Confidential sample
Gateway evidence readiness report
A document-based pre-review of the evidence pack, designed to show the issues most likely to put a Green outcome at risk before the official review team arrives.
Readiness signal
Amber
Green is achievable, but six evidence gaps need owner action before review week.
Programme
North Coast Service Modernisation
Review point
Gate 3, Investment decision
Criteria set
Australian Government RMG 106
Prepared by
Assay, Leva Solutions Pty Ltd
Executive summary
What the pack says right now.
The pack is directionally strong on strategic need and governance, but it is not yet clean enough to walk into review week with confidence. The main issue is consistency: cost, risk, schedule, and benefits evidence tell different versions of the programme.
Assay found three critical findings and six essential findings. The fastest path to a Green-ready pack is to reconcile the baseline dates, link benefits to funded milestones, and close the risk treatment evidence gaps before document freeze.
Official review alignment
Similar structure. Different authority.
RMG 106 describes final assurance reports as including delivery confidence, findings, recommendations, conclusions, background, purpose, scope, approach, logistics, documents reviewed, stakeholders interviewed, and progress against previous recommendations.
This sample mirrors the document-facing parts of that structure. It does not include interviews, reviewer judgement, signed assurance conclusions, or an official Delivery Confidence Assessment.
Evidence scorecard
Key focus area readiness
Status reflects evidence quality in the supplied documents, not the final review team rating.
Red
2
Major contradictions likely to draw reviewer challenge.
Amber
1
Evidence exists but needs better linkage or owner action.
Green
2
Material is clear enough to support review discussion.
| Focus area | Evidence status | Reviewer question likely to follow |
|---|---|---|
| Business case and strategic fit | Green | Can the team show current policy alignment and benefits ownership? |
| Schedule and delivery controls | Red | Which baseline is authoritative, and who approved the change? |
| Risk and issue management | Red | Are critical risks funded, owned, and reflected in the business case? |
| Benefits realisation | Amber | Do benefits have measures, dates, and accountable owners? |
| Governance and assurance | Green | Are decisions captured and escalations visible? |
Key findings and recommendations
Priority findings to fix first.
Critical, do now
Gate 3, KFA 4.2
Schedule control
The approved schedule baseline conflicts with the investment decision pack.
The business case assumes contract award in September, while the integrated master schedule and procurement plan show November. The risk register still models the September date, which understates exposure.
Evidence: Business Case p.42-45, Schedule p.18-22, Risk Register p.7-9
Suggested action
Confirm the authoritative baseline, update dependent documents, and minute the decision before document freeze.
Critical, do now
Gate 3, KFA 2.1
Benefits realisation
Benefits are asserted, but not tied to funded milestones.
The benefits plan names four public outcomes, but only one is linked to a funded deliverable in the forward work plan. Reviewers are likely to ask how benefits will be measured and reported.
Evidence: Benefits Plan p.11-16, Delivery Plan p.30-36, Budget Model p.6
Suggested action
Add a benefits traceability table showing owner, measure, baseline, target, delivery milestone, and reporting forum.
Essential, do by
Gate 3, KFA 5.3
Stakeholder readiness
Stakeholder evidence is current for delivery partners, but weak for central agencies.
The engagement plan lists Treasury and Finance as critical stakeholders. The latest evidence pack includes no engagement record for either group in the past 90 days.
Evidence: Engagement Plan p.8-10, Communications Log p.41-49
Suggested action
Update the stakeholder log and include planned review-week briefings for central agency stakeholders.
Action plan
Recommended owner actions.
| Priority | Action | Owner | Target |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | Confirm the authoritative baseline, update dependent documents, and minute the decision before document freeze. | Programme Director | Before pack freeze |
| Critical | Add a benefits traceability table showing owner, measure, baseline, target, delivery milestone, and reporting forum. | Benefits Lead | Within 5 business days |
| Essential | Update the stakeholder log and include planned review-week briefings for central agency stakeholders. | PMO Lead | Before planning meeting |
Background
Programme context.
The programme seeks investment approval for a staged service modernisation across regional operating sites. The stated objectives are improved service resilience, reduced operating cost, and better customer access.
Purpose, scope and approach
What Assay checked.
Assay checked the supplied documents against the selected Gate 3 criteria, identified missing evidence, compared claims across documents, and prioritised fixable issues. No interviews were conducted.
Documents reviewed
Evidence pack coverage.
Business Case v4.2
86 pages, received 22 Apr 2026
Integrated Master Schedule
42 pages, received 22 Apr 2026
Risk Register
19 pages, received 22 Apr 2026
Benefits Realisation Plan
28 pages, received 22 Apr 2026
Governance Pack
64 pages, received 23 Apr 2026
Stakeholder Engagement Plan
31 pages, received 23 Apr 2026
Previous recommendations
Action taken evidence.
| Previous action | Evidence found | Assay view |
|---|---|---|
| Strengthen benefits ownership. | Benefits owners named, but measures and funded milestones are incomplete. | Partially addressed |
| Clarify governance escalation path. | Board terms of reference and escalation map are aligned. | Addressed |
Scope limits
This is a pre-review document check, not an assurance opinion.
Assay does not replace the independent review team, conduct stakeholder interviews, sign the official report, assign a Delivery Confidence Assessment, or predict the final Gateway outcome. It shows where the supplied documents are likely to be challenged.