The following minimum pack is proposed for this design.
| Document | Accountable owner | Practical test |
|---|---|---|
| Scope and authority charter | Claims sponsor | Can staff identify what they may not decide? |
| State obligation and licensing matrix | Counsel/licensing | Can assignments be routed to authorised people? |
| Inspection input specification | Inspection manager | Can each partner supply a complete package? |
| Carrier-Ready Acceptance Pack | Technical QA | Can reviewers reach consistent dispositions? |
| Production SOP and escalation map | Production manager | Can a new authorised producer follow the process? |
| Evidence manifest and version schema | Operations/IT | Can the accepted file be reconstructed? |
| Data-flow, retention and access record | Security/privacy/records | Can the organisation explain where evidence goes? |
| AI use and change-control register, if applicable | AI governance owner | Can a model-assisted output be traced and challenged? |
| Training and competence records | Learning/technical lead | Is permitted work tied to demonstrated capability? |
| Pilot protocol and results | Transformation/QA | Were decision rules agreed before results? |
| Accepted-File Cost Calculator | Finance | Do costs and accepted files reconcile? |
| Rework Mapper and action log | Operations/QA | Does each material recurring defect have an owner? |
| Surge, outage and rollback runbook | Operations/IT | Has fallback actually been exercised? |
| Export and exit test | System owner/procurement | Can records move without losing evidence or history? |
For public research tools or demonstrations, use synthetic or appropriately authorised redacted examples rather than live policyholder material. Any later production-data use should follow the organisation’s approved security, privacy and records process.