{"pack_id":"bootminds.pmo","pack_name":"Bootminds PMO & Programme Governance Pack","pack_version":"1.0.0","priority":100,"license":"BSL-1.1","registry_version_hash":"69cac88368a9645f5c629806508f3f3ef5d3ccaa460919bccbf197813bde0490","function":"PMO","authored_by":"Bootminds","description":"Programme governance scaffolding for transformation programmes (GCC, ERP, M&A, etc.). Covers programme charter, Steerco design, RACI baselines, reporting cadence, and programme-level gate definitions. Pack-wide maturity rubric covering programme-governance maturity across five canonical levels. Ships ~30 question templates, ~10 decision templates, 6 gate templates governing Discovery exit through Stabilisation exit, and 5 AI interpretation specs for Steerco draft, programme health, gate readiness, RACI completeness, and risk synthesis.","required_runtime_capabilities":["multi_step_approval","programme_memory","gate_engine"],"workstream_templates":[{"workstream_template_id":"pmo.programme_charter","name":"Programme Charter","description":"Programme scope, objectives, success criteria, sponsor, and governance forum. The foundational decisions about what this transformation is and is not.","priority_tier":"P0","display_order":10,"default_owner_role":"ProgrammeLead"},{"workstream_template_id":"pmo.governance_forums","name":"Governance Forums","description":"Steerco design (members, cadence, decision authority, escalation paths) and Working Group structure. Where decisions get made.","priority_tier":"P0","display_order":20,"default_owner_role":"ProgrammeLead","depends_on_workstream_template_ids":["pmo.programme_charter"]},{"workstream_template_id":"pmo.raci_baselines","name":"Programme RACI Baselines","description":"Programme-level RACI: who decides what at the programme level (resourcing, scope changes, risk acceptance). Distinct from object-level RACI on individual decisions.","priority_tier":"P1","display_order":30,"default_owner_role":"ProgrammeLead","depends_on_workstream_template_ids":["pmo.governance_forums"]},{"workstream_template_id":"pmo.reporting_cadence","name":"Reporting Cadence","description":"Steerco pack format, weekly status, monthly board update, KPI definitions. How the programme communicates progress upward and outward.","priority_tier":"P1","display_order":40,"default_owner_role":"ProgrammeLead","depends_on_workstream_template_ids":["pmo.governance_forums"]},{"workstream_template_id":"pmo.gate_management","name":"Gate Management","description":"Programme gate definitions (Discovery exit, Design exit, Build entry, Cutover ready, Go-live, Stabilisation exit), exit criteria, and approval chains. Governs phase progression of the transformation as a whole.","priority_tier":"P0","display_order":50,"default_owner_role":"ProgrammeLead","depends_on_workstream_template_ids":["pmo.programme_charter","pmo.governance_forums"]}],"capability_templates":[{"capability_template_id":"pmo.cap.programme_governance","name":"Programme governance operation","description":"Ongoing operation of programme governance: charter maintained, Steerco running, decisions traced, escalation paths exercised. The meta-capability of running the transformation.","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.governance_forums","target_maturity_level":4,"default_owner_role":"ProgrammeLead"},{"capability_template_id":"pmo.cap.reporting_engine","name":"Programme reporting engine","description":"Production of Steerco packs, weekly status reports, monthly board updates, and KPI dashboards on a predictable cadence with consistent format.","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.reporting_cadence","target_maturity_level":4,"default_owner_role":"ProgrammeLead","depends_on_capability_template_ids":["pmo.cap.programme_governance"]},{"capability_template_id":"pmo.cap.gate_management","name":"Programme gate management","description":"Operation of the programme-level gate engine: gates defined, exit criteria tracked, evidence assembled, approvals chained, decisions captured in Programme Memory.","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.gate_management","target_maturity_level":4,"default_owner_role":"ProgrammeLead","depends_on_capability_template_ids":["pmo.cap.programme_governance"]}],"question_templates":[{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.programme_objectives","prompt":"What are the top 3-5 measurable programme objectives this transformation must deliver? State each as an outcome with a target value and a date.","rationale_skeleton":"Objectives anchor every downstream decision. Without measurable objectives, scope creep is undetectable and 'success' is whatever the loudest stakeholder says it is at the end. Feeds the programme charter decision and the success-criteria locking decision.","scope":"GCC","category":"Programme Charter","subcategory":"Objectives","priority":"P0","artefact_type":"table","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.programme_charter","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin","ClientExecutive"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.programme_scope_in","prompt":"What is explicitly IN scope for this programme? List the functions, geographies, entities, and capabilities to be delivered.","rationale_skeleton":"Explicit in-scope list prevents the implicit 'and obviously this too' growth that kills transformation programmes. Pair with the out-of-scope question; together they bound the charter.","scope":"GCC","category":"Programme Charter","subcategory":"Scope","priority":"P0","artefact_type":"checklist","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.programme_charter","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin","ClientExecutive"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.programme_scope_out","prompt":"What is explicitly OUT of scope for this programme? List items that have come up in discussion that the programme will NOT deliver.","rationale_skeleton":"Out-of-scope list is the written record that prevents 'I thought you were doing that too' at month 8. Most useful when it names items that someone wanted in.","scope":"GCC","category":"Programme Charter","subcategory":"Scope","priority":"P0","artefact_type":"checklist","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.programme_charter","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin","ClientExecutive"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.programme_sponsor","prompt":"Who is the named executive sponsor for this programme? Single individual, name and role, accountable for outcomes at board level.","rationale_skeleton":"One named sponsor. Not 'the exec team' or 'the C-suite'. A specific person whose career incentive is aligned with programme success. If you cannot name one, that is itself the first finding.","scope":"GCC","category":"Programme Charter","subcategory":"Sponsorship","priority":"P0","artefact_type":"entity-row","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.programme_charter","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientExecutive"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.success_criteria","prompt":"What are the success criteria for the programme as a whole? State each as a measurable, time-bound, evidence-able test.","rationale_skeleton":"Success criteria are what the Steerco will use to decide whether the programme delivered. Vague criteria produce vague endings. Each criterion needs a number, a date, and a source for the evidence.","scope":"GCC","category":"Programme Charter","subcategory":"Success Criteria","priority":"P0","artefact_type":"table","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.programme_charter","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin","ClientExecutive"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.programme_budget_envelope","prompt":"What is the approved budget envelope for the programme (capex + opex), and what is the tolerance band before re-approval is required?","rationale_skeleton":"Budget envelope plus tolerance band defines the financial gate at which the programme must re-justify itself. Without a tolerance, every variance is either invisible or a crisis.","scope":"GCC","category":"Programme Charter","subcategory":"Funding","priority":"P0","artefact_type":"currency","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.programme_charter","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin","ClientExecutive"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.steerco_members","prompt":"Who sits on the Steering Committee? For each member, capture name, role, organisation, and the decision authority they bring.","rationale_skeleton":"Steerco composition determines decision velocity. A Steerco that lacks anyone who can authorise spend, or commit a function, or break a tie is theatre. Decision authority must be explicit.","scope":"GCC","category":"Governance Forums","subcategory":"Steerco","priority":"P0","artefact_type":"table","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.governance_forums","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin","ClientExecutive"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.steerco_cadence","prompt":"What is the Steerco cadence? Default: monthly. Capture the meeting day-of-month, duration, and whether an interim cadence applies during cutover phases.","rationale_skeleton":"Cadence is the heartbeat. Monthly is the default for transformation programmes; weekly during cutover; quarterly is too slow to catch slippage in time to recover. Calibrate to phase.","scope":"GCC","category":"Governance Forums","subcategory":"Steerco","priority":"P1","artefact_type":"text","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.governance_forums","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.steerco_decision_authority","prompt":"What categories of decision can the Steerco make without escalation, and what must escalate to board/sponsor? Define thresholds explicitly (spend, scope change, risk acceptance).","rationale_skeleton":"Without explicit decision authority, the Steerco either decides nothing (every item escalates) or decides things it does not have the authority to commit. Both are failure modes.","scope":"GCC","category":"Governance Forums","subcategory":"Steerco","priority":"P0","artefact_type":"table","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.governance_forums","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin","ClientExecutive"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.escalation_path","prompt":"What is the escalation path above Steerco? Who/what body receives escalations, on what cadence, and what is the SLA for response?","rationale_skeleton":"Escalation path is the safety valve. Items that exceed Steerco authority or that Steerco cannot resolve need a named next stop. Without it, escalations die in the Steerco minutes.","scope":"GCC","category":"Governance Forums","subcategory":"Escalation","priority":"P1","artefact_type":"text","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.governance_forums","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin","ClientExecutive"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.working_groups","prompt":"What Working Groups support the Steerco? For each, capture purpose, members, cadence, and what decisions it pre-bakes for Steerco approval.","rationale_skeleton":"Working Groups are where Steerco items get worked. A Steerco without supporting WGs becomes a debate forum; with supporting WGs, it becomes a ratification forum. Latter is the goal.","scope":"GCC","category":"Governance Forums","subcategory":"Working Groups","priority":"P1","artefact_type":"table","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.governance_forums","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.quorum_rules","prompt":"What are the quorum rules for Steerco decisions? Minimum attendance, mandatory roles present, voting/consensus model, and what happens when quorum is not met?","rationale_skeleton":"Quorum rules prevent decisions taken with absent stakeholders being challenged later. State them once; reference in every Steerco pack.","scope":"GCC","category":"Governance Forums","subcategory":"Steerco","priority":"P2","artefact_type":"text","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.governance_forums","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.raci_resourcing","prompt":"Who decides on resource allocation to the programme (hiring approvals, vendor contracts, internal team allocation)? Capture the RACI for resourcing decisions specifically.","rationale_skeleton":"Resource decisions are the most common source of programme slippage. A clear RACI here prevents 'I assumed Finance would sign off' delays. Different to scope and risk RACI.","scope":"GCC","category":"RACI Baselines","subcategory":"Resourcing","priority":"P0","artefact_type":"table","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.raci_baselines","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.raci_scope_change","prompt":"Who decides on scope changes to the programme? Capture the RACI for scope-change decisions, including thresholds at which different approvers engage.","rationale_skeleton":"Scope-change RACI is the change-control gatekeeper. Small changes can flow through the Programme Lead; large changes need Steerco; mega-changes need sponsor + board. Define the thresholds.","scope":"GCC","category":"RACI Baselines","subcategory":"Scope Change","priority":"P0","artefact_type":"table","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.raci_baselines","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin","ClientExecutive"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.raci_risk_acceptance","prompt":"Who has authority to accept programme-level risks? Capture RACI for risk acceptance, including the impact/likelihood threshold above which Steerco or sponsor sign-off is required.","rationale_skeleton":"Risk acceptance authority matters because the alternative is paralysis. Programme Lead accepts low/medium; Steerco accepts high; sponsor accepts existential. Without this, every risk is escalated and the register becomes noise.","scope":"GCC","category":"RACI Baselines","subcategory":"Risk Acceptance","priority":"P0","artefact_type":"table","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.raci_baselines","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin","ClientExecutive"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.raci_vendor_contracts","prompt":"Who approves vendor contracts on the programme? Capture RACI by contract value tier (e.g., <$50k Programme Lead, $50k-$500k Steerco, >$500k Board).","rationale_skeleton":"Vendor contracts are the most regulated programme spend. Without tiered RACI, every contract escalates or nothing escalates. Tiers calibrated to the budget envelope tolerance band.","scope":"GCC","category":"RACI Baselines","subcategory":"Vendor Contracts","priority":"P1","artefact_type":"table","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.raci_baselines","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.weekly_status_format","prompt":"What format does the weekly status report take? Specify sections, audience, distribution list, and the source of truth for each section's content.","rationale_skeleton":"Weekly status is the consistent drumbeat. A weekly that changes format every week loses signal value. Lock the format; let the content vary.","scope":"GCC","category":"Reporting Cadence","subcategory":"Weekly Status","priority":"P1","artefact_type":"text","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.reporting_cadence","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.steerco_pack_format","prompt":"What does the Steerco pack contain? Define the section order, page budget per section, mandatory content, and whose sign-off is needed before distribution.","rationale_skeleton":"Steerco pack format is the visible artefact of programme discipline. A 60-page pack signals lack of discipline; a 12-page pack with clear asks signals control. Define the constraint.","scope":"GCC","category":"Reporting Cadence","subcategory":"Steerco Pack","priority":"P0","artefact_type":"table","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.reporting_cadence","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin","ClientExecutive"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.board_update_cadence","prompt":"How often is the board updated on programme progress, and what format does that update take? Distinguish from Steerco pack if board is a separate body.","rationale_skeleton":"Board update is typically quarterly, more concise than Steerco pack, focused on outcomes and asks rather than operational detail. If sponsor is on the board, the update IS the board contact point.","scope":"GCC","category":"Reporting Cadence","subcategory":"Board Update","priority":"P1","artefact_type":"text","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.reporting_cadence","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin","ClientExecutive"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.kpi_definitions","prompt":"What KPIs does the programme report? For each, capture name, formula, data source, owner, target value, target date, and current value.","rationale_skeleton":"KPIs are the numbers the Steerco watches. Without explicit formula and data source, two people will compute the same KPI differently. Lock the definition once; report consistently.","scope":"GCC","category":"Reporting Cadence","subcategory":"KPIs","priority":"P0","artefact_type":"table","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.reporting_cadence","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin","ClientExecutive"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.programme_health_rag","prompt":"How is programme health (RAG status) computed and by whom? Define the rubric for Green/Amber/Red on each tracked dimension and who has authority to set the colour.","rationale_skeleton":"RAG without a rubric is opinion. RAG with a rubric is signal. Programme Lead sets workstream colours per rubric; Steerco can override; sponsor sees the rolled-up overall. Document the rubric.","scope":"GCC","category":"Reporting Cadence","subcategory":"RAG Status","priority":"P1","artefact_type":"table","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.reporting_cadence","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.gate_definitions","prompt":"Which phase gates govern this transformation? For each, capture name, position in timeline, exit criteria, and approval chain.","rationale_skeleton":"Gates are the programme's commitment ratchet. Each gate is a 'we agree we're ready to enter this phase' check. Without gates, phase boundaries blur and 'we kind of started build six weeks ago' becomes the story.","scope":"GCC","category":"Gate Management","subcategory":"Gate Definition","priority":"P0","artefact_type":"table","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.gate_management","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin","ClientExecutive"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.gate_evidence_standards","prompt":"What standard of evidence is required to pass each gate? Define what 'evidence sufficient to approve' looks like (e.g., 'all P0 questions answered AND classified Reviewed').","rationale_skeleton":"Without evidence standards, gates become political. A gate passes because someone is confident, not because the criteria are met. Standardised evidence (locked decisions, reviewed answers, signed artefacts) removes the politics.","scope":"GCC","category":"Gate Management","subcategory":"Evidence","priority":"P0","artefact_type":"checklist","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.gate_management","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.gate_approval_chain","prompt":"Who must approve each gate, and in what order? Capture the named approval chain per gate type.","rationale_skeleton":"Programme gates typically need executive approval (single chain step is fine for most gates; cutover/go-live may need a longer chain). The chain order matters for Q2 multi-step semantics.","scope":"GCC","category":"Gate Management","subcategory":"Approval Chain","priority":"P0","artefact_type":"table","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.gate_management","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin","ClientExecutive"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.conditional_gate_policy","prompt":"What is the policy on conditional gate approvals (Go with caveats)? When are they permissible, what evidence must be tracked, and what triggers a follow-up gate review?","rationale_skeleton":"Conditional gates are the slow leak in gate discipline. Used sparingly they preserve momentum; used routinely they hollow out gates. Policy should require a logged follow-up date for every caveat.","scope":"GCC","category":"Gate Management","subcategory":"Conditional Approvals","priority":"P2","artefact_type":"text","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.gate_management","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.raid_register_owner","prompt":"Who owns the programme RAID register? Capture the named owner and review cadence.","rationale_skeleton":"RAID register without a named owner decays. The owner curates: closes stale items, escalates ageing items, ensures every item has an action and a date. Default owner is the Programme Lead unless a dedicated risk lead exists.","scope":"GCC","category":"Programme Operations","subcategory":"RAID","priority":"P1","artefact_type":"entity-row","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.governance_forums","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.decision_log_practice","prompt":"What is the practice for capturing decisions made at Steerco and Working Groups? Where are they recorded, who is accountable for the recording, and how are they referenced afterward?","rationale_skeleton":"Programme Memory works only if decisions get captured at the moment they're made, with their rationale and the dissent (if any). The recording practice is the source feed for Programme Memory.","scope":"GCC","category":"Programme Operations","subcategory":"Decision Logging","priority":"P0","artefact_type":"text","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.governance_forums","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.stakeholder_map","prompt":"Who are the programme's stakeholders beyond the Steerco? Capture name, role, interest, influence, and engagement model for each.","rationale_skeleton":"Stakeholder map is the political reality check. The Steerco is necessary but not sufficient: there are always people with influence who are not in the room. Map them; plan engagement.","scope":"GCC","category":"Programme Operations","subcategory":"Stakeholder Management","priority":"P1","artefact_type":"table","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.governance_forums","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin","ClientExecutive"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.programme_manager_assignment","prompt":"Who is the day-to-day Programme Manager for this transformation? Capture name, organisation, allocation (FTE %), and start date.","rationale_skeleton":"Programme Lead/Manager is the operational owner. Without a named full-time (or near-full-time) programme manager, governance becomes a side activity for many; cohesion suffers. Naming this person is the most basic governance gate.","scope":"GCC","category":"Programme Charter","subcategory":"Operational Leadership","priority":"P0","artefact_type":"entity-row","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.programme_charter","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin"]},{"question_template_id":"pmo.q.benefits_realisation_model","prompt":"How will programme benefits be measured post go-live? Capture the model: what gets measured, by whom, on what cadence, attributed against what baseline.","rationale_skeleton":"Benefits realisation is what justifies the programme spend retrospectively. Without a model defined upfront, post-go-live measurement is either retrofitted (suspect) or never happens (worse).","scope":"GCC","category":"Programme Charter","subcategory":"Benefits","priority":"P1","artefact_type":"table","workstream_template_id_ref":"pmo.programme_charter","default_raci_contributors":["BootmindsStaff","ClientAdmin","ClientExecutive"]}],"decision_templates":[{"decision_template_id":"pmo.dec.charter_approval","title":"Approve programme charter (objectives, scope, sponsor, budget envelope)","summary":"Lock the programme charter. After this decision is Locked, scope/objective changes flow through the scope-change RACI; before, they flow through ad-hoc discussion. This is the foundational programme decision.","default_options":[{"option_id":"approve_as_drafted","label":"Approve charter as drafted","description":"Lock the charter as authored. Scope, objectives, sponsor, and budget envelope are committed.","default_pros":["Programme has a stable foundation to build on","Scope creep becomes visible against a written baseline","Sponsor commitment is recorded"],"default_cons":["Locks in any errors or under-specification in the charter","Future changes require formal change control"]},{"option_id":"approve_with_caveats","label":"Approve with named caveats","description":"Lock the charter but with explicit open items for resolution within a defined window.","default_pros":["Preserves momentum without forcing closure on every detail","Caveats are logged and visible"],"default_cons":["Caveats can become permanent fixtures if not actively closed","Foundation is less stable than full approval"]},{"option_id":"defer_and_redraft","label":"Defer; redraft the charter","description":"Send the charter back to the Programme Lead for material revision before re-tabling.","default_pros":["Avoids locking a flawed foundation","Forces resolution of fundamental gaps"],"default_cons":["Programme is in limbo without an approved charter","Calendar slip on Phase 0/Discovery activities"]}],"rationale_prompt_skeleton":"Rationale should reference: the answered objectives question, the answered scope-in and scope-out questions, the named sponsor, the budget envelope, and the success criteria. Note any dissent in the Steerco and reference the Programme Memory Event capturing it.","scope":"GCC","priority":"P0","default_approval_chain_template":["Admin","ExecutiveViewer"],"evidence_question_template_ids":["pmo.q.programme_objectives","pmo.q.programme_scope_in","pmo.q.programme_scope_out","pmo.q.programme_sponsor","pmo.q.success_criteria","pmo.q.programme_budget_envelope","pmo.q.programme_manager_assignment"],"enables_capability_template_ids":["pmo.cap.programme_governance"]},{"decision_template_id":"pmo.dec.steerco_constitution","title":"Constitute the Steering Committee (members, cadence, decision authority)","summary":"Lock the Steerco constitution. After this decision, Steerco changes require sponsor approval; before, the Steerco effectively does not exist as a chartered body.","default_options":[{"option_id":"tight_steerco_small_authority","label":"Small Steerco (5-7 members) with tight decision authority","description":"Lean Steerco optimised for decision velocity. Spend limits and scope-change thresholds set high so most operational decisions stay below the line.","default_pros":["Faster decisions; fewer scheduling conflicts","Clearer accountability per member","Less Steerco-pack-prep overhead"],"default_cons":["Risk of excluding a stakeholder whose buy-in matters","Single-point-of-failure if a member is unavailable"]},{"option_id":"broad_steerco_low_authority","label":"Broad Steerco (10-15 members) with lower per-meeting authority","description":"Inclusive Steerco where most material decisions escalate further. Useful in politically complex programmes.","default_pros":["Broad stakeholder coverage; harder to be blindsided","Distributed buy-in"],"default_cons":["Slower decisions; meetings are largely briefings, not decisions","Steerco pack ballooning risk"]},{"option_id":"tiered_steerco_with_wg","label":"Tiered: small Steerco + structured Working Groups","description":"Small Steerco at the top with Working Groups that pre-bake decisions for ratification. Standard transformation-programme governance.","default_pros":["Combines decision velocity with broad coverage","Working Groups absorb operational detail; Steerco focuses on strategic decisions","Most flexible for evolving stakeholder needs"],"default_cons":["More structural overhead to set up","Working Group cohesion depends on Programme Lead bandwidth"]}],"rationale_prompt_skeleton":"Rationale should engage with: Steerco member list, cadence, decision-authority thresholds, escalation path, and the Working Group structure (if any). Note quorum rules.","scope":"GCC","priority":"P0","default_approval_chain_template":["Admin","ExecutiveViewer"],"depends_on_decision_template_ids":["pmo.dec.charter_approval"],"evidence_question_template_ids":["pmo.q.steerco_members","pmo.q.steerco_cadence","pmo.q.steerco_decision_authority","pmo.q.escalation_path","pmo.q.working_groups","pmo.q.quorum_rules"],"enables_capability_template_ids":["pmo.cap.programme_governance"]},{"decision_template_id":"pmo.dec.raci_baseline_lock","title":"Lock programme-level RACI baseline (resourcing, scope, risk, vendors)","summary":"Lock the programme-level RACI matrix for the four most-decision-dense categories: resourcing, scope change, risk acceptance, vendor contracts. After lock, RACI exceptions require Steerco sign-off.","default_options":[{"option_id":"lock_full_raci","label":"Lock full programme RACI matrix","description":"Single comprehensive RACI baseline covering all four decision categories with explicit thresholds.","default_pros":["Single source of truth; no ambiguity on who decides what","Onboarding new stakeholders becomes faster"],"default_cons":["Inflexible if thresholds turn out to be wrong","Requires periodic Steerco review to keep current"]},{"option_id":"lock_with_threshold_review_cadence","label":"Lock matrix with scheduled threshold review","description":"Lock the matrix but build in a quarterly Steerco review of thresholds, especially as the programme moves between phases.","default_pros":["Adapts to phase reality (e.g., higher thresholds during cutover)","Avoids freeze-into-irrelevance"],"default_cons":["Slight overhead per quarter","Risk of churn if thresholds change too often"]}],"rationale_prompt_skeleton":"Rationale should reference the four RACI questions (resourcing, scope-change, risk acceptance, vendor contracts) and note where thresholds are calibrated to budget envelope.","scope":"GCC","priority":"P0","default_approval_chain_template":["Admin","ExecutiveViewer"],"depends_on_decision_template_ids":["pmo.dec.steerco_constitution"],"evidence_question_template_ids":["pmo.q.raci_resourcing","pmo.q.raci_scope_change","pmo.q.raci_risk_acceptance","pmo.q.raci_vendor_contracts"],"enables_capability_template_ids":["pmo.cap.programme_governance"]},{"decision_template_id":"pmo.dec.reporting_cadence_lock","title":"Lock reporting cadence (weekly status, Steerco pack, board update, KPI definitions)","summary":"Lock the cadence and formats of the four programme reporting artefacts. After lock, format changes require Programme Lead approval; structural changes require Steerco.","default_options":[{"option_id":"weekly_steerco_monthly_board_quarterly","label":"Weekly status / Monthly Steerco / Quarterly board","description":"Standard transformation-programme cadence. Calibrated for 12-24 month programmes.","default_pros":["Predictable rhythm; everyone knows when reports land","Frequent enough to catch slippage; not so frequent as to consume the programme"],"default_cons":["May be too slow during cutover phases; adjust at gate boundaries"]},{"option_id":"weekly_biweekly_steerco_monthly_board","label":"Weekly status / Bi-weekly Steerco / Monthly board","description":"Tighter cadence for higher-risk or shorter programmes.","default_pros":["Faster surfacing of issues","More board engagement","Better fit for short programmes (<12 months)"],"default_cons":["Higher reporting overhead per cycle","Risk of report fatigue at exec level"]},{"option_id":"phase_adaptive_cadence","label":"Phase-adaptive cadence","description":"Cadence steps up during cutover phases and steps back during steady-state. Predefined ramps.","default_pros":["Reporting overhead matches risk","Cutover gets the attention it deserves"],"default_cons":["More complex to communicate; stakeholders must know which phase they're in","Calendar churn at phase transitions"]}],"rationale_prompt_skeleton":"Rationale should reference the weekly status format, Steerco pack format, board update cadence, KPI definitions, and the RAG rubric. Confirm distribution lists and accountable owner per artefact.","scope":"GCC","priority":"P1","default_approval_chain_template":["Admin","ExecutiveViewer"],"depends_on_decision_template_ids":["pmo.dec.steerco_constitution"],"evidence_question_template_ids":["pmo.q.weekly_status_format","pmo.q.steerco_pack_format","pmo.q.board_update_cadence","pmo.q.kpi_definitions","pmo.q.programme_health_rag"],"enables_capability_template_ids":["pmo.cap.reporting_engine"]},{"decision_template_id":"pmo.dec.gate_definitions_lock","title":"Lock programme gate definitions (which gates, in what order, with what criteria)","summary":"Lock the canonical set of programme gates that govern phase progression. After lock, adding/removing gates requires Steerco; changing exit criteria for a gate requires the gate's own approval chain.","default_options":[{"option_id":"standard_six_gate_model","label":"Standard 6-gate model (Discovery exit / Design exit / Build entry / Cutover ready / Go-live / Stabilisation exit)","description":"Canonical transformation-programme gate set. Covers the major phase transitions of a 12-24 month build.","default_pros":["Well-understood model; aligns with how most transformation methodologies talk","Each gate is meaningful; no theatrical gates","Maps cleanly to the IT pack's milestone structure"],"default_cons":["May be too heavy for very short programmes (<6 months)","Stabilisation gate often skipped in practice; commit to running it"]},{"option_id":"compressed_three_gate_model","label":"Compressed 3-gate model (Design exit / Cutover ready / Go-live)","description":"Lean gate set for shorter or lower-risk programmes.","default_pros":["Lower governance overhead","Fewer gate-prep distractions for the programme team"],"default_cons":["Fewer chances to catch drift","Discovery and Build can blur into each other without explicit entry gates"]},{"option_id":"wave_indexed_gate_model","label":"Wave-indexed gate model (gates duplicated per transition wave)","description":"For multi-wave cutovers (e.g., country-by-country rollout), gates are run per wave rather than once per phase.","default_pros":["Each wave gets its own gate discipline","Risk is contained per wave"],"default_cons":["Significantly higher governance overhead","Risk of gate fatigue across many waves"]}],"rationale_prompt_skeleton":"Rationale should reference the gate definitions question, the evidence-standards question, and the gate approval-chain question. Note any wave structure and how gates compose with milestone progression.","scope":"GCC","priority":"P0","default_approval_chain_template":["Admin","ExecutiveViewer"],"depends_on_decision_template_ids":["pmo.dec.charter_approval","pmo.dec.steerco_constitution"],"evidence_question_template_ids":["pmo.q.gate_definitions","pmo.q.gate_evidence_standards","pmo.q.gate_approval_chain","pmo.q.conditional_gate_policy"],"enables_capability_template_ids":["pmo.cap.gate_management"]},{"decision_template_id":"pmo.dec.escalation_path_lock","title":"Lock escalation path above Steerco","summary":"Lock the named escalation path. After lock, items that exceed Steerco authority have a defined next stop with an SLA.","default_options":[{"option_id":"sponsor_direct","label":"Escalate directly to named sponsor","description":"Items above Steerco authority go straight to the sponsor with a 5-business-day SLA.","default_pros":["Fast; single named recipient","Sponsor stays informed without daily noise"],"default_cons":["Sponsor capacity may not match escalation volume","Risk of escalation-by-default for items that should resolve in Steerco"]},{"option_id":"board_subcommittee","label":"Escalate to a board subcommittee (e.g., Transformation Committee)","description":"Items go to a formal board subcommittee that meets monthly with a 30-day SLA.","default_pros":["Formal record of board engagement","Distributed accountability"],"default_cons":["30-day SLA is too slow for time-critical decisions","Adds a governance layer that may not exist yet"]}],"rationale_prompt_skeleton":"Rationale should reference the escalation path question and the Steerco decision-authority thresholds. Confirm the SLA is realistic against sponsor calendar.","scope":"GCC","priority":"P1","default_approval_chain_template":["Admin","ExecutiveViewer"],"depends_on_decision_template_ids":["pmo.dec.steerco_constitution"],"evidence_question_template_ids":["pmo.q.escalation_path"],"enables_capability_template_ids":["pmo.cap.programme_governance"]},{"decision_template_id":"pmo.dec.decision_logging_practice_lock","title":"Lock decision-logging practice (where, by whom, format)","summary":"Lock the practice for capturing Steerco and Working Group decisions. After lock, every Steerco minute names the rapporteur and points at the durable decision log.","default_options":[{"option_id":"platform_decision_log","label":"Decisions logged directly in the GCC Build OS Decision Graph","description":"Every Steerco decision is captured as a Decision node with rationale and Programme Memory Events at the moment it's made. Programme Lead is the rapporteur.","default_pros":["Decisions are queryable, linkable, and trace through to downstream impact","No tool sprawl; the platform is the source of truth","Programme Memory works as designed"],"default_cons":["Depends on platform availability and Programme Lead bandwidth","Requires discipline to capture in real-time, not after the fact"]},{"option_id":"minutes_then_log","label":"Decisions captured in meeting minutes, transcribed to Decision Graph within 24h","description":"Programme Lead captures decisions in minutes during the meeting; PMO Analyst transcribes into Decision Graph within 24 hours.","default_pros":["Lower in-meeting cognitive load","Allows for post-meeting clarification before locking"],"default_cons":["24h gap creates re-litigation window","Adds a second source of truth (minutes)"]}],"rationale_prompt_skeleton":"Rationale should reference the decision-logging-practice question and the Steerco constitution. Specify the rapporteur role and the SLA from meeting end to durable record.","scope":"GCC","priority":"P1","default_approval_chain_template":["Admin","ExecutiveViewer"],"depends_on_decision_template_ids":["pmo.dec.steerco_constitution"],"evidence_question_template_ids":["pmo.q.decision_log_practice"],"enables_capability_template_ids":["pmo.cap.programme_governance"]},{"decision_template_id":"pmo.dec.raid_owner_assignment","title":"Assign programme RAID register owner","summary":"Name the individual accountable for the RAID register (risks, assumptions, issues, dependencies). After lock, register hygiene is this person's job.","default_options":[{"option_id":"programme_lead_owns_raid","label":"Programme Lead owns the RAID register","description":"Standard for most programmes. RAID review is a fixed item in the Programme Lead's weekly cadence.","default_pros":["Single accountable owner for the operational health of the programme","No extra hire required"],"default_cons":["Risk of de-prioritisation under Programme Lead time pressure","Concentration risk on a single person"]},{"option_id":"dedicated_risk_lead","label":"Dedicated Risk/PMO Lead owns RAID register","description":"Separate named role responsible for register hygiene, escalation, and Steerco RAID section. Typical for larger or higher-risk programmes.","default_pros":["Dedicated focus; less risk of decay","Brings specialist risk-management discipline"],"default_cons":["Additional headcount","Risk of the role becoming a buffer between Programme Lead and reality"]}],"rationale_prompt_skeleton":"Rationale should reference the raid-register-owner question and the resourcing RACI. Confirm the review cadence and link to Steerco RAID section ownership.","scope":"GCC","priority":"P2","default_approval_chain_template":["Admin","ExecutiveViewer"],"depends_on_decision_template_ids":["pmo.dec.steerco_constitution"],"evidence_question_template_ids":["pmo.q.raid_register_owner"]},{"decision_template_id":"pmo.dec.stakeholder_engagement_plan_lock","title":"Lock stakeholder engagement plan","summary":"Lock the engagement model for non-Steerco stakeholders. After lock, deviations require Programme Lead approval and a logged rationale.","default_options":[{"option_id":"tiered_engagement","label":"Tiered engagement (High influence/high interest = active; high/low = manage; low/high = inform; low/low = monitor)","description":"Classical Mendelow grid. Each tier has a defined engagement frequency and channel.","default_pros":["Well-understood model","Engagement effort matches stakeholder importance"],"default_cons":["Static classification; influence/interest change over time","Requires periodic review"]},{"option_id":"ad_hoc_with_programme_lead_judgment","label":"Ad-hoc engagement at Programme Lead's judgment","description":"No structured plan; engagement happens as needed.","default_pros":["Flexible; no planning overhead"],"default_cons":["Engagement drift; stakeholders get under-served or over-served","Hard to audit"]}],"rationale_prompt_skeleton":"Rationale should reference the stakeholder map question and the communication cadence. Note any stakeholders who require bespoke engagement.","scope":"GCC","priority":"P2","default_approval_chain_template":["Admin","ExecutiveViewer"],"depends_on_decision_template_ids":["pmo.dec.steerco_constitution"],"evidence_question_template_ids":["pmo.q.stakeholder_map"]},{"decision_template_id":"pmo.dec.benefits_realisation_lock","title":"Lock benefits realisation model","summary":"Lock how programme benefits will be measured post go-live: metrics, baselines, owner, cadence. After lock, the benefits team has its commission.","default_options":[{"option_id":"lead_indicator_plus_lag_indicator","label":"Lead + lag indicators with quarterly review","description":"Lead indicators (e.g., capability adoption, ticket volume) tracked monthly; lag indicators (e.g., cost reduction, cycle time) tracked quarterly with attribution against the baseline.","default_pros":["Early signal on whether benefits are landing","Quarterly cadence aligned to finance reporting","Defendable methodology for attribution"],"default_cons":["Requires baseline data to be captured at programme start","Attribution is always disputable"]},{"option_id":"lag_only_annual","label":"Lag indicators only, annual review","description":"Annual benefits audit comparing programme outcomes to baseline.","default_pros":["Low overhead","Clearer signal-to-noise at the year mark"],"default_cons":["No early warning; first signal is one year in","Risk of methodology being designed retrospectively to fit the result"]}],"rationale_prompt_skeleton":"Rationale should reference the benefits-realisation-model question and the success criteria. Confirm baseline capture is scheduled before cutover.","scope":"GCC","priority":"P1","default_approval_chain_template":["Admin","ExecutiveViewer"],"depends_on_decision_template_ids":["pmo.dec.charter_approval"],"evidence_question_template_ids":["pmo.q.benefits_realisation_model","pmo.q.kpi_definitions"]}],"gate_templates":[{"gate_template_id":"pmo.gate.discovery_exit","name":"Discovery exit gate","description":"End-of-discovery gate. The programme exits Discovery with a populated decision graph, a maturity baseline, and a written charter. Failure to pass means Discovery continues; the cost of a soft Discovery exit is paid in Design.","exit_criteria_checklist":["All P0 questions answered and state >= Reviewed","At least 80% of P1 questions answered and state >= Reviewed","Programme charter Decision is Locked","Steerco constitution Decision is Locked","RAID register populated with named owners and review dates on every item","Maturity baseline captured for every workstream the programme covers","Stakeholder map question Answered and Reviewed","Programme Manager named, allocated, and onboarded"],"required_approval_chain_template":["ExecutiveViewer"]},{"gate_template_id":"pmo.gate.design_exit","name":"Design exit gate","description":"End-of-Design gate. The programme exits Design with design-level decisions locked for every workstream the build will deliver. Failure to pass means Build is at risk of restarts.","exit_criteria_checklist":["All design-level Decisions (per workstream) are Locked","Design artefacts uploaded and Reviewed for every workstream in scope","Funding for Build phase confirmed against budget envelope","Vendors short-listed; procurement decisions either Locked or scheduled with named owners","RACI baseline Decision is Locked","Reporting cadence Decision is Locked","Discovery exit gate is Go (predecessor gate)"],"required_approval_chain_template":["ExecutiveViewer"],"linked_milestone_template_ids":[]},{"gate_template_id":"pmo.gate.build_entry","name":"Build entry gate","description":"Entry-to-Build gate. The programme enters Build with team, funding, and vendors in place. Failure to pass means Build does not start; deferring is preferable to entering Build with a known gap.","exit_criteria_checklist":["Build-phase funding approved and committed","Programme team in place with all P0 roles filled","All material vendor contracts signed","Build-phase milestone plan agreed and loaded into the milestone engine","Gate-management decision Locked (gate definitions agreed)","Design exit gate is Go (predecessor gate)","Communications plan for Build-phase stakeholder engagement agreed"],"required_approval_chain_template":["ExecutiveViewer"],"linked_milestone_template_ids":[]},{"gate_template_id":"pmo.gate.cutover_ready","name":"Cutover ready gate","description":"Pre-cutover Go/No-Go. The programme certifies that the cutover for a wave is ready to execute: dual-run successful, runbooks signed off, comms sent, rollback plan tested. Failure to pass means cutover is deferred.","exit_criteria_checklist":["Dual-run executed and success criteria met for the wave's capabilities","Cutover runbook reviewed and signed off","Rollback plan documented and validated (rollback dry-run performed)","Cutover comms sent to all affected stakeholders >= T-7","On-call schedule confirmed for T-0 through T+7","Data migration validation complete and signed off","All capabilities in the wave are Capability state = InDualRun or Built","Build entry gate is Go (predecessor gate)"],"required_approval_chain_template":["ExecutiveViewer"],"linked_milestone_template_ids":[]},{"gate_template_id":"pmo.gate.go_live","name":"Go-live gate","description":"The actual cutover Go/No-Go. Last formal moment to abort. Failure to pass means rollback or defer. Decision-maker is the gate chair (Programme Lead); approver is the sponsor; reviewers are workstream leads who certify their own areas.","exit_criteria_checklist":["Cutover ready gate is Go (predecessor gate)","All workstream leads have certified their workstream-level readiness within the last 24h","No P0 or P1 issues open against the wave","Programme Memory Event captured for the go-live commitment (rationale, dissent if any)","Comms team ready to issue go-live communications post-cutover"],"required_approval_chain_template":["ExecutiveViewer"],"linked_milestone_template_ids":[]},{"gate_template_id":"pmo.gate.stabilisation_exit","name":"Stabilisation exit gate","description":"End-of-stabilisation gate. The programme exits stabilisation with the new state operating at defined baselines and the transition team standing down. Failure to pass means stabilisation continues.","exit_criteria_checklist":["Post-cutover defect rate < agreed threshold for >= 4 consecutive weeks","All KPIs at or above baseline for >= 4 consecutive weeks","Hypercare team stand-down decision Locked","Benefits realisation tracking started; first lead-indicator report issued","Lessons-learned Programme Memory Events captured for the programme","Service transition to BAU operations signed off by receiving function leads","Go-live gate is Go (predecessor gate)"],"required_approval_chain_template":["ExecutiveViewer"],"linked_milestone_template_ids":[]}],"maturity_rubric":[{"maturity_dimension_template_id":"pmo.maturity.programme_governance","name":"Programme Governance Maturity","description":"Pack-wide rubric covering the discipline of programme-level governance: charter clarity, Steerco effectiveness, RACI completeness, reporting consistency, gate discipline, and decision traceability.","workstream_template_id_ref":null,"levels":["Ad-hoc","Repeatable","Defined","Managed","Optimised"],"scoring_criteria_per_level":["Charter informal or absent; no constituted Steerco; decisions taken ad-hoc and rarely recorded; no programme-level RACI; reporting irregular; no gates or gate criteria.","Charter exists but not formally locked; Steerco meets but lacks documented decision authority or attendance discipline; status reports issued but format inconsistent; some RACI in place for resourcing; gate concept used but criteria are case-by-case.","Structured charter Locked with sponsor and success criteria; Steerco with documented decision authority, quorum, and escalation path; weekly status cadence with consistent format; programme RACI baseline Locked; gate definitions Locked with explicit exit criteria.","All decisions traced through Programme Memory with rationale and dissent; KPI dashboards live and reviewed each Steerco; gate exits enforced with evidence-based approval; RAID register has named owner and weekly review discipline; reporting cadence adapts to phase reality.","Predictive Programme Confidence tracked and trending; cross-engagement learning loops feed pattern detection back into pack templates; programme governance benchmarked against peer programmes; gate exits are predictable (low variance between predicted and actual readiness)."],"target_level":4}],"raci_defaults":{"pmo.cap.programme_governance":{"decision_maker":"ProgrammeLead","reviewer":["Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.cap.reporting_engine":{"decision_maker":"ProgrammeLead","reviewer":["Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.cap.gate_management":{"decision_maker":"ProgrammeLead","reviewer":["Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.q.programme_objectives":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.q.programme_scope_in":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.q.programme_scope_out":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.q.programme_sponsor":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.q.success_criteria":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.q.programme_budget_envelope":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.q.steerco_members":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.q.steerco_cadence":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"]},"pmo.q.steerco_decision_authority":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.q.escalation_path":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.q.working_groups":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"]},"pmo.q.quorum_rules":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead"]},"pmo.q.raci_resourcing":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.q.raci_scope_change":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.q.raci_risk_acceptance":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.q.raci_vendor_contracts":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"]},"pmo.q.weekly_status_format":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"]},"pmo.q.steerco_pack_format":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.q.board_update_cadence":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.q.kpi_definitions":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.q.programme_health_rag":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"]},"pmo.q.gate_definitions":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.q.gate_evidence_standards":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"]},"pmo.q.gate_approval_chain":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.q.conditional_gate_policy":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead"]},"pmo.q.raid_register_owner":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"]},"pmo.q.decision_log_practice":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead"]},"pmo.q.stakeholder_map":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.q.programme_manager_assignment":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.q.benefits_realisation_model":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"contributor":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.dec.charter_approval":{"decision_maker":"ProgrammeLead","approver":["Admin","ExecutiveViewer"],"reviewer":["Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.dec.steerco_constitution":{"decision_maker":"ProgrammeLead","approver":["Admin","ExecutiveViewer"],"reviewer":["Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.dec.raci_baseline_lock":{"decision_maker":"ProgrammeLead","approver":["Admin","ExecutiveViewer"],"reviewer":["Admin"]},"pmo.dec.reporting_cadence_lock":{"decision_maker":"ProgrammeLead","approver":["Admin","ExecutiveViewer"],"reviewer":["Admin"]},"pmo.dec.gate_definitions_lock":{"decision_maker":"ProgrammeLead","approver":["Admin","ExecutiveViewer"],"reviewer":["Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.dec.escalation_path_lock":{"decision_maker":"ProgrammeLead","approver":["Admin","ExecutiveViewer"],"reviewer":["Admin"]},"pmo.dec.decision_logging_practice_lock":{"decision_maker":"ProgrammeLead","approver":["Admin","ExecutiveViewer"],"reviewer":["Admin"]},"pmo.dec.raid_owner_assignment":{"decision_maker":"ProgrammeLead","approver":["Admin","ExecutiveViewer"],"reviewer":["Admin"]},"pmo.dec.stakeholder_engagement_plan_lock":{"decision_maker":"ProgrammeLead","approver":["Admin","ExecutiveViewer"],"reviewer":["Admin"]},"pmo.dec.benefits_realisation_lock":{"decision_maker":"ProgrammeLead","approver":["Admin","ExecutiveViewer"],"reviewer":["Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.gate.discovery_exit":{"decision_maker":"ProgrammeLead","approver":["ExecutiveViewer"],"reviewer":["Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.gate.design_exit":{"decision_maker":"ProgrammeLead","approver":["ExecutiveViewer"],"reviewer":["Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.gate.build_entry":{"decision_maker":"ProgrammeLead","approver":["ExecutiveViewer"],"reviewer":["Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.gate.cutover_ready":{"decision_maker":"ProgrammeLead","approver":["ExecutiveViewer"],"reviewer":["Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.gate.go_live":{"decision_maker":"ProgrammeLead","approver":["ExecutiveViewer"],"reviewer":["Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.gate.stabilisation_exit":{"decision_maker":"ProgrammeLead","approver":["ExecutiveViewer"],"reviewer":["Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]},"pmo.maturity.programme_governance":{"reviewer":["ProgrammeLead","Admin"],"informed":["ExecutiveViewer"]}},"ai_interpretation_templates":[{"ai_interpretation_template_id":"pmo.ai.steerco_pack_draft","name":"Draft Steerco pack section for a workstream","target_node_type_ref":"Workstream","interpretation_type":"steerco_synthesis","prompt_template_skeleton":"You are drafting the Steerco pack section for the workstream '{{workstream.name}}' (function: {{workstream.function_name}}). The Steerco audience is the named decision-makers in the constituted Steerco. Use the Steerco pack format Locked for this tenant (Decision {{pmo.dec.reporting_cadence_lock.decided_option_id}}).\n\nProduce a section of at most 1 page containing:\n1. Status (RAG with one-line rationale, referencing the pmo.q.programme_health_rag rubric)\n2. Decisions made this period (each as: title, owner, date Locked, link)\n3. Decisions needed this period (each as: title, owner, the Steerco ask, by-when date)\n4. Top 3 risks/issues (each as: description, owner, mitigation, escalation status)\n5. Next-period milestones (with dependency state)\n\nGround every claim in the tenant graph. Inline citations to Decision, Risk, Issue, and Milestone node IDs. Where data is missing, write 'No data captured' rather than fabricating. Tone is executive: no hedging, no jargon, no surprises.","trigger_event_type_ref":"DecisionLocked","retrieval_strategy":"tenant_graph_neighbours","default_confidence_threshold":0.7,"acceptance_ux_type":"side_panel"},{"ai_interpretation_template_id":"pmo.ai.programme_health_summary","name":"Programme health one-pager","target_node_type_ref":"Tenant","interpretation_type":"programme_confidence_narrative","prompt_template_skeleton":"You are drafting the programme health one-pager for the executive view. The audience is the programme sponsor.\n\nProduce at most 400 words covering:\n1. Overall RAG with one-sentence justification (use the RAG rubric Locked for this tenant)\n2. Trajectory: are we ahead/on/behind the milestone plan, and by how many days on the critical path?\n3. Top 3 things going right (with evidence: Locked decisions, achieved milestones)\n4. Top 3 things at risk (with evidence: At Risk milestones, open P0 decisions, ageing high-impact risks)\n5. The single most important ask of the sponsor in the next 14 days\n\nGround every claim in the tenant graph. Cite node IDs. Do not invent data; if a section has no data, write 'No data captured this period'.","trigger_event_type_ref":"ProgrammeConfidenceSnapshotted","retrieval_strategy":"tenant_full_context","default_confidence_threshold":0.75,"acceptance_ux_type":"modal"},{"ai_interpretation_template_id":"pmo.ai.gate_readiness_assessment","name":"Gate readiness assessment","target_node_type_ref":"Gate","interpretation_type":"decision_quality_check","prompt_template_skeleton":"You are assessing readiness for the gate '{{gate.name}}'. The gate's exit_criteria_checklist is:\n{{#each gate.attributes.exit_criteria_checklist}}\n- {{this.criterion}} (currently {{#if this.satisfied}}SATISFIED{{else}}NOT SATISFIED{{/if}})\n{{/each}}\n\nFor each criterion, determine:\n1. What evidence in the tenant graph (Decisions, Answers, Milestones, Documents) supports the satisfied=true claim, OR what is missing for criteria marked satisfied=false.\n2. Whether the evidence is current (no terminal-state, no superseded).\n3. Whether the evidence is at the right level (e.g., 'all P0 decisions Locked' requires checking actual P0 decision states, not just a count).\n\nReturn a structured assessment:\n- Overall: READY / NEARLY READY / NOT READY\n- Per criterion: PASS / FAIL / NEEDS_CLARIFICATION with citation\n- Top 3 actions to close gaps, with named owners (from existing RACI) and suggested by-when dates\n\nIf the gate has predecessor gates linked, verify they are Go. If not, flag as a blocker.","trigger_event_type_ref":"GateOpened","retrieval_strategy":"tenant_graph_neighbours","default_confidence_threshold":0.8,"acceptance_ux_type":"side_panel"},{"ai_interpretation_template_id":"pmo.ai.raci_completeness_check","name":"RACI completeness check for a decision","target_node_type_ref":"Decision","interpretation_type":"decision_quality_check","prompt_template_skeleton":"You are checking RACI completeness for the decision '{{decision.attributes.title}}' (state: {{decision.state}}).\n\nAgainst the canonical RACI model for Decision nodes:\n- decision_maker: required\n- approver: chain (>=1)\n- reviewer: optional but recommended for P0/P1\n- contributor: optional\n- informed: optional\n\nReview the has_role_on edges for this decision and flag:\n1. Is there exactly one decision_maker? If not, list the issue.\n2. Is the approver chain populated with at least one approver? Is it dense (no gaps in approval_step_index)?\n3. For P0/P1 decisions, is at least one reviewer named?\n4. For decisions whose options touch a non-Programme function (Finance, Legal, IT), is that function represented in the contributor or informed list?\n5. If RACI is incomplete, name what's missing and suggest assignments based on the workstream's default RACI and the tenant's stakeholder map.\n\nReturn structured findings: PASS / MINOR_GAPS / MAJOR_GAPS with the specific edges to add or modify.","trigger_event_type_ref":"DecisionOpened","retrieval_strategy":"tenant_graph_neighbours","default_confidence_threshold":0.75,"acceptance_ux_type":"inline_accept_reject"},{"ai_interpretation_template_id":"pmo.ai.risk_synthesis","name":"Top risks summarised for executive consumption","target_node_type_ref":"Tenant","interpretation_type":"steerco_synthesis","prompt_template_skeleton":"You are synthesising the top programme risks for the executive Steerco section. The audience is the sponsor and Steerco members; the venue is the monthly Steerco.\n\nFrom the tenant's RAID register:\n1. Score open Risks by (impact * likelihood). Take the top 5.\n2. For each: write one paragraph (max 60 words) covering: what the risk is, what's currently being done, what could change the picture, and the single Steerco ask (if any).\n3. Mention any risks that have moved tier in the last period (escalated or de-escalated) and why.\n4. Note any high-impact Assumptions still pending validation.\n5. Note any Issues that have been Open for > 30 days at the top tier.\n\nGround every claim in the RAID register. Cite node IDs. Use the tone the sponsor has shown they respond to (review prior accepted interpretations for voice calibration). Avoid risk-management jargon.","trigger_event_type_ref":"RiskUpdated","retrieval_strategy":"tenant_graph_neighbours","default_confidence_threshold":0.7,"acceptance_ux_type":"side_panel"}]}