Pilot decision

INTERNAL PREPARATION — FICTIONAL LOCAL EXAMPLE

Bounded internal test plan. End-client decision: which workstream commitments may responsibly be proposed for the next fortnight, which need a client decision, and which lack a verified evidence basis. The competent comparator is the existing monthly steering meeting and action register, with the four issue questions added manually to the ordinary pre-read. The proposed extra input is one versioned cross-period exception brief separating changed, unchanged and uncertain evidence, naming the responsible checker, and connecting each item to a decision. It does not replace the meeting or require software.

Included hypothetical per-cycle planning costs are preserved. Existing: Reviewer 0.75 hour at AUD180 = AUD135; Associate 1 hour at AUD90 = AUD90; total AUD225. Proposed: Reviewer 1 hour at AUD180 = AUD180; Associate 3 hours at AUD90 = AUD270; Upkeep 0.5 hour at AUD120 = AUD60; Tools one cycle at AUD25 = AUD25; total AUD535. Incremental planning cost: AUD310. Included items are only those listed. Setup, integration, overhead, support, extra assurance, tax and contingency are excluded or unverified. These are not a fee, savings, spend, capacity release, purchase, or approval; the tools allowance is not a purchase obligation.

Nadia owns preparation; Maya reviews the exact internal briefing. Rights are local use of admitted authored records only. Proposed review point: 29 October 2026. Observable usefulness means a reviewer can identify R1’s precise change, distinguish R2 and R4 as unchanged, identify R3 as uncertain, name the relevant owner, form a warranted question, and determine whether the extra brief adds a distinct actionable question beyond the comparator. At review, stop for duplication, unclear rights, or disproportionate effort; defer for absent evidence or permission; change the proposition; or prepare a separately scoped paid proposal. A manual test and paid proposal are distinct choices, and neither commissions spending or a launch.

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
}

EVIDENCE AND REVIEW

Fictional19October2026 refresh; prior exact internally reviewed briefing ca2f1da2 preserved. Entered comparison225/535/310AUD checked with reviewer/upkeep included and missing costs explicit. Reassess prior proposed manual comparison; no permission, trial commission, fee, paid choice or renewal.

Fictional local reviewer / Exact internal preparation review: Entered comparison225/535/310AUD checked with reviewer/upkeep included and missing costs explicit. Reassess prior proposed manual comparison; no permission, trial commission, fee, paid choice or renewal.

Run d7928e7d-1242-4174-82f0-dc996ad85014 / copy de8fc2f6-e8c9-4501-94b8-08932e667294

No actual client commissioning, usefulness, demand, paid choice, cash, renewal, publication or external action is established.