{ "schema": "longtermcapabilities-resources/v2", "version": "1.48.0", "releaseId": "lts-1.48.0-first-run-admin-bootstrap", "generated": "2026-07-25T13:00:00Z", "resources": [ { "id": "ai-production-readiness-evidence-pack", "title": "AI Production Readiness Evidence Pack", "path": "/resources/ai-production-readiness-evidence-pack/", "pdf": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_AIProductionReadiness_EvidencePack.pdf", "audiences": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "problem": "Teams need a practical inventory of evidence before approving an AI production release or enterprise review.", "summary": "A structured evidence inventory for system boundaries, representative tests, human authority, failure taxonomy, release criteria, and unresolved risk.", "limitations": "A planning and review aid, not a formal assessment, audit, certification, or legal opinion.", "sections": [ { "title": "System and authority", "items": [ "Name the business problem and decision owner", "Define users, affected parties, and consequences", "Inventory models, prompts, retrieval, vendors, tools, and downstream actions", "Map data sources, trust states, access boundaries, and retention expectations", "Name human reviewers, approvers, execution roles, and escalation owners" ] }, { "title": "Representative evaluation", "items": [ "Golden cases for expected work", "Edge and ambiguous cases", "Adversarial and prompt-injection cases", "Refusal and insufficient-evidence cases", "Access-control and tenant-boundary cases", "Cost, latency, timeout, and dependency cases" ] }, { "title": "Release evidence", "items": [ "Versioned test fixtures and system configuration", "Observed results and failure taxonomy", "Human calibration and disagreement records", "Release, exception, rollback, and blocked-action criteria", "Known limitations, unknowns, owners, and review dates" ] } ], "relatedService": "ai-production-readiness", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25", "slug": "ai-production-readiness-evidence-pack", "shortDescription": "A structured evidence inventory for system boundaries, representative tests, human authority, failure taxonomy, release criteria, and unresolved risk.", "resourceType": "Decision guide", "primaryDecision": "Teams need a practical inventory of evidence before approving an AI production release or enterprise review.", "audience": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "topics": [ "ai-production-readiness", "technical evidence" ], "htmlRoute": "/resources/ai-production-readiness-evidence-pack/", "pdfRoute": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_AIProductionReadiness_EvidencePack.pdf", "version": "1.48.0", "publishedDate": "2026-07-21", "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel", "usageBoundary": "A planning and review aid, not a formal assessment, audit, certification, or legal opinion.", "status": "published", "relatedInsights": [ "ai-demo-to-defensible-release-decision", "durable-ai-systems-memory-state-retries-evidence" ] }, { "id": "ai-system-intake-release-decision-record", "title": "AI System Intake & Release Decision Record", "path": "/resources/ai-system-intake-release-decision-record/", "pdf": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_AISystemIntake_ReleaseDecisionRecord.pdf", "audiences": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "problem": "AI use cases, agents, models, vendors, and embedded features can enter review without one current record of ownership, intended use, dependencies, human authority, risk, evidence, release conditions, and retirement.", "summary": "A reusable record for registering an AI system, defining its authority and dependency boundary, capturing evaluation evidence, and recording a bounded release, pause, rollback, or retirement decision.", "limitations": "A planning and decision record, not certification, legal advice, an impact assessment, or a complete implementation of NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, or any regulatory regime.", "sections": [ { "title": "Identity and ownership", "items": [ "System, use-case, agent, model, vendor, and business-process name", "Business owner, technical owner, risk or policy owner, and release authority", "Lifecycle state, review date, next review trigger, and retained record location", "Intended users, affected people, environments, and organizational boundary" ] }, { "title": "Intended use and prohibited use", "items": [ "Business problem, expected benefit, and decision the system supports", "Approved context, user population, geography, and operating conditions", "Explicit prohibited uses, unsupported decisions, and out-of-scope populations", "Known assumptions, unknowns, and conditions that invalidate the current approval" ] }, { "title": "System, data, and dependency boundary", "items": [ "Models, prompts, retrieval, agents, tools, APIs, vendors, and downstream actions", "Data sources, classifications, trust states, access controls, retention, and deletion", "External dependencies, failure modes, fallback paths, and concentration risk", "Versioned configuration and change sources needed to reproduce the reviewed state" ] }, { "title": "Consequence and human authority", "items": [ "Consequential outputs or actions and who may be affected", "Proposal, review, approval, execution, appeal, override, and escalation roles", "Actions the system may never take automatically", "Evidence and interface cues reviewers need to make an informed decision" ] }, { "title": "Risk and concern inventory", "items": [ "Organization-defined risk tier and the rationale for that tier", "Safety, security, privacy, fairness, accessibility, reliability, legal, operational, and vendor concerns", "Impact, likelihood, uncertainty, affected parties, mitigations, owners, and residual risk", "Issues that require deeper review, independent expertise, or a stop decision" ] }, { "title": "Evidence and evaluation", "items": [ "Golden, edge, ambiguous, adversarial, refusal, access-control, and failure cases", "Evaluation environment, fixtures, measures, thresholds, reviewers, and observed results", "Known limitations, disagreement, exceptions, missing evidence, and unresolved questions", "Links to versioned system cards, test results, data or model documentation, and decision records" ] }, { "title": "Release decision and conditions", "items": [ "Decision: proposed, discovery, pilot, conditional approval, approved for bounded use, paused, or retired", "Approved scope, release conditions, exceptions, expiry, and required approvers", "Rollback, blocked-action, incident, notification, and recovery criteria", "Monitoring, change review, retraining or vendor-update triggers, and evidence-retention expectations" ] }, { "title": "Retirement and handoff", "items": [ "Decommissioning trigger, owner, user communication, and continuity path", "Data, record, model, prompt, integration, and credential disposition", "Client-owned artifacts, export formats, retained knowledge, and successor-system dependencies", "Final review outcome, remaining obligations, and archive location" ] } ], "relatedService": "ai-production-readiness", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25", "slug": "ai-system-intake-release-decision-record", "shortDescription": "A reusable record for registering an AI system, defining its authority and dependency boundary, capturing evaluation evidence, and recording a bounded release, pause, rollback, or retirement decision.", "resourceType": "Review worksheet", "primaryDecision": "What exactly is this AI system, who owns its consequences, what evidence supports the current state, and under what conditions may it proceed, pause, roll back, or retire?", "audience": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "topics": [ "AI readiness and review", "ai-production-readiness", "technical evidence" ], "htmlRoute": "/resources/ai-system-intake-release-decision-record/", "pdfRoute": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_AISystemIntake_ReleaseDecisionRecord.pdf", "version": "1.48.0", "publishedDate": "2026-07-24", "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel", "usageBoundary": "A planning and decision record, not certification, legal advice, an impact assessment, or a complete implementation of NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, or any regulatory regime.", "status": "published", "relatedInsights": [ "ai-demo-to-defensible-release-decision", "human-reviewed-ai-proposal-approval-execution", "durable-ai-systems-memory-state-retries-evidence" ] }, { "id": "human-reviewed-ai-workflow-checklist", "title": "Human-Reviewed AI Workflow Checklist", "path": "/resources/human-reviewed-ai-workflow-checklist/", "pdf": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_HumanReviewedAI_WorkflowChecklist.pdf", "audiences": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "problem": "A workflow uses AI, but authority, reviewer responsibilities, overrides, refusals, and execution boundaries are unclear.", "summary": "A checklist for separating proposed work from executed action and preserving named human authority.", "limitations": "Does not determine legal sufficiency or replace client policy, risk, security, or domain review.", "sections": [ { "title": "Authority", "items": [ "Identify every consequential action", "Separate recommendation, approval, and execution", "Name reviewer roles and required expertise", "Define actions the system may never execute automatically", "Define escalation for disputed, unknown, or high-impact cases" ] }, { "title": "Review experience", "items": [ "Show source support and material uncertainty", "Support approve, reject, edit, block, and escalate", "Record reviewer identity, rationale, override, and timestamp", "Prevent default approval through ambiguous interface design", "Make refusal and insufficient evidence visible" ] }, { "title": "Operations", "items": [ "Set review sampling and calibration cadence", "Monitor false acceptance and false rejection", "Version prompts, models, data, and policies", "Define rollback and incident review", "Retain evidence appropriate to the workflow" ] } ], "relatedService": "ai-production-readiness", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25", "slug": "human-reviewed-ai-workflow-checklist", "shortDescription": "A checklist for separating proposed work from executed action and preserving named human authority.", "resourceType": "Checklist", "primaryDecision": "A workflow uses AI, but authority, reviewer responsibilities, overrides, refusals, and execution boundaries are unclear.", "audience": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "topics": [ "ai-production-readiness", "technical evidence" ], "htmlRoute": "/resources/human-reviewed-ai-workflow-checklist/", "pdfRoute": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_HumanReviewedAI_WorkflowChecklist.pdf", "version": "1.48.0", "publishedDate": "2026-07-21", "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel", "usageBoundary": "Does not determine legal sufficiency or replace client policy, risk, security, or domain review.", "status": "published", "relatedInsights": [ "human-reviewed-ai-proposal-approval-execution", "ai-cognitive-scaffolding-human-capability" ] }, { "id": "modernization-risk-review", "title": "Modernization Risk Review", "path": "/resources/modernization-risk-review/", "pdf": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_ModernizationRiskReview.pdf", "audiences": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "problem": "A modernization proposal exists, but the organization has not established what behavior, data, integrations, reporting, and operational constraints must remain intact.", "summary": "A pre-commitment review for legacy Microsoft modernization risk, parity evidence, reversibility, and decision ownership.", "limitations": "A planning aid, not a substitute for source review, testing, security assessment, or a scoped modernization blueprint.", "sections": [ { "title": "Behavior and data", "items": [ "Identify critical calculations, approvals, permissions, exceptions, and reports", "Trace rules across code, stored procedures, jobs, configuration, and manual workarounds", "Define reconciliation and parity scenarios", "Mark known, unknown, disputed, intentional, and accidental behavior" ] }, { "title": "Architecture and operations", "items": [ "Inventory dependencies, vendors, environments, and integrations", "Identify unsupported components and key-person risk", "Define observability, rollback, and continuity constraints", "Separate stabilization, seam creation, migration, and replacement" ] }, { "title": "Commercial decision", "items": [ "Name the decision owner and acceptance basis", "Estimate by bounded seam rather than whole-system optimism", "Require explicit exclusions and client responsibilities", "Prefer reversible phases with evidence between commitments" ] } ], "relatedService": "dotnet-sql-modernization", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25", "slug": "modernization-risk-review", "shortDescription": "A pre-commitment review for legacy Microsoft modernization risk, parity evidence, reversibility, and decision ownership.", "resourceType": "Decision guide", "primaryDecision": "A modernization proposal exists, but the organization has not established what behavior, data, integrations, reporting, and operational constraints must remain intact.", "audience": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "topics": [ "dotnet-sql-modernization", "technical evidence" ], "htmlRoute": "/resources/modernization-risk-review/", "pdfRoute": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_ModernizationRiskReview.pdf", "version": "1.48.0", "publishedDate": "2026-07-21", "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel", "usageBoundary": "A planning aid, not a substitute for source review, testing, security assessment, or a scoped modernization blueprint.", "status": "published", "relatedInsights": [ "modernize-dotnet-sql-without-business-logic-drift" ] }, { "id": "enterprise-proposal-template", "title": "Enterprise Proposal and SOW Guide", "path": "/resources/enterprise-proposal-template/", "pdf": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_EnterpriseProposal_SOWGuide.pdf", "audiences": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "problem": "Professional-services proposals often leave deliverables, acceptance, authority, data handling, payment, and scope change ambiguous.", "summary": "A buyer-oriented checklist for turning discovery into a bounded statement of work with measurable artifacts and explicit exclusions.", "limitations": "General commercial guidance, not legal advice or a substitute for qualified counsel.", "sections": [ { "title": "Commercial structure", "items": [ "Name the business problem and decision supported", "Define system, data, environment, and stakeholder boundaries", "List deliverables as retained artifacts", "Define schedule, milestones, payment, and acceptance", "State assumptions, client responsibilities, and exclusions" ] }, { "title": "Risk and governance", "items": [ "Define access and data-handling channels", "Separate advice, review, implementation, and operations", "Set change-control and delay rules", "Define background IP and client-specific work product", "Bound warranty, support, liability, and third-party dependencies with counsel" ] }, { "title": "Closeout", "items": [ "Require final evidence inventory and open-risk register", "Define knowledge transfer and exportable formats", "Name next-decision criteria instead of automatic expansion", "Document what is not complete" ] } ], "relatedService": "joint-discovery-workshop", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25", "slug": "enterprise-proposal-template", "shortDescription": "A buyer-oriented checklist for turning discovery into a bounded statement of work with measurable artifacts and explicit exclusions.", "resourceType": "Decision guide", "primaryDecision": "Professional-services proposals often leave deliverables, acceptance, authority, data handling, payment, and scope change ambiguous.", "audience": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "topics": [ "joint-discovery-workshop", "technical evidence" ], "htmlRoute": "/resources/enterprise-proposal-template/", "pdfRoute": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_EnterpriseProposal_SOWGuide.pdf", "version": "1.48.0", "publishedDate": "2026-07-21", "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel", "usageBoundary": "General commercial guidance, not legal advice or a substitute for qualified counsel.", "status": "published", "relatedInsights": [ "reusable-capability-not-isolated-ai-pilots" ] }, { "id": "paid-pilot-charter-template", "title": "Paid Pilot Charter Template", "path": "/resources/paid-pilot-charter-template/", "pdf": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_PaidPilot_CharterTemplate.pdf", "audiences": [ "enterprise", "partner" ], "problem": "A pilot risks becoming an open-ended proof of concept without budget ownership, success criteria, or a next decision.", "summary": "A charter template for a time-bounded paid pilot with a named business problem, owner, system boundary, measures, artifacts, and conversion decision.", "limitations": "A planning template, not legal advice or a complete contract.", "sections": [ { "title": "Pilot identity", "items": [ "Business problem and decision owner", "Executive sponsor and technical owner", "System, workflow, user, data, and environment boundary", "Start, end, and review dates", "Budget and purchasing path" ] }, { "title": "Evidence and success", "items": [ "Baseline and target measures", "Representative cases and exclusions", "Required client inputs", "Named deliverables and acceptance", "Failure, pause, and stop conditions" ] }, { "title": "Next decision", "items": [ "Proceed to implementation", "Narrow and repeat", "Remediate before continuing", "Stop and retain findings", "Commercial conversion or new-SOW criteria" ] } ], "relatedService": "ai-production-readiness", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25", "slug": "paid-pilot-charter-template", "shortDescription": "A charter template for a time-bounded paid pilot with a named business problem, owner, system boundary, measures, artifacts, and conversion decision.", "resourceType": "Decision guide", "primaryDecision": "A pilot risks becoming an open-ended proof of concept without budget ownership, success criteria, or a next decision.", "audience": [ "enterprise", "partner" ], "topics": [ "ai-production-readiness", "technical evidence" ], "htmlRoute": "/resources/paid-pilot-charter-template/", "pdfRoute": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_PaidPilot_CharterTemplate.pdf", "version": "1.48.0", "publishedDate": "2026-07-21", "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel", "usageBoundary": "A planning template, not legal advice or a complete contract.", "status": "published", "relatedInsights": [ "reusable-capability-not-isolated-ai-pilots" ] }, { "id": "enterprise-ai-procurement-evidence-checklist", "title": "Enterprise AI Procurement Evidence Checklist", "path": "/resources/enterprise-ai-procurement-evidence-checklist/", "pdf": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_EnterpriseAI_ProcurementEvidenceChecklist.pdf", "audiences": [ "enterprise", "partner" ], "problem": "An AI-enabled vendor cannot answer customer security, architecture, data-use, human-oversight, and change-management questions consistently.", "summary": "A technical evidence checklist for enterprise AI vendor and product reviews.", "limitations": "Technical preparation only; not legal advice, certification, or assurance that a buyer will approve the vendor.", "sections": [ { "title": "Product and data", "items": [ "Intended use and prohibited use", "Model and vendor inventory", "Data flow, storage, retention, and training-use terms", "Tenant and role access boundaries", "Subprocessors and external dependencies" ] }, { "title": "Behavior and control", "items": [ "Representative evaluation cases and results", "Human review and action authority", "Prompt, model, and data change control", "Logging, incident, rollback, and support boundaries", "Known limitations and refusal behavior" ] }, { "title": "Response package", "items": [ "System card", "Architecture and data-flow diagrams", "Technical response library", "Risk register and decision owners", "Last-reviewed dates and source owners" ] } ], "relatedService": "ai-production-readiness", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25", "slug": "enterprise-ai-procurement-evidence-checklist", "shortDescription": "A technical evidence checklist for enterprise AI vendor and product reviews.", "resourceType": "Checklist", "primaryDecision": "An AI-enabled vendor cannot answer customer security, architecture, data-use, human-oversight, and change-management questions consistently.", "audience": [ "enterprise", "partner" ], "topics": [ "ai-production-readiness", "technical evidence" ], "htmlRoute": "/resources/enterprise-ai-procurement-evidence-checklist/", "pdfRoute": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_EnterpriseAI_ProcurementEvidenceChecklist.pdf", "version": "1.48.0", "publishedDate": "2026-07-21", "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel", "usageBoundary": "Technical preparation only; not legal advice, certification, or assurance that a buyer will approve the vendor.", "status": "published", "relatedInsights": [ "ai-demo-to-defensible-release-decision" ] }, { "id": "government-prime-teaming-readiness-checklist", "title": "Government and Prime Teaming Readiness Checklist", "path": "/resources/government-prime-teaming-readiness-checklist/", "pdf": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_GovernmentPrime_TeamingReadinessChecklist.pdf", "audiences": [ "government", "partner" ], "problem": "A small specialist and a prime may discuss teaming before role, workshare, eligibility, client access, payment, security, and evidence responsibilities are clear.", "summary": "A public-safe checklist for qualifying a government or prime-contractor workstream before committing capture or delivery effort.", "limitations": "Not legal or procurement advice; solicitation terms and qualified counsel control.", "sections": [ { "title": "Opportunity fit", "items": [ "Public notice or opportunity identifier", "Agency, prime, end client, and capture stage", "Required role and named technical workstream", "Due date, period, and place of performance", "Required registrations, certifications, clearances, and data handling" ] }, { "title": "Teaming mechanics", "items": [ "Account and proposal ownership", "Direct technical access", "Workshare and key-person commitment", "Background IP and work-product boundaries", "Non-solicitation, conflicts, and confidentiality", "Payment independent of end-client collection" ] }, { "title": "Bid / no-bid", "items": [ "Relevant technical and key-personnel evidence", "Capacity and schedule fit", "Insurance and flow-down review", "Measurable acceptance", "Proposal effort justified by expected value" ] } ], "relatedService": "joint-discovery-workshop", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25", "slug": "government-prime-teaming-readiness-checklist", "shortDescription": "A public-safe checklist for qualifying a government or prime-contractor workstream before committing capture or delivery effort.", "resourceType": "Checklist", "primaryDecision": "A small specialist and a prime may discuss teaming before role, workshare, eligibility, client access, payment, security, and evidence responsibilities are clear.", "audience": [ "government", "partner" ], "topics": [ "joint-discovery-workshop", "technical evidence" ], "htmlRoute": "/resources/government-prime-teaming-readiness-checklist/", "pdfRoute": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_GovernmentPrime_TeamingReadinessChecklist.pdf", "version": "1.48.0", "publishedDate": "2026-07-21", "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel", "usageBoundary": "Not legal or procurement advice; solicitation terms and qualified counsel control.", "status": "published", "relatedInsights": [ "reusable-capability-not-isolated-ai-pilots" ] }, { "id": "legacy-modernization-evidence-inventory", "title": "Legacy Modernization Evidence Inventory", "path": "/resources/legacy-modernization-evidence-inventory/", "pdf": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_LegacyModernization_EvidenceInventory.pdf", "audiences": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "problem": "A team wants to estimate or modernize a legacy system without knowing which evidence must be collected first.", "summary": "An inventory of application, database, integration, workflow, testing, operational, and ownership evidence for a safer modernization decision.", "limitations": "An evidence inventory, not a complete assessment or estimate.", "sections": [ { "title": "System evidence", "items": [ "Applications, repositories, branches, frameworks, and build paths", "Databases, schemas, stored procedures, jobs, reports, and retention", "Interfaces, file exchanges, vendors, and scheduled dependencies", "Environments, deployment, configuration, secrets handling, and monitoring" ] }, { "title": "Behavior evidence", "items": [ "Critical workflows and exception paths", "Calculations, approvals, permissions, and reports", "Representative production scenarios and historical defects", "Manual workarounds and domain-owner knowledge", "Comparison and reconciliation rules" ] }, { "title": "Decision evidence", "items": [ "Business and technical owners", "Continuity, downtime, and rollback constraints", "Unsupported components and key-person risks", "Known unknowns and disputed behavior", "Acceptance criteria by modernization seam" ] } ], "relatedService": "dotnet-sql-modernization", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25", "slug": "legacy-modernization-evidence-inventory", "shortDescription": "An inventory of application, database, integration, workflow, testing, operational, and ownership evidence for a safer modernization decision.", "resourceType": "Decision guide", "primaryDecision": "A team wants to estimate or modernize a legacy system without knowing which evidence must be collected first.", "audience": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "topics": [ "dotnet-sql-modernization", "technical evidence" ], "htmlRoute": "/resources/legacy-modernization-evidence-inventory/", "pdfRoute": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_LegacyModernization_EvidenceInventory.pdf", "version": "1.48.0", "publishedDate": "2026-07-21", "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel", "usageBoundary": "An evidence inventory, not a complete assessment or estimate.", "status": "published", "relatedInsights": [ "modernize-dotnet-sql-without-business-logic-drift" ] }, { "id": "technical-vendor-review-checklist", "title": "Technical Vendor Review Checklist", "path": "/resources/technical-vendor-review-checklist/", "pdf": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_TechnicalVendor_ReviewChecklist.pdf", "audiences": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "problem": "A vendor proposal is being considered without a clear view of architecture fit, data boundaries, implementation responsibilities, lock-in, operating cost, and exit conditions.", "summary": "A technical review checklist for software, cloud, AI, and integration vendors.", "limitations": "Does not replace legal, financial, security, privacy, or procurement review by qualified owners.", "sections": [ { "title": "Fit and architecture", "items": [ "Named business problem and system boundary", "Integration and data ownership model", "Identity, access, tenant, and environment boundaries", "Failure handling, observability, rollback, and support", "Model, platform, and third-party dependencies" ] }, { "title": "Commercial and operational risk", "items": [ "Implementation and client responsibilities", "Usage, cloud, model, and support cost drivers", "SLA and support commitments matched to actual capacity", "Data export, knowledge transfer, termination, and lock-in", "Background IP and client-specific work product" ] }, { "title": "Evidence", "items": [ "Reference architecture and data-flow diagram", "Security and privacy materials through approved channels", "Known limitations and roadmap dependencies", "Acceptance tests and proof of value", "Decision record and unresolved-risk owner" ] } ], "relatedService": "architecture-reliability-office", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25", "slug": "technical-vendor-review-checklist", "shortDescription": "A technical review checklist for software, cloud, AI, and integration vendors.", "resourceType": "Checklist", "primaryDecision": "A vendor proposal is being considered without a clear view of architecture fit, data boundaries, implementation responsibilities, lock-in, operating cost, and exit conditions.", "audience": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "topics": [ "architecture-reliability-office", "technical evidence" ], "htmlRoute": "/resources/technical-vendor-review-checklist/", "pdfRoute": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_TechnicalVendor_ReviewChecklist.pdf", "version": "1.48.0", "publishedDate": "2026-07-21", "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel", "usageBoundary": "Does not replace legal, financial, security, privacy, or procurement review by qualified owners.", "status": "published", "relatedInsights": [ "durable-ai-systems-memory-state-retries-evidence" ] }, { "id": "long-term-capability-review", "slug": "long-term-capability-review", "title": "Long-Term Capability Review", "shortDescription": "A non-certifying worksheet for reviewing business behavior, system knowledge, evidence, human authority, learning, ownership, and continuity before a major modernization or AI decision.", "path": "/resources/long-term-capability-review/", "htmlRoute": "/resources/long-term-capability-review/", "pdf": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_LongTermCapabilityReview.pdf", "pdfRoute": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_LongTermCapabilityReview.pdf", "resourceType": "Review worksheet", "primaryDecision": "Which capability gaps must be addressed before the organization proceeds, narrows, or expands a high-risk system change?", "audiences": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "audience": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "topics": [ "Long-term capability building", "AI readiness and review", "Modernization and delivery" ], "problem": "A non-certifying worksheet for reviewing business behavior, system knowledge, evidence, human authority, learning, ownership, and continuity before a major modernization or AI decision.", "summary": "A non-certifying worksheet for reviewing business behavior, system knowledge, evidence, human authority, learning, ownership, and continuity before a major modernization or AI decision.", "limitations": "This worksheet does not produce a score, certification, compliance conclusion, or universal maturity rating. Record unknown and not-applicable results rather than forcing a positive answer.", "usageBoundary": "This worksheet does not produce a score, certification, compliance conclusion, or universal maturity rating. Record unknown and not-applicable results rather than forcing a positive answer.", "sections": [ { "title": "1. Business behavior and continuity", "anchor": "1-business-behavior-and-continuity", "items": [ "Have the calculations, approvals, permissions, reports, exceptions, and manual workarounds that matter been identified?", "Is observed system behavior separated from intended policy or requirement?", "Are known, unknown, disputed, intentional, and accidental behaviors classified?", "Are representative high-consequence scenarios documented?", "Is the operational fallback known if the new or AI-assisted path is unavailable?", "Are cutover and rollback conditions explicit?", "Are service, support, and recovery owners named?" ], "instructions": [] }, { "title": "2. System state and knowledge durability", "anchor": "2-system-state-and-knowledge-durability", "items": [ "Is there a current inventory of applications, data stores, integrations, jobs, models, prompts, tools, and vendors?", "Are important decisions recorded with date, owner, rationale, and supersession status?", "Can another qualified person reproduce the relevant system state?", "Are source, authority, time, scope, trust state, and retention visible for reusable knowledge?", "Is stale or superseded information kept out of active instruction paths?", "Can the organization continue if a key maintainer, contractor, or vendor leaves?", "Are dependencies and replacement options documented?" ], "instructions": [] }, { "title": "3. Evaluation and evidence", "anchor": "3-evaluation-and-evidence", "items": [ "Are golden, edge, adversarial, refusal, access, and operational cases defined where relevant?", "Are datasets, fixtures, prompts, models, tools, and configurations versioned?", "Can results be traced to the exact source and system state examined?", "Are failure categories separated rather than grouped under a vague label?", "Are automated evaluators calibrated against human-reviewed cases where used?", "Are access-control and unauthorized-source cases included?", "Are release, rollback, exception, and stop criteria explicit?", "Are unknowns retained with an owner and next action?" ], "instructions": [] }, { "title": "4. Human authority and escalation", "anchor": "4-human-authority-and-escalation", "items": [ "Are proposer, reviewer, approver, executor, escalation owner, policy owner, and system owner roles named?", "Is AI output clearly labeled as proposed work before approval?", "Can reviewers approve, edit, reject, request evidence, refuse, or escalate?", "Does the interface show source evidence, limitations, and downstream consequence?", "Is approval separated from execution where consequence warrants it?", "Is execution bound to the exact approved action and parameters?", "Are duplicate execution, expired approval, and unavailable-reviewer cases handled?", "Are overrides and disagreements retained and reviewed?" ], "instructions": [] }, { "title": "5. Feedback and learning", "anchor": "5-feedback-and-learning", "items": [ "Does the team review failures, disagreements, overrides, and blocked actions for system improvement?", "Are users taught how to verify AI-assisted work rather than only accept it?", "Are assistance levels appropriate to user expertise, consequence, urgency, and accessibility?", "Is independent performance measured when long-term human capability matters?", "Are operational signals connected to ownership and remediation?", "Does each pilot improve a reusable dataset, architecture pattern, review process, or evidence method?", "Are lessons promoted into maintained documentation instead of remaining in meeting notes?" ], "instructions": [] }, { "title": "6. Ownership, handoff, and vendor exit", "anchor": "6-ownership-handoff-and-vendor-exit", "items": [ "Does the client own client-specific deliverables and evidence?", "Are pre-existing provider methods and client-specific outputs distinguished?", "Are artifacts available in exportable, readable formats?", "Are repository, environment, account, and vendor dependencies known?", "Is knowledge transfer included in scope?", "Is there a practical replacement or exit path for models, platforms, or vendors?", "Are retained data, logs, prompts, and documents addressed at exit?", "Can the organization operate and change the system without manufactured lock-in?" ], "instructions": [] }, { "title": "7. Infrastructure and time-horizon constraints", "anchor": "7-infrastructure-and-time-horizon-constraints", "items": [ "Are expected volume, latency, cost, availability, and recovery needs documented?", "Are rate limits, quotas, model availability, and vendor-change risks understood?", "Are near-term decisions separated from medium-term capability building?", "Is infrastructure work sequenced before use cases that depend on it?", "Are current constraints accepted explicitly rather than hidden in assumptions?", "Is there a review date for fast-changing model, vendor, security, or procurement facts?" ], "instructions": [] }, { "title": "8. Decision and next-step register", "anchor": "8-decision-and-next-step-register", "items": [ "Gap or unknown", "Consequence if unresolved", "Owner", "Evidence needed", "Action", "Due date", "Decision affected", "Status", "Proceed within the reviewed boundary", "Proceed with named conditions", "Narrow the use case or system scope", "Remediate before proceeding", "Keep the work in pilot", "Stop or defer with the reason recorded" ], "instructions": [ "For each material gap, record:", "Conclude with one of these plain-language recommendations:" ] } ], "wordCount": 785, "relatedService": "ai-production-readiness", "relatedServices": [ "ai-production-readiness", "dotnet-sql-modernization", "architecture-reliability-office" ], "relatedInsights": [ "reusable-capability-not-isolated-ai-pilots", "durable-ai-systems-memory-state-retries-evidence" ], "version": "1.48.0", "publishedDate": "2026-07-22", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25", "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel", "status": "published", "responseOptions": [ "Yes", "Partly", "No", "Unknown", "Not applicable" ], "recordFields": [ "Owner", "Evidence or source", "Next action" ] }, { "id": "human-capability-safeguards-ai-work", "slug": "human-capability-safeguards-ai-work", "title": "Human Capability Safeguards for AI-Assisted Work", "shortDescription": "A design worksheet for deciding when AI should answer directly, provide a hint, ask for a first attempt, require verification, or route the task to a human.", "path": "/resources/human-capability-safeguards-ai-work/", "htmlRoute": "/resources/human-capability-safeguards-ai-work/", "pdf": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_HumanCapabilitySafeguards_AIWork.pdf", "pdfRoute": "/downloads/LongTermCapabilities_HumanCapabilitySafeguards_AIWork.pdf", "resourceType": "Design worksheet", "primaryDecision": "What level of AI assistance supports the task without weakening safety, accessibility, authority, or the human capability the organization needs to retain?", "audiences": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "audience": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "topics": [ "Long-term capability building", "Human-reviewed AI", "AI interaction design" ], "problem": "A design worksheet for deciding when AI should answer directly, provide a hint, ask for a first attempt, require verification, or route the task to a human.", "summary": "A design worksheet for deciding when AI should answer directly, provide a hint, ask for a first attempt, require verification, or route the task to a human.", "limitations": "This worksheet is a design aid, not a certification, clinical assessment, training standard, or universal rule that more friction is always better.", "usageBoundary": "This worksheet is a design aid, not a certification, clinical assessment, training standard, or universal rule that more friction is always better.", "sections": [ { "title": "1. Task consequence", "anchor": "1-task-consequence", "items": [ "What decision or action can the AI output influence?", "Who or what is affected if it is wrong, late, incomplete, or unauthorized?", "Is the outcome reversible?", "How quickly can an error be detected and repaired?", "Does the task involve financial, legal, safety, privacy, eligibility, access, or service consequences?", "Which cases must refuse or escalate rather than answer?", "Low-consequence reference or clerical support", "Moderate-consequence professional assistance", "High-consequence reviewed recommendation", "Prohibited for AI proposal or execution" ], "instructions": [ "Record:", "Suggested decision:" ] }, { "title": "2. User expertise", "anchor": "2-user-expertise", "items": [ "Novice, developing, experienced, or expert user", "Domain knowledge required", "Ability to detect unsupported AI output", "Familiarity with sources and policy", "Need for training or calibration", "Risk of over-reliance or automation bias" ], "instructions": [ "Record:", "Decide whether the interface should explain more, require a first attempt, provide direct assistance, or route to a qualified reviewer." ] }, { "title": "3. Learning and transfer goal", "anchor": "3-learning-and-transfer-goal", "items": [ "Complete the task quickly", "Teach a concept or procedure", "Build independent judgment", "Preserve a rarely used critical skill", "Support reflection and review", "Produce a governed operational result" ], "instructions": [ "Select the primary goal:", "If learning or independent judgment matters, define how the system will test transfer beyond the assisted case." ] }, { "title": "4. Time and safety constraints", "anchor": "4-time-and-safety-constraints", "items": [ "Response deadline", "Safety or incident urgency", "Service-level expectation", "Cost of delay", "Availability of a human expert", "Whether direct guidance is necessary to prevent harm" ], "instructions": [ "Record:", "Do not introduce staged assistance when delay is itself unsafe or operationally irresponsible." ] }, { "title": "5. Accessibility accommodations", "anchor": "5-accessibility-accommodations", "items": [ "Keyboard and assistive-technology requirements", "Cognitive-load and memory demands", "Language or literacy needs", "Visual, auditory, motor, or speech accommodations", "Need for reduced steps, direct answers, or alternative formats", "Whether a required first attempt creates an unnecessary barrier" ], "instructions": [ "Record:", "Accessibility is not optional friction. The assistance design must remain perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust." ] }, { "title": "6. Select an assistance level", "anchor": "6-select-an-assistance-level", "items": [], "instructions": [ "Level 0 - Observe", "The system provides a workspace, captures context, or waits without generating an answer.", "Use when: the human should perform the full reasoning or when evidence is not yet sufficient.", "Level 1 - Ask", "The system asks the user to state the goal, assumptions, or first interpretation.", "Use when: a first attempt supports learning, judgment, or clearer intent.", "Level 2 - Hint", "The system identifies a relevant concept, source, or area of concern.", "Use when: the user should continue the reasoning but may need orientation.", "Level 3 - Scaffold", "The system provides a checklist, template, staged questions, or partial structure.", "Use when: the process matters and the user should retain ownership of the conclusion.", "Level 4 - Draft", "The system creates proposed work with sources, limitations, and required verification.", "Use when: acceleration is valuable and a qualified person can review the result.", "Level 5 - Execute under authority", "The system performs a bounded action after explicit approval and with audit evidence.", "Use when: the action, authority, rollback, and failure behavior are defined and tested." ] }, { "title": "7. Reflection and verification", "anchor": "7-reflection-and-verification", "items": [ "User identifies the supporting source", "User explains what changed from the AI draft", "User states the remaining limitation", "User compares alternatives", "User confirms the downstream consequence", "User performs a second independent check", "Another reviewer approves", "The system runs a deterministic test or reconciliation", "The system refuses when evidence is insufficient" ], "instructions": [ "Choose at least one appropriate control:" ] }, { "title": "8. Independent-performance check", "anchor": "8-independent-performance-check", "items": [ "Similar task completed without AI", "Transfer to a new case", "Ability to identify an incorrect AI response", "Confidence compared with correctness", "Persistence after a difficult case", "User-authored reasoning quality", "Need for escalation", "Retention after time has passed" ], "instructions": [ "When human capability matters, define one or more measures:", "Do not use immediate time-on-task as the only outcome." ] }, { "title": "9. Human-review ownership", "anchor": "9-human-review-ownership", "items": [ "Product or workflow owner", "Domain reviewer", "Approver", "Executor", "Escalation owner", "Accessibility owner", "Learning or capability owner", "Evidence owner" ], "instructions": [ "Name:", "Define who may change the assistance level and who approves a higher-authority execution path." ] }, { "title": "10. Measurement plan", "anchor": "10-measurement-plan", "items": [ "Assisted and independent task quality", "Unsupported-claim rate", "Reviewer agreement", "Override and refusal rate", "Time and cost", "Accessibility defects", "Blind acceptance indicators", "User-reported usefulness", "Escalation patterns", "Operational incidents" ], "instructions": [ "Track only what is necessary and approved. Candidate measures include:", "Do not add surveillance merely because it is technically possible." ] } ], "wordCount": 805, "relatedService": "ai-production-readiness", "relatedServices": [ "ai-production-readiness", "ai-evaluation-release-gates", "architecture-reliability-office" ], "relatedInsights": [ "ai-cognitive-scaffolding-human-capability", "human-reviewed-ai-proposal-approval-execution" ], "version": "1.48.0", "publishedDate": "2026-07-22", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25", "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel", "status": "published", "responseOptions": [], "recordFields": [ "Design owner", "Evidence or rationale", "Review date" ] } ] }