme lead for R4.\n\nReview questions: What precise evidence would change R1? What choice is required for R2? What validation is required for R3? Is there an accepted review time for R4?", "reference": "Local fictional baseline12October2026. Single dated period only. No cross-period change or continuity is claimed; unknown evidence and accountable decision owners remain explicit.", "review": { "id": "725dca80-b2a6-4e49-80a8-6363809a8827", "outcome": "approve-preparation", "draftKey": "708d22bcf240bdda16a69144f0c91a9ed69bcc70e270b15440500bb0c4d25967", "reviewer": "Fictional local reviewer", "reference": "Review for internal preparation only: Single dated period only. No cross-period change or continuity is claimed; unknown evidence and accountable decision owners remain explicit." }, "status": "Previously reviewed INTERNAL PREPARATION, not client-issued advice", "clientIssued": false } DATED COMPARISON { "prior": "2026-10-12", "current": "2026-10-19", "items": [ { "id": "R1", "classification": "changed", "prior": { "period": "2026-10-12", "issue_id": "R1", "decision": "Propose workstream-A mobilisation", "status": "blocked", "owner": "Nadia", "evidence": "Required assurance record not received", "uncertainty": "No basis for release judgement", "file": "02-decisions-periods.csv" }, "current": { "period": "2026-10-19", "issue_id": "R1", "decision": "Propose workstream-A mobilisation", "status": "ready", "owner": "Nadia", "evidence": "Required assurance record reported received", "uncertainty": "Validity and actual authority require review", "file": "02-decisions-periods.csv" }, "evidenceTextChanged": true }, { "id": "R2", "classification": "unchanged", "prior": { "period": "2026-10-12", "issue_id": "R2", "decision": "Resolve optional workstream-B scope", "status": "open", "owner": "Client sponsor fictional", "evidence": "Scope choice remains undecided", "uncertainty": "No client instruction received", "file": "02-decisions-periods.csv" }, "current": { "period": "2026-10-19", "issue_id": "R2", "decision": "Resolve optional workstream-B scope", "status": "open", "owner": "Client sponsor fictional", "evidence": "Scope choice remains undecided", "uncertainty": "No client instruction received", "file": "02-decisions-periods.csv" }, "evidenceTextChanged": false }, { "id": "R3", "classification": "uncertain", "prior": { "period": "2026-10-12", "issue_id": "R3", "decision": "Check workstream-C readiness", "status": "unknown", "owner": "Specialist reviewer fictional", "evidence": "Validation result not observed", "uncertainty": "Missing technical evidence", "file": "02-decisions-periods.csv" }, "current": { "period": "2026-10-19", "issue_id": "R3", "decision": "Check workstream-C readiness", "status": "unknown", "owner": "Specialist reviewer fictional", "evidence": "Validation result not observed", "uncertainty": "Missing technical evidence", "file": "02-decisions-periods.csv" }, "evidenceTextChanged": false }, { "id": "R4", "classification": "unchanged", "prior": { "period": "2026-10-12", "issue_id": "R4", "decision": "Confirm ordinary review window", "status": "open", "owner": "Programme lead fictional", "evidence": "Meeting window proposed but not confirmed", "uncertainty": "No diary acceptance recorded", "file": "02-decisions-periods.csv" }, "current": { "period": "2026-10-19", "issue_id": "R4", "decision": "Confirm ordinary review window", "status": "open", "owner": "Programme lead fictional", "evidence": "Meeting window proposed but not confirmed", "uncertainty": "No diary acceptance recorded", "file": "02-decisions-periods.csv" }, "evidenceTextChanged": false } ], "errors": [], "notice": "Comparison of supplied dated authored records only. Status changes are not verified outcomes; a specialist decides materiality. Missing observations remain uncertain." } EVIDENCE AND REVIEW Fictional19October2026 refresh; prior exact internally reviewed briefing ca2f1da2 preserved. One change candidate only; materiality is Maya’s judgement. Earlier one-period limit changes, but authority, uncertainty and non-issuance qualifications remain. Fictional local reviewer / Exact internal preparation review: One change candidate only; materiality is Maya’s judgement. Earlier one-period limit changes, but authority, uncertainty and non-issuance qualifications remain. Run d7928e7d-1242-4174-82f0-dc996ad85014 / copy c0bf56c9-cf9d-44b0-8ef3-f2de10d532c0 No actual client commissioning, usefulness, demand, paid choice, cash, renewal, publication or external action is established.