Business Fit is well supported by the current intake. The business case is detailed enough to support a serious approval discussion. Residual risk remains because measurement risk: the intake includes success metrics, but the set is still narrow for a confident business-value argument..
Positive signals
- The business case is detailed enough to support a serious approval discussion.
- The intended business outcome is explicit enough to guide decision-making.
Risks to close
- Measurement risk: the intake includes success metrics, but the set is still narrow for a confident business-value argument.
- Approval caveat risk: the intake already notes approval conditions that still need explicit closure and ownership.
Recommended actions
- Expand the success metric set so value is not defended through only one narrow signal.
- Turn the approval notes into named approval conditions with owners and close dates.
Scope Clarity is well supported by the current intake. The scope summary provides a usable narrative baseline for review. Residual risk remains because requirement completeness risk: the requirement set exists, but it still looks partial for a confident approval decision..
Positive signals
- The scope summary provides a usable narrative baseline for review.
- Must-haves distinguish the critical scope from lower-priority requests.
Risks to close
- Requirement completeness risk: the requirement set exists, but it still looks partial for a confident approval decision.
- Boundary definition risk: one exclusion is helpful, but the out-of-scope list is still too light to resist scope creep.
Recommended actions
- Add the missing business or functional requirements before treating the scope baseline as stable.
- Expand the out-of-scope list so adjacent requests do not get mistaken for included work.
Resource Readiness is well supported by the current intake. A sponsor is named, which gives the intake a clear escalation point. Residual risk remains because stakeholder coverage risk: stakeholder mapping has started, but it may still miss a critical reviewer or approver..
Positive signals
- A sponsor is named, which gives the intake a clear escalation point.
- Named owners exist for multiple roles, which is stronger than placeholder staffing alone.
Risks to close
- Stakeholder coverage risk: stakeholder mapping has started, but it may still miss a critical reviewer or approver.
- Coverage risk: some delivery roles are identified, but the team shape still looks incomplete for a confident start.
Recommended actions
- Confirm the full review and approval stakeholder set so no essential voice is missing later.
- Add the missing delivery roles or clarify which responsibilities are intentionally not needed in this phase.
Timeline Confidence is well supported by the current intake. A defined timeline window exists, which is better than planning against an undefined target. Residual risk remains because timeline compression risk: the current window is plausible, but it may tighten quickly once dependencies and approvals are fully mapped..
Positive signals
- A defined timeline window exists, which is better than planning against an undefined target.
- Timeline notes provide enough sequencing or assumption context to support review.
Risks to close
- Timeline compression risk: the current window is plausible, but it may tighten quickly once dependencies and approvals are fully mapped.
- Contingency risk: the intake sets target dates, but it does not yet show the buffer or recovery approach if a key milestone slips.
Recommended actions
- Stress-test the current dates against dependencies, approval time, and resource availability before approval.
- Record the contingency approach for likely schedule slips or approval delays.
ROI Confidence is well supported by the current intake. The business rationale is detailed enough to support a value discussion. Residual risk remains because measurement coverage risk: success metrics exist, but the set is still narrow for a dependable ROI narrative..
Positive signals
- The business rationale is detailed enough to support a value discussion.
- Desired outcomes are specific enough to support benefit validation later.
Risks to close
- Measurement coverage risk: success metrics exist, but the set is still narrow for a dependable ROI narrative.
- Unclear measurement risk: success metrics are listed, but no baseline, review date, or reporting owner is captured yet.
Recommended actions
- Expand the metric set so the return case can be validated across more than one outcome dimension.
- Add metric baselines, validation timing, and reporting ownership so ROI can be checked after launch.