Functional requirements

The system records every decision as one of three types: grant; deny; or reduce or discontinue. Each is a determination in its own right. Its record states the criteria met and not met, the statutory provisions applied, the assumptions made, the evidence lacking, any decision-support report used, and every item of information considered.

BR-002, UC-1, UC-2

OB-D01, OB-D03, OB-D04, OB-D05, OB-D06, OB-D07, OB-D09, OB-D11

N01, N07, N08, N20

Inputs: evidence snapshot, rules artefact, decision-maker input; Outputs: determination record; Validations: the assumptions and evidence-lacking fields cannot be empty (an explicit "none" counts as an answer).

FR-008, FR-011

Policy sets out what the record must contain. That includes negative facts, the assumptions made and the evidence lacking, which cannot be rebuilt after the decision (PRIN N08 amendment (a)).

Every decision carries real reasons, generated from the decision trace: the specific rule, the specific fact, its source and the period it covers. Each rule has its own reasons text, written with the rule and released with it.

BR-002, BR-003, UC-1

OB-D02

N07, N08, N18

Inputs: decision trace; reasons text keyed by rule identifier; Outputs: reasons text bound into the notice; Validations: every adverse rule that fired has reasons text.

FR-062, FR-090

A person cannot challenge reasons they cannot trace to a rule and a fact. Untraceable reasons were a defining feature of the automated-debt failure the architecture designs against (TA §C.8.7).

Every output of a rules artefact carries a decision class. The policy author declares it, the program policy authority approves it on legal advice, and the system enforces it when running. There are three classes:

• an administrative decision, which needs reasons and a route to challenge it;
• a decision that needs a human decision-maker before it issues, held until that person records it;
• a computational intermediate, which is never presented as a decision.

BR-002, BR-005, UC-1, UC-7

N07, N08, N17

Inputs: class on the artefact; where each input came from; Outputs: class recorded on the determination; DiscretionaryDetermination evidence for human decisions; Validations: a human decision records identity, authority and rationale.

FR-093

The duty to give reasons attaches to the decision, not to the software, and operating procedures break down at volume (TA §B.4.4, §D.5). Open item: the architecture names the classes three ways, with different ordering: (i)/(ii)/(iii) at §B.4.4, Class 1/2/3 at §C.8.5 and Class A/B/C at §D.5. This document uses the §D.5 A/B/C names. The Chief Architect is asked to adopt one set throughout.

The system routes each decision to the person or body with authority for it, by entitlement and, where policy sets one, by value band. It records the person who reasoned the decision as the decision-maker of record. It keeps anything the system or another person proposed separate from what the decision-maker concluded.

BR-002, BR-003, UC-1, UC-3

OB-D10, OB-EL-23, OB-EL-74, OB-SU-02, OB-SU-32, OB-SU-62, OB-SU-63

N17

Inputs: the schedule of delegated authority (reference data with effective dates); Outputs: decision-maker identity and authority on the record; Validations: the authority was in force on the decision date.

FR-094

Policy says a decision-maker "must not delegate the actual decision or allow advice to take the place of their own reasoning". It also sets decision-makers by dollar band, up to Executive Director and ADM (PRIN N17).

• Added v1.6 (CL-D1-059). Given a decision that policy lets take effect before a required approval, with the approval due within a time limit, when the decision is recorded, then the system records it as made, routes it for approval, and shows the approval as outstanding until it is given or refused.

A versioned rule works out the effective date of every determination, including one that replaces an earlier determination, a reconsideration outcome, and a re-determination after the tribunal rescinds a decision. The date is worked out separately for each benefit component and recorded as derived. The ministry's own timeliness is one of the inputs.

BR-001, BR-003, UC-2, UC-4

OB-R11, OB-A08, OB-SU-79

N01, N19

Inputs: benefit type, component, clock state; Outputs: effective dates per component, marked as derived; Validations: no effective date entered by hand without a recorded override authority.

FR-061, FR-090

A determination that replaces an earlier one does not take effect on the day it is made. Policy sets the date by benefit type. Where the ministry decided late, policy sets it as the date the decision was due (PRIN N01 amendment v3.1).

The system supports a pre-decision communication as its own kind of record, separate from a determination and available to any part of the system that makes decisions. It carries reasons, a response deadline, what happens if the client responds or does not, and a plain statement that no decision has been made yet.

Amended 2026-09-30 (ADR-004): PreDecisionCommunication is an aggregate of the Eligibility & Entitlement (Determination) context. It sits in that context's imperative shell, never inside the pure Determine function. The amount and reasons it carries are produced by Determine as a class (iii) computational output and bound into a record like any other evaluation. It carries an explicit no_decision_made marker. Its response window is a clock artefact (FR-061), evaluated in the shell. The client's response is recorded as evidence in Evidence & Verification. The letter is rendered by Notices & Correspondence from a bound template.

BR-003, BR-005, UC-1, UC-5

OB-EL-27

N01, N08, N19

Inputs: draft calculation or list of issues, response clock definition; Outputs: PreDecisionCommunication record (owned by Eligibility & Entitlement); Validations: it cannot carry an adjudicability attribute, and no_decision_made is always set.

FR-055, FR-061

If this were only a status flag on a determination, one rule change could make the system read it as a decision and attach appeal rights to it. The ministry's own intake practice already runs this pattern correctly (NOTE-001 v2.0). The owning context and the shell placement are set by ADR-004, because Determine is pure and has no clock (N07).

Before a sanction, reduction, ineligibility or non-compliance decision, the system requires the checks policy sets out to be recorded as evidence:

• whether the request made of the client was reasonable;
• the client's ability to meet the obligation;
• any exemption that applies;
• that the requirement was clearly explained and the client had a fair chance to meet it;
• the individual assessment of homelessness risk.

It prevents a decision based on anticipation or unconfirmed suspicion.

BR-001, BR-003, UC-2

OB-EL-01, OB-EL-12, OB-EL-24, OB-EL-76, OB-EL-78, OB-IN-49

N07, N08, N20

Inputs: registered list of checks per decision type; Outputs: check evidence stored with the determination; Validations: every check answered, including answers recorded as a definite "no".

FR-011

These are policy rules, and each can be checked. Administrative fairness is the principle behind them, not a criterion in its own right METH-C3.

Any determination can be replayed from what was stored with it (the rules artefact, the engine version and its archived copy, a full copy of the input snapshot, the decision trace and the notice template) without depending on any running system. Before the first live determination, the ministry declares in writing how long replay is guaranteed and what serves as evidence after that.

BR-002, UC-4

N07, N08

Inputs: the five stored artefacts; Outputs: replay result with limit markers; Validations: each artefact's digest checks out against the hash chain.

FR-010, NFR-SEC-009

A pointer to a running system is not evidence (PRIN N08). The architecture chooses a layered horizon. It keeps a runnable archive for seven years, a written specification with a regression corpus up to twenty years, and the trace after that TA-C15. Superseded policy text that was never published shortens that horizon unless it is captured when the rules are loaded NOTE2-C1. The policy citation and effective-date marker are carried inside the rules artefact (artefact 1) and bound by its digest, so there is no sixth artefact; the horizon statement gains a per-rule-family policy-availability dimension, not a second horizon (ADR-007).

Every determination records the watermark: the point in the system's history up to which its evidence snapshot was read. The watermark is the minimum, across the contributing partitions, of each partition's highest contiguously applied position, expressed as a transaction time. It is not "the last event seen". The system refuses to issue a determination when the gap between now and the watermark is larger than the limit set for its class.

BR-002, UC-1, UC-6

N09

Inputs: how far each data stream has been applied; limit per determination class; Outputs: watermark on the record; Validations: limits set from measured lag before the first live determination.

NFR-P-004

Two determinations made moments apart can each legitimately see a different set of facts, and without the watermark nothing detects it. This is a required addition to the architecture's parameter set, and in practice it cannot be added later (PRIN N09).

The system assesses each period against the generation of rules in force for it and keeps every superseded generation runnable. Where a transition regulation freezes a set of rules, the system runs that frozen set alongside the live one for as long as the regulation requires.

BR-001, BR-010, UC-7

N01, N07

Inputs: rules register with effective-from and effective-to dates; Outputs: generation identifier per period; Validations: no period assessed against a generation not in force for it.

FR-090, FR-091

There is no date on which the whole rule set is current RULES-C2. Child in the Home of a Relative needs a frozen ruleset running alongside the live one indefinitely OBLG-C6.

The fact model tells apart four cases: a value never asked for; a question asked and answered "no"; evidence that was considered but that policy forbids keeping; and evidence that was disposed of. It enforces the bans on printing, scanning, copying or recording that make some evidence impossible to keep.

BR-002, BR-006, UC-1

OB-EL-07, OB-EL-28, OB-EL-29, OB-EL-40, OB-EL-71, OB-EL-72

N01, N08, N12

Inputs: rules on what can be kept, per evidence type; Outputs: fact state on every assertion; Validations: mandatory questions cannot be left blank.

DR-001, DR-002

Only a recorded "no" can support a determination, and the model must represent "considered and may not be held" as a distinct state PRIN-C7.

Every change to evidence is recorded as either a supersession (the world changed) or a correction (the record was wrong). Every correction must say whose error it was: the client's, the ministry's, a third party's, or undetermined. Completed declarations are never struck out or overwritten, and both parties sign off on any change to them. Each change is a command (SupersedeEvidence or CorrectEvidence) on the fact's evidence succession set that appends an event; nothing is updated in place (DR-020).

BR-005, UC-2, UC-5

OB-IN-12

N01, N06

Inputs: type of change and whose error; Outputs: correction or supersession event; Validations: whose error is required on every correction.

FR-051

The two kinds of change differ only in how they treat the period a fact was true, and that difference decides whether money can be recovered. The error field must be in the schema before the first event is written (TA §C.7.2).

When the ministry needs information, the system sends a request that states what is needed, why, the due date, and how to get help or more time. It records contact attempts before any payment is held or changed. It applies the verification rules policy sets for shelter costs, confirmed jobs and other entitlement evidence.

BR-001, BR-003, UC-1, UC-2

OB-EL-02, OB-EL-26, OB-IN-27, OB-IN-30, OB-IN-43, OB-SU-38, OB-SU-77, OB-SU-78, OB-SU-87

N01, N02, N19

Inputs: request templates, clock definitions; Outputs: request record, evidence of contact attempts; Validations: due date worked out, never typed.

FR-061, FR-062

The client must provide information. The ministry must ask clearly and make reasonable attempts before acting on its absence (OB-EL-02, OB-IN-27, OB-IN-30).

Recipients report the listed types of change and required earnings each reporting period, on any channel. Each report identifies its reporting period and has its supporting documents attached. Staff may explain the report but cannot fill it in or change it for the client. An incomplete report starts recorded contact attempts.

BR-001, BR-009, UC-2

OB-EL-15, OB-EL-16, OB-EL-17, OB-EL-18, OB-EL-19, OB-EL-20, OB-IN-51, OB-SU-22

N01, N09, N15, N19

Inputs: report, documents; Outputs: evidence assertions; Validations: every report identifies its reporting period.

FR-071, FR-083

The monthly report is the main source of evidence for ongoing entitlement, and policy makes it the client's job (OB-EL-15 to OB-EL-20).

The system runs third-party checks only where a valid consent of the right scope and period is on the case. It runs the mandatory checks at application, eligibility review and compliance review unless a registered deferral applies. It verifies only what the client provided, asking the client first. It attaches every result received, including "no record found" results.

BR-006, UC-1

OB-EL-03, OB-EL-04, OB-EL-06, OB-EL-08, OB-EL-09, OB-EL-11, OB-EL-42, OB-IN-53

N02, N13, N17, N21

Inputs: consent instruments; Outputs: check evidence; Validations: consent scope and period checked at the time of the call.

FR-075, INT-006, INT-015

A third-party check without valid consent is unlawful collection. Verbal consent is not enough for taxpayer information (OB-EL-06).

The system treats a warrant as outstanding only when the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General confirms it. It refuses warrant enquiries about dependent children or anyone under the registered age. It keeps the warrant alert up to date as warrants are resolved, issues the prescribed letter on confirmation, and applies the shelter entitlement policy sets for the family unit with no manual adjustment.

Amended 2026-09-30 (drift B5): the confirmed warrant is recorded as evidence of a registered warrant evidence type in Evidence & Verification, with its use constraints (DR-006; N21) on the fact itself. The "warrant alert" named in current practice is a derived projection of that evidence in each consuming case context, rebuilt from evidence events. It is never an independently set flag that a worker maintains, and "updating the alert" means recording the resolution as evidence.

BR-001, UC-1, UC-2

OB-EL-36, OB-EL-37, OB-EL-39, OB-EL-41, OB-EL-43

N01, N07, N21

Inputs: warrant confirmations (INT-014); Outputs: warrant evidence (with use constraints); the alert as a derived projection; Validations: confirmation source required.

FR-090, INT-014

Policy states an entitlement the current calculation reaches only through a manual adjustment OBLG-C1, and the documented workaround itself contains an arithmetic error (RC-05).

The system records:

• assets and their verified values;
• the client's evidence where an asset cannot be turned into cash;
• the source of funds for exempt purchases;
• trust and RDSP activity and elections;
• structured-settlement documents.

Before deciding a case that meets one of the registered trust triggers, the system requires a legal opinion through the ministry's litigation branch. It holds legal opinions as privileged, and it records that eligible clients were told about trust and RDSP exemptions.

BR-001, BR-006, UC-1, UC-2

OB-EL-44, OB-EL-45, OB-EL-46, OB-EL-47, OB-EL-48, OB-EL-49, OB-EL-50, OB-EL-51, OB-EL-52, OB-EL-53, OB-EL-54, OB-EL-55, OB-EL-56, OB-EL-57, OB-EL-58

N01, N07, N17, N21

Inputs: asset, trust and RDSP evidence; Outputs: asset determinations; Validations: values carry a verification status.

FR-080

Asset and trust rules decide eligibility. Several carry legal gates and privilege that the system must enforce rather than leave to memory (OB-EL-51, OB-EL-56).

The system records the client's duty to seek, accept and use all other income, including federal benefits at the ages policy sets. It captures the assignments and consents to deduction that policy requires. It notifies a maintenance respondent before the ministry acts on assigned rights. It records confirmations of federal applications and tax filing.

BR-001, UC-1, UC-2

OB-EL-59, OB-EL-60, OB-EL-61, OB-EL-64, OB-SU-18, OB-SU-19, OB-SU-20, OB-SU-21, OB-SU-64, OB-SU-66, OB-SU-80

N01, N07, N13, N19

Inputs: age, income evidence, assignment documents; Outputs: obligation and assignment records; Validations: an assignment is signed before anything relies on it.

INT-007, FR-074

Assistance is a last resort under statute, and seeking other income is a condition of eligibility (OB-EL-59).

The system records an absence from the province with its reason, timeframe and destination. It routes requests for a longer absence to the authorised approver. It makes an ineligibility decision based on absence only once the qualifying absence has actually happened, and only from the day policy sets.

BR-001, BR-003, UC-2

OB-EL-21, OB-EL-22, OB-EL-23, OB-EL-24, OB-SU-25

N01, N19, N20

Inputs: absence evidence; Outputs: absence determination; Validations: travel days counted as the rule says.

FR-061, FR-063

A denial letter template in use today gets both the threshold and the period wrong (RC-06). The requirement follows the rule, not the template.

The system decides who is in the family unit from recorded evidence. It applies the spousal test to the evidence of financial and social interdependence at the time of assessment. It starts an eligibility review when a spouse is added. It supports eligibility for a child living apart from the family once efforts are recorded. It enforces the rules for returning and new members of transitional cases.

Amended 2026-09-30 (drift B9; ADR-001): household and family-unit composition is evidence recorded in Evidence & Verification. The family unit is determined by Eligibility & Entitlement (Determination) from that evidence. It is used by Case: employment assistance and Case: persons with disabilities, each for its own cases. It is never held in Participant Identity, which holds no relationships (TA §B.2.1).

BR-001, UC-1, UC-2

OB-EL-32, OB-EL-67, OB-SU-73, OB-SU-74, OB-SU-82

N01, N05, N07

Inputs: household evidence (Evidence & Verification); Outputs: family unit determination (Eligibility & Entitlement); Validations: membership carries effective dates.

FR-024

Family unit composition drives every rate and most eligibility tests (OB-SU-73).

The system routes people living on reserve, or on Modern Treaty land where the First Nation runs the program, to the First Nation, and records the evidence required for exceptions. It supports verification to the adjudicating body for on-reserve disability designation within the registered clock. It records a designation made by another jurisdiction as a recognised fact, shown as "recognised as at date, unconfirmed since".

BR-008, UC-1

OB-EL-62, OB-EL-63, OB-IN-54

N03, N13, N19

Inputs: residence evidence, outside designations; Outputs: routing and recognition records; Validations: consent recorded where sending the information requires it.

FR-036, INT-012

Each jurisdiction treats the other's determination as a prescribed-class fact, and neither side is told when the other withdraws a designation (OBLG §4.4; NOTE-004).

The system records efforts to contact sponsors for support. Where abuse concerns exist, it blocks all contact with the sponsor, including by letter, unless the sponsored person wants it. It routes cases with health or safety concerns to the responsible team.

BR-006, UC-1

OB-EL-65, OB-EL-66, OB-SU-69, OB-SU-70

N21, N17

Inputs: sponsorship evidence, concern flags; Outputs: contact restrictions on the sponsor; Validations: the client's wishes are recorded before any restriction is lifted.

FR-080

Policy restricts use of information in five ways, and barring contact with a particular person is one of them (PRIN N21).

The system supports the rules of the Child in the Home of a Relative program, which is closed to new cases:

• screening consent from every adult in the home, as a condition of eligibility;
• identity checks on the person submitting the form;
• recording the submitter's ID numbers and the case numbers, without the child's name;
• not keeping the screening consent form itself;
• checking screening results daily;
• approval before a case is closed or re-opened;
• immediate referral of any child protection concern.

BR-001, BR-006, UC-2

OB-EL-68, OB-EL-69, OB-EL-70, OB-EL-71, OB-EL-72, OB-EL-73, OB-EL-74, OB-EL-75

N01, N12, N13, N17

Inputs: screening consents and results; Outputs: eligibility evidence; Validations: the child's name is never stored on the consent record.

FR-010, FR-070

The program runs on a frozen transition ruleset and has stricter privacy and child-safety rules than the general case (OBLG §6).

The system schedules and runs every periodic review and recertification policy requires: eligibility reviews, supplement reviews, recertifications, re-verification on each request, reviews triggered by age, and reviews of identity requirements. When a client does not attend, it issues the prescribed notice, cancels cheques, stops cheque production and closes the case.

BR-001, BR-003, UC-2

OB-EL-25, OB-EL-35, OB-SU-23, OB-SU-26, OB-SU-35, OB-SU-47, OB-SU-48, OB-SU-49, OB-SU-81, OB-IN-57

N19, N20, N05

Inputs: review schedule rules; Outputs: review work items and outcomes; Validations: each review type states its calendar basis.

FR-061, FR-067

Completing an eligibility review is mandatory, and not completing it ends eligibility (OB-EL-25). Review clocks run on seven different calendar bases (PRIN N19).

The system supports intake in stages. Stage one assesses work search or exemption and immediate need, and sets priority and the homelessness and fleeing-abuse indicators. Every adult then completes orientation, which covers the ministry's authority and the applicant's responsibilities. Stage two goes ahead once the required identification, shelter and income evidence is provided.

Amended 2026-09-30 (drift B5): homelessness, imminent risk of homelessness and fleeing abuse are recorded as evidence of registered evidence types in Evidence & Verification, with their use constraints (DR-006). The "homeless indicator" and "fleeing-abuse indicator" named in current practice are derived projections of that evidence in the case context. Priority and service standards are applied from the evidence, not from a flag set independently.

BR-001, BR-009, UC-1

OB-IN-01, OB-IN-02, OB-IN-03, OB-IN-04, OB-IN-05, OB-IN-06, OB-IN-14, OB-IN-21

N01, N07, N15, N19

Inputs: application, disclosures; Outputs: stage determinations, indicators; Validations: a work-search exemption is stored as a recorded fact, not as the absence of records.

FR-067, FR-071

Intake is the front door, and policy sets its stages, clocks and priorities (OB-IN-01 to OB-IN-06).

The system prompts staff to explain rights, responsibilities, reporting duties, consents, notifications and privacy, and records that they did. It also records that the client was told about available community resources, exemptions and supplements. This applies at intake, for clients fleeing abuse, and during compliance review.

BR-003, BR-009, UC-1

OB-EL-34, OB-IN-08, OB-IN-15, OB-IN-25, OB-IN-58

N15, N18

Inputs: checklist of explanations per event type; Outputs: record of explanations given; Validations: required items complete.

FR-032

Policy requires both the explanation and a record of it. Without the record, nobody can show the explanation happened (OB-EL-34).

• Added v1.6 (OB-CP2-16). Given a proposed out-of-care arrangement, when planning is completed, then there is a record that the legal basis for the arrangement and its effect were explained to each relevant party, by whom and when.
• Added v1.6 (OB-CP2-33, R-CP2-22, R-CP2-34). Given a step at which a program's policy requires staff to tell a person something (the effect of an agreement or order, who decides contact, benefits they can or cannot claim, supports available later), when the step is completed, then there is a record of what was explained, to whom, by whom and when.
• Added v1.6 (CL-D1-206). Given a child entering a care agreement or an out-of-care arrangement, when the arrangement is recorded, then there is a record that the child was told of the rights in section 70 of the Act and, for an out-of-care arrangement, that the care provider agreed to recognise them.
• Added v1.6 (R-LG4-35, RC-LG4-08). Edge case: Given personal information is collected in a case where the Act excuses the collection notice (R-LG4-35), when no notice is given, then the ground that excuses it is recorded with the collection.

The system establishes identity before information is collected or released and before any signature is accepted. It supports:

• temporary assistance while identification or a SIN is obtained, with its review clock;
• the identity-proofing process for health coverage;
• validation of mailed identity documents by a trusted third party;
• a record of the client's name history;
• a record of each step the client takes to get identification, without using third-party brokers.

BR-006, BR-009, UC-1

OB-EL-70, OB-SU-71, OB-SU-72, OB-SU-75, OB-SU-86, OB-IN-13, OB-IN-55, OB-IN-56

N01, N17, N19

Inputs: identity evidence; Outputs: identity assurance level on the person's record; Validations: assurance level recorded for each method.

FR-028, INT-005

Signatures and disclosures are invalid unless the right person is identified (OB-IN-13, OB-IN-33).

The system provides a client index that matches people by exact rules and by likelihood, and sends uncertain matches to a queue where a person decides. The index holds only identifiers and the details needed for matching; it does not become a second copy of the identity directory.

BR-011, BR-012, UC-1

N03, N05

Inputs: personal details used for matching; Outputs: person references; Validations: no automatic merge of records that affect a client.

DR-019

No off-the-shelf search product matches people with a human review queue, so the architecture names this as one of the few pieces to build (TA §C.18.1).

Where policy requires it, the system makes sure health coverage is applied for on a recipient's behalf. It records reported changes to name, sex or birth date for the health insurer. It supports the identity-proofing process for new and returning residents, with its period of pre-authorised coverage.

BR-001, UC-1

OB-SU-53, OB-SU-54, OB-SU-83

N06, N13, N19

Inputs: coverage status (INT-008); Outputs: coverage actions; Validations: changes are passed on to the insurer.

INT-008

Health coverage depends on assistance status, and another program runs it (OB-SU-83).

The system supports applying for, and deciding, disability and persistent-multiple-barriers designation, including the prescribed classes where another body establishes the designation. An application can go forward only once intake is complete, the application is signed and a case is open. The deciding team and its decision are recorded.

BR-001, BR-014, UC-1

OB-IN-52

N17, N19, N20

Inputs: application, professional reports; Outputs: designation determination; Validations: the deciding authority is recorded.

FR-036, FR-092

Designation is a statutory decision under the EAPWD Act. Open items: policy sets no time limit for deciding an application, and sets no criteria, decision-maker, notice or clock for rescinding a designation OBLG-C7. Both need ministry rulings before this requirement is complete.

The system records employability plans and their conditions. It supports going over the plan with the client and giving them a copy. It requires the client's acknowledgement whenever the plan changes.

BR-001, UC-2

OB-IN-48, OB-IN-50

N01, N08, N20

Inputs: plan terms; Outputs: versioned plan with acknowledgements; Validations: each version has an effective date.

FR-074

A non-compliance decision can only be defended against a plan the client acknowledged (OB-IN-49, OB-IN-50).

The system records decisions, contacts and actions on the case so that another staff member can pick up the work without asking the client again.

BR-012, UC-1

OB-IN-16, OB-IN-26

N04, N08

Inputs: case activity; Outputs: case history view; Validations: case notes are stored in a form that allows parts to be severed (FR-078).

FR-067

Policy requires records good enough for someone else to continue the work (OB-IN-16).

• Added v1.6 (OB-CP4-16). Given a screened-in child protection report about a family with earlier records, when the worker assigned to the family opens the family's record, then the system shows the earlier concerns, how each was addressed and how the last intervention ended, and shows where any physical file is held.

Every supplement and program entitlement is an entry in a catalogue. Each entry holds its variants, rules, rates, caps, replacement intervals, deciding authority and adjudicability, and nothing is assumed from a parent entry. The catalogue also holds the rules for items the ministry never pays for, and for when the client pays amounts above the allowed rates.

BR-001, BR-003, UC-3

OB-SU-17, OB-SU-24, OB-SU-55, OB-SU-84, OB-SU-85

N01, N04, N20

Inputs: policy pages; Outputs: catalogue entries; Validations: every attribute present for every variant.

FR-090, FR-092

About forty-five supplements each have their own tests, rates, caps, routes and intervals. Treating them as generic financial components loses all of that (GAPS P-05).

Some entitlements need approval before the client incurs the cost: medical equipment, breathing devices, medical transportation, burial or cremation, and moving costs. For these, the system requires an approval decision first. It refuses payment for purchases made without approval, except under the registered emergency exception.

BR-001, BR-004, UC-3

OB-SU-14, OB-SU-27, OB-SU-37, OB-SU-41, OB-SU-56

N07, N08, N17, N20

Inputs: approval decisions, invoices; Outputs: authorised payments; Validations: approval date comes before purchase date.

FR-042, FR-050

Policy says the ministry is not responsible for paying for purchases made without approval (OB-SU-37, OB-SU-41).

The system records the medical documents each health supplement requires, from the kinds of professional policy names. It enforces the replacement interval for each kind of item, requires other available resources to be considered first, and enforces the rules that allow only one of several nutrition-related supplements.

BR-001, UC-3

OB-SU-28, OB-SU-44, OB-SU-45, OB-SU-46, OB-SU-50, OB-SU-51, OB-SU-52, OB-SU-88

N01, N07, N19

Inputs: medical evidence; Outputs: entitlement decisions; Validations: author's profession, document date.

FR-033

Each health supplement item has its own documentation and interval rules (OB-SU-44 to OB-SU-52).

The system records each body that makes decisions, whether a ministry unit or an outside body such as Pacific Blue Cross, CLBC or BC Children's Hospital. For each it records:

• what it may decide;
• whether it decides, reviews, or both;
• whether and for how long its decisions are recognised;
• what it must send back to the ministry.

The system takes in that body's decisions as evidence with their source recorded. It records any ministry replacement interval the body's decision uses up.

Amended 2026-09-30 (ADR-004): the adjudicating-authority register is governed reference data, mastered by Eligibility & Entitlement (Determination) and published as reference-data events. Each authority carries identity, jurisdiction, capacity, recognition posture, staleness posture and return obligations. An external body's determination arrives as evidence in Evidence & Verification, with provenance naming the authority; the authority record is what makes that evidence legible as a determination.

BR-002, BR-003, UC-3

OB-SU-36, OB-SU-43

N02, N05, N08, N17, N20

Inputs: outside decisions (INT-009, INT-010); Outputs: recognised decisions, a record of used-up intervals; Validations: the body is allowed to decide that entitlement.

INT-009, INT-010, FR-092

Eleven entitlements are first decided outside the ministry, and the ministry's own clocks tick where only the administrator can see them MAP-C2.

Some entitlements, such as the Winter Supplement, are paid automatically in a set window. The system includes them in the right payment for every eligible recipient without a request, and does not allow them to be issued outside their window.

BR-001, UC-6

OB-SU-10, OB-SU-11

N01, N04

Inputs: eligibility, window rule; Outputs: components on payment instructions; Validations: window taken from the rules register.

FR-043

Policy both requires automatic payment and forbids payment at other times (OB-SU-10, OB-SU-11).

The system pays approved burial or cremation costs only after eligibility is confirmed and the legal representative has decided the final arrangements, and never before a death. It starts cost recovery wherever policy allows.

BR-001, BR-004, UC-3

OB-SU-12, OB-SU-13, OB-SU-15

N01, N19

Inputs: evidence of death, legal representative's decision; Outputs: payment and recovery records; Validations: events must happen in the required order.

FR-034, INT-016

These are policy rules about the order of events, with no time limit, so the system enforces the order (OB-SU-15).

Once a client is found eligible for a crisis supplement, the system authorises the cheapest option that meets the need. It allows emergency and disaster crisis supplements only under the authority policy names. It starts a case review when a client reaches the registered pattern of repeated reliance.

BR-001, UC-3

OB-SU-01, OB-SU-02, OB-SU-03

N07, N17, N19

Inputs: need, options and costs; Outputs: crisis decision; Validations: the rolling-period count follows the clock's calendar basis.

FR-050, FR-061

Choosing the cheapest option needs a list of options and a price model, and no part of the system owns those today (MAP part 3, G-SU-01).

The system supports hardship assistance for each category. It records that alternatives were exhausted and documents the efforts made. It reassesses monthly and when the reason for hardship ends. It tells the client about any time limits when they apply, closes the case after the registered number of consecutive months, and requires supervisor approval to extend. Monthly re-checks do not depend on how the client is paid.

BR-001, BR-009, UC-1, UC-6

OB-SU-57, OB-SU-58, OB-SU-59, OB-SU-60, OB-SU-61, OB-SU-62, OB-SU-63, OB-SU-65, OB-SU-68

N15, N17, N19

Inputs: hardship category, evidence of alternatives; Outputs: monthly decisions; Validations: the order of categories follows the rules register.

FR-024, FR-044

Policy currently uses sending cheques to an office as the monthly re-check PRIN-C8. The duty to reach clients and the re-check must be separated (Conflict C-3).

Some money is paid out against a signed promise to repay: reconsideration and appeal supplements, security and pet deposits, co-op share purchases, warrant-related supplements, and hardship promises to pay. The system records each as a repayable issuance. It holds the signed promise, the decision it is waiting on and the outcome. It becomes a debt only on the outcome policy sets.

Amended 2026-09-30 (ADR-005): RepayableIssuance is an aggregate of Financial Components, its sole writer. It carries the undertaking (modelled with its signature requirement, not held as a scanned attachment), the determination it awaits, the covered period as a compound clock, and the resolution. Financial Components decides nothing: resolution is triggered by the awaited determination's DeterminationIssued event, and the amounts come from the determination records. Interim assistance pending reconsideration or appeal is its principal instance; the "true-up obligation" is this aggregate, and its payment still passes the issuance chokepoint with its own purpose code. A repayable issuance is a debt undertaken at issuance, not a retroactive recalculation, so it enters Overpayment & Recovery only when it resolves on denial, as a component whose classification is set by policy.

BR-004, BR-005, UC-4, UC-5

OB-R18, OB-A11, OB-EL-38, OB-SU-04, OB-SU-06, OB-SU-07, OB-SU-08, OB-SU-67

N01, N05, N19

Inputs: signed promise, reference to the awaited decision; Outputs: settlement events; Validations: settled only by the linked decision; no amount originates in Financial Components.

FR-042, FR-053

Money paid now, whose repayment depends on a later decision, fits neither the payment model nor the overpayment model NOTE5-C1. Whether an appeal supplement must be repaid when the appeal is dismissed has been referred to the ministry, and the model must support either answer. The owning context and the resolution rule are set by ADR-005, which also corrects the rationale NOTE-005 gave: an overpayment is not "always an error" (a supersession yields a recoverable overpayment with no error by anyone); what is always true is that an overpayment arises from a retroactive recalculation between determination records and carries a classification.

Every payment of public money starts as a payment instruction created from a determination. Once accepted, an instruction cannot be changed. It carries an identifier the system can recalculate, the determinations it pays, the payee and the capacity they are paid in, the gross amount with each deduction listed, the value date, the benefit period, the channel, a purpose code, a funding code, and the requester and approver. Every instruction passes through one Issuance Service. No other component holds a credential for a payment rail, a cheque print stream or the corporate financial system's posting interface.

Amended 2026-09-30 (ADR-001): Financial Components is the sole writer of the PaymentInstruction aggregate: it creates, cancels and supersedes instructions, and a reissue is a new instruction it writes. Payments & Benefit Issuance is the sole writer of the Disbursement aggregate: it accepts an instruction at the chokepoint, includes it in a run, disburses, stops, handles returns and requests reissue. The two aggregates reference each other by identifier.

BR-004, UC-6

N17, N05, N18

Inputs: DeterminationIssued events. Outputs: payment instructions. Validations: the identifier is derived from the determination reference, benefit period, payee reference and instruction sequence.

FR-043, FR-046, INT-001

A chokepoint that is stated but never specified cannot be built. Adding one after three contexts already hold their own payment-rail credentials means accrediting the payment path all over again TA-C4.

• Added v1.6 (CL-D8-147). Given a payee recorded as a non-resident who is paid for services rendered in Canada, when the payment instruction is created, then the withholding the rules register sets (R-FI1-74) is listed as a deduction unless an exemption is on record.
• Added v1.6 (CL-D8-144). Given a child in care whose file is transferred between service delivery areas, when a payment instruction for residential or support costs covers a period from the transfer, then its funding code is the receiving area's.

Payments are issued in runs. A run is scheduled, can be resumed, can be audited, and follows a published calendar. Its stages are: cycle open, cutoff, assembly and pre-flight checks, control totals set before approval, approval, release, settlement and returns, reconciliation, and close. A run can be released more than once without paying twice. Supplementary and off-cycle payments are a run of one, with the same controls.

BR-004, UC-6

N17, N09

Inputs: the set of instructions selected by query, and the cycle definition version. Outputs: a run record with frozen totals. Validations: thresholds are policy settings, not values written into code.

FR-042, FR-045, FR-009

The dangerous failure is a run that stops halfway. An operator under pressure then runs it again and pays a live caseload twice (TA §C.6.2).

• Added v1.6 (CL-D8-077). Given a payment or a run whose value is over the threshold policy sets for notice to Provincial Treasury's cash management branch (R-FI1-08), when it is assembled, then the system raises the notice with the lead time policy sets (CK-FI1-06) and records that it was given before release.

The system pays by direct deposit, by cheque and through the province's approved payment service. Stop payment, recall, reissue and return are four separate operations, each with its own states. The system refuses to reissue a payment unless the original is stopped, returned or rejected. When a payment is returned, the system marks the entitlement as unpaid and queues a work item. It starts electronic traces, and it applies a client's choice of payment channel by the cut-off policy sets.

BR-004, UC-6

OB-SU-29, OB-SU-30, OB-SU-31, OB-SU-34

N05, N06, N19

Inputs: channel acknowledgements and return files. Outputs: channel states and links from each reissue to its original. Validations: a reissue never creates a second entitlement.

FR-042, INT-002, INT-003

If a system can pay but cannot find and resend failed payments, some clients go unpaid and nobody notices (TA §C.6.3).

• Added v1.6 (CL-D8-107). Given a cheque reported lost or stolen, when a replacement is requested, then the system requires a stop payment, a recorded review of how the cheque was issued and whether it was cashed, the waiting period policy sets (CK-FI1-20) and the payee's signed declaration on the payee record before it reissues.

The system keeps its own double-entry ledger of benefit obligations, recorded when they are owed. It records each obligation raised, each payment released and settled, each reversal, each debt raised, each recovery and each write-off. Every entry carries the coding block, the determination reference and the run identifier. Each day the system reconciles the ledger against the channels' settlement records and against the corporate financial system. Each cycle it checks that every financial determination has an obligation and every obligation has a determination.

BR-004, UC-6

N18, N04

Inputs: ledger entries, settlement files, corporate postings. Outputs: reconciliation and break feeds. Validations: control totals do not change after assembly.

FR-042, INT-001, INT-002

The corporate financial system stays the book of record. The third check, determinations against obligations, is the one that catches the architecture's central claim failing (TA §C.6.4).

No person or program can both start and approve a payment. The system refuses a run's approval if the approver requested any instruction in it, or if the approver's delegated authority is below the run's net value. Changes to a payee's bank details made within the registered window before a run are held for a second approval. Only a separate role can change channel settings.

BR-004, UC-6

N17

Inputs: the delegated authority schedule. Outputs: refusal events. Validations: authority limits are effective-dated.

FR-094

A control left to process only holds until it is tested by pressure (PRIN N17).

The system has a designed emergency payment path. Clients receive emergency issuance; providers receive interim payments. The path skips only the automated determination. A worker with stated authority pays an amount against a named statutory head, and the system records this as a discretionary determination. The payment still goes through the same chokepoint, ledger, control totals and separation of duties. Each emergency payment creates an obligation to reconcile it later against the real determination. The path has ceilings per cycle and per client, measurable triggers, and a time limit on each use.

BR-004, BR-013, UC-6

N16 [PROPOSED], N17

Inputs: authority, statutory head, reason. Outputs: emergency instructions with purpose codes. Validations: ceilings are reference data.

FR-042, FR-043, FR-051

A rollback restores the system of record over days, but a client's rent is due on a set date. An emergency path invented under pressure cannot be reconciled afterwards TA-C5.

Recovery reduces the net amount of a payment instruction. It appears as a listed deduction and never as a lower gross amount. The system checks the statutory minimum a client must keep when it issues each payment, and the chokepoint refuses any deduction that would go below it. Set-off across programs happens only through Overpayment & Recovery and the chokepoint.

BR-004, BR-005, UC-5, UC-6

OB-SU-09

N03, N17

Inputs: repayment agreements and the minimum-amount rule. Outputs: deduction lines. Validations: the minimum comes from the rules register.

FR-042, FR-053

If a deduction engine can be set below the minimum, someone will eventually do it in a hurry for a whole group of clients (TA §C.7.3).

The system issues the tax information slip policy requires to every recipient above the registered threshold for the tax year. It takes the figures from the ledger's payment records.

BR-004

OB-IN-32

N06, N09

Inputs: the ledger. Outputs: slips and filing. Validations: the threshold comes from the rules register.

FR-045

This is a statutory reporting duty, met from the book of record (OB-IN-32).

• Added v1.6 (R-FI1-73, CL-D8-121). Given a taxable payment, when it is instructed, then it is made to an individually identified payee and never to a shared payee record, and money returned is posted against the original payment so that the slip total is correct.
• Added v1.6 (CL-D8-142). Given a payee of a taxable payment whose address or social insurance number is not on record, when the payment is set up, then the system flags the gap and lists the payee as an exception when slips are generated.

The system records recognised providers and the principles used to recognise a type of provider. It proposes contracted providers first where policy says so. It records provider confirmations and client acknowledgements at delivery, and enforces provider obligations such as trial periods and supplies that must come with an item. It pays providers through the chokepoint.

BR-001, BR-004, UC-3

OB-SU-16, OB-SU-33, OB-SU-39, OB-SU-40, OB-SU-42

N03, N11, N17

Inputs: the provider registry and invoices. Outputs: provider payment instructions. Validations: the provider's recognition is current on the date of service.

INT-020, FR-042

Provider & Outcome Management has its own obligations, and a current system the architecture never specified (APP §5).

The Issuance Service publishes one contract through the Open Host Service, and every context uses it. The contract has four operations: submit a run, approve a run, release a run, and read the state of an instruction. Submit and approve each answer with an acceptance or with a rejection that lists its reasons. The service publishes twelve events: run accepted, run approved, instruction released, instruction settled, instruction returned, instruction rejected, stop requested, stop confirmed, stop failed, recall requested, recall outcome recorded, and reissue linked. The service is also the only producer of the reconciliation feed. The contract and the feed are versioned and governed like every other published contract.

Added v1.5. FR-042 says that one service issues every payment. This requirement says what that service offers, so that it can be built, tested and bought against.

BR-004, UC-6

N17, N10, N18

Inputs: runs, approvals, channel acknowledgements, settlement and return files. Outputs: the twelve events; the reconciliation feed. Validations: the control totals given at approval equal those given at submission.

FR-042, FR-043, FR-045, NFR-I-003, NFR-I-004

A chokepoint that is named but not specified cannot be built. If the contract differs by channel or by program, each difference is one more surface to control and to audit (TA §C.6.7, §C.6.8). The specification is owned by the Programme Chief Architect.

An overpayment is the difference between two determination records for the same period. The system splits it into one component for each change in evidence. It classifies each component by the operation and fault recorded on that change:

• a supersession, or a correction where the client was at fault, is recoverable;
• a correction where the ministry was at fault is administrative error;
• where a third party was at fault, a person decides, and the default is administrative error;
• where fault cannot be determined, it is administrative error unless a person reclassifies it.

BR-005, UC-5

N01, N06, N08

Inputs: two determination records, the evidence events, and the released classification rules artefact. Outputs: classified components. Validations: classification is required; an unclassified component cannot be acted on.

FR-012, DR-013

The same arithmetic can be a recoverable debt in one case and an administrative error in another. What decides it is what changed in the evidence (TA §C.7.2). Legal counsel owns the question of how each class is treated under the statute.

No overpayment is raised and no recovery starts unless a person decides each component. Automated raising has a cap per cycle on count and on value. When a single cause produces overpayments for more clients than the published threshold, the whole group is held for review before any notice goes out. A batch of debts can be reversed in one operation. The reversal also undoes recovery already taken and issues corrected notices.

BR-005, UC-5

N17, N18, N14

Inputs: components and the group-review thresholds. Outputs: debts and reversal events. Validations: thresholds are set before the first live determination.

FR-051, FR-060

A defect that produces a hundred thousand wrong records shows up as one pattern repeated. A process that looks only at one case at a time will never see it (TA §C.7.6).

Repayment agreements keep a version history. Where policy requires it, repayment continues after a recipient leaves assistance. A write-off needs one person to request it and a different person, with authority at the threshold, to approve it. A write-off never deletes the overpayment record. A debt referred to collections can be recalled in one operation. A client may dispute whether the debt exists, the amount, the classification or the terms. Each kind of dispute follows the route the architecture sets. Recovery pauses by default while the determination or the classification is disputed.

BR-005, UC-5

OB-SU-05

N17, N01

Inputs: agreements, disputes, write-off requests. Outputs: ledger events. Validations: write-off thresholds are reference data.

FR-045, INT-019

The most common collections complaint in this area is a debt that was disputed or reduced after referral and never withdrawn (TA §C.7.4).

• Added v1.6 (CL-D8-137). Given an overdue amount owed to the ministry, when any action is taken to collect it, by ministry staff or by a collections agent, then the action is recorded against the debt with its date and who took it.

Staff can refer suspected fraud, duplicate identification or long-term ineligibility to the investigation unit, including on closed cases. Current eligibility must be assessed first. While an investigation is open, it blocks other work as policy requires, and the system hides it from the client and from staff who do not need to know. The system prevents direct confrontation or contact where policy forbids it, and records the outcome of each investigation.

BR-005, BR-006, UC-2

OB-EL-13, OB-EL-14, OB-EL-31, OB-EL-33, OB-IN-44, OB-IN-45, OB-IN-46, OB-IN-59, OB-IN-60

N05, N17, N21

Inputs: allegations and data matches. Outputs: referrals and investigation status. Validations: referral content follows policy.

FR-080, FR-070

An open investigation holds up work in other contexts and continues after a case closes. The mapping found that no context owned it; Investigation & Loss Management is now the owning domain context (NOTE-003; ADR-003).

The rate at which a debt is recovered belongs to the repayment agreement. It lies between the statutory minimum protection and the maximum policy sets. It can be changed, and each rate has the period it applies to and the date it was recorded, so the system can say what rate was in force in any past month. A client can ask for recovery to be reduced or suspended because of hardship, or deferred. That is a discretionary decision. It is recorded with the decision-maker, their authority and their reasons, it has an end date, and it is reviewed.

Added v1.5. FR-048 sets the minimum a client must keep, and FR-053 gives repayment agreements a history. Neither stated the rate, hardship or deferral.

BR-005, UC-5

N01, N17

Inputs: agreements, rate changes, hardship and deferral decisions. Outputs: dated rates; review work items. Validations: the maximum and the minimum come from the rules register.

FR-048, FR-053, FR-003

"What rate was in force in August" is a question a tribunal asks. A suspension with no end date becomes permanent without anyone deciding it (TA §C.7.3).

The system can charge interest on a debt, but only where the governing law provides for it. Interest is a rule in a versioned rules artefact, so a change of rate or basis is a release and leaves a decision trace. The capability sits behind a policy switch that is off by default. No rate is loaded until legal counsel has confirmed that interest applies to a class of debt.

Added v1.5.

BR-005, UC-5

N04, N17

Inputs: the interest rule and the switch setting. Outputs: interest entries in the ledger. Validations: no rate exists in the rules register without a policy citation.

FR-090, FR-045, DEP-16

Whether interest applies to any class of benefit debt is an open legal question (DEP-16). Building a rate table on an assumption would put that assumption into production TA-C48.

A client may ask for reconsideration of any communication, on any channel, including when the ministry thinks no decision has been made. The system records every request with the date and channel it arrived by. No path in the system lets staff turn a request away when it is made. Appeals & Reconsideration records every request, against any subject, including a PreDecisionCommunication (ADR-004 §4).

BR-003, UC-4

OB-R14, OB-R15

N15, N17, N19

Inputs: the request, and a reference to what it is about (which may be something the ministry does not consider a decision). Outputs: a request record that starts the decision on whether reconsideration is available. Validations: received date and channel are required.

FR-056, FR-071

Policy gives an unconditional right to ask. Telling a client "there is nothing to reconsider" is a defect in practice (Conflict C-1) OBLG-C4.

Whether reconsideration is available is an adjudication. The Reconsideration and Administrative Fairness Unit makes it, modelled as an adjudicating authority that holds that power. The officer who issued the communication never makes it.

Amended 2026-09-30 (ADR-004 §3): the availability determination is a DiscretionaryDetermination evidence assertion recorded in Evidence & Verification. Its decision-maker is an officer of the Reconsideration and Administrative Fairness Unit acting as an internal adjudicating authority with the review capacity; discretion_head cites the policy provision and authority_relied_on cites the unit's delegation. Appeals & Reconsideration consumes it and never writes it: one writer (N05), a separate decider (N17).

BR-003, UC-4

OB-R16

N17, N05, N20

Inputs: the request and the adjudicability attributes. Outputs: the availability decision, as DiscretionaryDetermination evidence. Validations: the person deciding took no part in the original.

FR-036, FR-092

If the context that runs reconsiderations also decided availability, it would rule on its own jurisdiction (NOTE-001 v2.0).

A reconsideration is a new decision on the whole matter. An officer who took no part in the original decision makes it, using the evidence held when the decision is made. The system supports both kinds of extension, each with its own authorisation. A ministry-side extension without its required authorisation is invalid.

BR-003, UC-4

OB-R01, OB-R02, OB-R06, OB-R07, OB-R08

N01, N05, N09, N17, N19

Inputs: the package from FR-058. Outputs: the reconsideration determination. Validations: evidence is cut off at the moment of decision.

FR-061, FR-058

Policy requires both an independent reviewer and an evidence cut-off (OB-R02, OB-R08).

The system builds the reconsideration package and the appeal record from the decision record, not by hand. They contain the determination, the rules version, the evidence snapshot with where each fact came from, the trace, the notice exactly as issued and the client's submissions. The system severs them under FOIPPA and supplies them to the tribunal and the client within the period the tribunal sets.

BR-002, BR-003, UC-4

OB-R09, OB-R10, OB-A03, OB-A04

N02, N08, N13

Inputs: the decision record store. Outputs: the package and the severed appeal record. Validations: a completeness check against the record's inventory.

FR-078, FR-008, INT-009

Replay lets the ministry reconstruct a decision for itself. Disclosure hands the record to the client so they can challenge it. A design that only supports replay fails the client (PRIN N08 amendment (b)).

The tribunal is an outside party listed in the integration inventory. For each appeal the system records how the appeal ended (decided, withdrawn or abandoned) separately from the panel's decision (confirmed or rescinded). It takes in the panel's decision as a decision made by an outside body. It records evidence that entered at the hearing with the hearing as its source. It carries out a rescission by making a new determination, never by editing the original. Amended 2026-09-30 (ADR-004 §5, ADR-006): v1.3 read "by cancelling the original decision and making a new one". A rescission never invalidates the original: the panel's rescinded determination is recorded as external-determination evidence with the tribunal (Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal; Notice of Appeal EAAT001) as its authority; the original determination record stands, annotated with the rescission reference; and the ministry re-determines as a retroactive determination consuming evidence whose provenance is the hearing. InvalidateEvidence is reserved for assertions that should never have existed. It keeps the ministry's representative separate from the original decision-maker and the reconsideration officer.

BR-002, BR-003, UC-4

OB-A05, OB-A06, OB-A07, OB-A09, OB-A14

N01, N02, N08, N17

Inputs: tribunal decisions (INT-011). Outputs: appeal outcomes and outside decisions. Validations: only the statutory terms are allowed.

INT-011, FR-060

The panel can only confirm or rescind, and it may consider evidence that is not in the record. If the list of outcomes is wider than the statute allows, people will use the extra options (NOTE-006).

When a client wins, the system makes a new retroactive determination and calculates the difference from the old one. It then pays the underpayment or reverses the overpayment. Where an overpayment is reversed, the system automatically undoes any recovery already taken (deductions, set-offs, collections referrals) and issues a corrected notice.

BR-003, BR-005, UC-4

OB-A10

N06, N08

Inputs: the outcome and the old and new determinations. Outputs: payments to put things right, and reversals. Validations: the amount is calculated, never typed in.

FR-052, FR-042

A client who wins an appeal and still has money taken from their next payment is the most damaging fairness failure in this area (TA §C.8.4).

Every statutory and policy time limit is registered once as a clock with a unique identifier. Each clock records:

• its owner (the ministry, the client, the tribunal or an outside adjudicator);
• its class (entitlement or service standard);
• the event that starts it, how long it runs, and its calendar base and day type;
• the extensions allowed and who must authorise each.

The system detects and records a breach automatically. Where policy attaches a consequence, the system applies it without anyone asking. Business-day counting is one shared, tested capability.

BR-003, UC-2, UC-4

OB-R03, OB-R04, OB-R05, OB-R12, OB-A01, OB-A02, OB-A13

N19, N01

Inputs: the provincial holiday calendar (reference data) and the start events. Outputs: running clocks and breach events. Validations: each clock is versioned and effective-dated like a rules artefact.

FR-090, FR-094

Legal time limits are modelled once and used by every program TA-C21. A missed deadline changes what the client is owed PRIN-C1. Policy contains 138 clocks.

• Added v1.6 (CK-LG1-41, R-LG1-119). Given a time limit that runs for every party to a court proceeding, the director among them, when it is registered, then the register names the owner as a party to the proceeding, and a party's missed limit is recorded without a consequence for the ministry unless the director was that party.
• Added v1.6 (CL-D1-042, CL-D1-059, CL-D1-060). Given a time limit that policy states in hours, when it is registered, then the register holds the unit as hours and states whether the limit runs through evenings, weekends and holidays, with no default assumed.
• Added v1.6 (CL-D1-041, CL-D1-052). Given a time limit whose length is agreed in the instrument itself within a registered maximum, when the clock starts, then it runs for the length recorded on that instrument, and the register holds the maximum and any default as data.
• Added v1.6 (CL-D1-111). Given a clock that a statute suspends while a stated event lasts, when the event's start and end are recorded, then the clock stops for that period and resumes with the time it had left, and the suspension is shown on the clock's history.
• Added v1.6 (CL-D1-123, CL-D1-127, CL-D1-130). Given a clock that counts back from a future event, such as a period of notice before a hearing, when the event's date is set or changed, then the system works out the last day to act, and a court direction that shortens, extends or dispenses with the period replaces it on that case.
• Added v1.6 (CL-D1-142, CL-D1-143, CK-LG1-28). Given a clock counted back from a set date, such as a notice period before a hearing, when the date is set or changed, then the last day for the act is worked out again and the earlier result is kept as history.
• Added v1.6 (CL-D1-141, CL-D1-142, CL-D1-146). Given a clock whose period an outside body may suspend, shorten, extend or dispense with, when that body's order is recorded, then the clock applies it and records the order as the authority.
• Added v1.6 (CK-YJ5-16, CK-YJ5-17, CK-YJ5-20, CK-YJ5-21, CK-YJ5-22, CK-YJ5-23; conditional on DEP-28). Given a time limit that policy counts back from a scheduled event such as a hearing or a release date, when the clock is registered, then it records that direction, and when the event date changes, then the due date is worked out again and the change is recorded.
• Added v1.6 (CK-YJ3-44, CK-YJ3-47, CK-YJ3-48, CK-YJ3-49, CK-YJ3-50, CK-YJ3-51; conditional on DEP-28). Given a time limit that policy states in minutes or hours, or one that recurs at an interval while an event continues, when it is registered, then the clock records its unit and its recurrence, runs at any hour without regard to business days, and records each interval that passes without the required act.

Every notice that conveys a decision is produced from the determination record and a template version. The template version is fingerprinted and stored in that record as the fifth bound artefact, so the same inputs always produce the same notice. Content designers write templates against a registered list of variables. Templates are reviewed for plain language, for legal content where they convey a decision or a right, and for accessibility. They are then approved and released through the rules pipeline. Old templates are superseded, never deleted.

BR-002, UC-1, UC-4

N08, N10

Inputs: the determination record and the template version. Outputs: the finished notice and its delivery details. Validations: variables come from the record, never from live data.

FR-008, FR-090

A tribunal asks what the client was told as often as what was decided (TA §C.8.6).

Every notice of a decision, change or overpayment states what changed, why, when it takes effect, the legislation applied and the information used. The system writes the rights section (whether and how to ask for reconsideration or appeal, and to whom) from the entitlement's adjudicability attributes. The prescribed brochure and request form go with every adverse decision. The request form is included even where reconsideration is not available.

BR-003, UC-1, UC-2, UC-4

OB-D12, OB-R17, OB-EL-10, OB-EL-30, OB-EL-43, OB-EL-77, OB-IN-28, OB-IN-42, OB-SU-60

N20, N08, N19

Inputs: adjudicability attributes and the determination. Outputs: the rights section. Validations: nobody types rights wording by hand.

FR-062, FR-092

Getting adjudicability wrong hurts the client either way: offering a route that does not exist, or hiding one that does (PRIN N20).

The system tells apart a notice that was issued, delivered, deemed received and proven served. It calculates deemed receipt from the clock artefact. It records the date the client was told on the decision record, separately from the date of the decision. It uses deemed receipt to state, on the notice, how long the client has to respond.

BR-003, UC-1, UC-4

OB-D08

N19, N08

Inputs: delivery events (INT-003, INT-004). Outputs: the notification date on the record. Validations: deemed receipt is calculated.

FR-061, INT-003, INT-004

The date the client is told starts their clock, and it differs from the date of the decision (OB-D08).

• Added v1.6 (CL-D1-168). Given a notification whose governing regulation sets the date of notification by delivery method, when the date is worked out, then the system applies that regulation's rule for the method used, and the earliest notification governs where several methods were used.

Templates and reasons wording exist in every language the ministry must use for correspondence, and the system records the language each notice went out in. A translation is its own template version, approved separately. A published readability standard applies when templates are written. Accessible formats are available on request. The system stores a request as a client preference with an effective date and uses it by default.

BR-009, UC-1

N15, N08

Inputs: client preferences. Outputs: language and format on the notice record. Validations: a readability check when templates are written.

FR-062

A person cannot challenge reasons they cannot understand (TA §C.10.4). The ministry's language obligations and its plain-language standard are still to be confirmed, by the Chief Digital Officer with legal counsel.

The system helps staff arrange interpretation and translation through the contracted provider for applicants who need it. It refuses documents needed to decide eligibility if they were translated by a source that cannot be checked, including search-engine or artificial-intelligence translation.

BR-009, UC-1

OB-IN-09, OB-IN-10

N15, N11, N01

Inputs: interpretation requests. Outputs: interpretation records. Validations: the translation's source is recorded.

FR-073

Policy bars AI from the evidence path for anything that decides eligibility OBLG-C8.

• Added v1.6 (OB-CP4-67). Given a collateral contact or service partner who needs a language or cultural interpreter, when staff involve that person in a case, then staff can arrange the interpreter in the same way as for a client.

Work Management owns the task, and the case context owns the work. Work items have registered types and a typed link into the context that owns them. Assignment and reassignment are recorded as events with reasons. Queues use a pull or push discipline. Due dates come from legal time limits where one applies, and from service standards otherwise. Due dates set by a legal time limit are marked, and operations staff cannot change them.

BR-012, UC-1, UC-4

OB-EL-73, OB-IN-23

N19, N17, N03

Inputs: work item types and clocks. Outputs: work items and their history. Validations: a typed link to the subject.

FR-061

Named once, work management avoids five separate task models. Defined too broadly, it becomes the shared case model the architecture exists to prevent (TA §C.9.1).

• Added v1.6 (OB-CP1-78). Given a work item passed to a worker in another office or service area, when the transfer is made, then the receiving worker's confirmation of receipt is recorded, and the originating worker stays assigned until the response under way and the transfer are both complete.
• Added v1.6 (OB-MH2-05; conditional on DEP-26). Given a child or youth recorded as at risk for suicide, when a scheduled appointment is recorded as missed, then a work item is raised for the clinician to contact the child or youth, check their status and reschedule, and it stays open until an attempt is recorded.

Overdue items show first on the worker's own view. Escalation adds a supervisor as a watcher once an item reaches a set age or state; it does not quietly reassign the item. A supervisor's view covers every team they own, across contexts.

BR-012

N19, N17

Inputs: escalation rules. Outputs: supervisor views. Validations: escalation never reassigns.

FR-067

Quiet reassignment destroys the record of who was accountable (TA §C.9.3).

The system shows where caseloads are uneven and suggests how to redistribute them. A supervisor decides, and the record shows the suggestion was advice only.

BR-012

N17

Inputs: caseloads. Outputs: suggestions and decisions. Validations: ongoing casework is never reassigned automatically.

FR-067

Moving an ongoing case changes the client's relationship with the ministry, so a person makes that call (TA §C.9.2).

• Added v1.6 (CL-D7-139). Given caseload guidelines that an agency or office has set for a kind of work, when a supervisor views caseloads, then each worker's caseload is shown against the guideline as a guide, and the system does not block an assignment because of it.

The system records and routes the referrals the ministry must make: child protection concerns to the child protection authority, made by the staff member with direct knowledge; referrals for under-age applicants; and referrals to specialist ministry teams. It records the referral, who received it and the date.

BR-006, UC-1

OB-IN-17, OB-IN-18, OB-SU-76

N02, N13, N17

Inputs: evidence of the concern. Outputs: referral records. Validations: the recipient and legal basis are recorded.

INT-013, FR-077

The duty to report falls on the individual and comes from statute (OB-IN-18; DRV-08).

• Added v1.6 (OB-MH3-02, CL-D4-007, CL-D3-053). Given a staff member in a service line whose policy names others to be told that a child protection report was made, when the staff member records the report, then the system notifies those persons and records the notice.
• Added v1.6 (CL-D1-282). Given a worker refers a family to another ministry, a community agency, an Indigenous community or an Indigenous authority for a service, when the referral is recorded, then the record holds who received it, the date, when the family can expect a response, the written follow-up where the referral was made verbally, and that the family was told the referral was made.

Documents come in by office scanning, client upload, photos from a phone, worker upload, mail and fax, and partner submission. Every route records the capture date, the arrival date where different, who captured it, the channel, and the request or case it answers. When a client uploads a document, the system tells them straight away if something is wrong with it.

BR-009, UC-1, UC-2

N01, N15

Inputs: documents. Outputs: document records. Validations: size, type, page count and format are checked at capture.

FR-072

Documents with no link to a request cause most "we never received it" disputes, and a clock runs from the arrival date (TA §C.11.1).

A document attaches to evidence, to a case or to both, through a typed link. It takes the stricter of its own classification and that of what it is attached to, and it keeps the retention of what it supports. Every incoming file is scanned for malware before anyone can reach it, and scanned again when the malware signatures are updated. Anything derived from a document (extracted text, search indexes, thumbnails) carries the document's classification and is disposed of with it.

BR-006, BR-007

N12, N13

Inputs: classification at capture. Outputs: the scan result, kept as part of the document's state. Validations: each document is stored where its classification allows.

DR-003, DR-004

Document processing makes copies in more places than any other part of the platform (TA §C.11.2).

Values produced by text recognition, classification or extraction come in as evidence. They record that a machine extracted them, the extractor's version, a confidence for each field and the part of the page they came from. They start as unverified. Extraction never marks a value verified, and an adverse determination cannot rest on an unverified extracted value.

BR-002, BR-005

N01, N07, N17

Inputs: extractor output. Outputs: evidence assertions. Validations: only a person, or a check against an authoritative source, can verify a value.

FR-003

The comparator jurisdiction failed to separate "the system read the document" from "the fact is true" (TA §C.11.4).

The system supports three kinds of signature: attestation, a captured signature and a digital signature. Legal advice decides which kind each instrument needs. For every kind the system keeps the signed document and a binding record of the exact text shown, who signed, how they were identified, when, and from which session.

BR-002, BR-009, UC-1

N08, N01

Inputs: the instrument and the kind of signature assigned to it. Outputs: the signed document and binding record. Validations: the kind of signature per instrument comes from reference data.

FR-027

A signature record without the text that was shown proves nothing about what the person agreed to (TA §C.11.5). Legal counsel still has to decide which instruments need which kind.

• Added v1.6 (R-LG1-26). Given an agreement that the Act lets a person under the age of majority make in their own right, when that person signs it, then the system accepts the signature and does not require a parent's or guardian's signature.

Every consent is recorded as an instrument with a status (granted, scoped, expired, withdrawn), a stated scope and period, and the legal authority it relies on. This covers verbal and written consents, consent to taxpayer information, screening consents and consents to disclose. Staff share information only when a consent, power of attorney or other authorising document is on record. Consent & Disclosure is the single master of client consent and is the consent registry every access-policy evaluation consults; the information-sharing agreement registry is a different aggregate and stays with Secure Data Exchange (FR-085; ADR-003).

BR-006, UC-1, UC-8

OB-IN-07

N02, N13, N21

Inputs: evidence of consent. Outputs: consent records. Validations: scope is checked at the time of use.

FR-085

The analysis found thirteen consent instruments, and twelve state no way to withdraw consent. That is a missing step in the design, not missing data (NOTE-003).

The system collects only the information needed to decide eligibility or deliver the service. Each evidence type is registered against its purpose, and the system rejects fields that have not been declared.

BR-006

OB-IN-11

N02, N12

Inputs: the evidence type registry. Outputs: a purpose on each type. Validations: a purpose is required at registration.

DR-001

FOIPPA limits collection to what is necessary (OB-IN-11; DRV-03).

Every disclosure is authorised against a legal basis and, where one exists, an agreement in the registry. The system first establishes who is asking and who the information is about. It records each disclosure with the recipient, legal basis, agreement, date and what was released. Where information is disclosed without consent because of compelling circumstances, the system triggers the notice to the client that policy requires. Disclosures required by statute (for child protection, maintenance enforcement, coroners and elected members' enquiries) are set up with their conditions.

BR-006, UC-8

OB-EL-05, OB-EL-56, OB-IN-19, OB-IN-20, OB-IN-33, OB-IN-34, OB-IN-37, OB-IN-38, OB-IN-40, OB-IN-41

N13, N21, N06

Inputs: requests and agreements. Outputs: disclosure records. Validations: the requester's identity is established first.

FR-085, FR-080

Most information exchange happens because a statute permits it, not because the client consented. The model therefore starts from legal basis and treats consent as one case of it (TA §C.3.3).

• Added v1.6 (CL-D1-181). Given a statute that obliges the ministry to disclose on request to a body outside the Crown, when such a request is met, then the disclosure is recorded against that statutory duty and no consent or discretionary basis is asked for.

Whenever a record is released, the system can sever anything that would identify another person, including an informant, down to individual phrases inside free text. It records a reason for each severed passage. This works across every context's records.

BR-002, BR-006, UC-4, UC-8

OB-R10, OB-IN-35

N08, N13

Inputs: records for release. Outputs: the severed document and a reason for each passage. Validations: narrative is stored in a structure that allows severing.

FR-058

Case notes cannot be stored as one opaque block, because severing at the point of disclosure is a core capability OBLG-C5.

• Added v1.6 (R-LG4-07, RC-LG4-03, OB-LG4-05, OB-LG4-59, RC-LG4-19, R-LG4-20). Given a record prepared for release contains information excepted from disclosure under any provision of the Act, when it is severed, then the reason kept for each severed passage names the provision relied on, and the released record states that information was severed, its nature and the reason.

A request to correct personal information is received once and acted on across every context that holds the information. Where the ministry decides not to correct it, an annotation saying a correction was requested but not made is attached, and it travels with the record and every copy.

Amended 2026-09-30 (ADR-003): the person's request to correct, and its statutory clock, are owned by Consent & Disclosure. The correction itself is always the owning context's CorrectEvidence command plus annotation (DR-020, DR-021). The Correction & Annotation routing platform capability fans the request out to the owning contexts; it holds no program state and emits integration events only.

BR-006, UC-8

OB-IN-36

N06, N01

Inputs: correction requests. Outputs: corrections or annotations. Validations: the list of copies is complete.

DR-007

A refused correction is itself a recorded fact that must travel with the record. Policy states the right to correction but gives no way to carry a correction to parties who already received the information (OBLG §6).

• Added v1.6 (OB-LG4-34, RC-LG4-10, CK-LG4-16). Given personal information is corrected or annotated on request, when the correction or annotation is recorded, then the system lists from the disclosure records every public body and third party the information was disclosed to within the look-back period the Act sets (CK-LG4-16), creates a notice to each and records that it was sent.
• Added v1.6 (OB-LG4-35). Given another public body notifies the ministry that it has corrected or annotated personal information it disclosed, when the notice is recorded, then the correction or annotation is applied to every record of that information the system holds, through the same path as a correction at the source.

Sometimes the ministry may lawfully hold information but is barred from using it a certain way. The bar can cover a detail used in assessing eligibility, a type of content sent to a particular recipient, contact with a particular person, disclosure of a subject, or an act of communication. The system records the bar on the information itself, and the bar travels with every copy. The system enforces it at the point of use: a request must state its purpose, the system refuses by default, and each blocked use creates an event.

BR-006, UC-8

OB-IN-24

N21, N06, N07

Inputs: barred_from and permitted_for on facts. Outputs: enforcement events. Validations: each fact is held once, with a bar per use; facts are never duplicated to express a bar.

DR-006

No other rule catches lawfully held information reaching a use it was barred from. A bar missing when information is captured is missing from every copy made before it was added (PRIN N21, §V).

• Added v1.6 (OB-LG4-14, R-LG4-23, RC-LG4-04). Given information is marked as an Indigenous people's cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions or manifestations of sciences, technologies or cultures, when a record holding it is prepared for release under an access request, then the system flags it for refusal unless the written consent of that Indigenous people is on record.

A formal access request received anywhere is sent immediately to the access and privacy office, with the date it arrived. That starts the statutory response clock. Responses are built from the record stores, with severing applied.

BR-006, UC-8

OB-IN-39

N19, N08

Inputs: requests. Outputs: routed requests. Validations: the received date is required.

FR-078, FR-061

Today, entering a request in the case system does not notify the office (OB-IN-39). The new system must.

• Added v1.6 (R-LG4-09, R-LG4-10, R-LG4-11, R-LG4-13, R-LG4-14, R-LG4-15). Given the response clock for an access request is running, when the time is extended, the request is transferred to or from another public body, or a period the Act leaves out of the count begins or ends (R-LG4-10, R-LG4-11), then the clock is adjusted and the change is recorded with its ground, its authority and, where the Act requires it, the commissioner's permission or the applicant's consent.
• Added v1.6 (R-LG4-80). Given the response clock for an access request ends with no response recorded, when the breach is recorded, then the request is marked as treated by the Act as a refusal of access that the applicant may take to the commissioner at any time.

Some clients have restrictions on how they deal with the ministry: third-party administration, a designated worker, or limits on a particular channel. Each restriction is one revocable entitlement. It records who authorised it, the reasons, when it must be reviewed, and a refusal the client can challenge. The system applies it on every channel.

BR-009, BR-012

OB-IN-31

N15, N17, N19

Inputs: restriction decisions. Outputs: channel entitlements. Validations: the authority is recorded.

FR-086

Today one revocable entitlement is held in five places. Channel Entitlement & Service Restriction is now its single master, as a domain context (NOTE-003; ADR-003).

Representatives, advocates, third-party administrators and trusted third parties act for a client under a recorded authority. The system records the identity of whoever acts as the source of everything they do. Ministry employees cannot act as a client's third-party representative.

BR-009, UC-1

OB-IN-47

N17, N01, N15

Inputs: authority documents. Outputs: representation relationships. Validations: the authority is current when the person acts.

FR-075

Acting for someone else needs its own record, not a shared login (TA §C.12.3).

• Added v1.6 (CL-D8-090). Given a person appointed to represent a contractor under a power of attorney or a representation agreement, when they sign a contract, renewal or modification for the contractor, then the system records the review of the representation document, the enquiry into the contractor's status, the approval of senior program management and that the signature is a representative's, and keeps a copy of the document.

Every evidence type records its custodian, governance regime, access conditions and transfer status. The system works these out for each subject when someone asks for access, and the authorization policy applies them. Transferring records to another sovereign is one way a record can leave the system. It produces a defined transfer package, a defined set of records the ministry keeps, and a chained event recording the change of custodian.

BR-008

N13, N12

Inputs: custodianship attributes. Outputs: transfer packages and change-of-custodian events. Validations: custodianship is worked out per subject.

DR-005, FR-085

A Nation's control over its own data cannot be expressed as a retention rule or an access list, and the attribute cannot be added later (TA §B.8).

• Added v1.6 (CL-D3-052; conditional on DEP-28). Given a record class governed by a federal statute that sets its own access rules, when access or disclosure is assessed, then the system applies that statute's rules and not the provincial privacy statute's.

Data-sharing agreements are stored as machine-readable records in a registry. Each records the parties, the services allowed, the authority relied on, the purpose, retention and onward-sharing terms, expiry and review dates, the accountable executives, its status and its history. All gateway and access settings are generated from the registry, and no access decision comes from anywhere else. The registry treats provincial public bodies, federal institutions, Indigenous governing bodies and contracted providers as separate kinds of party, each with its own vocabulary of legal basis.

BR-006, BR-008, UC-8

N13, N21, N18

Inputs: agreements. Outputs: generated settings. Validations: every access right traces back to an agreement.

INT-022, NFR-SEC-003

Once anyone grants access outside the registry, the link between legal authority and system access is broken and cannot be rebuilt (TA §C.3.4; decision D8).

• Added v1.6 (CL-D7-112, CL-D7-122, CL-D8-040). Given an agreement with an Indigenous governing body or community that governs how a director acts as well as what information is shared, when it is recorded, then the registry draws its information conditions from the one agreement record and does not hold a second copy of the agreement.

Anything a client can do online they can also do by phone or in person, with the same effect as evidence and the same clocks. No statutory right, notice or recourse period is available only online. Where a client prefers paper, every notice of a decision goes out on paper by default. The contact centre's screens use the published contract as fully as any other channel.

BR-009, UC-1, UC-4

N15

Inputs: the channel register. Outputs: measures of whether outcomes match. Validations: every channel goes through the published contract.

FR-083, FR-088

The clients least able to use a portal make up a large share of this caseload (TA §C.12.3).

The system records a client's accommodation needs as lasting attributes: communication barriers, interpreter needs, preferred names and designated-worker arrangements. It applies them on every channel. Staff make every reasonable effort to accommodate unless there is a clear and justifiable reason, which is recorded.

BR-009

OB-IN-29

N15, N17

Inputs: accommodation requests. Outputs: accommodation attributes. Validations: each has an effective date.

FR-082

The duty to accommodate comes from the Human Rights Code (OB-IN-29; DRV-05) BPCM-C2.

• Added v1.6 (OB-LG1-39). Given a person or body who is, or is proposed to be, a party to an agreement with the director and is not a client, when the director communicates with them, then their recorded communication needs are shown and applied as a client's would be.
• Added v1.6 (R-YJ4-18; conditional on DEP-28). Given a person with a recorded preferred name and gender pronoun, when the system generates a document about them or shows them to staff, then it uses the preferred name and pronoun, and uses the legal name only where it is needed for identification.

Using the provincial digital identity, clients can apply, report changes, upload documents, receive and read notices, message the ministry, check status, ask for reconsideration and manage their preferences online. All of these use the same published contract as every other channel. Mobile uses the same service and has no separate back end.

BR-009, UC-1, UC-2, UC-4

N15, N10

Inputs: client transactions. Outputs: evidence and requests. Validations: the assurance level of the client's login is recorded.

INT-005, FR-086

A separate mobile back end would be a second channel with a second set of controls (TA §C.12.1).

The system applies fleeing-abuse and safety flags to everyone on a case they concern. It blocks contact with an accused abuser, and any contact that would raise a safety concern. It records safety concerns about hearings and makes sure someone acts on them. It supports staff safety devices and procedures in offices.

Amended 2026-09-30 (drift B5): a safety concern is recorded as evidence of a registered evidence type in Evidence & Verification, and the bars it implies (no contact with a named person, no act of communication) are use constraints on that evidence (DR-006; N21). The "safety indicators applied to every relevant case contact" of current practice are derived projections in each consuming context, built from the evidence and its constraints; they are not flags set separately on each contact.

BR-012, UC-1, UC-4

OB-A12, OB-IN-22

N21, N15, N18

Inputs: safety concerns (as evidence). Outputs: use constraints on the evidence; flags as derived projections. Validations: the constraint covers dependants as well as the applicant.

FR-080

A bar on contact with a particular person, and a bar on an act of communication, are limits on use in their own right (PRIN N21). Staff safety is part of the nature of the work (DRV-10).

Eligibility rules, rates, clocks and reasons wording are versioned artefacts. Each carries its policy citation and effective date. An embeddable engine runs them inside the determination service. Policy analysts write and simulate them. They are released through a pipeline with review, sign-off by two people and legal sign-off, and tested against a regression corpus that does not depend on any one engine. A change that reduces the corpus's coverage fails the pipeline.

BR-001, BR-010, UC-7

N04, N07, N01, N18

Inputs: policy text and rate tables. Outputs: rules artefacts. Validations: a citation and effective date are required.

D3 decision; FR-091

Running the engine inside the service against a snapshot passed to it is what makes pure evaluation achievable (commitment 2). The business case for the rules platform is that rate changes no longer wait for a software release. That case assumes analysts can write rules in the tool, and nobody has tested that yet.

Every rule is held in a register with its wording, policy citation, effective marker, start and end dates, authority status (confirmed, several dates, conflicting dates, no marker, unauthorised) and where it lives today. Historic rates are captured once when policy is ingested, not fetched again later. Effective dates are taken from the marker on each block of text, never from the page's footer.

BR-001, BR-010, UC-7

N01, N04

Inputs: policy pages, archived rate tables, and the spreadsheets that decide entitlement once they are obtained. Outputs: register rows. Validations: a citation is required.

FR-090

Nine rules carry conflicting effective dates in policy, three of them on a single page. A determination made between the two dates cannot be replayed with a certain result (RULES §3).

For every entitlement and every variant, the system records the statutory basis, whether decisions can be reconsidered, whether they can be appealed, and to which body. The values are effective-dated and never inherited from a parent entitlement. A client can always ask, whatever the values say.

BR-003, UC-3, UC-4

OB-R13

N20

Inputs: the 95-row adjudicability register (ARC-001-ADJ-v0.1). Outputs: attributes used by notices and routing. Validations: an unresolved value blocks notices.

FR-090

The four values vary independently. One supplement can be reconsidered but not appealed; one variant loses reconsideration while its parent keeps it. None can be worked out from the others PRIN-C2. Fifteen register rows are still unresolved on at least one of the four values.

The system keeps a published register of the classes of decision it makes automatically. Each entry records the program, the rules and version range, the classification and who approved it, whether human review is needed and which statutory decision-maker delegated it, the reasons template, the volume, and how often decisions are challenged and overturned. When a class hits its registered trigger, the system automatically sends every decision in it to a person for review.

BR-002, BR-005

N17, N18

Inputs: challenge and outcome data. Outputs: the register and suspension events. Validations: only the governance decision can reinstate a class.

FR-003

The comparator was missing a rule about which outputs count as decisions; more testing would not have caught it (TA §D.5).

Reference data that drives decisions and controls has one master, effective dates, publication as events, and change control. It includes the provincial holiday calendar, the delegated authority schedule, value bands, approval and write-off thresholds, pre-flight thresholds, emergency ceilings and deemed-receipt rules.

BR-004, BR-010

N04, N05, N01

Inputs: approved changes. Outputs: reference data events. Validations: the schema compatibility policy applies.

NFR-I-003

Each financial control threshold is a setting under change control, not a value fixed in a deployment (TA §C.6.5).

• Added v1.6 (CL-D3-173; conditional on DEP-28). Given a designation by the person in charge of a youth custody centre of a staff member, or a class of staff, as an authorised person for searches and seizures, when it is made, changed or withdrawn, then the schedule of authority records it with its effective dates, and a search or seizure record can be checked against it.

While old and new systems run side by side, each legacy determination records a snapshot of exactly what the legacy calculation read, from every legacy system that runs program logic. The new determination service is then run against that snapshot. The comparison checks the structure of each result: the outcome, each rule, each input fact, the effective period and each component. Each difference is classified as a new-system defect, a legacy defect, a difference in policy interpretation, a data difference or rounding. Each class has its own exit criteria, which must hold for three monthly cycles in a row.

BR-001, BR-011

N07, N05, N18

Inputs: snapshots of legacy inputs and legacy decision records. Outputs: classified differences. Validations: difference records are classified and disposed of like any other client-affecting evidence.

FR-008, INT-023, DR-014

Comparing live against a lagging copy makes timing the main source of differences. Replaying against recorded inputs removes timing by design (TA §C.2.7). The legacy output is the benchmark to compare against, not the specification.

Operational, management and statutory reports come from the governed analytics platform without new copies of production data. So do the automated-decision register's rates, reconciliation and drift measures, and the decommission burn-down. Direct reporting from transactional databases is retired, or kept as a dated exception with a named owner.

BR-006, BR-011

N02, N03, N12

Inputs: published events. Outputs: governed datasets. Validations: interactive queries must filter on a partition.

DR-017, D5

Downstream use must not need a copy (commitment 4). Amended 2026-09-30 (drift B11): raised from SHOULD_HAVE. A lower priority would relax commitment 4, which only the Chief Data Officer and the Ministry Privacy Officer, jointly, can agree (TA §A.3); no such relaxation is recorded. A conformed-dimension warehouse is already in production, so this is a migration, not a fresh start (APP §9).

While old and new systems run side by side, a standing report compares them on money: the total entitlement authorised and the total issued, for each program and each period, in both systems, reconciled to the ledger. Before payments for any group of clients move to the new system, the new system calculates in parallel and is reconciled to the corporate ledger. The variance must be zero, not within a tolerance, for three issuance cycles in a row. The Comptroller signs off. The emergency payment path has been exercised. The overpayment lifecycle has been shown from raising through to write-off and collections referral. Once payments have moved, the old payment path is switched off and its interfaces are closed.

Added v1.5.

BR-004, BR-011, UC-6

N14, N18, N05

Inputs: ledger totals from both systems; corporate ledger postings. Outputs: the reconciliation report; gate evidence. Validations: figures come from control totals, never from a sample.

FR-045, FR-047, FR-095, DR-014, INT-001

Two documented failures in other jurisdictions had the same cause: payments were moved before they were reconciled. This is the figure an auditor will ask for (TA §E.5.6, §E.11.2).

The system does not process cardholder data. Card payments go through the province's approved payment service, as one channel of the Issuance Service.

BR-004

N11

Outputs: tokens and settlement references only.

INT-025

The private cloud platform was never built to meet PCI-DSS. Processing cards in-house would be a programme in its own right (TA §C.6.7).

The system does not resolve conflicting changes to client-affecting evidence automatically. When the legacy system changes a record the new system now owns, the change is rejected at source or sent to a person to reconcile within a service level. The latest change never simply wins.

BR-011

N05

Outputs: items in the reconciliation queue.

DR-014

If software settles conflicts in data that decides what someone receives, a merge rule makes a choice that belongs to policy or to a person (PRIN N05).

The system does not record "allowed in part" or "referred back" as panel outcomes. The panel confirms or rescinds. Withdrawn and abandoned describe how an appeal ended, not what the panel decided.

BR-003

N20, N08

Outputs: statutory terms only.

FR-059

If the list of outcomes is wider than the statute allows, people will use the extra options. Two of the six values in the architecture's list have no statutory basis (NOTE-006). This exclusion amends target architecture §C.8.2.

The system holds each designation of a director and each delegation of a director's powers, duties or functions as the record of a written instrument. The record states the Act it is made under, who made it, the person or class of person it is made to, the category or powers it covers, any terms or conditions, and the date it takes effect. Each later event on a delegation is added to the record with its date, and what was in force before stays readable. This record is the source the system uses to decide who may act for a director.

BR-021

Child protection and family services; guardianship; adoption and permanency; youth transitions; children and youth with support needs

N01, N17, N04

CFCSA ss. 91, 91.1, 91.2 and 92; Adoption Act ss. 76.1 and 77; Delegation Handbook, Part C sections 5, 9 and 10 and Part D section 5 (CFD-134); Aboriginal Operational and Practice Standards and Indicators: Operational Standards, Appendix I (CFD-276) (tier 1)

CL-D1-001, CL-D1-002, CL-D1-010, CL-D1-011, CL-D7-130, CL-D7-133, AU-LG1-01, AU-LG2-19, AU-LG2-21, OB-LG1-126, RC-LG2-11 (6 reconciled provisions and 5 further rows; 22 register rows in all)

Inputs: Written designations and delegations; delegation events; the note explaining a late delegation; Outputs: An effective-dated history of each person's delegation under each Act; Validations: Every state has a start date and a source instrument; no state starts before its instrument was made.

FR-004, FR-094, NFR-SEC-003

• Policy names a provincial database that tracks delegation. It is not on the list of systems being replaced. The ministry must decide whether the new system is the master of delegation records or receives them from that database.
• The Delegation Handbook applies only to ministry Designated Directors and says it does not apply to Indigenous Child and Family Services Agencies. For agency employees the only source held is the 2009 operational standards, which name a First Nations Director of Child Welfare as delegator and a Delegation Registrar as administrator. Neither title is in the Act, which now provides for an Indigenous Child Welfare Director (s. 91.2). Who delegates to agency employees today must be confirmed.
• CFCSA s. 92(1) and Adoption Act s. 77(1) are subject to the regulations. No regulation restricting delegation was read for this pack.
• Adoption Act s. 77(3) requires a delegation of the Provincial director's Central Authority functions to accord with the Convention. The record holds the delegation; no source says what the system should check.

Both Acts require a designation and a delegation to be in writing, with any terms or conditions (CFCSA ss. 91(2) and 92(2); Adoption Act ss. 76.1(2) and 77(2)). Policy requires each delegation event to be recorded and says authority cannot be given retroactively (CFD-134, Part C). A decision record can show its maker's authority only if that authority is held with its dates. LEG001-C1

The system records a request for delegation with its supporting documents and routes it to the director who may grant it. It records the director's finding on each part of the readiness test policy sets, and any limits or conditions. It routes an exception to the education requirement to the Provincial Director of Child Welfare for approval. It decides a change of category and a reinstatement as requests of their own, on the conditions policy sets.

BR-021

Child protection and family services; guardianship; adoption and permanency; children and youth with support needs

N17, N08, N04

CFCSA s. 92; Delegation Handbook, Parts A, B and C (CFD-134); Aboriginal Operational and Practice Standards and Indicators: Operational Standards, Standard 12 and Appendix I (CFD-276) (tier 2)

CL-D1-001, CL-D1-003, CL-D1-004, CL-D1-005, CL-D1-012, CL-D7-132, CL-D7-134, CL-D7-135, CL-D7-136, R-CP1-01, R-CP1-02, R-CP1-04, R-CP1-06, R-CP1-12, R-IN2-40 (9 reconciled provisions and 6 further rows; 33 register rows in all)

Inputs: The request for delegation; evidence of education, training and field placement; the learning and development plan; an exception request and its decision; Outputs: A decision on the request, with the category, limits and conditions; the delegation event passed to the record in FR-104; Validations: The approver is the director with authority for the person's area or agency; an education exception names the approving Provincial Director of Child Welfare.

FR-004, FR-067, FR-071

• MQ-009 (CF-D1-38): the Handbook recommends one category for new hires in roles outside child protection, and its Appendix A reserves that category for practicum students. The category is data and the requirement is the same either way.
• MQ-095 (CF-D7-26): the 2009 standards give different experience periods for the diploma route at different levels, and name a different approver of the recruitment model at the guardianship level. These are rule data for the agency request.
• CF-D7-29, read in both sources: the 2005 standards route an agency's request through a Deputy Director of Aboriginal Services and the 2009 standards through a First Nations Director of Aboriginal Services. Both are policy of the same tier. The receiving office is data; the ministry must say which office receives requests today.
• The Handbook states the absence limit for reinstatement in years without saying how the period is counted.
• Whether the 2009 operational standards still govern agency delegation requests is unconfirmed (see CL-D7-239).

Policy sets a test the Designated Director must be satisfied of before approving delegation, and reserves an education exception to the Provincial Director of Child Welfare (CFD-134, Parts A and C). A grant of statutory authority is a decision whose findings and approver must be on record. CFD134-C1

The system records a limit or condition on a delegation, a delegation review and a revocation, each as a dated decision of the Designated Director. For a review it records the ground, the fairness steps policy requires and the outcome. It prompts revocation when delegation is no longer required. It tells those who assign out-of-hours work when a person's delegation is under review, limited or revoked.

BR-021

Child protection and family services; guardianship

N17, N08, N19

CFCSA s. 92(2); Delegation Handbook, Part C sections 5 and 6 and Part D (CFD-134) (tier 2)

CL-D1-007, CL-D1-008, CL-D1-012, CK-CP1-01, OB-CP1-10 (3 reconciled provisions and 2 further rows; 9 register rows in all)

Inputs: The ground for a review; the delegate's response; the outcome; proof of delivery of the notice; staffing changes that end the need for delegation; Outputs: A decision record for each limit, review outcome and revocation; the delegation event passed to the record in FR-104; a notice to those who assign out-of-hours work; Validations: A limit or condition is in writing and tied to the delegation; the fairness steps are recorded before a limiting or revoking outcome is final.

FR-004, FR-006, FR-061, FR-064

• The period for written submissions after a revocation appears only in the sample letter, which policy says the circumstances may change. Its unit is days, with no statement of calendar or business days. The ministry must say whether it is a fixed limit.
• Policy says a delegation review and employer discipline must be kept distinct, with different managers leading each. No source says whether the review record must be closed to those who run the discipline process.
• No source held describes review or revocation of an agency employee's delegation.

Policy says the Designated Director's powers come from statute and must be used with procedural fairness, and it lists the events that end a delegation (CFD-134, Parts C and D). A person whose delegation is limited or revoked must not be given work that needs it. CFD134-C2

The system lets a person record the exercise of a director's power, duty or function only where a delegation in force on that date covers it. It holds, as versioned reference data, the powers each category of delegation carries, and treats the categories as cumulative in the way policy defines them. It applies the terms and conditions on the person's delegation and, for an employee of a delegated Aboriginal agency, the limits of the agency's level of delegation. Each record of such an act names the delegation relied on.

BR-021

Child protection and family services; guardianship; adoption and permanency; youth transitions; children and youth with support needs

N17, N04, N08

CFCSA ss. 91(3) and (4) and 92; Adoption Act s. 77; Delegation Handbook, Part C and Appendix A (CFD-134); Aboriginal Policy and Practice Framework, glossary (CFD-260); Aboriginal Operational and Practice Standards and Indicators: Operational Standards, level introductions, Standard 13 and Appendix I (CFD-276) (tier 1)

CL-D1-006, CL-D2-069, CL-D7-130, CL-D7-131, CL-D7-138, CL-D7-157, CL-D7-158, CL-D7-159, CL-D8-066, R-CP1-06, R-LG1-122 (9 reconciled provisions and 2 further rows; 36 register rows in all)

Inputs: The delegation record (FR-104); the schedule of categories and powers under each Act; each agency's level of delegation; the date of the act; Outputs: On each decision record, the decision-maker and the delegation relied on; a refusal event where no delegation covers the act; Validations: The delegation was in force on the date of the act; the schedule version is the one in force on that date.

FR-004, FR-094, FR-067, NFR-SEC-003

• The current section-by-section delegation matrix is not held. The Handbook points to it on the ministry intranet. The only matrix held is dated 2006, inside the 2009 standards, and the register notes it has no entries for sections added to the Act since. The schedule cannot be loaded until the current matrix is supplied.
• The Handbook refers to class delegations and to dual delegation (an individual delegation for a person in a class). No document held lists the classes or their powers.
• No source says what happens to an act recorded by a person whose delegation was later found missing, beyond the note on file in FR-104.
• A practice guideline (CFD-099, practice only) links a worker's authority to collect and disclose information to delegation level, role and the child's legal status. The Handbook puts the power to request information in the lowest category that carries authority; the rest waits on the current matrix.
• The three agency levels come from the 2009 standards, whose currency is unconfirmed (CL-D7-239). The standards say the guardianship level adds a maintenance payment system with payment information recorded on children's files; payment records are the subject of the payments packs.

A director's powers reach a worker only through a written delegation (CFCSA s. 92; Adoption Act s. 77), and policy says only delegated social workers are able to act under the Act (CFD-260). Policy defines categories that add authority step by step (CFD-134, Appendix A), so the check must know the category and its date. LEG001-C2

The system checks that a worker who records a step in adoption planning holds delegation under the Act the step is taken under. It keeps the Guardianship Worker for a child or youth in adoption planning and the Adoption Worker who serves the prospective adoptive parent as different people, unless an exception is on record. It lets the two workers reassign a task only where both hold the delegation the task needs. It records an agreement that authorises a caregiver or a prospective adoptive parent to carry out a director's rights and responsibilities.

BR-021

Adoption and permanency; guardianship

N17, N04

Adoption Act ss. 77 and 77.2; CFCSA s. 92; Adoption Policy and Procedures, Introduction paragraphs 9 to 11 (CFD-277); Adoption Practice Standards, introduction (CFD-044) (tier 2)

CL-D2-069, CL-D2-070, AU-LG2-23, R-AD1-05 (2 reconciled provisions and 2 further rows; 10 register rows in all)

Inputs: Each worker's delegation under each Act (FR-104); the role each worker holds for the child or youth and for the prospective adoptive parent; an exception decision; an authorising agreement; Outputs: Assignments checked against delegation; a refusal or a recorded exception where one person would hold both roles; Validations: Both delegations are in force on the date of the step; the exception names the Director of Operations who granted it.

FR-004, FR-067

• Policy speaks of partial and full adoption delegation. No policy held defines the Adoption Act categories or the powers each carries; a practice guideline (CFD-099) names two categories. The schedule is needed for FR-107.
• The policy points to its Guiding Principles for the best interests factors the Director of Operations applies. This pack did not read them.
• Adoption Act s. 77.2 names an administrator. How an adoption agency's administrator records such an agreement in a ministry system is not stated.

Policy requires both workers to hold enough delegation under the relevant Act and keeps the two roles apart to prevent a conflict of interest (CFD-277, paragraphs 9 and 11). The Adoption Act lets a director delegate, and lets a director or administrator authorise a caregiver by agreement (ss. 77 and 77.2). CFD277-C1

The system holds, as reference data, the points in the work at which the standards require a worker to consult the supervisor or obtain the supervisor's approval. At each point it records the consultation or the approval, who gave it and when. It also records a departure from a Procedure in the adoption policy, with the reasons and the Team Leader's approval, in the file the departure concerns.

BR-021

Child protection and family services; guardianship; children and youth with support needs; adoption and permanency

N17, N08, N04

Adoption Policy and Procedures, Introduction paragraph 7 (CFD-277); Aboriginal Operational and Practice Standards and Indicators practice standards, voluntary services standard on supervisory approval and child protection Standard 12 (CFD-278) (tier 2)

CL-D2-068, CL-D7-196, CL-D7-197 (3 reconciled provisions and 0 further rows; 8 register rows in all)

Inputs: The list of consultation and approval points for each body of standards; the worker's decision or proposed departure; the supervisor's or Team Leader's approval; Outputs: A consultation or approval record tied to the decision; a departure record in the file; Validations: The approver holds the supervisory role for the worker on the date of approval; a departure has reasons and an approval before the alternative step is recorded as taken.

FR-004, FR-067, FR-068

• The consultation and approval points come from the 2005 practice standards for delegated agencies. Policy describes those standards in the past tense (CFD-260) and their currency is unconfirmed (CL-D7-239).
• For ministry workers the 2004 service standards name no approval levels and leave them to regions. Later policy chapters name the approver decision by decision; those approvals are written in the packs that hold each decision.
• The child protection standard is headed as approval but its lists say the worker consults. The system records whichever the standard states at each point; the ministry should confirm which points need approval.
• No source says whether a departure from a procedure is allowed outside the adoption policy.

The adoption policy lets a worker depart from a Procedure only with the Team Leader's approval and a record of the reasons (CFD-277). The standards for delegated agencies require the supervisor's approval at key points so that the facts are reviewed before a decision is made (CFD-278). CFD277-C2

The system holds whether a child is an Indigenous child as a fact with its source, its date and the part of the statutory definition it rests on. It keeps 'not yet confirmed' apart from 'confirmed not Indigenous'. For an Indigenous child it records every Indigenous community the child belongs to, on the maternal and the paternal side, and the kind of community. For a child not identified as Indigenous it raises a renewed enquiry at the events policy lists.

BR-016

Child protection and family services; guardianship; adoption and permanency; youth transitions; children and youth with support needs

N01, N04, N13

CFCSA s. 1(1) (definitions of 'Indigenous child' and 'First Nation child') and s. 4.3(1); Adoption Act s. 1(1) ('Indigenous child'); federal Act s. 28(a); Policy 1.1 Working with Indigenous Children, Youth, Families and Communities (CFD-301), standard 1 and procedure 1; Child Protection Response Policies (CFD-261), standards 3.7(3) and 3.10(1); Out-of-Care Policies (CFD-294) (tier 1)

CL-D1-016, CL-D1-017, CL-D1-292, CL-D2-265, CL-D7-001, CL-D7-002, CL-D7-004, R-LG1-07, RC-LG3-04 (7 reconciled provisions and 2 further rows; 31 register rows in all)

Inputs: Answers from the reporter, the child, the family and other contacts; earlier records; advice from an Indigenous governing body, Indigenous authority or Indigenous community; Outputs: The identity fact with its basis and source; the child's communities by parental side and kind; renewed-enquiry work items; Validations: The age that splits the self-identification parts of the definition is read from the rules register (R-LG1-06), not held in code; a community is recorded for every child recorded as Indigenous, or the gap is shown as open.

FR-011, FR-012, FR-024, FR-067, FR-084, FR-091, DR-005

• The two Acts word the confirmation part of the definition differently: the CFCSA names an Indigenous governing body or Indigenous authority advising a director; the Adoption Act names an Indigenous community advising a director or an adoption agency. The record must say which Act's definition was applied.
• A practice document (CFD-297) says identity is determined through self-identification. The Act also has membership, entitlement and confirmation, so the requirement follows the Act (CF-D7-09).
• The rule against asking a family for documents rests on a practice document only (CFD-302). Policy 1.1 lists whom to ask and does not say what evidence may be required.
• Policy 1.1 sets the renewed enquiry at care plan review 'at a minimum' interval and says the list of events is not exhaustive. No source sets a time limit for 'promptly'.
• No information agreement under s. 28 of the federal Act is held, so whether the categories First Nations person, Inuk and Métis person must also be recorded is not settled.

Section 4.3(1) of the Act requires a director to confirm promptly whether a child is an Indigenous child whenever the director acts under the Act. Every later duty in this group depends on that fact and on the communities recorded with it. LEG001-C3

The system records, for each Indigenous child, whether an Indigenous law, a coordination agreement or a community agreement under the Act applies, and whether there is an Indigenous authority with jurisdiction. It finds candidates from a register that links each Indigenous community to its Indigenous governing body, laws, agreements and Indigenous authority. It records each contact with the Indigenous authority and what the authority confirms. The recorded determination sets which policy path the work follows.

BR-016

Child protection and family services; guardianship; adoption and permanency; youth transitions; children and youth with support needs

N01, N09, N13

CFCSA s. 1(1) ('Indigenous authority', 'Indigenous law') and s. 4.3(2) and (3); federal Act ss. 20(3) and (4) and 21(1); Policy 1.1 (CFD-301), standard 2 and procedure 2; Policy 1.2 Upholding Indigenous Jurisdiction over Child and Family Services (CFD-303), policy statement, standard 1 and procedure 1; Child Protection Response Policies (CFD-261), standards 3.1(2), 3.1(3) and 3.10(1); File Transfer Policies (CFD-262); Joint File Management Policies (CFD-264) (tier 1)

CL-D1-016, CL-D1-189, CL-D7-003, CL-D7-005, CL-D7-011, CL-D8-015, OB-IN1-86, OB-IN4-09, R-LG1-09, R-LG3-13, R-LG3-17 (6 reconciled provisions and 5 further rows; 28 register rows in all)

Inputs: The child's recorded communities; the register of Indigenous governing bodies, the communities each represents, Indigenous laws with their period in force, agreements, and Indigenous authorities with contact details; the authority's confirmation; Outputs: A dated determination for each child and community; a record of each contact with an Indigenous authority; the policy path; a notice to the designated director; Validations: A determination names its source; a later determination supersedes and does not overwrite; an Indigenous authority is linked to the Indigenous governing body that authorised it.

FR-012, FR-067, FR-084, FR-085, FR-094, DR-005

• Policy names a 'Repository' of agreements and laws and a table of Indigenous governing bodies and the communities they represent. Who owns that register and how it is kept current is not stated. The agreements themselves are specified in the agreements pack (P02b).
• Policy 1.1 and Policy 1.2 each say they prevail over other policy on conflict (CF-D7-20). Both are policy; Policy 1.2 limits itself to a child to whom an Indigenous law applies. The system records which path applies and does not rank the two.
• No source sets a time limit for 'promptly' or for the Indigenous authority's answer.
• The Indigenous authority's confirmation that it will assess a report may be verbal (CFD-261). Confirmation that all authorities agree which one will serve must be written (FR-113). The form needed for each step is set in the referral and withdrawal packs (P03a, P03b).

Section 4.3(2) of the Act requires a director to confirm promptly whether there is an Indigenous authority with jurisdiction and an applicable Indigenous law. Which law governs the child decides who serves the child and which policy the director follows. LEG001-C4

Where a director provides services under the Act to an Indigenous child to whom an Indigenous law applies, the system shows on the child's record the law, whether it was provided in writing to the director, and any agreement that governs how the director acts. Where a director considers it is not possible to act consistently with the law or agreement, the system records that determination, the agreement of the designated director, the notice to the Indigenous authority and any written reasons given.

BR-016

Child protection and family services; guardianship; adoption and permanency

N08, N13, N17

CFCSA ss. 4.2, 4.3(4), 4.4 and 16(2.4); federal Act ss. 22(3) and 23; Policy 1.2 (CFD-303), standards 1(d) to 1(g) and procedure 1(d) and 1(e); Policy 1.1 (CFD-301), standard 3(a); Child Protection Response Policies (CFD-261), standards 3.2(9), 3.3(4), 3.8(2) and 3.10(3); Permanency Policies (CFD-300), standard 6.1(3) (tier 1)

CL-D1-073, CL-D7-009, CL-D7-010, CL-D7-011, CL-D7-012, R-LG3-20 (5 reconciled provisions and 1 further rows; 28 register rows in all)

Inputs: The determination under FR-111; the Indigenous law as provided in writing; the agreement; the worker's rationale; legal advice; the Indigenous authority's request for reasons; Outputs: The law and agreement shown on the child's record and work; a determination record with approver; a notice to the Indigenous authority; written reasons; Validations: The approver holds the designated director's assignment on the date of approval; the notice to the Indigenous authority is recorded before the determination is marked complete.

FR-001, FR-002, FR-004, FR-062, FR-085, FR-094

FR-118, FR-204, FR-207 (rests on some of the same provisions).

• The Act ties the duty to act consistently to the Indigenous law being provided in writing to the director. No policy held repeats that condition or says how a law is provided or where it is kept.
• Policy 1.2 gives one ground for not acting consistently: that it would be contrary to another law that applies to a director. Section 23 of the federal Act (a provision does not apply where contrary to the child's best interests) has no implementing policy. Ministry to confirm whether the same approval and notice apply.
• Policy says legal advice 'should be obtained' as soon as possible, so the system records it and does not block on it.
• Policy lets the reasons be given verbally unless the Indigenous authority asks for them in writing. No time limit is set for the notice or the reasons.

Section 4.3(4) of the Act requires services to be provided consistently with an Indigenous law provided in writing, or in accordance with an agreement. Section 4.4(3) requires notice to the Indigenous authority, and written reasons on request, where that is not possible. LEG001-C5

The system lets a child's record hold more than one Indigenous law and more than one Indigenous authority at once. It records uncertainty or a dispute about whether or which Indigenous law applies as a state of the determination. While that state lasts, services under the Act continue and nothing in the system suspends or closes them because of the dispute. The system records the contacts with each Indigenous authority, any agreement to use mediation or another dispute resolution mechanism, and the written agreement of the Indigenous authorities on which of them will be responsible.

BR-016

Child protection and family services; guardianship

N01, N13, N19

CFCSA ss. 4.5 and 22(2); federal Act ss. 9(3)(e) and 24(1); Policy 1.2 (CFD-303), standard 2 and the procedure on multiple Indigenous laws; Child Protection Response Policies (CFD-261), standard 3.10(8) and Policy 3.10 procedures (tier 1)

CL-D7-013, CL-D7-014, CL-D7-015, OB-LG3-02, R-LG3-21 (3 reconciled provisions and 2 further rows; 12 register rows in all)

Inputs: Each Indigenous law and Indigenous authority that may apply; contacts and written confirmations; the agreement to a dispute resolution mechanism; the child's habitual residence and the views and preferences the federal Act names; Outputs: A determination with a dispute state and its history; the Indigenous authority recorded as responsible; a record of the dispute resolution mechanism used; Validations: Responsibility is recorded for one Indigenous authority only when a written confirmation from each relevant authority is on the record; a dispute state never changes the status of a service.

FR-012, FR-061, FR-067, FR-084

FR-125 (rests on some of the same provisions).

• Section 24 of the federal Act says the law of the community with which the child has stronger ties prevails. No policy held states that test or says who applies it; Policy 1.2 leaves the choice to the Indigenous authorities and, failing that, to a court hearing.
• Information obtained in mediation or other dispute resolution is barred from disclosure by s. 24 of the Act. What the system may hold about the outcome beyond the fact of resolution needs a ministry answer.
• The referral pack (P03a) holds the same statutory duty for a protection report (CL-D1-182). The two requirements should be read together at merge.

Section 4.5 of the Act requires a director to make sure a dispute about the application of an Indigenous law does not disrupt services while it is resolved. The federal Act says a jurisdictional dispute must not result in a gap in services. LEG001-C6

The system records each request for information about an Indigenous child, who made it and in what capacity, and the response. For a request from an Indigenous authority, it applies the statutory duty to disclose information that is necessary for providing Indigenous child and family services under an Indigenous law. It withholds the categories policy bars from disclosure. It sends requests it must not answer locally to the office policy names.

BR-016

Child protection and family services; guardianship

N06, N13, N21

CFCSA ss. 24 and 79.2(2); Policy 1.2 (CFD-303), standard 3 and Appendix I Information Sharing; Child Protection Response Policies (CFD-261), standard 3.10(7) (tier 1)

CL-D7-016 (1 reconciled provisions and 0 further rows; 6 register rows in all)

Inputs: The request and the requester's identity and capacity; the determination under FR-111; the agreement, if any; the information selected; Outputs: A disclosure record with requester, basis, date, form and content; a record of what was withheld and why; a routed request; Validations: The requester is confirmed as an Indigenous authority before the statutory duty is recorded as the basis; a barred category cannot be released.

FR-077, FR-078, FR-080, FR-084, FR-085

FR-124, FR-128 (rests on some of the same provisions).

• Standard 3.10(7) of the Child Protection Response Policies breaks off in the source ('following ...'), so the instrument it points to is not stated (OB-CP1-55).
• The team leader consultation is worded 'should' for documents under a community agreement, and is split across a page break for transition planning (AU-IN1-24). Ministry to confirm whether it is an approval or advice.
• Policy 1.2 points to Policy 5.1(b) in Chapter 5 for transition planning. Chapter 5 is not held.
• No time limit is set for answering an Indigenous authority's request.
• The referral pack (P03a) holds the same statutory duty (CL-D1-181). The two requirements should be read together at merge.

Section 79.2(2) of the Act requires a director to disclose, on request by an Indigenous authority, information necessary for providing Indigenous child and family services under an Indigenous law. Policy lists what must never be shared and requires every request and response to be recorded. LEG001-C7

For every decision made and action taken under the Act about an Indigenous child, the system holds a record of how the child's best interests were considered. The record sets out the factors the federal Act gives primary consideration and can address each other factor the federal Act and the Act list. The list of factors is versioned reference data, and each record keeps the list that was in force when it was made.

BR-016

Child protection and family services; guardianship; adoption and permanency

N04, N08, N09

Federal Act ss. 9(1) and 10(1) to (3); CFCSA s. 4(2); Policy 1.1 (CFD-301), standard 4 and procedure 5 (tier 1)

CL-D7-053, CL-D7-054, CL-D7-055 (3 reconciled provisions and 0 further rows; 10 register rows in all)

Inputs: The decision or action; the registered list of best-interests factors; the worker's consideration of each; the views gathered from the child, the family and the Indigenous community; Outputs: A best-interests record bound to the decision record; Validations: A decision about an Indigenous child is not complete without a best-interests record; the factor list version is stored with the record.

FR-001, FR-002, FR-032, FR-094

• Policy 1.1 words the primary factors differently from s. 10(2) of the federal Act: the Act joins the relationship with family to the relationship with the Indigenous group, community or people, and adds preserving connections to culture (CF-D7-21). The factor list follows the Act.
• Policy says best interests 'must be considered'; the federal Act says 'a primary consideration' and, for apprehension, 'the paramount consideration'. The requirement follows the Act.
• 'Decisions and actions' is not bounded in any source. Ministry to say which recorded events need a best-interests record of their own, so that the record is not asked for on routine entries.
• The placement and significant-measures pack (P04) holds the same factors for placement decisions (CL-D1-193). The two requirements should be read together at merge.

Section 10 of the federal Act makes the best interests of the child a primary consideration in decisions and actions about an Indigenous child. Policy 1.1 requires the consideration of the factors to be documented. LEG005-C1

The system records each time a child's Indigenous community is involved in planning or delivering services, or given information, and the basis for it: an agreement with the community, the federal Act's notice of a significant measure, a disclosure authority in the Act, or parental consent. It records every effort to contact and involve the community. It records an objection by a child or parent, and an objection alone does not stop a notice the law requires.

BR-016

Child protection and family services; guardianship

N01, N13, N21

Policy 1.1 (CFD-301), standard 3 and procedures 3, 4 and 6(d); Child Protection Response Policies (CFD-261), the procedures 'Involving the Indigenous community' for the family development response, the investigation, less disruptive measures and the Family Plan; File Transfer Policies (CFD-262); CFCSA ss. 74(2)(e) and 79 as cited by those policies (tier 2)

CL-D1-074, CL-D1-075 (2 reconciled provisions and 0 further rows; 8 register rows in all)

Inputs: The child's recorded communities; the agreement, if any; the consent record; the disclosure authority relied on; contact attempts; an objection and its reasons; Outputs: An involvement record with its basis; a contact history for each community; a recorded objection; Validations: Every involvement or disclosure names one basis; a consent relied on is in force and in scope on the date of use.

FR-032, FR-075, FR-077, FR-084, FR-085

• MQ-012 (CF-D1-12): the Child Protection Response Policies list an agreement, the federal Act notice, s. 79(a) or (a.2), 'otherwise parental consent'. Policy 1.1 allows disclosure with parental consent or under s. 74(2)(e)(v.1) or s. 79, including s. 79(a.3). Both are policy, so the system holds the list as data and does not settle it.
• The 2004 standard (CFD-089, Standard 2, marked in use) applies a best-interests test where a child or parent keeps objecting to community involvement. Ministry to say whether that procedure is withdrawn (MQ-012).
• Policy 1.1 says notice is still given over a parent's objection unless it is not in the child's best interests. The notice itself, its period and the approval to withhold it are in the significant-measures pack (P04).
• Policy 1.1 also requires consultation with the community at a set interval for a child under a continuing custody order (CFD-301 standard 3(c)). That row is not in this pack.

Policy requires a director to involve the Indigenous community as soon as possible and to consult and cooperate with it even where there is no agreement, on a stated basis for sharing information, and to document all efforts to contact and involve the community. CFD261-C1

The system holds every agreement made under the Act or the Adoption Act that governs how a director serves Indigenous children. These are coordination agreements, community agreements a director makes with a First Nation, the Nisga'a Nation, a Treaty First Nation or a legal entity representing another Indigenous community, decision-making agreements, power or duty agreements and other agreements of the minister that set how a director must act. Each record keeps the kind of agreement, the provision it is made under, the parties, its purposes, its own terms on duration, review, amendment, termination and dispute resolution, and its conditions on the use, disclosure and security of information. A community agreement made by one director is available to every director and every delegate. Each amendment is kept as a new version with its own effective date.

BR-016

Child protection and family services; guardianship; adoption and permanency; youth transitions; children and youth with support needs

N04, N13, N21

CFCSA ss. 89.1 to 89.4, 90, 90.1 and 92.1(2) to (5); CFCS Regulation s. 12.1; Adoption Act ss. 74.2 to 74.4 and 76; Policy 1.1, Working with Indigenous Children, Youth, Families and Communities (CFD-301); Community Agreements framework (CFD-046, undated) (tier 1)

CL-D7-008, CL-D7-110, CL-D7-111, CL-D7-112, CL-D7-121, CL-D7-122, CL-D7-123, CL-D7-125, CL-D7-128, CL-D7-129, CL-D8-040, CL-D8-195, R-IN2-03 (12 reconciled provisions and 1 further rows; 41 register rows in all)

Inputs: The signed agreement and each amendment; its kind and the provision it is made under; parties and signatories; purposes; terms; information conditions; effective, review and end dates; Outputs: A versioned agreement record that every director and delegate can read; review and expiry work items; the list of agreements in force for a community; Validations: The party type matches the kind of agreement; information conditions are present where the Act requires them; every version has an effective date.

FR-085, FR-084, FR-067, FR-074, FR-021

• The Community Agreements framework (CFD-046) is undated and its parent policy is not held. Its signing authorities and template terms (CL-D7-125, CL-D7-129) need the ministry to confirm they are current.
• CFD-046 lists referral of child protection reports to a prescribed Nation as a fourth purpose of a community agreement. The consolidated Act shows s. 92.1(1) as repealed and s. 92.1(2) lists consultation and cooperation, services by the community and prescribed purposes only. The register follows the Act (CF-D7-04, read in both sources).
• A regulation under CFCSA s. 103(2)(q.2) may exempt an agreement for a prescribed purpose from the information conditions and from applying to all directors. No such exemption was found in the Regulation as held.
• No decision-making agreement, power or duty agreement or coordination agreement is held in the corpus, so the terms such agreements carry are known only from the Act.

The Act makes an agreement a director makes with a community apply to all directors (CFCSA s. 92.1(4)), and policy requires a director to adhere to any such agreement (Policy 1.1). No director can do that unless every agreement and its terms can be found for the child in front of them. FR-085 holds data-sharing agreements as the source of access rights; these agreements also govern how assessments, plans and decisions are made. LEG001-C8

The system finds the agreements that apply to an Indigenous child from the communities recorded for the child, and shows them wherever a director assesses, investigates, plans or decides for that child. Where a term of an agreement differs from a step, a time limit or an approval that policy sets, the system applies the agreement's term to that child's work and records that it did. Where the agreement sets how the community is involved, the system shows the term that fits the child's circumstances and records how it was met.

BR-016

Child protection and family services; guardianship; youth transitions; adoption and permanency; children and youth with support needs

N04, N08, N13

CFCSA ss. 4.3(4), 16(2.4), 90(2) and 92.1(4); Policy 1.1 (CFD-301) and its procedure on consulting and cooperating with the Indigenous community; Policy 1.2, Upholding Indigenous Jurisdiction over Child and Family Services (CFD-303); Child Protection Response Policies (CFD-261); Family Support Services and Agreements, Chapter 2 (CFD-296); Out-of-Care Policies, Chapter 4 (CFD-294) (tier 1)

CL-D1-180, CL-D7-006, CL-D7-007, CL-D7-008, CL-D7-110, CL-D7-128, AU-CP1-16 (6 reconciled provisions and 1 further rows; 19 register rows in all)

Inputs: The child's recorded Indigenous communities and place of residence; the agreements in force and their terms by kind of work; the policy rules the terms displace; Outputs: The applicable agreements shown on the child's work; a record of each term applied and how it was met; decision records that name the agreement and version; Validations: The agreement was in force on the date of the action; a term displaces a policy rule only for a child the agreement covers.

FR-004, FR-010, FR-067, FR-090, FR-085

FR-112 (rests on some of the same provisions).

• The sources state that an agreement prevails over policy. None read states that a community agreement displaces a time limit the Act itself sets. Terms of a decision-making or power or duty agreement that have the force of law are covered by FR-119.
• Pack P02a holds the neighbouring provisions on serving a child consistently with an Indigenous law or agreement (CL-D1-073, CL-D7-009). The editor should check the two packs do not state this twice.
• No policy says how a director decides that a child lives near or far from the community. CFD-046 leaves it to each agreement.
• Policy 1.1 and Policy 1.2 each say they prevail over other policy (CF-D7-20). Read in both: Policy 1.2 applies only where an Indigenous law applies, and Policy 1.1 sends the reader to Policy 1.2 in that case, so they do not conflict on what the system must do.

The Act requires an assessment or investigation to be conducted in accordance with a community agreement (CFCSA s. 16(2.4)), and every policy read says an applicable agreement prevails over the policy to the extent of any conflict. Steps and time limits held as policy rules must therefore give way to an agreement's terms for the children it covers, and the record must show that they did. LEG001-C9

Where a decision-making agreement or a power or duty agreement with an Indigenous governing body is in force, the system holds its terms on who exercises, performs or consents to each power, duty or statutory power of decision it covers, and its terms on criteria and procedures. It routes each exercise of a covered power to the persons the agreement identifies. It does not let the exercise be completed until the joint exercise or the consent the agreement requires is recorded. It keeps each power or duty agreement and each amendment with the date it was published.

BR-016

Child protection and family services; guardianship; adoption and permanency; youth transitions; children and youth with support needs

N17, N08, N04, N13

CFCSA ss. 89.1, 89.2, 89.3 and 89.4; Adoption Act ss. 74.2, 74.3 and 74.4 (tier 1)

CL-D7-112, CL-D7-113, OB-LG1-121, OB-LG2-41, OB-LG2-42, RC-LG1-23 (2 reconciled provisions and 4 further rows; 15 register rows in all)

Inputs: The agreement's terms on who exercises, performs or consents; its criteria and procedures; the powers, duties and statutory powers of decision it covers; consents given; Outputs: Decisions routed for joint exercise or consent; decision records that name the agreement, its version, the persons acting and the consent; a publication record for each agreement and amendment; Validations: The agreement was in force on the decision date; the person who consents or acts jointly is the person the agreement identifies.

FR-003, FR-004, FR-084, FR-085, FR-090

• No policy implementing CFCSA ss. 89.2 to 89.4 or Adoption Act ss. 74.2 to 74.4 was found, and no agreement of this kind is held. Which powers will be covered is not known.
• The Act does not say what happens where consent is refused or not given in time. Each agreement's procedures would govern.
• The Bill 38 redline (CFD-230) calls these 'statutory power agreements' authorised by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The consolidated Acts call them 'power or duty agreements' entered into by the minister. The requirement follows the consolidations.
• The duty to publish is the minister's and the public website sits outside the case system. The requirement covers only holding the copy and the publication date.

Once such an agreement is made, the Act requires the power to be exercised in accordance with it and gives its terms on who acts or consents, and on criteria and procedures, the force of law (CFCSA s. 89.4; Adoption Act s. 74.4). A decision completed without the required consent or joint exercise would be made outside the law, so the system must hold these terms as rules and enforce them. LEG001-C10

Where an agreement with a First Nation, the Nisga'a Nation, a Treaty First Nation or an Indigenous community provides for it, the system produces, at the interval the agreement sets, a list of that community's Indigenous children whose care status the Regulation describes. The list holds only the items the Regulation names. The system records each list as a disclosure made under the agreement, without asking for the consent of the persons named, and attaches the agreement's conditions on use, disclosure and security to it.

BR-016

Child protection and family services; guardianship

N21, N13, N06, N09

CFCSA s. 92.1(2)(c) and (3); CFCS Regulation s. 12.1(a) (also as made by Ministerial Order 042/2019, CFD-001); Community Agreements framework (CFD-046, undated) (tier 1)

CL-D7-122, CL-D7-123, CL-D7-124, CL-D8-195, R-SRIN2-09 (4 reconciled provisions and 1 further rows; 18 register rows in all)

Inputs: The agreement, its reporting interval and information conditions; each child's recorded community, care status, name and date of birth; parents' names; Outputs: The list for each community; a disclosure record for each list; a work item for each list due; a record of each incident the community reports; Validations: The agreement is in force and provides for the list; only the items the Regulation names are included; care status is read as at the date of the list.

FR-077, FR-080, FR-085, FR-061, FR-067

• The Regulation says 'on a regular basis'. CFD-046, which is undated, says quarterly. The interval is held on each agreement (CK-IN2-01).
• CFD-046 describes the children listed as those in care or in the interim or temporary custody of a person other than a parent under a director's supervision. The Regulation describes them as children in care and children who are the subject of an interim order for custody or a temporary custody order. The requirement follows the Regulation.
• CFD-046 names 'the director' in one place and a named deputy director in another as the person who discloses the list. The source check found this is not a conflict (CF-D7-23). The role that discloses is held as reference data.
• No source says how a child who belongs to more than one community is listed, or what happens where a parent or youth objects. CFD-046 says an agreement may add steps for an objection.
• The framework's diagrams of roles in completing and maintaining an information agreement were images and are not in the text held.

The Regulation prescribes this purpose so that a community can fulfil its shared responsibility for the upbringing and well-being of its children, and fixes what the list may hold (CFCS Regulation s. 12.1(a)). The Act requires the agreement to carry conditions on the information provided (CFCSA s. 92.1(3)). The list must be produced from case records, on time, with no more than the Regulation allows. LEG002-C1

The system records a notice from an Indigenous governing body that an Indigenous group, community or people intends to exercise its legislative authority over child and family services, and a request for a coordination agreement, each with the day it was made. It runs the period the federal Act sets from the day of the request and records whether a coordination agreement was entered into. It records a request from the Nisga'a Nation or a Treaty First Nation for an amending agreement or an enabling agreement, the conditions the Act sets for that agreement, and the date from which the law applies outside the Nation's lands. These dates feed the record of which Indigenous law applies to a child.

BR-016

Child protection and family services; guardianship; adoption and permanency

N19, N01, N13

An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families (federal) ss. 20(1) to (7), 21 and 22; CFCSA ss. 90.1(1), 90.2 and 90.4 to 90.6 (tier 1)

CL-D7-111, CL-D7-114, CL-D7-117, AU-LG3-01, AU-LG3-02, CK-LG3-01, R-LG3-12 (3 reconciled provisions and 4 further rows; 10 register rows in all)

Inputs: The notice and the request, each with the day it was made and the Indigenous governing body that made it; the group, community or people it acts for; negotiation events; the agreement and the conditions met; Outputs: A running period with its end date; a work item at the end of the period; the date from which a law has force, passed to the record of applicable Indigenous law; Validations: The start day is the day the request was made; a law is shown as in force only on a recorded agreement or a recorded finding.

FR-061, FR-067, FR-085, FR-021

• No policy or procedure was found for receiving a notice or a request under the federal Act s. 20, or a request under CFCSA s. 90.4. Who in government receives them, and whether the ministry's case system or another body's records hold them, needs a ministry answer.
• The federal Act does not say who finds that an Indigenous governing body made reasonable efforts. The requirement records the finding and does not make it.
• CFCSA s. 90.4 sets no time limit for negotiation, so the requirement runs none.
• Pack P02a holds the record of which Indigenous law applies to a child. This requirement supplies dates to it and should be read with it.

Under the federal Act an Indigenous law gains the force of federal law either when a coordination agreement is entered into or when a set period passes after a request with reasonable efforts made (s. 20(3) and (4)). The Act gives the Nisga'a Nation and Treaty First Nations a parallel route by agreement (CFCSA ss. 90.5 and 90.6). Which law applies to a child turns on these dates, so the system must hold them. LEG005-C2

The system records the director's determination whether to refer a report about an Indigenous child to an applicable Indigenous authority, both when the report is received and after it has been assessed. It allows a referral only once the record holds the Indigenous authority's two confirmations: that an Indigenous law applies to the child, and that the Indigenous authority will assess the information in the report. It records the referral itself, the method the Indigenous authority asked for, and that the person who made the report was told of the referral.

BR-016

Child protection and family services

N01, N13, N17

CFCSA s. 16(1), (1.1), (1.2), (2)(d), (2.1) and (2.2); Child Protection Response Policies (CFD-261), Policy 3.1 'When a Child/Youth is Indigenous' and Policy 3.10 standards 3.10(1) to (3) and 'Referring Child Protection Reports to an Indigenous Authority'; Policy 1.2 Upholding Indigenous Jurisdiction over Child and Family Services (CFD-303), section 6 (tier 1)

CL-D1-018, CL-D7-020, OB-LG1-22 (2 reconciled provisions and 1 further rows; 18 register rows in all)