The Idea Brief asks: is this worth a proper look? One page: enough on paper to decide whether an idea earns a Gate 1 review. Don’t design anything yet; requirements, options and priorities come at the gates (Gate 1 makes the case, Gate 2 designs it). Once it’s worth pursuing, this carries forward into Gate 1 (FSD-FRM-01) — and if you can already answer Gate 1’s questions, go straight there; the brief is optional. Related demands may share one brief (the Gate 1 Approver decides whether they share a case). (Form 00 — the optional pre-gate intake, before the numbered gates. Terms: see FitSD — Definitions.) The live copy is held in the team’s work-tracking system; this is the blank template.
| Field | Entry |
|---|
| Working title | |
| Raised by | Who raised it: someone on the team, another team, or a third party / customer asking the team to take the work on |
| Date | |
| Demand source / primary driver | Where it came from and why: strategy, customer, compliance, risk, operational, finance/people; value / compliance / risk reduction |
One page. What’s the problem, what would “done” look like, and what’s roughly in and out of scope.
| Field | Entry |
|---|
| Problem / gap | What’s the problem or gap this addresses? |
| Outcome sought | What would “done” look like — the outcome, not the design |
| Roughly in scope | |
| Roughly out of scope | |
Name the standing Service Acceptance baseline as the quality bar this must eventually meet, and flag any project-specific emphasis, so quality shapes selection and design from the start, not just at acceptance. By reference only; don’t re-specify it here.
| Field | Entry |
|---|
| Applies the standing SAC baseline? | Yes, see FitSD — Service Acceptance Criteria |
| Any project-specific emphasis | e.g. this one leans hard on availability / continuity / a regulatory measure |
| Field | Entry |
|---|
| Recommendation | Take to Gate 1 / Hold / Drop |
| Note | One line on why |