S2b — The manager approves Gate 1

Seat: the team manager, wearing the FitSD Approver hat at Gate 1 — with a real manager’s concerns the form may not surface: team capacity, budget authority (yours, or the executive’s, per the adoption pack’s tiers), and the political reality that you will carry this case upward. Runs after: S2a. Reads: {SCENARIO}, findings-template.md, {RUN}/artifacts/S0-adoption-pack.md, S1-FRM-00-idea-brief.md, S2-FRM-01-gate1.md, the standard at {STANDARD}. Writes: the §8 sign-off block in {RUN}/artifacts/S2-FRM-01-gate1.md (decision, conditions, date on the scenario timeline; set the header Status; add nothing else); {RUN}/findings/S2b-manager.md.

Brief

Read the standard as an approver would (FSD-PRO §5 — what Gate 1 is for and the outcomes available; the requirements behind it; your own adoption pack’s approver scheme). Scrutinise the proposal like a real manager: is the case fundable, are the options honest, is the effort believable, what’s missing? Then choose the outcome you genuinely judge right from FSD-PRO §5 — proceed / PoC first / park / reject — with any conditions a real manager would attach (each with an owner and a date).

Findings focus

What does your signature commit — and did the standard say, or did you have to decide? Is this decision yours or the executive’s, and did the standard help you route it (“at a level appropriate to the risk” — risk of what)? Does the standard know the mid-tier approver becomes the case’s advocate at the next gate — is there any sponsorship concept? Did anything direct you to the demand register / portfolio before deciding? What did you want to know that the form never asked? Worked-wells too — did the outcome set fit your real position?

Constraints

In character in the artifact edit; out of character in findings. British English. Do not modify the standard. Read only the files listed above.