Quick snapshot of the opportunity

• Briefly describe your development scope, current phase, and the main decision you expect from the next board cycle.
• How many recoverable barrels or equivalent reserves does your team plan to include in the sanction case? Options: < 50 MMboe, 50–200 MMboe, 200–500 MMboe, > 500 MMboe, Prefer not to disclose
• When is first production targeted in your sanctioned plan, and how firm is that date? Options: Within 12 months, fixed, 12–24 months, target, 24–36 months, preliminary, > 36 months, exploratory
• Who are the core internal stakeholders that must approve the concept selection and sanction recommendation?
• Which development setting best describes the project? Options: Onshore conventional, Onshore unconventional, Offshore platform, Offshore FPSO/subsea tieback, Mixed/other
• Give a short list of comparable fields or basins your team uses as benchmarks for capex and schedule.
• Does your organization have any absolute no-go constraints or deal breakers that would stop the engagement immediately? Options: Yes, technical (e.g., water depth, reservoir type), Yes, commercial (e.g., no fixed-price contracts), Yes, regulatory (e.g., no offshore permits), No absolute deal breakers

Board pressure and timeline trade-offs

• If the board shortens the sanction window by six months, what single constraint would most likely prevent you from meeting that target?
• Estimate how many weeks of design or data delay would move your FID by one quarter. Options: <4 weeks, 4–8 weeks, 8–12 weeks, >12 weeks, Depends on permit status
• Do you use a formal stage-gate review checklist tied to board packages or an ad hoc approval memo? Options: Formal stage-gate with checklist, Ad hoc approval memo, Hybrid process, No defined process
• Tell me which internal review typically flags cost uncertainty as a reason to delay sanction. Options: Asset team review, Development engineering, Finance/CFO office, Executive leadership, Other
• Would missing a regulatory approval for export routing within your current timeline cause you to defer sanction? Options: Yes, mandatory delay, Possibly, depending on mitigation, No, we can change routing, Unsure
• Who is enabled to recommend schedule compression measures such as parallel FEED and procurement? Options: Asset VP, Head of Development, CFO/Finance, Program Management Office, Cross-functional steering committee

Recovery versus cost, where you draw the line

• Would you prioritize a concept that increases ultimate recovery but raises sanction capital by more than 20 percent? Options: Yes, recovery priority, No, capex cap applies, Depends on payback and IRR, Need more analysis
• Describe the maximum well count and facility size your capital plan would tolerate without requiring additional board funding.
• How do you quantify acceptable uncertainty in production forecasts for sanction-grade economics? Options: P50 deterministic, P90 for downside, Probabilistic P10–P90 ranges, Custom scenario bands
• If reservoir uncertainty forces a ±20 percent range on peak output, which cost line causes the most executive pushback? Options: Upfront capex, Contingency, Decommissioning, Operating expenditure, Schedule risk premiums
• Which lifting or artificial lift options are you willing to consider to delay surface upgrades? Options: ESP/PCP, Gas lift, Subsea boost/pumps, Plunger lift, No artificial lift preference
• Tell me about a past project where a choice on well count either saved or cost the program materially.

The other options you are weighing

• Name the alternative that most preserves your schedule while avoiding external study spend.
• List the internal teams or incumbent suppliers you are considering keeping on the study if you stay internal. Options: In-house development engineering, Incumbent EPC contractor, Region-based consultant, Specialist reservoir modeller, Other
• Have decision-makers already expressed a preference for an incumbent, a competitive bid, or solving this internally? Options: Favor incumbent, Favor competitive bid, Prefer internal solution, No preference yet
• Under what conditions would the current approach be acceptable to your executives? Options: Capex within target, Schedule unchanged, Regulatory risk mitigated, Performance guarantees, None of the above
• Is anyone on your team actively arguing to solve this with internal resources rather than an outside partner? Options: Yes, strong preference to keep internal, Yes, tentative proposal, No, open to external partner, Undecided
• Could solving this internally meet your regulatory and technical needs within the current timeline? Options: Yes, likely, Yes, with extra cost, No, unlikely, Unsure

Practical readiness, data and access

• Suppose core reservoir models or well logs arrive incomplete, which deliverable fails first? Options: Concept selection, Production forecast, Sanction cost estimate, Regulatory submission, None, we can work around
• Identify the single person or role who owns data release and access for studies. Options: Reservoir lead, Data manager, Asset manager, Project lead, Other
• Do you have a dedicated data room and naming convention for models, logs, and simulation runs? Options: Yes, standardized, Partial setup, No, ad hoc sharing, We will create one for the engagement
• Are your reservoir models rebuilt at full field grid resolution for concept screening or kept at simplified proxy models? Options: Full field grid, Sector models with upscaling, Proxy analytical models, Mixed approaches
• Estimate the percentage of historical production and pressure data that is available and validated for modeling. Options: <25%, 25–50%, 50–75%, >75%
• Will delayed access to vendor data or third-party surveys block any of the milestones in the next 12 weeks? Options: Yes, critical path, Yes, could be mitigated, No, not on critical path, Unsure

Regulatory gates and export routing risks

• Identify the single regulatory or permit milestone that could stop the project if it slips.
• List the approvals and typical lead times you expect for onshore permitting, export clearances, and environmental consents.
• Are any routes for export or pipeline right of way considered politically sensitive or contested within the next 18 months? Options: Yes, high risk, Yes, moderate risk, No known sensitivity, Unknown
• Could a change in export option increase schedule by more than six months? Options: Yes, likely, Possibly, No, alternative routes available, Unsure
• Name the external agencies or authorities we will need to engage directly for regulatory submissions.
• Does the project require an environmental impact assessment that triggers public consultation? Options: Yes, formal EIA required, Yes, but simplified assessment, No, not required, Unsure

Decision economics and acceptance criteria

• What single economic threshold, such as IRR, NPV, or payback period, would cause your executive team to decline sanction?
• Specify the contingency approach you intend to accept in a sanction-grade capital estimate. Options: Fixed percentage across the board, Itemized contingency by risk type, Probabilistic contingency bands, No contingency preferred
• Describe how you allocate contingency between technical, commercial, and schedule risks.
• When you review sanction packages, do capital cost escalations or schedule slips typically trigger the same level of scrutiny? Options: Capex > schedule triggers, Schedule > capex triggers, Both are equally scrutinized, Depends on the project
• Will your finance team accept a probabilistic production forecast with P50 for base case, or do they require a deterministic number? Options: Probabilistic accepted, Deterministic required, Both required, Unsure
• Under which circumstances would you fast-track procurement ahead of final FEED approval? Options: Critical long-lead items, Vendor funding constraints, If pilot validates assumptions, Never fast-track

Commercial constraints and contracting preferences

• Has procurement signaled a preference for time and materials, fixed price, or a hybrid contract for studies? Options: Time and materials, Fixed price, Hybrid/target cost, No preference yet
• Select which commercial modules you anticipate needing in the SOW. Options: Concept screening, Pre-FEED, FEED, Cost estimate only, Regulatory support, HSE and permitting
• Provide the typical payment milestones and approval gates your treasury team requires for multi-million dollar studies.
• Does your organization have a pre-approved contractor list that would speed award? Options: Yes, pre-approved, Yes, with limited members, No, full procurement required, Unsure
• Provide the number of signatories required and which roles they typically hold for awarding a multi-million dollar study.
• What reporting cadence and governance scope would you require for a mutual-commit phase? Options: Weekly steering committee, Biweekly reports and monthly steering, Monthly executive updates only, Ad hoc upon milestone completion

Next steps that shorten the path to sanction

• Assuming a pilot study validates the production forecast within your acceptance range, who in your organization can authorize moving to a sanction-grade FEED within seven days?
• Detail the top three immediate actions you need from an engineering partner to start concept screening.
• Please attach or list the critical files and model formats your team can provide in the next 14 days. Options: Reservoir model (Eclipse/CMG), Well logs and LAS, Production history (CSV), Topside facility data sheets, Survey and geotechnical reports, Other
• By when would you expect a complete concept screening report to be acceptable for internal review? Options: Within 2 weeks, 2–4 weeks, 4–8 weeks, >8 weeks
• Summarize the single decision outcome that would cause you to sign a mutual commit within 30 days.
• Please confirm your preferred primary contact role for scheduling kickoff meetings and urgent decisions. Options: Asset Lead, Development Manager, Project Director, Procurement Lead, Data Manager

• Data and Assumptions Readiness Review
• Reservoir and Well Count Screening Workshop
• Processing Capacity and Export Routing Screening Workshop
• Concept Selection Decision Workshop

• Assemble the data and technical clarifications required to close remaining gaps before next-phase kickoff.
• Document drilling permit and logistics constraints with estimated lead times for resolution.
• Review inlet flows and requirements from shortlisted well plans
• One to two preferred processing and export packages are identified for each shortlisted well plan with concept-level cost and schedule ranges.
• A regulatory and constructability risk summary per routing option is produced to inform decision making.
• Deliver concept-level capital and operating cost ranges and contingency assumptions for each preferred package.
• Prepare a regulatory permit tracker and expected approval durations for each export routing alternative.
• Produce basic layout sketches and high-level schedule logic for the preferred packages.
• A prioritized list of remaining data tasks and risk mitigations with completion deadlines is produced.
• Recap shortlisted options and key tradeoffs
• A formal decision on the single concept package to advance is recorded with decision rationale.
• Scope, deliverables, acceptance criteria, and the immediate follow-up actions for the next phase are agreed.
• Issue the concept selection decision memo including the selected package, key metrics, and the decision rationale.
• Publish the next-phase scope of work, deliverable list, acceptance checklist, and baseline schedule and budget for the pre-FEED phase.
• Confirm scope, decision gate, and success criteria
• A complete data pack and model list is confirmed or a documented gap list with deadlines is agreed.
• A signed list of assumptions and scenario definitions for screenings is produced.
• Workshop schedule, attendee list, templates, and expected outputs are finalized.
• Compile and deliver the complete data pack including reservoir models, well logs, topography, and regulatory constraint summaries.
• Produce and circulate the screening template that captures recovery, capital, operating cost, schedule, and regulatory gating for each concept.
• Document unresolved data gaps and provide owners and due dates for each gap before the first workshop.
• Recap assumptions and screening metrics
• A 2 to 3 option shortlist of well counts and layouts is agreed with quantified recovery and schedule implications.
• A documented list of drilling-related risk items and data needs for each shortlisted option is produced.
• Produce updated production forecasts with uncertainty bands for each shortlisted well plan.
• Quantify marginal recovery per incremental well and provide incremental capital and schedule estimates per option.
• Present recommended concept with decision rationale
• Evaluate processing options and sizing implications
• Present reservoir scenario forecasts by candidate well count
• Verify reservoir models and scenarios
• Confirm surface, regulatory, and constructability constraints
• Review remaining gaps and risk mitigation actions
• Structured tradeoff for well count, spacing, and completion types
• Screen export routing alternatives and regulatory impacts
• Identify regulatory or schedule gating related to drilling
• Agree cost basis, schedule assumptions, and risk drivers
• Integrated cost-schedule-recovery comparison
• Confirm next-phase scope, deliverables, and acceptance criteria
• Agree shortlist and outstanding data needs
• Finalize workshop mechanics and deliverables

• Deliver Concept Screening and Selection Package
• Reservoir Development Plan with Recovery Optimization
• Well Count, Spacing, and Trajectory Design
• Well Completion and Artificial Lift Design
• Production Forecast with Uncertainty Ranges
• Sanction-Grade Capital and Operating Cost Estimate
• Facilities Design Basis and Process Flow Diagrams
• Pipeline and Export Hydraulic Design and Routing Study
• Regulatory and Environmental Permitting Package
• Economic Model and Sanction Decision Support
• Pre-FEED/FEED Engineering Package
• Procurement Support and Long-Lead Equipment Specification
• Construction Support and Commissioning Oversight
• Flow Assurance and Production Stability Study
• Financing and Incentive Qualification Analysis

Deliver Concept Screening and Selection Package

• Which development concepts should be evaluated in the screening (examples: tied-back subsea to host platform, FPSO, onshore processing and export)? Options: Tied-back subsea to host, FPSO, Onshore processing and export, Standalone platform, Hybrid options
• How many conceptual well-count scenarios do you want modeled for the screen (typical choices: 1-3, 4-6, 7+)? Options: 1-3, 4-6, 7+
• Who will provide the reservoir simulation inputs required for concept screening (history-matched dynamic model, well test analysis, static model)? Options: You provide a history-matched dynamic model, You provide a static model only, We will build/update a model from provided well test data, No model provided; use analog data
• Provide the quantitative thresholds to use for shortlisting concepts (examples: minimum plateau rate, maximum installed capacity, recovery factor threshold).
• Confirm what defines formal acceptance of the concept selection package (for example: signed concept selection report, development board approval, named approver signatures). Options: Signed concept selection report, Development board approval, Written approval by development manager, Other (describe)

Reservoir Development Plan with Recovery Optimization

• Identify the recovery scenarios you require in the plan (examples: primary depletion, waterflood, infill drilling, enhanced oil recovery). Options: Primary depletion, Waterflood, Infill drilling, EOR / chemical/thermal, Other
• Specify who will own delivery of reservoir data packages (PVT reports, DST logs, formation evaluation) needed to complete the recovery optimization. Options: Your asset team, Third-party data provider, We will acquire and process data under separate scope, Not yet assigned
• By when do you require the reservoir development plan to support the next sanction milestone or board meeting? Options: Within 4 weeks, 4-8 weeks, 8-12 weeks, On a specified board date
• Select the deliverables you need from this module to demonstrate recovery optimization (well-by-well recovery maps, incremental recovery tables, risk register by scenario). Options: Well-by-well recovery map, Incremental recovery by scenario, Risk register, Production sensitivity charts, None of the above (describe)
• Are there reservoir management constraints that must be respected in the plan (for example maximum injection rates, pressure caps, aquifer support rules)? Options: Yes, No

Well Count, Spacing, and Trajectory Design

• How many well-count and spacing scenarios would you like analyzed for drainage and interference sensitivity? Options: 1-2 scenarios, 3-4 scenarios, 5+ scenarios
• Which trajectory types must be considered given subsurface constraints (vertical, deviated, horizontal, multilateral)? Options: Vertical, Deviated, Horizontal, Multilateral
• What subsurface deliverable will you accept to confirm spacing decisions (example: well spacing map with drainage radii, interference heat maps, well pairing plots)? Options: Well spacing maps with drainage radii, Interference analysis, Decline curve overlays by spacing, All of the above, Other (describe)
• Who will supply hard exclusion zones or surface constraints that affect well placement (for example lease boundaries, environmental buffers, existing infrastructure)? Options: Your land/permits team, Third-party survey provider, We will identify constraints from public data, Not yet available
• Specify any drilling limitations that influence trajectory design such as maximum lateral length, rig pool availability, or mud-weight windows.

Well Completion and Artificial Lift Design

• Choose which completion types should be evaluated for the wells (openhole, cased-hole gravel pack, intelligent completions with downhole flow control). Options: Openhole, Cased-hole gravel pack, Intelligent completions, Other
• Select the artificial lift options you want assessed for production profiles and lifecycle cost (rod pump, electric submersible pump, gas lift, plunger lift). Options: Rod pump, Electric submersible pump (ESP), Gas lift, Plunger lift, Hybrid options
• Provide the expected initial well rates or flow regime bands to size completions and lift selection (examples: <500 bbl/d, 500-3,000 bbl/d, >3,000 bbl/d). Options: <500 bbl/d, 500-3,000 bbl/d, >3,000 bbl/d, Unknown need assistance
• Are sand control, commingling or zonal isolation constraints required for the completion designs? Options: Yes, No
• Which documents will constitute handover from completion and lift design (completion schematic, wellbore materials list, vendor datasheets)? Options: Completion schematic, Well materials list, Vendor datasheets, Job execution sheets

Production Forecast with Uncertainty Ranges

• Indicate which probabilistic metrics you require in the production forecast (P10/P50/P90, mean, fan chart visualizations). Options: P10/P50/P90, Mean only, Full fan chart, Other (specify)
• By when must the production forecast be delivered to feed the economic model for sanction analysis? Options: With concept select, With pre-FEED, With FEED, On a specified calendar date
• Identify which historical or analog datasets should be used to calibrate forecast uncertainty (well test history, analog decline curves, production logging). Options: Well test history, Analog field declines, Production logging, No historical data available
• Name who in your organization must approve the forecast uncertainty bands for sanction modeling. Options: Development manager, Asset manager, Finance lead, Joint committee
• What output formats do you require for the forecast (examples: CSV time series, reservoir simulator summary, dashboard-ready files)? Options: CSV time series, Reservoir simulator summary report, Dashboard export, All of the above

Sanction-Grade Capital and Operating Cost Estimate

• Choose the estimate classification you require for sanction-grade cost (example AACE Class 3 equivalent, Class 2 equivalent). Options: AACE Class 3 (budget estimate), AACE Class 2 (preliminary), Custom classification (describe)
• Describe the contingency methodology you prefer for the estimate (top-down percentage, contingency by system using risk register, Monte Carlo probabilistic contingency). Options: Top-down percentage, Contingency by system, Monte Carlo probabilistic, We need recommendation
• Estimate the cost-basis and currency preferences for the estimate (current year costs, escalation to sanction date, USD/EUR/local currency). Options: Current year costs, Escalate to sanction date, Specify currency
• Which supporting cost deliverables must accompany the estimate for your review (detailed cost build-up by system, vendor quotes for long-lead items, basis of estimate document)? Options: Detailed cost build-up by system, Vendor quotes, Basis of estimate (BoE), Contingency and risk register
• Confirm what acceptance criteria will verify the cost estimate is sanction-grade (for example named approvers, documented estimate class, contingency logic and QA trail). Options: Named approvers and sign-off, Documented estimate class and BoE, Contingency logic and QA trail, All of the above

Facilities Design Basis and Process Flow Diagrams

• State which process routes must be reflected in the PFDs and basis of design (examples: separation, dehydration, compression, gas processing). Options: Separation trains, Dehydration, Compression, Gas processing, Other
• List the capacity design point to be used for facilities sizing (options: design to peak stabilized rate, design to plateau, design to 1-in-10 peak). Options: Peak stabilized rate, Plateau rate, 1-in-10 peak, Other
• Attach the site or plot constraints we should consider in the layout (examples: available footprint, existing tie-in points, seismic or geotechnical limits). Options: Footprint limits, Existing tie-ins, Seismic/geotechnical constraints, No constraints provided
• Designate the utility and offsite requirements to be included in the design basis (power, cooling water, fuel gas, flare sizing). Options: Power, Cooling water, Fuel gas, Flare/vent systems
• Describe any shutdown, turnaround or redundancy requirements that must be considered in the facilities basis of design.

Pipeline and Export Hydraulic Design and Routing Study

• Name which export options you want studied (onshore pipeline to nearest terminal, subsea tieback to existing platform, shuttle tanker export). Options: Onshore pipeline, Subsea tieback, Shuttle tanker, Combined options
• Indicate the hydraulic design parameters that must be met (examples: maximum allowable operating pressure, slugging mitigation, pigging requirements). Options: Max operating pressure, Slugging mitigation, Pigging frequency, Temperature limits
• Assign who will provide seabed survey or right-of-way constraints (for example survey data, environmental exclusion zones, landowner agreements). Options: Your survey team, Third-party survey provider, Public data only, Not yet available
• When do you need the recommended routing and hydraulic report to align with regulatory or tender submission deadlines? Options: Within 4 weeks, 4-8 weeks, 8-12 weeks, On a specified submission date
• Clarify whether pipeline integrity or inspection requirements mandate specific materials or coating types to be included in the study. Options: Yes, specific materials/coatings required, No specific requirements, Not sure, need advice

Regulatory and Environmental Permitting Package

• State which permitting regimes and approval authorities apply to this project (examples: national petroleum regulator, environmental authority, local land-use planning). Options: National petroleum regulator, Environmental authority, Local planning/land-use, Other
• Detail which regulatory submissions you require prepared (examples: Environmental Impact Assessment EIA, environmental permit, habitat surveys, stakeholder engagement log). Options: EIA, Environmental permit, Habitat surveys, Stakeholder engagement log, Other
• Share the baseline environmental surveys already available and identify those that must be commissioned (examples: benthic survey, marine mammal survey, air quality baseline). Options: Benthic survey, Marine mammal survey, Air quality baseline, No surveys available
• Attach the target regulator contacts or approval milestones we should plan for in the permit timeline.
• Outline what constitutes regulatory acceptance for the permitting package (for example: permit issuance, regulator sign-off letters, conditional approval with commitments). Options: Permit issuance, Regulator sign-off letter, Conditional approval with commitments, Other (describe)

Economic Model and Sanction Decision Support

• Recommend which fiscal terms should be embedded in the economic model (examples: royalty rates, production-sharing terms, state participation). Options: Royalty rates, PSC / production sharing terms, State participation, Tax regimes
• Detail the economic outputs required to support sanction decisions (NPV at specified discount rate, IRR, payback, breakeven price). Options: NPV at discount rates, IRR, Payback period, Breakeven oil/gas price
• Assign who in your organization must review and sign off the sanction decision support package (examples: finance lead, development manager, CFO). Options: Finance lead, Development manager, CFO, Joint sanction committee
• Include which sensitivity cases are essential for decision support (examples: price decks, capex escalation, schedule slippage, recovery variations). Options: Price decks, Capex escalation, Schedule slippage, Recovery variations, All of the above
• Supply the preferred file format for the economic model to integrate with your financial systems (spreadsheet, model export, API-ready format). Options: Spreadsheet (XLSX), Model export (native), API-ready export, Dashboard export

Pre-FEED/FEED Engineering Package

• Include which FEED deliverables must be part of the fixed-fee scope (examples: P&IDs, PFDs, equipment list, preliminary layout). Options: P&IDs, PFDs, Equipment list, Preliminary layout, All listed
• Explain explicitly what is out of scope for the Pre-FEED/FEED package (for example detailed procurement, construction supervision, operations staffing), to form a fixed-fee boundary.
• Recommend which interface-management roles should be staffed during FEED (examples: process lead, electrical lead, HSE coordinator). Options: Process lead, Electrical lead, HSE coordinator, Civil/structural lead, All of the above
• Propose the review workflow for FEED milestones (examples: design review workshops, redline cycles, QA gate), and whether you require formal sign-off rounds. Options: Design review workshops, Redline cycles, Formal QA gate, Ad-hoc reviews
• When must the FEED package be tender-ready for procurement issuance (target month/quarter)? Options: Within 4 weeks, 4-8 weeks, 8-16 weeks, Specific target date

Procurement Support and Long-Lead Equipment Specification

• Share which long-lead items should be prioritized for procurement support (examples: compressors, turbomachinery, subsea trees, FPSO turret). Options: Compressors, Turbomachinery, Subsea trees, FPSO turret, Heat exchangers
• Tell who will be the delegated technical approver for vendor datasheets and vendor selection for major equipment. Options: Your technical authority, External subject-matter expert, Joint approval, Not yet assigned
• Answer whether you require bid evaluation criteria and scoring templates for major equipment tenders. Options: Yes, No
• Suggest the preferred contract form for major procurement packages (EPC lump-sum, EPCM, reimbursable, other). Options: EPC lump-sum, EPCM, Reimbursable/Time & Materials, Other
• Supply the handover documentation required from procurement support (examples: tender package, technical specifications, scope of work, supplier pre-qualification). Options: Tender package, Technical specifications, Scope of work, Supplier PQ

• Master Services Agreement (MSA)
• Statement of Work - Concept Screening & Selection
• Statement of Work - Pre-FEED
• Statement of Work - FEED / Sanction-Grade
• Commercial Terms & Fee Schedule
• Data Access and License Agreement
• Confidentiality & Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)
• Project Governance & Change Control Charter
• Acceptance Criteria & Deliverable Sign-Off Matrix
• Insurance, Liability & Indemnity Schedule
• Subcontractor & Third-Party Scope Agreement
• Change Order Agreement
• Regulatory Filings & Permitting Addendum (conditional)
• Data Security & Privacy Addendum (conditional)

• Handover Health Check (weeks 1-4)
• First Measurement Review (weeks 4-10)
• Execution Handover Confirmation (ratification of readiness)
• 90-Day Realization Checkpoint
• Quarterly Continuous Improvement Review
• Annual Outcome Review

• Confirm prioritized enhancements and assign delivery windows and owners for each item.
• Agree specific remedial actions and tracking measures for any performance gaps.
• Confirm responsible owners for cost and schedule recovery tasks and reporting frequency.
• Produce a short variance report explaining schedule and cost drivers and distribute to stakeholders.
• Create a time-bound recovery plan for any delayed milestones with checkpoints for the next 30 and 60 days.
• Update contingency utilization tracker and present updated projections at the next checkpoint.
• Open issue backlog review
• Reduce the open issue backlog count and improve enhancement request lead time over the next quarter.
• Re-confirm acceptance criteria and owners
• Capture at least three operational lessons and assign owners to implement them.
• Publish the prioritized backlog for the coming quarter with owners and target delivery windows.
• Implement the top operational improvement and report on early indicators at the next quarterly review.
• Maintain the shared execution handover channel with weekly summaries of closed and opened issues.
• Production forecast accuracy
• Establish the realized accuracy of production forecasts and the drivers of any variance.
• Document capital spend variance reasons and agree actions to improve future estimating and risk allocation.
• Agree a prioritized continuous improvement roadmap with owners and quarterly check-ins.
• Publish the annual outcome report including forecast accuracy, capital variance, and recommended process changes.
• Kick off the top two continuous improvement initiatives with a 90-day delivery plan.
• Schedule quarterly checkpoints to monitor progress against the annual improvement roadmap.
• All execution-critical deliverables and models are confirmed accessible to the delivery and operations teams.
• A prioritized list of immediate blockers is documented with owners and agreed remediation actions.
• Training and access gaps are identified with a plan to close them within the onboarding window.
• Publish an access and file integrity report listing any failed transfers and required re-deliveries.
• Document and circulate the remediation plan for critical blockers with named owners and target resolution dates.
• Deliver a short onboarding checklist for operations including training completion tracking and contacts for escalation.
• Update the project schedule to reflect any agreed short-term recovery actions and share with stakeholders.
• Deliverable sign-off status
• Determine whether deliverable sign-off rate and open issue count are on track relative to targets recorded in Delivery Acceptance and Engagement Scope.
• Agree a prioritized set of corrective actions with owners and target dates to close the top issues affecting delivery.
• Confirm the timeline to the next acceptance or milestone checkpoint remains achievable or document required schedule adjustments.
• Produce a sign-off gap register showing each outstanding deliverable, the named approver, and the next action required.
• Create and circulate an issues remediation tracker for the top 10 technical items with owners and resolution dates.
• Execution package completeness
• Execution packages meet the completeness threshold required for execution handover as recorded in Engagement Scope.
• All regulatory and long-lead procurement risks that could delay first production are identified with mitigation plans.
• A clear handover communication channel and escalation path is established for execution-phase issues.
• Publish an execution package gap list with required actions to reach 100 percent completeness.
• Document procurement mitigation steps for each long-lead item at risk and circulate to the procurement lead.
• Set up the agreed shared channel for execution handover and confirm recurring sync cadence.
• Schedule adherence analysis
• Establish whether schedule and cost performance are within acceptable variance versus targets recorded in Engagement Scope.
• Validate data and model transfer
• Cost variance review
• Regulatory and permitting status
• Enhancement request lifecycle
• Open technical issues review
• Capital spend variance analysis
• Prioritization and resource alignment
• Procurement and long-lead items
• Lessons learned and process improvements
• Early schedule and budget variance
• Confirm access and permissions
• Risk migration and contingency use
• Confirm operational support channels and escalation paths
• Operational improvements and lessons learned
• Agree corrective actions and owners
• Continuous improvement plan
• Agree corrective plan and monitoring
• Early onboarding and training signals