Paul Miles — Glossary Term Impact Assessment & Step 4 BIF Routing (form + sub-process)

Tag: S-2026-07-12-paul-glossary-impact-assessment Type: own-writing Author(s): AI agent (Claude, Cowork) for Paul / Red Strata Date of source: 2026-07-12 Date ingested: 2026-07-12 Authority weight: medium — an operational process/form record derived strictly from the governed Build Kit v1.2 artefacts (Squad Operating Guidelines §2/§3/§5, _guardrails.md, T-04 workshop route) and the delivered CR-process pattern; it adds an intake/routing layer inside Step 4 rather than new rules. The Impact Backlog statuses and the 10–20-minute time-box are new proposals pending squad confirmation. Raw file: S-2026-07-12-paul-glossary-impact-assessment.md

What it claims

Records the delivery of the Glossary Term Impact Assessment form and the Step 4 routing sub-process (2026-07-12), answering Paul’s brief for a very simple, indicative impact view completed by squad SMEs when routing a new, modified or unresolved term for decision at the Credit Monitoring Business Impact Forum (BIF) — the fortnightly forum formerly named the CLM Design Sub-Committee (rename declared in Paul’s brief; BIF to be used going forward).

Purpose: used when implementing a term may impact existing processes, systems or data architecture; informs the BIF’s decision-making; flags where implementing a term could require a backlog of change activities to be delivered before the term is made effective; and determines whether a detailed impact assessment — outside the Glossary squad’s scope — is required. Covers single or multiple terms on one form (one Section B block per term).

Deliverables (all in 09 Taxonomy Tool\Glossary Impact Assessment\): Glossary_Term_Impact_Assessment_Form.docx (+ .md — Sections A escalation details / B per-term impact summary / C SME sign-off / D BIF use only, with 2-minute SME instructions), Glossary_Step4_Impact_Assessment_Sub_Process.pptx (3 B&W slides, + .md record), an approach & work-breakdown record, and — added later the same day at Paul’s request — Glossary_Impact_Assessment_Exec_View.pptx, a 1-slide exec-level view: the slide-1 flow lifted up a level (step boxes carry only step name + actor, no descriptive text), the five BIF decision outcomes as a strip, and the single holding rule (terms held on the Impact Backlog; nothing approved while an impact decision is outstanding, nothing published/effective until change activities are confirmed delivered).

Sub-process shape (4a.1–4a.5, inside Step 4, exits to Step 5 Master definition): Assess (SME, indicative form, 10–20 min per term, in workshop or ≤2 wd) → Log & route (Data Steward: Impact Backlog + T-04 pack to next fortnightly BIF, ≤2 wd) → Decide (BIF per term: Approve / Approve with conditions / Refer — detailed IA / Refer — other forum / Reject; may refer on to Enterprise DG Council, ARB or DQ Forum while remaining coordinating decision point) → Track (DS updates backlog, chases owners each BIF cycle) → Clear & resume (BIF confirms; term resumes at Step 5).

Backlog & statuses: a lightweight Data Steward Impact Backlog (one row per term) carries the pending-term statuses — Escalated — awaiting BIF · Referred — detailed IA in progress · Referred — other forum · Deferred — awaiting change delivery · Cleared — resumed to Step 5 · Rejected — closed. No new T-06 statuses: pending terms keep Conflict — In Workshop / In Review; a term is never Approved while its impact decision is outstanding; an “Approve with conditions” term may be mastered and Approved but is not Published / made effective until the BIF confirms the pre-effective change activities are delivered.

Controls: no new roles, forums, master statuses or tooling; reuses GR-01 (named human approvals), GR-11 (never delete/overwrite), GR-12 (decisions recorded/versioned). Terms escalating without implementation impact follow the standard T-04 route unchanged.

Notable quotes

“This is an indicative view based on what you already know … It is not analysis: do not research beyond the squad, and spend no more than 10–20 minutes per term.” (Form instructions.)

“‘Unknown — needs investigation’ is a valid and useful answer: it signals that a detailed impact assessment may be needed.” (Form instructions.)

What’s speculative vs. asserted

• Asserted (grounded in kit artefacts and the brief): Step 4’s existing escalation route (only unresolved items escalate to the fortnightly slot); the status lifecycle and Approved ≠ Published distinction; the guardrails reused; the roles (SME decides, Data Steward logs/tracks); the other governance fora named (Enterprise DG Council, ARB, DQ Forum — from existing squad/ToR sources); the BIF rename (declared by Paul in the brief).
• Speculative / proposals pending confirmation: the 10–20-minute per-term time-box; the six Impact Backlog statuses; the ≤2-working-day SME/DS turnaround targets; whether the Impact Backlog becomes a numbered kit template (T-09); how/when the BIF rename propagates through existing kit documents.

Topics this feeds

• CLM Glossary Acceleration Squad — supplies the Step 4 impact-assessment intake and BIF routing sub-process, and records the CLM Design Sub-Committee → BIF rename.

Open questions raised

• Does the Impact Backlog stay a simple Data Steward log, or join the master kit as a T-09 Excel template (with the MS365 Copilot edition regenerated)?
• Should the BIF rename be propagated now through existing kit documents (Guidelines, CR process, decks) or picked up at each document’s next revision?
• Who owns detailed impact assessments referred outside the squad (BIF assigns per case in this design)?