Appendix: facilitation and committee worksheets

A substantive tie in the close-contest fixture makes the committee's next action the central question. This completed fictional facilitation session shows how to preserve disagreement and evidence limits while closing with a controlled action whose authority remains explicit. Its participants are authored process roles, not people whose preferences were measured. Follow the dispositions to see what must be resolved before selection can advance. The example supplies those completed decisions, rather than leaves an empty form for the reader to design alone.

The facilitator opens by asking the chair to state the action. The chair confirms that the present request concerns further development of an operating intervention, not approval of a funded programme. The service sponsor initially describes the goal as choosing the highest-scoring project. The facilitator reframes that statement as a method output and asks what the organisation needs to authorise now. The group agrees that the session must identify the next development action, the evidence required for implementation and the mandate governing those choices. This clarification narrows the use of the ranking without discarding it.

Present the common raw table before its weighted total. In this illustrative session, the service proposal has favourable cost and impact positions, the operating-readiness proposal has stronger readiness and risk positions, and the balanced proposal lies between them. The participants examine those swings without a preferred name determining the discussion. They retain the supplied values as illustrative and require a common rubric and perimeter for actual evidence. This sequence keeps the conversation on represented tradeoffs and the present action before the displayed ordering can become its objective.

The illustrative model reports Flexible service and Operating readiness at the same leading score of 50.00. The facilitator explains that the first display entry follows the engine's deterministic name order. The chair records that this ordering supplies no unique substantive preference. The committee must either accept indifference under the vector, authorise another relevant rule or reconsider whether the vector fits the present development decision.

The operating owner says that the readiness swing matters because the organisation cannot support a development activity without an accountable response capability. The service sponsor says that the lower-cost proposal allows more room for learning and keeps the wider programme open. These statements are not treated as errors. The facilitator asks whether each concern belongs in eligibility, preference or a funding constraint. The owner clarifies that a minimum accountable team is a condition, while additional maturity is a preference. The sponsor clarifies that capital preservation is a preference at this stage, subject to a separately approved envelope.

The evidence reviewer assigns verification of two scope propositions raised by the group: whether a ready proposal relies on staff with other obligations, and whether a low-cost proposal omits an interface needed for learning. Keep those propositions with their verification owners and the evidence needed to support the readiness and cost interpretations. The discussion leaves the illustrative ratings unchanged rather than creates actual performance values from the exercise. A real proposal record must close those evidence questions before the committee can rely on the corresponding interpretation.

The analyst shows the selected weight challenges. The operating-oriented and cost-oriented movements produce different leaders. The facilitator asks participants to explain the tradeoff that would justify each movement in the actual envelope. The discussion reveals that they have been imagining different stages: one speaks about executing an intervention soon, while the other speaks about learning before a later implementation. The chair decides that the charter must distinguish those stages before a governing vector is adopted. A numerical compromise is not used to hide that scope disagreement.

The committee can still make progress. It authorises preparation of comparable development scopes and an evidence acceptance record for the relevant options. It reserves implementation approval for a later meeting. This action is concrete and bounded: the team must identify operating responsibility, interface requirements and the learning question before returning. The ranked fixture remains a methodological exhibit that explains why stage and preference matter. It is not presented as an approval of the literal text display leader.

The criteria worksheet is completed before the next session. Its purpose is to make each concept operational enough for consistent evidence interpretation. The group records capital cost as the burden within the stated development scope, impact as the contribution to the declared learning or service objective, readiness as the capability to perform that scope and risk as the relevant execution exposure. It also records excluded meanings. Readiness does not stand for every future programme condition, and impact does not automatically include the benefit of unfunded downstream work.

The evidence reviewer uses that worksheet to challenge overlap. A mature operating arrangement may support readiness, while the consequence of a failure belongs in the risk interpretation. The reviewer asks whether the same unresolved issue is being penalised twice without a distinct rationale. The group does not assume that any correlation proves duplication. It traces the mechanism and meaning of the criteria. Where both capture intentionally distinct aspects, it records that distinction. Where the difference is merely two labels for the same proposition, it revises the rubric before elicitation.

The option sponsors prepare scope statements using the same perimeter. Each states what the present commitment delivers, which interfaces it requires and which later decisions remain open. A sponsor cannot claim programme-scale impact while supplying only a small component cost without explaining the relationship. The review record identifies dependencies and potential exclusions. This preparation makes the next numerical comparison more meaningful because the team has addressed comparability before arguing about weights or totals.

The next facilitation session begins with the approved scopes and rubrics. Participants compare the actual performance swings those scopes produce, rather than rating criterion names in the abstract. They explain why a movement matters to the development action. If a participant cannot value readiness without assuming a particular downstream design, the facilitator records the interaction concern. The group can revise the model envelope or choose another method. It does not force a convenient weight merely to complete the form.

Record the authorised perspective, stated ranges and evidence perimeter in the vector's use statement. Its authority extends to the development comparison only; a later implementation request must reconsider applicability. The fictional record completes that procedural disposition without supplying numerical judgements from a real institution. Before elicitation, the committee therefore has a defined meaning and authority for the requested numbers, together with the conditions for reuse. If the stage or perimeter changes, reopen that use statement rather than carry the development vector forward automatically.

A dissent record preserves the alternative emphasis. The operating owner may remain concerned that the development scope creates an obligation the team cannot support. The service sponsor may remain concerned that an early implementation framing removes the value of learning. Each states the action it would prefer and the finding that would make its concern decisive. The chair can adopt the bounded preparation action while retaining both concerns for the next meeting. This is progress without a false declaration of complete consensus.

At closure, the facilitator reads the adopted action, conditions and owners aloud to check that participants understand the same commitment. Save the calculation separately from the decision record: the former remains the authored close-contest education fixture, and the latter the original fictional process design. In an actual session, retain the input-only scenario according to the institution's privacy and persistence choice, and keep authoritative minutes through the applicable record process. The numerical vault can preserve the calculation but cannot replace the minutes that establish the action and authority.

The fictional next team can implement the handoff through a scope comparison. Place each candidate's current activity beside the outcome credited to it and identify any downstream commitment needed to connect them. A learning proposal credited with future programme impact needs an explicit conditional link; an implementation proposal with omitted enabling work needs a repaired commitment perimeter. Only then revisit the shared readiness and cost definitions. The preparation action remains distinct from implementation approval, but its usefulness is concrete: it can remove an inconsistent candidate comparison before elicitation. No adjustment to the weights alone can repair a row that describes a different action.

Challenge the completed fictional session by substituting the opposite procedural answer. Suppose the operating concern is treated as a low readiness score while the activity still lacks a credible accountable capability. The aggregate might then compensate for a condition the present commitment actually requires. Suppose instead that an advisory preference is labelled a gate: it could exclude a legitimate alternative before deliberation. Compare each concern's stated source and consequence with these substitutions. This identifies a classification error independently of the filled worksheet. The records support adaptation because their propositions can be tested, while the fictional roles confer no actual institutional authority.

A session should be judged by the quality of its next action, not by whether it produces a unique numerical winner. In the fictional case, the useful outcome is a bounded preparation commitment that resolves comparability and authority before selection. The tie and reversals expose why that work matters. This is a substantive decision result even though it postpones implementation preference. The committee has made progress by identifying what must be true and who must establish it before a larger commitment becomes defensible.