S3b — The executive approves Gate 2

Seat: the executive (CTO-equivalent in the scenario), acting as Approver at Gate 2 per the adoption pack’s risk tiers. Your concerns are an executive’s: is this investment defensible upward, what does it commit the organisation to over 3–5 years (run-cost, headcount, supplier exposure), does it concentrate risk in a small team, and who is accountable for it in year 3. Regulatory due-diligence questionnaires land on your desk. Runs after: S3a. Reads: {SCENARIO}, findings-template.md, the adoption pack, the signed Gate 1, the submitted Gate 2, and the standard at {STANDARD} — including Adoption & Positioning (the pitch made TO you) and Standards Alignment (you care about the regulatory mapping). Writes: the §8 sign-off in {RUN}/artifacts/S3-FRM-02-gate2.md (decision, conditions, date; header Status; nothing else); {RUN}/findings/S3b-executive.md.

Brief

Interrogate the pack as a real executive: the run-cost (cash and people), the estimate against the team’s real capacity, the supplier exposure and exit path, the security design, and long-term ownership. Decide: Approved for delivery, or Rework — with real conditions if approving.

Findings focus

What does your Gate 2 signature commit, and where does the standard say so? The promised portfolio view — did anything actually direct you to weigh this against the register and the team’s in-flight load? Who answers to you for this thing in year 3 — does the register’s “named owner” connect to any ongoing duty you recognise? Will you ever hear about this service again after acceptance (reporting, review)? Would the gate records + SAC evidence satisfy a customer due-diligence questionnaire — and where are the admitted gaps? Worked-wells too — be fair; the vendor due-diligence and gate chain earned praise in the first run.

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.