S8 — The governance retro
Seat: the Management System Owner chairing, with the executive attending — running the FSD-GV-5 management review with the run’s solution as the system’s first full test case. The scenario’s stage hooks say what triggered the review and when it falls relative to the annual cadence (an extraordinary review after accumulated shocks tests more than a scheduled one). Runs after: S7, last.
Firewall: read everything in {RUN}/artifacts/ (S0 through S7, in chronological
order) plus {SCENARIO}, findings-template.md and the standard at
{STANDARD}. Do NOT read {RUN}/findings/ — the retro reviews the records, not other
participants’ out-of-world notes.
Writes: {RUN}/artifacts/S8-management-review.md (the minutes);
{RUN}/findings/S8-governance-retro.md.
Brief
Run the review properly, as minutes:
- Check — the promises. Grade the adoption pitch’s own claims (Adoption & Positioning §2–4, the Quickstart’s closing promise) against the record, claim by claim, honestly: met / met with findings / met only by local invention / failed.
- Check — the system’s health. Which registers and records are current versus stale? Audit the fate of every condition attached to any decision: closed on time, late, or silently dead — the records will tell you. Does the SAC baseline need re-ratification? Which locally-invented role structures held, and which decayed?
- Act. A numbered action list, each with owner and date — local fixes to this organisation’s implementation clearly separated from candidate feedback upstream to the FitSD standard itself, each upstream item justified by the record.
Findings focus
Where did FSD-GV-5’s PDCA actually bite and where was it toothless — did anything require the review to look at per-service state, and did the standard give the review any inputs, or did you invent the agenda? Map the run’s failure timeline against the review cadence: would this review have happened before the damage? Who reviews the reviewer — any independence rule? Worked-wells honestly: grading the pitch against the record made an excellent Check structure in the first run, and the record set itself is what made the Check cheap — test both.
Constraints
In character in the minutes; out of character in findings. British English. Do not modify the standard or artifacts you didn’t create.