Quick context, in your words

• Tell me briefly what prompted you to explore performance-based rates now
• How many general rate cases or major filings has your utility completed in the last five years Options: 0, 1, 2, 3 or more
• Which executive outcomes are non-negotiable for leadership in this effort Options: Protect allowed return, Limit revenue volatility, Improve reliability metrics, Support clean energy goals, Preserve affordability, Other
• Who across your executive, legal, finance, and operations teams needs to be active in decision making for this engagement Options: Regulatory affairs, Finance, Operations, Legal, Strategy/Policy, Board or CEO office, Other
• If you had to stop this work immediately, what single factor would make you do that

If the commission rewrote the rules tomorrow

• If the commission were to adopt metrics you did not design, what regulatory outcome would cause the most harm to your organization Options: Revenue shortfall greater than 1%, Mandatory targets that ignore weather or load, Penalties tied to data the utility cannot produce, New reporting windows that conflict with filings, Other
• How much of the current rule language or staff guidance feels misaligned with your actual operations Options: Entirely misaligned, Partially misaligned, Mostly aligned, Fully aligned
• Walk me through the recent orders, staff memos, or stakeholder positions that matter most to your next filing
• Which specific metric categories are most contested in your jurisdiction right now Options: Reliability/outage, Customer satisfaction, Cost efficiency, Clean energy integration, Affordability, Safety, Other
• What regulatory finding or piece of evidence would make you change course immediately

Where metric design breaks operational trust

• Which current or proposed incentive would most push operations to behave in ways you do not want Options: Heavy penalties for short-term outages, Strict load forecasting targets, Efficiency targets tied to spending reductions, Customer satisfaction tied to call center metrics, Other
• Describe a recent decision in operations that would have been different if a proposed metric had been in place
• How do you currently separate external drivers such as weather, economic activity, or distributed generation from measures of utility performance Options: Weather normalization, Statistical adjustment, Exclusions, Deadbands, No formal adjustment
• Who in operations or engineering has raised the strongest technical concerns about the proposed metrics
• If a single metric design decision would either earn regulatory support or trigger intervention from your board, which decision is it

Where your data and systems could slow everything down

• If a metric relied on interval meter data and outage timestamps, where does that data most often fail you today Options: Missing intervals, Time sync issues, Outage timestamps inconsistent, Data retention gaps, No relevant issues
• Which systems hold the data we would need to validate baselines and targets Options: Meter data system, Outage management system, Customer information system, SCADA or ADMS, Billing or ERP, Other
• Who currently owns access to those systems and who can authorize extraction for external analysis Options: IT, Operations, Regulatory affairs, Data governance team, Finance, Other
• How would you rate the cleanliness and completeness of your historical performance datasets for the last three years Options: Mostly clean and complete, Moderate issues requiring transformation, Significant gaps needing reconciliation, We do not have historical datasets
• If we asked for a continuous month of raw interval and outage data today, what would realistically happen Options: We could deliver within 2 weeks, We could deliver within 4 to 6 weeks, Access requires formal legal or procurement steps, We cannot provide that data

What's getting in the way internally

• Beyond data and modeling, what single organizational barrier tends to stall these projects inside your utility Options: Budget constraints, Competing regulatory priorities, Lack of dedicated project leads, Legal or procurement delays, Stakeholder disagreement
• How often do legal or internal policy reviews delay filings or vendor work Options: Rarely, Occasionally, Often, Almost always
• Describe the last time an external consulting engagement stalled and the top reason it did
• If your team attempted to design and implement the mechanism entirely in-house, what timeline difference would you expect compared with using an external partner Options: Faster, Roughly the same, 6 months slower, 12 months or more slower, Unsure
• What answer here would cause you to stop pursuing an external partner right now

The other options you are weighing

• Who else are you talking to or considering to help design or implement performance-based rates Options: Incumbent regulatory consultant, Large national consulting firm, Smaller specialized boutique, In-house team, Academic or policy partner, No one else, Other
• What would have to be true about your current approach for you to keep it instead of changing
• Has anyone inside proposed solving this without outside help and how far did that proposal get Options: Yes, fully proposed and approved, Yes, proposed but not approved, No internal proposal, Unclear
• If the incumbent offered a lower cost but slower delivery, what tradeoffs would push you toward or away from them
• Which single competitor feature or capability would make you choose them today

Operational readiness and hard constraints

• Which systems or approvals must be in place before our team can begin fieldwork Options: API access to meter data, Readable outage logs, Data sharing agreement, Security review completed, Dedicated IT liaison, None of the above
• Do you currently have API or scheduled extract capability for the systems identified Options: Yes, APIs available, Yes, scheduled extracts available, Only manual extracts, No automated access
• How many full time equivalents can you dedicate to this project during the first three months Options: 0, 1, 2-3, 4-7, 8 or more
• Are there legal, procurement, or regulatory approvals that typically take longer than four weeks before data access or contracts can be executed Options: Yes, typically longer, Sometimes, Rarely, Not required
• If data access slips by more than four weeks, how would that affect your target filing or implementation window Options: Minor impact, Move timeline by 1 quarter, Move timeline by 2+ quarters, Project would be paused

Decision levers and realistic next steps

• If a short pilot proved the recommended metric design, what would make you sign an engagement agreement that same week Options: Budget already approved, Executive sign-off secured, Data access already granted, Board support, Other
• Which three decision criteria will matter most when choosing a partner Options: Technical credibility, Track record before commissions, Cost, Speed of delivery, Ability to operate with limited data, Local political experience, Other
• Who is the final decision maker and what is the typical internal approval timeline for engagements of this size Options: Regulatory VP or designee, 2-4 weeks, CFO or designee, 2-6 weeks, Executive committee, 4-8 weeks, Board approval needed, 6-12 weeks, Other
• What budget range would realistically cover the assessment, modeling, and initial implementation planning phases Options: Under $100k, $100k to $250k, $250k to $500k, $500k to $1M, Over $1M, Undecided
• What would a successful first 30-day milestone look like to you

• Develop performance metrics and baselines
• Build financial model of incentive impacts
• Design incentive and penalty mechanisms
• Structure multi‑year rate plan
• Create earnings sharing mechanism
• Prepare regulatory testimony and exhibits
• Produce stakeholder briefings and presentations
• Implement data collection and reporting schema
• Deploy performance tracking dashboard
• Establish internal performance management processes
• Deliver first annual performance report
• Recalibrate metrics for subsequent proceedings
• Provide staff training on metric systems
• Support regulatory negotiation and settlement strategy

Develop performance metrics and baselines

• Which historical operational metrics should we analyze to set baselines (for example SAIDI, SAIFI, customer minutes interrupted, customer satisfaction survey scores)? Options: SAIDI, SAIFI, Customer minutes interrupted, Customer satisfaction (CSAT/CI), Other
• Provide the date range for historical data we should use (for example last 3 years, last 5 years) and note any specific outage years to exclude. Options: Last 3 years, Last 5 years, Custom range
• Identify the primary data sources by system and owner required for baselines (for example AMI meter reads, outage management system OMS, billing system extracts, customer survey files). Options: AMI, Outage Management System (OMS), Billing system export, Customer survey database, Workforce management / crew logs, Other
• Specify any prior commission orders or docket references that must constrain target-setting (provide docket numbers or rule titles).
• How many customer classes require separate baselines (for example residential, small commercial, large industrial)? Options: 1, 2, 3, 4 or more
• List external factors you want normalized for baseline calculations (for example heating/cooling degree days, major storm adjustments, pandemic-era load shifts) and indicate available normalization datasets. Options: Weather normalization (HDD/CDD), Major storm exclusion flags, Pandemic / event adjustment, Economic activity index, Other

Build financial model of incentive impacts

• Which financial scenarios should the model run (for example base case, high performance, severe storm downside) and how many plan years should be projected? Options: Base case, High performance, Downside with severe storms, Custom scenario
• Specify the revenue ledger items the model must include (for example tariff revenues, riders, revenue decoupling adjustments, amortizations). Options: Tariff revenues, Riders and surcharges, Revenue decoupling adjustments, Amortizations / regulatory assets, Other
• Identify the rate classes and billing determinants the model should map to incentive payments (for example residential kWh, small C&I demand, large C&I demand). Options: Residential kWh, Small commercial kWh, Large commercial/industrial demand, Transmission-level customers, Other
• Provide the target incentive rate ranges you want tested (for example $/point, percent of revenue) or indicate if we should propose ranges. Options: We will provide target ranges, We would like you to propose ranges
• Estimate the materiality threshold for net revenue impact that would trigger senior review (for example 0.5% of base revenue, 1% of rate base). Options: 0.25% - 0.5%, 0.5% - 1%, Greater than 1%
• Who in your finance organization will validate model assumptions and provide historical revenue statements and billing determinants?

Design incentive and penalty mechanisms

• Describe acceptable metric deadbands and collars (for example plus or minus 5 percent band, floor/ceiling caps) based on your tolerance for earnings volatility. Options: Tight deadband (±2%), Moderate deadband (±5%), Wide deadband (±10%), Custom
• List examples of incentive sharing curves you prefer (for example linear, stepwise tiers, tiered caps) or allow us to recommend. Options: Linear, Stepwise / tiers, Tiered caps, Other
• Point to any prior commission constraints or past order language that prohibit specific penalty or incentive types (cite docket numbers where possible).
• How should extraordinary events (for example declared emergencies, system-wide storms, force majeure) be handled in mechanism calculations? Options: Exclude events with storm flags, Apply predefined adjustments, Use normalization factors, Other
• Name the stakeholder groups whose distributional impacts must be modeled (for example commission staff, consumer advocates, large industrial customers). Options: Commission staff, Consumer advocates, Large industrial customers, Municipal utilities / co-ops, Other
• Indicate maximum annual upside or downside payment limits you consider acceptable as a percent of base revenue requirement. Options: Less than 0.5%, 0.5% - 1%, 1% - 2%, Greater than 2%

Structure multi‑year rate plan

• State the plan term lengths you will consider (for example 2-year, 3-year, 5-year) and any desired mid-term review points. Options: 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, Other
• Detail desired escalation or true-up mechanisms for inflation and capital trackers (for example CPI escalation, capex trackers). Options: CPI-based escalation, Capex trackers, True-up windows, Other
• Indicate any capital projects or cost categories that must be excluded from performance incentives (for example vegetation management, distribution capex, transmission projects). Options: Vegetation management, Distribution capex, Transmission capex, O&M categories, None
• How will you treat forecast attrition and its effect on revenue requirement across the multi-year plan?
• Who must sign off on the final multi-year plan before filing and at what governance level (for example CFO, CEO, board committee)? Options: CFO, CEO, Board committee, Other
• Are deferred accounting or amortization proposals in scope for inclusion in the multi-year plan? Options: Yes, No, Require discussion

Create earnings sharing mechanism

• Name the earnings bands and trigger points you want modeled for customer-share/ shareholder-share splits. Options: Low/medium/high bands, Single threshold, Continuous sharing
• Detail the split percentages at each band and whether caps apply on an annual or plan-term basis. Options: Customer-first split, Equal split, Shareholder-favoring split, Custom
• Point out tax treatments or regulatory liabilities that affect net sharing amounts (for example deferred tax impacts, regulatory liability accounting).
• Estimate the computational complexity you can support for quarterly versus annual true-ups (for example daily billing adjustments vs annual journal entries). Options: Quarterly true-ups feasible, Annual true-ups only, Prefer simplified annual true-up
• Tell us which billing system or rate engine must receive adjustments data for true-up calculations (for example billing system, revenue management system).
• Are there requirements to file the mechanism as a tariff sheet versus within testimony exhibits? Options: Tariff sheet, Testimony / exhibits, Both, Undecided

Prepare regulatory testimony and exhibits

• Enumerate the exhibits required by the commission format that we must prepare (for example testimony narrative, cost-benefit exhibits, calculation workpapers, revenue impact tables).
• State the preferred level of detail for workpapers (for example cell-level formulas, annotated assumptions, source-data links). Options: Cell-level formulas, Annotated assumptions, Linked source data, Summary-level only
• Confirm the authorized witness or subject matter expert who will be available to testify and note any scheduling constraints.
• Explain whether confidential workpapers will require protective order handling and, if so, provide prior protective order language to mirror. Options: Protective order required, No protective order required, Undecided
• Point to prior commission dockets or precedents you want cited to support the mechanism design (provide docket numbers where applicable).
• How much time should we allow for iterative review cycles with your legal and regulatory teams before the filing deadline? Options: 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6+ weeks, Custom

Produce stakeholder briefings and presentations

• Tell us the primary external stakeholders we must brief and the preferred meeting formats (for example commission staff workshops, consumer advocate roundtables). Options: Commission staff, Consumer advocates, Large customers, Municipal utilities, Other
• Describe the target messages and level of technical detail appropriate for each stakeholder group (for example high-level for commissioners, workpapers for staff). Options: High-level commissioners, Technical for staff, Plain-language for consumer advocates, Mixed
• Do you require specific visual assets for briefings (for example slide decks, one-pagers, data appendices)? Options: Slide deck, One-pager, Data appendix / CSV, Testimony excerpts, Other
• How many stakeholder briefing sessions should be budgeted and at what phases (for example pre-filing, pre-hearing)? Options: 1-2 sessions, 3-4 sessions, Ongoing as needed
• Note whether translation or accessibility accommodations are required for stakeholder materials (for example translated slides, large-print handouts). Options: Translation required, Accessibility accommodations required, None required
• Clarify who will review materials internally and the expected turnaround for feedback.

Implement data collection and reporting schema

• Enumerate the data feeds that must be integrated (for example AMI interval data, OMS outage records, billing determinants, customer satisfaction survey results) and list expected file formats. Options: AMI interval data, OMS outage records, Billing determinants, Customer surveys, Other
• Specify minimum data coverage and quality thresholds required before modelling (for example AMI reads for 90 percent of customers, OMS outage completeness of 95 percent).
• Share the names and contact details of data owners and technical contacts for AMI, OMS, billing, and customer surveys, including current system administrators.
• How frequently should each feed update the reporting schema (for example near-real-time, hourly batch, daily, monthly)? Options: Near-real-time, Hourly batch, Daily, Monthly
• Outline the validation rules you require for raw AMI and OMS data prior to baseline calculations (for example negative-read filters, meter tampering flags).
• What acceptance criteria will confirm data collection readiness for modelling (for example 90 percent AMI coverage, successful ingest of three months of OMS history)?

Deploy performance tracking dashboard

• Select which KPIs should appear on the executive dashboard and which should be analytic-only (for example SAIDI, SAIFI, CSAT, customer minutes interrupted). Options: SAIDI, SAIFI, Customer minutes interrupted, CSAT/CI, Load factor, Other
• Determine the required refresh cadence for dashboard widgets (for example real-time, daily, weekly) and the authorized viewer roles. Options: Real-time, Daily, Weekly, Monthly
• Assign which team or role will maintain access roles and who should receive admin privileges for the dashboard. Options: Regulatory team, IT / Analytics, Operations, Shared admin
• Explain the visualization types you prefer for trend metrics versus distributional metrics (for example time series, box plot, heat map) and required export formats. Options: Time series, Box plot, Heat map, Bar / column, CSV / Excel export
• Require reconciliation checks that the dashboard should perform against the financial model and workpapers (for example row-level sums, variance thresholds).
• What acceptance criteria will confirm the dashboard is production-ready (for example authorized reviewer sign-off, live AMI connection, calculation variance under 2 percent versus workpapers)?

Establish internal performance management processes

• Determine which governance body will own ongoing metric stewardship (for example executive steering committee, performance office, regulatory compliance team). Options: Executive steering committee, Performance office, Regulatory compliance team, Other
• Outline the meeting cadence, escalation path, and decision gate to be used when metrics deviate from targets. Options: Monthly cadence, Quarterly cadence, Ad-hoc as needed, Other
• Assign responsibility for metric calculations, data-quality triage, and monthly reporting and name backup roles.
• Explain the training requirements and job aids you expect for teams operating the metric systems.
• Confirm whether service-level agreements between operations and reporting teams are required for data delivery timelines. Options: Yes, No, Require discussion
• What out-of-scope boundaries should be documented for internal performance management (for example we will not perform system dispatch or control functions)?

• Master Services Agreement (MSA)
• Statement of Work (SOW)
• Fee Schedule and Payment Terms
• Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)
• Data Access Authorization
• Data Processing & Security Addendum (DPA)
• Regulatory Compliance Addendum (conditional)
• Subcontractor and Third-Party Authorization
• Change Order Agreement

• Engagement Assumptions and Data Inventory
• Executive and Regulatory Stakeholder Interview
• Operational Systems and Data Lineage Walkthrough
• Financial and Modeling Inputs Workshop
• Consolidated Baseline Synthesis and Approval to Proceed

• Provide month level historical revenue, sales, and demand data for the agreed baseline period in the requested format.
• Provide the data dictionary or schema exports for each system identified in the lineage map.
• Document any planned system changes during the baseline period that could affect comparability.
• Reconcile baseline financial statements and rate components
• Agreed baseline financial assumptions and reconciliation approach for modeling.
• Documented normalization methods and accounting conventions for incentives.
• Finalized list of model inputs and sensitivity scenarios to be used in the assessment.
• Confirm scope and engagement assumptions
• Confirm the selected weather normalization method and provide the weather station or degree day source to be used.
• Deliver any existing model templates or prior scenario outputs that should be referenced.
• Present consolidated baseline package
• Delivered and reviewed consolidated baseline package covering data, definitions, and financial inputs.
• Documented list of open gaps with prioritized remediation deadlines.
• Client acceptance to proceed to the formal assessment phase, or a written list of exceptions that must be resolved first.
• Publish the consolidated baseline package and open gap register to the shared workspace within 48 hours.
• Complete the remediation actions for critical data gaps by the agreed target dates and provide evidence of resolution.
• Confirm acceptance or provide a written list of exceptions that block proceeding to the formal assessment phase.
• Validated data inventory listing systems, datasets, owners, formats, and delivery deadlines.
• Prioritized data request package with agreed timelines for critical datasets.
• Documented list of access constraints and required approvals to unblock data delivery.
• Provide the signed data access authorization form for the listed sources and systems.
• Deliver a single consolidated data inventory spreadsheet including owner contact, format, and estimated delivery date for each dataset.
• Identify any legal, privacy, or regulatory constraints that require redaction or special handling.
• Confirm executive outcomes and success criteria
• Documented executive outcomes and agreed success criteria for the assessment.
• Prioritized list of candidate metrics with note of measurement risks.
• Stakeholder map with named decision gates and required approvals for deliverable acceptance.
• Provide the organizational chart with roles and contact points for the decision gate stakeholders.
• Confirm the priority weighting of candidate metrics and note any metrics that are nonstarter for regulatory or operational reasons.
• Share recent commission orders or staff direction documents referenced during the discussion.
• Walk through end to end data flows by functional area
• Data lineage diagram for each functional area that feeds proposed metrics.
• Data quality ratings and an agreed remediation plan for critical gaps.
• Agreed baseline sampling and validation protocol to be used in analysis.
• Deliver representative sample extracts for the agreed baseline period for each critical dataset.
• Review required assessment outputs and metric list
• Agree normalization and adjustment methods
• Review unresolved data gaps and constraints
• Validate data definitions and calculation logic
• Discuss regulatory posture and known constraints
• Define candidate success metrics and priority weighting
• Assess data quality and document gaps
• Prioritize remediation tasks and set resolution dates
• Inventory existing data sources and owners
• Define incentive and penalty accounting conventions
• Prioritize data access and set timelines
• Confirm model input list and sensitivity scenarios
• Obtain sign off to proceed to formal assessment
• Map decision gate stakeholders and approval thresholds
• Agree sampling and validation approach for baseline period
• Confirm next steps for data requests

• current_state
• decision_readiness
• success_criteria
• desired_state
• gaps
• stakeholders
• gaps
• stakeholders
• desired_state
• success_criteria
• decision_readiness
• current_state
• gaps
• current_state
• desired_state
• success_criteria
• stakeholders
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness

• Receive signed assessment acceptance form from designated buyer approver
• Upload final assessment deliverables to agreed repository
• Buyer acknowledges receipt of deliverables
• Confirm disposition of all open findings and exceptions
• Obtain written confirmation on regulatory filing permissions or required redactions
• Obtain executed data-handling and confidentiality confirmation for assessment materials
• Confirm billing milestone authorization
• Record acceptance and transition in the shared project plan
• Hand off technical artifacts and access to delivery team

• Implementation Design Workshop

• Confirm the current state and its cost to your team
• You confirm the draft implementation plan assigns owners, timelines, and acceptance criteria for each recommended metric.
• Deliver a draft implementation plan within 5 business days that includes timeline, RACI, acceptance criteria, and reporting spec for the agreed pilot metrics.
• You accept the reporting design prototype as sufficient to recreate assessment baselines and produce the required regulatory exhibits.
• Translate recommendations into a draft implementation plan
• Provide sample extracts for the two primary data sources identified in the assessment, covering the past 12 months, for validation of reporting fields.
• Confirm regulator filing windows and any upcoming hearings or workshops that must be incorporated into the communications calendar.
• You agree on a governance RACI and a stakeholder communications calendar that aligns with the next filing window.
• Show the reporting design prototype using your data model
• Define governance roles and the RACI for ongoing operations
• You identify any remaining factual gaps that must be closed before a final decision to proceed to deployment.
• Identify the internal data owners and provide contact details for two operational SMEs who can validate calculation logic in a follow-up session.
• Confirm stakeholder communications and testimony plan
• Validate that this maps to what you need

• Implementation Design Workshop
• Implementation Design Workshop Deck
• Implementation Plan Brief

• meeting
• slides
• document

• Go-live Health Check
• First Measurement Review
• Acceptance Gate — 90-day Outcome Decision
• Monthly Operational Review
• Quarterly Recalibration Workshop
• Annual Performance and Recalibration Review

• Document a recommended recalibration package with quantified impacts and an owner for regulatory filing preparation.
• Schedule data reconciliation and validation tasks for any disputed measurements.
• Report current month metrics and variance
• Operational causes for any metric deviations are identified and assigned corrective actions.
• Enhancement backlog is prioritized and short-term work is scheduled or deferred.
• Open tickets are reduced or re-scoped to maintain focus on high-priority fixes.
• Record any approved enhancements in the backlog with business impact and delivery window.
• Present quarterly trend analysis
• Decide whether recalibration or deadband changes are warranted based on quarter-to-date evidence.
• Reconfirm success criteria and owners
• Confirm stakeholder notification and consultation steps prior to any filing.
• Produce a recalibration memo that quantifies proposed target changes and their financial impact.
• Update the reporting specification to reflect any agreed attribution or calculation changes.
• Schedule stakeholder briefings and draft materials for the upcoming regulatory filing.
• Present annual performance summary
• Approve a coherent recalibration recommendation for submission in the next regulatory proceeding.
• Confirm the financial and operational rationale for the recalibration and expected impacts on incentive payments.
• Establish a clear filing timeline and owner list for regulatory deliverables and stakeholder outreach.
• Finalize the recalibration proposal document and supporting analyses for inclusion in filings.
• Prepare testimony, briefs, and stakeholder slides aligned with the recalibration recommendation.
• Publish the annual performance report and circulate to named internal and external stakeholders per the communications plan.
• All deployment acceptance criteria owners are confirmed and contactable.
• A prioritized list of open issues with agreed resolution dates is recorded.
• Schedule established for the First Measurement Review within the weeks 4-10 window.
• Publish a go-live validation report listing integrations, data feeds, and known issues for distribution.
• Log each open issue in the tracking system with a proposed owner and resolution date.
• Confirm date and attendees for the First Measurement Review.
• Present first measurement results versus targets
• Determine whether SAIDI and outages per 1,000 customers are on track to meet targets or require remediation.
• Document a prioritized corrective action plan with owners and completion dates.
• Confirm next-data validation steps and timeline to the Acceptance Gate meeting.
• Publish the first-measurement data package including raw feeds, calculation scripts, and variance analysis.
• Open remediation tasks for each identified root cause with target dates and owners.
• Validate and reconcile any suspected data quality issues before the Acceptance Gate meeting.
• Restate acceptance criteria and numeric targets
• Each acceptance criterion is recorded as pass, fail, or conditional with documented evidence.
• Formal acceptance decision is captured with a named signatory and next steps for billing or milestone closure.
• If applicable, incumbent system decommissioning plan is agreed and scheduled, including data archiving or migration.
• Publish the acceptance decision record with supporting data and the named signatory.
• Create remediation tickets for any failed or conditional criteria with owners and deadlines.
• Confirm incumbent system status, archive or migrate data as agreed, and close fallback processes.
• Update the operational issue tracker with remediation owners and deadlines.
• Deployment and migration validation
• Diagnose root causes for any gaps
• Detailed review variance items
• Financial impact and sensitivity analysis
• Assess external factor attribution
• Present outcome data against each criterion
• Recommend recalibration for the next proceeding
• Early adoption signals and usage patterns
• Document pass or fail per criterion
• Enhancement request triage
• Agree corrective actions and owners
• Propose recalibration options
• Formal acceptance decision and named signatory
• Confirm timeline to the Acceptance Gate
• Ticket burn-down and owner updates
• Open issues and blockers
• Agree recommendation path and filing timeline
• Agree filing schedule and stakeholder communications