Board-ready deliverables • Acceptance-led • Procurement-friendly

Trust Ledger output specification

Procurement-ready definition of “board-ready” Trust Ledger outputs: artefacts delivered, how they are structured, how acceptance is assessed, and what is explicitly out of scope. Designed to reduce ambiguity, speed approvals, and support auditability.

Public intake is non-confidential by design. Do not submit credentials, secrets, or regulated data via public forms.
Why this spec exists

Procurement reviews stall when “deliverables” are vague. This specification defines concrete artefacts and acceptance criteria so Legal, Security, IT, and Procurement review the same objects (versioned outputs), not interpretations.

Primary deliverables

Delivered as versioned artefacts. Evidence pointers are explicit. Missing proofs are listed as gaps.

Board memo (PDF)

Decision-ready summary that stands alone for board review.

  • Executive summary (decision + rationale)
  • Decision options and tradeoffs
  • Actions, owners, timelines
  • Scope, exclusions, assumptions

Trust Ledger snapshot

Record of system/use-case, accountable roles, controls, and evidence pointers.

  • Use case / system identifiers
  • Accountable roles (by function)
  • Controls and evidence pointers
  • Gaps and follow-ups

Controls map

Traceability from risks to controls to proofs (what is verifiable).

  • Risks ↔ controls ↔ proof linkage
  • Effectiveness notes (evidence-based)
  • Prioritized remediation actions

Evidence index

What was reviewed, what was missing, and what was assumed.

  • Reviewed artefacts list
  • Missing evidence list
  • Assumptions register
Optional add-ons (by scope) enterprise
  • Policy-to-control mapping pack (board + audit alignment)
  • Vendor due-diligence questionnaire and review notes
  • Executive risk register slice for a specific program/tool
  • Evidence request list for internal teams (what to collect next)
Structure and formatting

Outputs are designed for review: consistent naming, versioning, and role-based ownership.

Versioning

  • Artefacts include version + date
  • Change notes for revisions
  • Explicit assumptions per version

Board readability

  • Executive summary stands alone
  • Decisions framed as options + tradeoffs
  • Owners specified by role (not person)
Acceptance criteria

Acceptance is based on deliverables and clarity, not undefined “completion.”

If evidence access is constrained, outputs remain deliverable-complete — constraints are recorded as assumptions and gaps, not hidden.
Inputs and access

Work is evidence-based. Inputs are scoped, minimized, and agreed before sensitive exchange.

Minimum inputs

  • Tool/use-case shortlist (or discovery constraints)
  • Accountable roles (business + IT + security)
  • Existing policies (if available)
  • Evidence access plan (what can be reviewed)

Not requested

  • Credentials/secrets via public channels
  • Unbounded access to systems
  • Production data dumps by default
  • Anything outside agreed scope
Delivery cadence

Cadence is defined per engagement, typically:

Scope boundaries
Procurement and contracting path

Contracting is deliverable-defined. Typical documents: SOW (scope + acceptance) and, if applicable, DPA (privacy boundaries). For vendor onboarding context, see the Vendor pack.