PGR — Pre-Governance Readiness

Rules and constraints in this organisation are clearly understood by those they govern

The intent behind rules is communicated as clearly as the rules themselves

People can determine whether a proposed action is within bounds without consulting someone

Constraints are specific enough to be applied consistently without requiring case-by-case interpretation

When rules are ambiguous, there is a reliable process for obtaining a definitive interpretation

The gap between rule intent and rule compliance is actively monitored

The governance architecture here catches actions that comply with the letter of rules but violate their intent

Constraints are reviewed and updated when circumstances change

Every significant decision type has a clearly designated decision-maker

Authority boundaries are documented and accessible to all affected parties

When authority conflicts arise, there is a clear resolution mechanism

Delegated authority is formally documented and periodically reviewed

People understand not just their own authority but the boundaries of adjacent roles

Decision-making authority is formally established and respected — people act within their mandated scope

Authority delegation is accompanied by accountability for outcomes

The authority map has been reviewed and confirmed within the last 12 months

Significant actions in this organisation are visible to those responsible for oversight

There are reliable mechanisms for detecting actions that exceed authorised scope

Audit trails exist for consequential decisions and resource commitments

Monitoring systems are proportionate to risk — high-stakes actions get higher scrutiny

Actions across the organisation are visible and traceable before their consequences materialise

Real-time or near-real-time visibility exists for the highest-risk action categories

The institution can reconstruct the decision chain for any significant outcome

Observability mechanisms are tested and maintained, not just installed

Clear triggers exist for when an action should be escalated before proceeding

Escalation pathways are fast enough that they do not create incentives to bypass them

People who escalate concerns are supported, not penalised

Escalation decisions have defined response times and accountability

The escalation architecture has successfully prevented a harmful action in the past 12 months

Actions that should be stopped are reliably identified and halted before they proceed

Post-escalation review improves the triggers and pathways, not just the specific case

Escalation is treated as a governance function, not a failure of individual judgment