Read a completed assessment example with the finding, supporting sources, unresolved gaps and requested decision together. Then adapt the editable brief, evidence records, client request and action handover to your firm’s own method. This model is for mixed evidence and accountable review; a structured questionnaire may need standard assessment software instead. The example is open to read; request the editable Word, PDF and Markdown pack by email. No call required.
From the evidence register — control 3.2, shift-handover documentation
All six sampled handovers were signed off
Supervisor interview, 14 Aug 2026Conflict
Four of six have a recorded sign-off
Handover register, 15 Aug 2026Support
An accountable owner exists for the control
Not in any supplied recordMissing
Both accounts stay on the page. The reviewer decides what the combined evidence supports; a missing record does not prove a missing sign-off.
Five tools for the work around a finding
Start with the reviewer brief, or take the evidence request straight into your existing process. The downloadable edition also includes blank templates, research and an effort check.
Eight sentences for saying what the evidence supports without overstating it.
The same finding, before and after preparation
Nothing new was discovered between these two statements. The evidence was simply kept intact.
Unsupported draft
“All six sampled handovers are signed off, so the handover control is operating effectively.”
One source won quietly. The reviewer cannot see that anything was in dispute.
Prepared for review
“Partially documented. Four of six sampled handovers have recorded sign-offs. Two remain unverified, and an accountable owner for the control has not been identified.”
The conflict, the gap and the decision the reviewer still owns are all visible — and a missing record has not become proof that a handover never happened.
The worked review, in full
Read the complete worked review here. The 13-page download adds editable blanks, the research notes, an effort-measurement example and a review checklist.
Fictional case. Calder & Frei Advisory and Northgate Fabrication are invented, and no client material appears anywhere in this pack.
The case
Calder & Frei Advisory is assessing shift-handover documentation at Northgate Fabrication against control 3.2 of the firm’s own method: do the sampled handovers carry a recorded sign-off, and does the control have a named accountable owner?
Client questionnairesubmitted 12 Aug 2026
Handover notes sit in a shared operations folder. Supervisors coordinate the process between them. No accountable owner was supplied.
Supervisor interview14 Aug 2026
The supervisor reports that all six sampled handovers were completed and signed off. Supporting records were not reviewed in the interview.
July handover registerexport, 15 Aug 2026
Sign-off recorded for H-01, H-02, H-03 and H-04. No sign-off recorded for H-05 or H-06. No accountable owner identified.
The supervisor’s account and the register disagree. That disagreement is the work.
1 · The completed evidence register
One row per material claim. Both accounts of the same control are retained: the register does not win the argument because it is tidier, and the interview does not win because it sounds confident.
Proposed finding
Source and location
Evidence date
State
Material limitation
Reviewer decision needed
Four of six sampled handovers have a recorded sign-off
July handover register, rows H-01 to H-04
15 Aug 2026
Support
The register’s completeness was not independently verified
Confirm the register is an acceptable source for this criterion
All six sampled handovers were signed off
Supervisor interview
14 Aug 2026
Conflict
Interview account; supporting records were not reviewed in the interview
Request the two records, or limit the conclusion to what the register supports
H-05 (22 July) and H-06 (29 July) were signed off
No supporting record supplied
—
Missing
The absence of a record is not evidence that the handover did not occur
Hold pending records, or a documented statement that they are unavailable
An accountable owner exists for the handover control
Not identified in the questionnaire or the register
—
Missing
Ownership may exist but is undocumented in the supplied materials
Ask the client to name the accountable owner in writing
Four of six sampled handovers have a recorded sign-off
Support
Reviewer decision needed
Confirm the register is an acceptable source for this criterion
Source and date
July handover register, rows H-01 to H-04 · 15 Aug 2026
Material limitation
The register’s completeness was not independently verified
All six sampled handovers were signed off
Conflict
Reviewer decision needed
Request the two records, or limit the conclusion to what the register supports
Source and date
Supervisor interview · 14 Aug 2026
Material limitation
Interview account; supporting records were not reviewed in the interview
H-05 (22 July) and H-06 (29 July) were signed off
Missing
Reviewer decision needed
Hold pending records, or a documented statement that they are unavailable
Source and date
No supporting record supplied · —
Material limitation
The absence of a record is not evidence that the handover did not occur
An accountable owner exists for the handover control
Missing
Reviewer decision needed
Ask the client to name the accountable owner in writing
Source and date
Not identified in the questionnaire or the register · —
Material limitation
Ownership may exist but is undocumented in the supplied materials
Criterion for every row: control 3.2, shift-handover documentation.
2 · The completed reviewer brief
One page that hands the reviewer a decision rather than a pile of evidence.
Assessment and period
Operational assessment, six sampled shift handovers, July 2026.
Decision requested
Approve a limited finding with the unresolved items disclosed, or hold the finding pending further evidence.
Proposed finding
Partially documented. Four of six sampled handovers have recorded sign-offs. Two sign-offs remain unverified, and an accountable owner for the control has not been identified.
Supported facts and locations
Sign-off is recorded for H-01 to H-04 in the July handover register (export, 15 Aug 2026). The supervisor reports that all six were completed and signed off (interview, 14 Aug 2026).
Interpretation requiring judgement
Whether four recorded sign-offs plus one unverified verbal account meets the firm’s threshold for a limited positive statement, or whether the undocumented ownership makes any effectiveness statement premature.
Conflicting or missing evidence
Sign-off records for H-05 (22 July) and H-06 (29 July); written identification of the accountable owner.
Consequence if unresolved
The client may continue to rely on a control whose operation is one third undocumented in the sample and whose accountable owner is not identified in the supplied materials.
What would change the conclusion
Supplied sign-off records for H-05 and H-06, or a documented client confirmation that they do not exist; and a named accountable owner in writing.
Limitations that must stay visible
The finding is limited to the supplied materials. A missing record is not proof that the handover did not happen.
Reviewer, date, decision and rationale
To be completed by the reviewing consultant — the role with sign-off authority under the firm’s method, named before the report is issued.
The decision line is deliberately left open. A template that pre-fills an approval is not a reviewer brief; it is a rubber stamp with fields.
3 · The missing-evidence request
Example only. Never sent.
Subject: Evidence needed to complete the handover sign-off review (H-05, H-06)
To complete our review of shift-handover documentation, we need the sign-off records for handovers H-05 (22 July) and H-06 (29 July). The register supplied on 15 August records sign-off for H-01 to H-04, while the supervisor reported all six in the interview on 14 August. We also need the person accountable for the shift-handover control identified in writing.
Please provide the records and the named owner, or confirm whether they are unavailable, by [agreed date]. Until this is resolved, our finding remains limited to the four recorded sign-offs.
Review the request and the recipient before sending anything like this, and use your firm’s approved client communication process. A specific request makes clear which records would resolve the gap.
4 · The completed action handover
Every unresolved item leaves with an accountable role and the evidence that would close it.
Open issue
Next action
Accountable role needed
Evidence to close
Status
Sign-off for H-05 and H-06 is unverified
Send the evidence request above and log the response
Client operations manager, via the engagement contact
The response is recorded and assessed. An unavailable-record response closes the request; the sign-offs remain unverified
Open
No accountable owner identified for the control
Obtain written identification of the accountable owner
Client operations manager
Written confirmation naming the owner
Open
Limited-finding decision not yet made
Reviewer decides and records the rationale in the brief
Reviewing consultant, with sign-off authority
Completed reviewer decision section
Open
Sign-off for H-05 and H-06 is unverified
Open
Next action
Send the evidence request above and log the response
Accountable role
Client operations manager, via the engagement contact
Evidence to close
The response is recorded and assessed. An unavailable-record response closes the request; the sign-offs remain unverified
No accountable owner identified for the control
Open
Next action
Obtain written identification of the accountable owner
Accountable role
Client operations manager
Evidence to close
Written confirmation naming the owner
Limited-finding decision not yet made
Open
Next action
Reviewer decides and records the rationale in the brief
Accountable role
Reviewing consultant, with sign-off authority
Evidence to close
Completed reviewer decision section
Roles and dates are agreed when the handover happens. Keep evidence status, report approval and action completion separate: an approved draft does not close an evidence gap.
5 · Phrasebook
Wording you can reuse tomorrow.
Supported by the supplied register at [exact location].
Reported in interview but not supported by the supplied records.
The absence of a record is not evidence that the event did not occur.
The effectiveness of this control cannot be concluded from the supplied materials.
Both sources are retained; the conflict is unresolved.
No accountable owner is identified in the supplied records.
Reviewer to decide: hold pending evidence, or approve a limited statement with the unresolved items disclosed.
Until resolved, our finding remains limited to [what is supported].
For your firm
Adapt the preparation around a recurring assessment finding.
Start with
Your own rubric and a public or permitted example; confidential client files are not needed for the first conversation.
Your people keep
Your expert decides what the combined evidence supports and what is ready to issue.
Inspect the completed finding first. Then use the delivery check or a Fit Call to choose the next question for your service.
Have one service and a recent engagement in mind. No confidential files or formal preparation.
From this example to a working capability
A paid Firm Capacity Blueprint maps one important revenue path, fully designs three connected opportunities and their shared controls, ranks the first installation and includes a decision review. Installation is separately scoped and quoted. This fictional demonstration is not an installed product or a quote.
The success rate nobody measured
A completed review of one public document, done by Build n Bloom in September 2026 from public sources. A historical example, not a client engagement and not an installed system.
Only about half of government AI pilots make it into production.
We wrote that sentence in order to review it. It cites a real survey, and that survey cannot support it.
What the source supports
In autumn 2023, 87 of the 89 UK government bodies the National Audit Office approached answered its survey. Of those, 32 reported at least one fully deployed AI use case and 61 reported piloting or planning one; 29 reported both. That leaves four groups that do not overlap, and no measurement of anything over time.
The 87 responding bodies, split into groups that do not overlap. Derived by Build n Bloom from the counts the report gives: 32 deployed, 61 piloting or planning, 29 reporting both. Shares are rounded to one decimal and total 99.9%.
Group
Bodies
Share of 87
What the group means
Deployed only
3
3.4%
At least one fully deployed use case, and no pilot or planned use case reported alongside it.
Reported both statuses
29
33.3%
Deployed, and also piloting or planning. This group is the whole of the overlap between the two headline figures.
Piloting or planning only
32
36.8%
A pilot in progress or completed, or a planned use case, with nothing fully deployed.
In neither group
23
26.4%
Neither status reported. Not the same as no interest in AI: exploring is a different thing from piloting.
All respondents
87
100%
87 of the 89 bodies surveyed.
Deployed, as the report gives it
37% — 3 + 29 = 32 bodies.
Piloting or planning, as the report gives it
70% — 29 + 32 = 61 bodies.
Why the two cannot be added
29 bodies are in both. 32 + 61 counts them twice and gives 93, against 87 respondents. The two groups together cover 64 bodies.
Respondent count and proportions: summary, paragraph 12, printed page 8. Counts of 32 deployed, 61 piloting or planning, and 29 reporting both: Figure 8, note 2, printed page 30. The four exclusive groups are ours, subtracted from those counts. National Audit Office, Use of artificial intelligence in government, published 15 March 2024, reporting a survey run in autumn 2023.
Source and scope
The National Audit Office surveyed UK government bodies in autumn 2023 and published the result on 15 March 2024, in a 56-page report on the use of artificial intelligence in government. Of 89 bodies approached, 87 answered. It reports two headline figures: 32 bodies (37%) had at least one fully deployed AI use case, and 61 (70%) were piloting or planning one. The groups are not exclusive — a note under Figure 8 gives the overlap as 29 bodies reporting both. “AI” there is broader than generative AI, “piloting” covers pilots in progress and completed, and every answer is self-reported at a single moment. The NAO’s press release describes the same survey rather than a second one. This is a dated historical record: it describes those 87 bodies in autumn 2023. Public records can be revised, so what we reviewed is the version at the links below, read on 8 September 2026.
The NAO press releaseThe same survey, described again. Listed so you can see it is not a second source.
Page links open the publisher’s own PDF at that page. Nothing substantial is reproduced here; the summary is our own.
Check the reasoning
The finding above stands without any of this. The working is here so it can be argued with.
Why 37 ÷ 70 is not a conversion rate
The report gives the overlap, so the four groups follow from its own counts: 32 − 29 = 3 deployed with nothing else reported, 61 − 29 = 32 piloting or planning with nothing fully deployed, and 87 − 64 = 23 in neither group. No definition moves across those steps, which is what makes the arithmetic legitimate.
Interpreting 37 ÷ 70 as a conversion rate reads two counts of organisations, taken at one moment, as the beginning and the end of one journey. No body was observed changing status, so these figures carry no pilot-to-production conversion rate. Subtracting them for a “stalled” figure fails in the same way.
Figure 5 of the same report sorts each body by its highest status, so those categories do exclude one another. They are not the 70% group. Substituting them into a sentence built on the summary keeps the wording and changes the definition underneath it.
Why we reviewed this source
The subject being AI is incidental, and we know how it looks for an AI firm to choose an AI report. It is public, free to open and dated, so every number we use can be checked. Its two headline figures overlap, which is the shape that invites the mistake in the sentence at the top.
Could we say most responding bodies had fully deployed AI?
No. Full deployment was reported by 32 of the 87. The 70% figure covers piloting and planning, which is broader activity rather than deployment, and the two groups together cover 64 bodies — a majority reporting one status or the other, but not a majority with anything fully deployed.
Could we say the survey shows whether government AI paid off?
No. These two figures record status, not cost or return. Figure 8 asks what impacts bodies expected from AI rather than what they realised, so neither figure supports a statement about value in either direction.
Could we use the report’s Figure 5 percentages instead, to be safer?
No — not in the same sentence. Figure 5 sorts each body by its highest status, so its categories exclude one another. The 70% figure does not. Swapping one in for the other keeps the wording and silently changes the definition.
Could we cite the NAO press release as a second, corroborating source?
No. The press release describes the same autumn 2023 survey. Corroboration means a different instrument or dataset, not one dataset at two URLs.
What would settle the original question
A defined cohort: pilots identified at a stated start date and followed to production, abandonment, or still running at a stated end date. It can be collected going forward or reconstructed from records that already carry dates. What no dataset settles is whether the claim is load-bearing enough to wait for that evidence, soften it, or cut it — that judgement stays with the specialist.
What this shows, and what it does not
It shows that we work from the primary document and say where in it we are, down to the printed page; that we keep what the report gives apart from what we derived, and show the derivation; and that we will publish a finding thinner than the sentence it replaces.
It does not show an AI system running in anyone’s workflow, a measured client outcome, or the state of UK government AI today — the figures describe autumn 2023. It is a prepared review of a public source, not an incident from a live engagement, and it does not establish that your documents behave like this report. A measured outcome needs an engagement with a measurement plan agreed in writing beforehand.
The counts (CSV)Every figure with its denominator, definition, page locator and what it does not establish.
Free, no email. The editable assessment pack is a separate thing: it is the fictional worked case, sent by email from the form at the top of this page, and does not include these files.
If a claim like this one sits inside work your firm repeats, the no-fee Workflow Fit Call calendar is where to bring one example. You would leave with a clearer view of what evidence a decision about that step would need — not a promise that the step can be lifted out of your week.
Test it on one permitted case
Use the pack to expose one decision your reviewer currently has to reconstruct. Keep your method and review authority in place.
Read the completed brief. Trace its four recorded sign-offs, two unverified sign-offs and missing owner back to the three source descriptions.
Choose one permitted case in your own paid service. Copy only the evidence-record and reviewer-question fields that fit your method.
Give the draft to the named reviewer. Ask what they still had to reconstruct and which claim they would approve, limit or hold.
If the same avoidable return repeats, compare total preparation, correction and review effort before deciding whether to change the process or tools.
Optional: measure where the preparation effort goes
Optional companion to the effort-measurement page in the downloadable pack. No measurement is required to get the files.
Where does the effort go?
Take one completed assessment. Add the hours across everyone involved, keeping each hour in one stage. Include corrections as well as preparation.
The figures download only to your device as a text file. Refreshing without saving clears the fields.
Enter 0 if no time was spent. Use numbers from 0 to 10,000 with up to two decimal places.
Fill in all four stages to see the total. A blank is unknown, not zero.
Before you enter your email
What do you do with my email?
We send you the pack. Nothing else, unless you tick the follow-up box, and you can opt out of that at any time.
What formats do I get?
Word and Markdown for editing, PDF for reading. The same files are linked on this page after you submit the form.
Is the case real?
The assessment case is not. Calder & Frei Advisory and Northgate Fabrication are invented, and the pack says so up front. The method is the point; the firm is not. The public-source review on this page is the other kind of example — real source work on a published document you can open yourself.
Do I have to change how we work?
No. The pack is designed to sit inside your existing method and your existing review step. Adapt the wording to your firm’s language.
Do I have to buy anything?
No. The pack is free whether or not you ever talk to us, and there is no call required to use it.
When is this the wrong tool?
If a fixed questionnaire and scoring rule cover the work, test standard assessment software. If the method or decision rights still change case by case, settle those first.
Does the example prove a new system will pay off?
No. It shows a review method on a fictional case. Measure repeated returns, total effort and accepted quality in your own service before considering a system.
The editable copy
Word, PDF and Markdown, sent to your email and linked on this page after you submit the form.
A free 25-minute call with a founder applies the comparison to your delivery: which explanations fit what you describe, what to check first, and what different results would justify. If paid design work is justified, a separately quoted Firm Capacity Blueprint examines one important revenue path, fully designs three connected improvements and ranks the first installation. No confidential client files are needed.
