# The Partner-Ready Project Map

A blank worksheet for one service your firm already sells. Use an ordinary case and a returned case to find where evidence, review and ownership slow a decision pack. Use case IDs or anonymised descriptions; do not enter confidential client names. **This is a diagnostic tool, not an installation or savings estimate.**

<!-- PAGE -->
## 1. Choose the service and accepted result
Write the boundary before timing tasks. A “partner-ready pack” means a complete candidate for a qualified person's review; the partner still decides the professional conclusion and issue.
<!-- DIAGRAM: project -->
### Service record
| Field | Your entry |
| --- | --- |
| Existing paid service and typical case | _________________________________________________ |
| What signed scope requires | _________________________________________________ |
| Case-mix differences that matter | _________________________________________________ |
| Accountable partner / delivery owner | _________________________________________________ |
| Pack the client ultimately receives | _________________________________________________ |
| Start event / accepted end event | _________________________________________________ |
### One thing to exclude
Name work outside this service or material you cannot inspect under current permissions.
<!-- LINES: 2 -->

<!-- PAGE -->
## 2. Trace one ordinary case and one returned case
Use a dated sample period. Record **active effort** in minutes or hours; record **elapsed waiting** separately. If time is estimated, write “estimate” beside it. A returned item reopens a named step and its correction time is counted once.
### Ordinary case | case ID: __________ | period: __________
| Stage / trigger and input | Owner / record | Active time / wait | Output / receiver |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Signed scope → source intake | __________ | _____ h / _____ d | __________ |
| Evidence → register | __________ | _____ h / _____ d | __________ |
| Analysis → traceable finding | __________ | _____ h / _____ d | __________ |
| Draft → partner review | __________ | _____ h / _____ d | __________ |
| Review → issue decision | __________ | _____ h / _____ d | __________ |
### Returned case | case ID: __________ | period: __________
| Returned at / reason | Reopened owner / record | Correction active time | Reaccepted by / receipt |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| __________ | __________ | _____ h | __________ |
| __________ | __________ | _____ h | __________ |
### Comparison note
Which step differed, and was the difference a method issue, missing input, rights question or professional judgement?
<!-- LINES: 2 -->

<!-- PAGE -->
## 3. Mark evidence and authority
A source is usable only when its version, rights and relevance are known. Separate a preparer's contribution from the professional decision. A missing or revoked source stops the affected step; it does not silently remain in a citation.
### Source and rights register
| Input / source ID | Version / location | Permission and owner | If missing, stale or denied |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Signed scope / terms | __________ | __________ | __________ |
| Case documents | __________ | __________ | __________ |
| Approved method / prior work | __________ | __________ | __________ |
| External/public material, if used | __________ | __________ | __________ |
| Other: __________ | __________ | __________ | __________ |
### Decisions that remain human
| Gate | Named decision owner | Record that proves the decision |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Accept source rights and completeness | __________ | __________ |
| Approve interpretation and conclusion | __________ | __________ |
| Sign off issue version / accept return | __________ | __________ |
### Stop rule
Who may pause work if a source is restricted, contradictory or from the wrong client/case?
<!-- LINES: 2 -->

<!-- PAGE -->
## 4. Find the actual constraint
Count repeat handling, duplicate entry, review correction and missing inputs across a defined sample. This page identifies **questions to test**. It does not convert released hours into cash or promise more work.
### Tally for the same sample period: __________ | cases examined: _____
| Burden / role | Occurrences | Active hours | Source or estimate status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Repeated source finding | _____ | _____ | __________ |
| Duplicate entry / reformatting | _____ | _____ | __________ |
| Review corrections | _____ | _____ | __________ |
| Missing input follow-up | _____ | _____ | __________ |
| Work waiting on scarce reviewer | _____ | waiting days: _____ | __________ |
### Commercial reality check
| Question | Evidence to check | Owner |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Is this role genuinely the binding constraint? | __________ | __________ |
| Is qualified demand for more suitable work visible? | __________ | __________ |
| Can other roles/systems absorb more cases? | __________ | __________ |
| Would extra work be accepted and collected? | __________ | __________ |
### Current best reading
The constraint appears to be __________. Strongest contrary explanation: __________.
<!-- LINES: 2 -->

<!-- PAGE -->
## 5. Compare proportionate routes
Use the simplest route that could meet quality, rights and operator needs. Candidate responsibilities - Intake Analyst, Evidence Librarian, Delivery Analyst, Deliverable Writer and Quality Checker - can be handled by people, existing software, rules or bounded AI assistance. A role name is not a deployed agent.
### Candidate change: _________________________________________________
| Route | What it would change here | Quality / rights risk | Test and owner |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Clarify the method or handoff | __________ | __________ | __________ |
| Checklist or template | __________ | __________ | __________ |
| Configure existing system | __________ | __________ | __________ |
| Deterministic rule | __________ | __________ | __________ |
| Bounded retrieval or draft support | __________ | __________ | __________ |
| Keep human-led / defer | __________ | __________ | __________ |
### Failure route
If evidence is missing, a citation is wrong, a calculation uses the wrong period, or the partner returns the draft: stop at __________; reopen __________; record the receiving result at __________.
<!-- LINES: 2 -->

<!-- PAGE -->
## 6. Make the next decision
Keep the decision tied to this one service and sample. A no-build conclusion can be complete. A fit call checks whether a paid, measured System Blueprint is useful; the Blueprint would select and fully design three connected workflows after measurement.
### Decision record
| Item | Your entry |
| --- | --- |
| What must be measured next, with period and case mix? | __________________________________________ |
| Evidence / case IDs needed | __________________________________________ |
| Named owner and reviewer | __________________________________________ |
| What would make us stop or use a simpler route? | __________________________________________ |
| Is deeper assessment justified? Why or why not? | __________________________________________ |
| Date to revisit | __________________________________________ |
### Take this to a conversation
If this exposes a repeated constraint in a service you already sell, **request a Workflow Fit Call** at https://www.buildnbloom.io/contact#new-work. A founder reviews the request before offering a time. If there is fit, the paid System Blueprint is quoted separately; you do not need to choose three workflows in advance.

### Where this sits in the service
This map follows signed work to a reviewed decision pack (C2). It receives agreed scope from the enquiry-to-engagement handoff; any later method reuse needs its own permission check.