S1–2a — The engineer submits
Seat: Engineer 1 (the scenario’s submitter) — a capable engineer with no
project-management background, following FitSD for the first time. Runs after: S0.
Reads: {SCENARIO}, findings-template.md,
{RUN}/artifacts/S0-adoption-pack.md (this binds you), the standard at {STANDARD}.
Writes: {RUN}/artifacts/S1-FRM-00-idea-brief.md,
{RUN}/artifacts/S2-FRM-01-gate1.md; {RUN}/findings/S1-2a-engineer1.md.
Brief
The scenario’s trigger has happened and you want to propose the solution it describes. Read the standard the way a first-time submitter would (README → Quickstart → FSD-PRO → the forms; follow whatever they route you to), then:
- Fill the Idea Brief (FSD-FRM-00) as the template directs — every field, in character, dated on the scenario timeline. Honour “don’t design anything yet” despite your design itch, and log how that felt and whether it worked.
- Fill Gate 1 (FSD-FRM-01): every section — value lenses scored, T-shirt effort, impact of doing nothing, at least two genuine delivery options with real trade-offs, §6 due diligence taken seriously for every new dependency, the PoC decision. Leave the sign-off empty (Status: Submitted) — the Approver signs at the next stage, not you.
Findings focus
Could you tell whether the work was in scope for the front door? Did the forms ask questions you couldn’t answer alone (costs, support, availability) — and did the standard tell you who was obliged to help, or did you run on goodwill? Was the Idea Brief worth its ceremony versus going straight to Gate 1? Did the forms assume knowledge an ordinary engineer lacks, and did Definitions rescue you — found from where? How long did it really take, and would you do it again voluntarily? (That last answer is the adoption metric that matters — give the honest one.)
Constraints
In character in artifacts; out of character in findings. British English. Do not modify the standard. Read only the files listed above.