Leadership working pack
Investigate the problem. Record the decision. Track the action.
These templates help an audit sponsor set the scope, review evidence and record what happens next. They organise the work and its responsibilities. You still need to gather evidence, involve the relevant teams and seek specialist judgement where required.
Use these shared records for every audit. Topic-specific guides may add fields, measures and tests. Retain the identifiers and links between records so decisions can be traced back to evidence.
How to use the pack
Eight steps from scope to action.
01
Define the problem and decision
02
Build the evidence register
03
Interview and observe
04
Explain the scores
05
Write findings that support a decision
06
Run the decision workshop
07
Set action review dates and criteria
08
Review the provider
01 / Audit charter
Agree the decision before requesting evidence.
- Identifiers
- Assign a stable audit ID and decision ID before evidence, findings, options or gates are created.
- Decision
- The specific proceed, change, defer or stop decision the audit must support.
- Authority
- The named decision owner, authorised forum, mandate and limits for proceed, validate, change, defer or stop.
- Sponsor
- The executive accountable for the decision, access and response to the findings.
- Scope
- The value path, functions, journeys, workflows, systems, markets and periods included.
- Exclusions
- What the audit will not evaluate or recommend.
- Evidence threshold
- What must be observed, reconciled or tested before a finding can affect investment.
- Decision date
- When leadership will review the findings and record its decision.
- Constraints
- Material regulatory, financial, capacity, contractual or operating limits.
- Stop conditions
- Conditions that end or re-scope the audit because evidence, access or sponsorship is inadequate.
02 / Evidence register
Keep fact, interpretation and uncertainty separate.
Record one important item per row with stable audit, decision and evidence IDs. Judge confidence by whether the evidence supports the decision. Having a file is not enough.
| Audit ID | Decision ID | Evidence ID | Decision question | Evidence class / status | Source / owner | Period | Reconciliation | Confidence | Next action / due date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A-001 | D-001 | E-001 | Complete | Observed fact / received | Complete | Complete | Pending / reconciled | High / medium / low | Complete / YYYY-MM-DD |
03 / Interviews and observation
Test how the system works, not only how it is described.
- Q01
What result should the business be getting from this work or investment?
- Q02
Where does progress fall short, and which decision depends on understanding the cause?
- Q03
What customer, market, operating or financial outcome is connected to the issue?
- Q04
Which evidence do you trust, and where does it come from?
- Q05
Where do teams use different definitions or versions of the truth?
- Q06
What workarounds exist outside the documented process?
- Q07
Which constraint has already been investigated, and what happened?
- Q08
Who owns the outcome, the workflow, the data and the technology?
- Q09
What would make a proposed change unsafe, uneconomic or impractical?
- Q10
What needs to happen elsewhere before this work can deliver the intended result?
- Q11
What evidence would cause you to proceed, change direction, defer or stop?
04 / Transparent scoring
Explain the judgement behind each score.
Value relevance
0: no connection to the decision. 5: material connection to an agreed outcome.
Evidence confidence
0: assertion only. 5: reconciled evidence from relevant sources and observation.
Feasibility
0: blocked by unresolved dependencies. 5: ownership, capability and access are credible.
Risk and reversibility
0: unacceptable or irreversible exposure. 5: bounded, governed and reversible.
Time to learning
0: meaningful evidence arrives too late. 5: a controlled proof can resolve uncertainty quickly.
Operating fit
0: no accountable owner or adoption path. 5: the change can be operated and measured.
Record the evidence behind every score. Do not average away a critical control failure: an opportunity with unacceptable risk, no owner or no relevant evidence remains blocked regardless of its value score.
05 / Finding card
Make every finding decision-ready.
- 01
Finding ID, decision ID and linked evidence IDs
- 02
Business result, one observed problem and affected decision
- 03
Evidence and source limitations
- 04
Interpretation, with assumptions labelled
- 05
Business consequence if unchanged
- 06
Options considered, each with an option ID, including retain, no change or stop
- 07
Recommended decision and reasons
- 08
Owner, dependency and decision date
- 09
Measure, guardrail and next review gate
06 / Decision workshop
End with recorded choices.
Before: circulate the evidence register, material findings, option comparison and unresolved disagreements. Decision owners confirm what authority they hold.
During: review evidence confidence first; decide each priority as proceed, validate, change, defer or stop; name owners, dependencies, measures and the next gate.
After: issue the decision log. Record disagreements, conditions, resource commitments and changes to scope.
07 / Dated gates
Carry the decision into controlled action.
Use one decision row, one row per measure and one row per evidence or decision gate. Set review dates according to the work and evidence needed, rather than a fixed waiting period.
| Record type | Decision ID | Record ID | Linked items | Owner / authority | Disposition / measure / gate | Evidence or threshold | Gate date | Guardrail | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision | D-001 | DR-001 | F-IDs / O-IDs | Named authority | Proceed / validate / change / defer / stop | Rationale and conditions | YYYY-MM-DD | Risk boundary | Proposed |
| Measure | D-001 | M-001 | F-IDs / O-IDs | Benefit / data owners | Outcome or decision measure | Definition, baseline and source | YYYY-MM-DD | Harm or quality guardrail | Open |
| Gate | D-001 | G-001 | E-IDs / M-IDs | Decision owner | Evidence / decision gate | Acceptance and stop threshold | YYYY-MM-DD | Containment or rollback | Planned |
08 / Provider evaluation
Test independence and operating depth.
- Frames the decision before proposing a method
- States evidence and access requirements
- Separates fact, interpretation and assumption
- Includes non-technology and stop options
- Names contribution and proof boundaries
- Defines decision rights and escalation
- Explains implementation handoff and ownership
- Accepts evidence-based challenge to its recommendation
Use the pack with judgement
Use the records to check what the evidence supports.
When several teams are involved, evidence is disputed or a substantial investment is at stake, independent facilitation can help leadership compare the options and reach a supported decision.
See the business opportunity assessment