• 13 conflicts set out
• 7 resolved by the source hierarchy or the architecture
• 6 waiting on a ministry ruling

1. C-1 PRIORITIZE (policy), with INNOVATE (Option 3) Resolved

   Policy against practice on the right to challenge

   Decision: Option 3. Every request is recorded, and the pre-decision communication tells clients truthfully where they stand. Who decides: The source hierarchy settles the requirement. The ministry (ADM Policy and Program Design) is asked to correct the procedures (DEP-10).

   Conflicting Requirements:

   • Requirement A: FR-055. A reconsideration request is always accepted and recorded, and the independent unit decides whether reconsideration is available (FR-056).
   • Requirement B: Current procedures. Staff are told "Do not offer the right to reconsideration" when food vouchers are denied RECON-C1; overpayment workers are told to answer a request with "there is nothing to reconsider"; and the brochure is held back when an overpayment is notified (RC-01, RC-14).

   Stakeholders Involved:

   • Reconsideration and Administrative Fairness Unit and the policy authority: policy gives an unconditional right to ask.
   • Front-line service delivery: procedures were written to stop early or pointless requests and keep queues manageable.

   Nature of Conflict:

   • A request cannot both be refused at the counter and recorded. In practice, the worker decides whether reconsideration is available, which they have no authority to do.

   Trade-off Analysis:

   Option	Pros	Cons	Impact
   Option 1: Follow policy. Record every request and decide availability centrally	✅ Lawful<br>✅ Consistent across channels	❌ More requests reach the independent unit	Policy authority satisfied; the unit's workload rises
   Option 2: Follow practice. Allow refusal at the point of contact	✅ Fewer requests	❌ Contradicts policy, which takes precedence<br>❌ Refusals nobody can review	Rejected by the source hierarchy
   Option 3: Record every request, and use the pre-decision communication to tell clients that no decision has been made yet (FR-006)	✅ Lawful<br>✅ Fewer pointless requests, because clients know where they stand	❌ Needs the proposal object	Meets each side's underlying interest

   Resolution Strategy: PRIORITIZE (policy), with INNOVATE (Option 3)

   Decision: Option 3. Every request is recorded, and the pre-decision communication tells clients truthfully where they stand.

   Rationale: Policy takes precedence over practice (BC-1). The ministry's own intake practice already uses the pre-decision pattern correctly (NOTE-001).

   Decision Authority: The source hierarchy settles the requirement. The ministry (ADM Policy and Program Design) is asked to correct the procedures (DEP-10).

   Impact on Requirements:

   • Added: FR-006 (pre-decision communication), FR-056 (availability decided by the independent unit).
   • Recorded: RC-01 and RC-14 as practice defects for the ministry to correct.

   Stakeholder Management:

   • Front-line service delivery (bears the cost): the pre-decision communication gives workers a correct, scripted route. The independent unit's request volume is monitored.

   Future Consideration:

   • After M7, measure request volume by channel and adjust staffing, not the right.
2. C-2 COMPROMISE Resolved

   A history that is never changed against the duty to destroy records

   Decision: Option 3 (TA §B.7; decision D13). Who decides: Ministry Records Officer with the Privacy Officer and the Chief Architect (D13), before the first production event.

   Conflicting Requirements:

   • Requirement A: FR-008, DR-001. A permanent history that can be replayed, with nothing overwritten.
   • Requirement B: NFR-C-003, DR-004. Records destroyed on schedule, and one person's records destroyed where a duty or order requires it.

   Stakeholders Involved:

   • Chief Architect: a tribunal examines whether decisions can be reproduced.
   • Records Officer and Privacy Officer: destroying records on schedule is a legal duty.

   Nature of Conflict:

   • A store that never forgets cannot destroy anything, and a store that destroys records cannot replay everything.

   Trade-off Analysis:

   Option	Pros	Cons	Impact
   Option 1: Encrypt everything per person and destroy keys	✅ Any one person's records can be destroyed	❌ The most expensive method for every fact<br>❌ The conflict between backing up keys and destroying them applies everywhere	Over-built
   Option 2: Never destroy anything in the event store	✅ Full replay forever	❌ Breaks the records duty	Rejected
   Option 3: A disposal method per fact class, a published shred-survivor list, typed placeholders for destroyed facts, and an advance statement of what can no longer be reproduced	✅ Meets each duty where it applies<br>✅ Cost in proportion	❌ Replay is limited for people whose records were destroyed, and this must be said in advance	Both duties met, with a stated limit

   Resolution Strategy: COMPROMISE

   Decision: Option 3 (TA §B.7; decision D13).

   Rationale: The common duty is scheduled disposal of a whole class of records, not erasure on request. Designing the whole store around the rare case buys the wrong capability.

   Decision Authority: Ministry Records Officer with the Privacy Officer and the Chief Architect (D13), before the first production event.

   Impact on Requirements:

   • Modified: FR-008 carries the declared limit on replay; DR-004 requires the survivor list before the first event.

   Stakeholder Management:

   • Chief Architect (loses unlimited replay): the limit is declared before the first disposal, not discovered at the first challenge.

   Future Consideration:

   • Revisit the method for each fact class once the ARCS/ORCS schedules are obtained (DEP-09).
3. C-3 INNOVATE Open

   Reaching every client against a verification check tied to how they are paid

   Decision: Option 3, subject to a ministry ruling (DEP-10). Until then, clients can choose office pickup as a payment channel, but it is never used as the check. Who decides: ADM Policy and Program Design.

   Conflicting Requirements:

   • Requirement A: FR-086, BR-009. Outcomes do not depend on channel, and electronic payment is available.
   • Requirement B: OB-SU-61. Hardship cheques are sent to the local office so that eligibility is re-checked every month.

   Stakeholders Involved:

   • Head of Service Delivery Operations and clients: reach and dignity; clients should not have to visit an office every month to get paid.
   • Policy authority and compliance: hardship eligibility re-checked every month.

   Nature of Conflict:

   • One mechanism meets two requirements. Paying electronically removes the monthly check PRIN-C8.

   Trade-off Analysis:

   Option	Pros	Cons	Impact
   Option 1: Keep sending cheques to the office	✅ Check preserved	❌ Clients must travel to an office to be paid	Clients bear the cost
   Option 2: Pay electronically and drop the check	✅ Better reach	❌ Removes a policy control	Compliance bears the risk
   Option 3: Separate the two. A monthly re-check work item that applies whatever the channel (FR-040), with the client choosing how to be paid	✅ Both requirements met	❌ Needs a policy ruling on what counts as a re-check	Both met if policy agrees

   Resolution Strategy: INNOVATE

   Decision: Option 3, subject to a ministry ruling (DEP-10). Until then, clients can choose office pickup as a payment channel, but it is never used as the check.

   Rationale: N15 has exposed two requirements met by one mechanism, which nobody saw until it was written down (PRIN N15).

   Decision Authority: ADM Policy and Program Design.

   Impact on Requirements:

   • Modified: FR-040 makes the monthly re-check a work item whatever the channel.

   Stakeholder Management:

   • Compliance (loses the incidental check): a stated re-check that can be audited replaces an unstated one.

   Future Consideration:

   • The same pattern may exist elsewhere. Phase D should look for controls that depend on a channel.
4. C-4 INNOVATE Resolved

   Changing policy quickly against releasing rules that will stand up at tribunal

   Decision: Option 3 (commitment 2; TA §C.4.3). Who decides: The Chief Architect and the ADM Policy and Program Design, jointly, as the authority that can relax commitment 2.

   Conflicting Requirements:

   • Requirement A: BR-010. Policy staff release rate changes on their effective date without a software release.
   • Requirement B: FR-090, FR-091, FR-003. Release needs a second person's approval, legal sign-off, a regression test set, approval of decision classes, and no unresolved date conflicts.

   Stakeholders Involved:

   • ADM Policy and Program Design: changes take effect on the date the minister sets.
   • Chief Architect and legal counsel: every release must stand up at tribunal.

   Nature of Conflict:

   • Every check slows release. Removing checks makes releases harder to defend.

   Trade-off Analysis:

   Option	Pros	Cons	Impact
   Option 1: Rules written in code and released with software	✅ Engineering controls	❌ Every rate change waits for a software release	Policy frustrated
   Option 2: Analysts release rules freely	✅ Speed	❌ Releases that cannot be defended	Legal exposure
   Option 3: An automated release pipeline. Simulation, regression and classification checks run automatically; people only review and give legal sign-off, and do so before the effective date	✅ Speed and defensibility	❌ The pipeline must be funded as a product	Both met

   Resolution Strategy: INNOVATE

   Decision: Option 3 (commitment 2; TA §C.4.3).

   Rationale: Release and effect are separate. A rule released early takes effect on its stated date.

   Decision Authority: The Chief Architect and the ADM Policy and Program Design, jointly, as the authority that can relax commitment 2.

   Impact on Requirements:

   • Added: FR-091 blocks rules with date conflicts; DEP-14 tests analyst capability.

   Stakeholder Management:

   • Policy (loses the ability to release alone): policy staff run the pipeline themselves, and the capability test proves they can before D3 is final.

   Future Consideration:

   • If DEP-14 fails, improve the authoring tools rather than remove the checks.
5. C-5 COMPROMISE Resolved

   Automated decisions at scale against the need for a human decision-maker

   Decision: Option 3. Who decides: The statutory decision-maker for each program authorises each class (FR-093). The program policy authority approves the classification on legal advice.

   Conflicting Requirements:

   • Requirement A: NFR-P-003, BR-004. Decisions and payments for the whole caseload, on time.
   • Requirement B: FR-003, FR-052, NFR-C-005. A human must decide any adverse decision based on inferred data, and every overpayment.

   Stakeholders Involved:

   • Service delivery operations: volume and timeliness.
   • Statutory decision-makers and legal counsel: lawful administrative decisions.

   Nature of Conflict:

   • Human review of every decision cannot keep up with the volume. Elsewhere, decisions with no human review have produced unlawful debt at scale.

   Trade-off Analysis:

   Option	Pros	Cons	Impact
   Option 1: A person reviews every decision	✅ Safe	❌ Unworkable volume; late decisions change what clients are owed (FR-061)	Clients harmed by delay
   Option 2: Automate everything	✅ Fast	❌ Unlawful for discretionary decisions and adverse decisions based on inference	Rejected
   Option 3: Classify each output. Automate only verified administrative decisions with no discretion, under the four conditions in TA §D.5.2. A person decides anything involving discretion or inference, and every overpayment. A class is suspended automatically if challenges succeed too often	✅ Automates where lawful<br>✅ Safe where not	❌ Classification has to be governed	Both met, class by class

   Resolution Strategy: COMPROMISE

   Decision: Option 3.

   Rationale: What the comparator jurisdiction lacked was a rule about which outputs count as decisions (TA §D.5).

   Decision Authority: The statutory decision-maker for each program authorises each class (FR-093). The program policy authority approves the classification on legal advice.

   Impact on Requirements:

   • Added: FR-093 register and suspension triggers.

   Stakeholder Management:

   • Service delivery (loses full automation): volume by class is published every cycle, so the line between automated and human decisions is argued from evidence.

   Future Consideration:

   • Review each class every year, and whenever challenges pass their trigger.
6. C-6 PHASE Open

   Paying on time against verifying first

   Decision: Option 3, pending a ministry ruling on which checks may be done after payment (DEP-10). Who decides: Program policy authority.

   Conflicting Requirements:

   • Requirement A: NFR-A-008. No client's payment waits on another organisation's gateway. Decisions go ahead on the evidence held and are flagged for later checking.
   • Requirement B: FR-015. Mandatory third-party checks at application and review, unless a registered deferral applies.

   Stakeholders Involved:

   • Clients and service delivery: payment on the due date.
   • Compliance and the policy authority: eligibility checked before assistance is paid.

   Nature of Conflict:

   • When the exchange is down, the system must either pay without a mandatory check or hold the payment.

   Trade-off Analysis:

   Option	Pros	Cons	Impact
   Option 1: Hold every decision until checks complete	✅ Checks preserved	❌ Payment depends on an outside gateway	Clients bear the outages
   Option 2: Always go ahead and check later	✅ Payment on time	❌ Breaks the mandatory-check policy where no deferral applies	Compliance risk
   Option 3: Go ahead only where a registered deferral applies or policy allows checking after payment; otherwise use emergency issuance under authority (FR-047) and reconcile later	✅ Lawful and on time	❌ Needs policy to state the deferral cases	Both met within policy

   Resolution Strategy: PHASE

   Decision: Option 3, pending a ministry ruling on which checks may be done after payment (DEP-10).

   Rationale: For this failure, the architecture names the program policy authority as the one who decides whether to go ahead on the evidence held (TA §E.8.3).

   Decision Authority: Program policy authority.

   Impact on Requirements:

   • Modified: NFR-A-008 applies only to cases policy allows.

   Stakeholder Management:

   • Compliance: every check done after payment is a tracked work item with its own deadline.

   Future Consideration:

   • Revisit once the exchange commits to an availability target (DEP-06).
7. C-7 COMPROMISE Resolved

   Keeping old reports and interfaces working against the detail the new record holds

   Decision: Option 3 (TA §C.2.6; DR-014, DR-015). Who decides: The Policy Directors accept the published losses for each part of the system and each group of clients; the Coexistence Lead owns the mechanism.

   Conflicting Requirements:

   • Requirement A: DR-014. Write changes back to the old system for groups of clients the new system has taken over, so old reports, batch jobs and interfaces not yet moved keep working.
   • Requirement B: DR-001, DR-002. The new record holds dates, lifecycle and source detail the old system's structure cannot hold.

   Stakeholders Involved:

   • Users of the old systems and operations staff: things keep working while both systems run.
   • Program policy authority: accountable for what a rollback loses.

   Nature of Conflict:

   • Writing back always loses detail, so every day in state S2 is a day on an incomplete copy.

   Trade-off Analysis:

   Option	Pros	Cons	Impact
   Option 1: No write-back; move every user of the old data in one cutover	✅ No loss	❌ The single-cutover risk the evidence from other jurisdictions rules out	Rejected
   Option 2: Write back indefinitely	✅ Old systems keep working	❌ Running both systems becomes permanent	How the predecessor programme failed
   Option 3: Write back for a limited time and with limited detail. The losses are published and accepted per fact class, and a retirement date is set when each group moves	✅ Old systems keep working, at a stated cost and with an end date	❌ Named losses must be accepted	Both met, with a stated limit

   Resolution Strategy: COMPROMISE

   Decision: Option 3 (TA §C.2.6; DR-014, DR-015).

   Rationale: Claiming a move can be reversed without saying what is lost means the cost has not been worked out.

   Decision Authority: The Policy Directors accept the published losses for each part of the system and each group of clients; the Coexistence Lead owns the mechanism.

   Impact on Requirements:

   • Added: DR-015's published list of losses, including the difference between a correction and a supersession.

   Stakeholder Management:

   • Program policy authority (accepts named losses): acceptance is explicit, for each group of clients, before state S2.

   Future Consideration:

   • Retire each user of the old data as parts of the system reach state S3.
8. C-8 PHASE Resolved

   Building the ministry-specific parts against buying a platform

   Decision: Option 3 (DEP-19). This document does not assume a particular solution, so it can serve as the baseline for that evaluation (A-7). Who decides: ED Digital Services with the ADM Policy and Program Design (D3), assessed by someone other than the owners of the parts.

   Conflicting Requirements:

   • Requirement A: NFR-I-006. Buy generic capability, have any decision to build assessed independently, and evaluate the whole platform against commercial and reusable case management platforms.
   • Requirement B: The architecture's list of parts to build (the evidence store, the decision machinery, case handling, the translation layer, the exchange's authorization and evidence services, overpayment, appeals, and identity matching) (TA §C.18.1).

   Stakeholders Involved:

   • ED Digital Services and ADM Policy and Program Design: own D3 and the rules platform.
   • Chief Architect: owns the reasons for each part to be built.

   Nature of Conflict:

   • The architecture has not applied its own build-or-buy test to the platform as a whole, and three of its eight build decisions fail that test (PRIN N11).

   Trade-off Analysis:

   Option	Pros	Cons	Impact
   Option 1: Build the list as written	✅ Keeps the architecture as it is	❌ Fails the architecture's own rule	The largest open question stays open
   Option 2: Buy a commercial case management platform	✅ Off-the-shelf capability	❌ Not assessed against the legal requirements here (replay, three-date evidence, deadlines)	Unknown fit
   Option 3: Evaluate the whole platform against these requirements, assessed independently, before procurement	✅ Decision based on evidence	❌ Takes time before procurement	Decision waits for evidence

   Resolution Strategy: PHASE

   Decision: Option 3 (DEP-19). This document does not assume a particular solution, so it can serve as the baseline for that evaluation (A-7).

   Rationale: By the architecture's own rules, leaving this unanswered is a compliance failure PRIN-C9.

   Decision Authority: ED Digital Services with the ADM Policy and Program Design (D3), assessed by someone other than the owners of the parts.

   Impact on Requirements:

   • Unchanged: requirements are stated as outcomes, and the architecture commitments that apply are named as such.

   Stakeholder Management:

   • Chief Architect (build list open to challenge): each build decision keeps its requirement-based reason, which is tested rather than thrown out.

   Future Consideration:

   • Record the result in an ADR, and amend this document where the result changes a requirement.
9. C-9 PHASE Open

   Two statutes set different placement priorities for an Indigenous child

   Decision: Option 1, pending a legal ruling on which statute governs (MQ-023). Who decides: Legal counsel to the ministry, with the Indigenous Child Welfare Director.

   Conflicting Requirements:

   • Requirement A: the placement priority in section 16(1) of the federal Act, which places a parent first and separates family from community.
   • Requirement B: the placement priority in section 71(3) of the CFCSA, which does neither. The adoption policy and the care plan form follow it; Policy 1.1 follows the federal order.

   Stakeholders Involved:

   • Indigenous governing bodies and communities: the federal Act sets minimum standards for their children.
   • Directors and delegated workers: must record which order was applied to each placement.

   Nature of Conflict:

   • The two orders can give different answers for the same child. Which governs, and whether the federal order reaches adoption matching, is a legal question the source hierarchy does not answer.

   Trade-off Analysis:

   Option	Pros	Cons	Impact
   Option 1: Hold both orders as rule data and record which was applied, with the reasons	✅ Builds now<br>✅ No change when the question is answered	❌ The system cannot say a placement is out of order	Decision stays with the director
   Option 2: Build one order	✅ The system can test a placement	❌ May be the wrong order in law	Rejected until counsel rules

   Resolution Strategy: PHASE

   Decision: Option 1, pending a legal ruling on which statute governs (MQ-023).

   Rationale: A rule held as data can be changed on its effective date (BR-010). A rule built into the system cannot.

   Decision Authority: Legal counsel to the ministry, with the Indigenous Child Welfare Director.

   Impact on Requirements:

   • Recorded: the placement priority requirement in group CF2 holds both orders and the reasons for each placement.

   Stakeholder Management:

   • Indigenous governing bodies: the notice of a significant measure tells them of the placement decided.

   Future Consideration:

   • When the ruling is made, release the governing order as a dated rule.
10. C-10 PRIORITIZE (the statutes) Resolved

    One view of a child against records each service line must keep apart

    Decision: Option 2. The statutes prevail over convenience. Who decides: The source hierarchy settles the requirement. The Ministry Privacy Officer rules on any class of record not covered.

    Conflicting Requirements:

    • Requirement A: BR-012 and FR-032. A worker sees the history they need, and a supervisor sees caseloads across programs.
    • Requirement B: BR-022 and the requirements in groups CF10, CF12, CF15 and CF18. Support needs staff and child protection staff do not open each other's records without consent or a written request. Youth justice information is kept out of the mental health record. A restricted record is seen only by a named group.

    Stakeholders Involved:

    • Workers and supervisors: need the full picture to keep a child safe.
    • Children, youth and families: the statutes limit who may see what was collected for one purpose.

    Nature of Conflict:

    • A shared person index and a composite view show that a record exists. In these services the existence of a record is often the sensitive fact.

    Trade-off Analysis:

    Option	Pros	Cons	Impact
    Option 1: One view, filtered by role	✅ Simple for workers	❌ A filter that fails shows everything	Rejected: a restricted record is a different type, not a hidden field (TA §B.6)
    Option 2: Limits on use travel with each record class, and the index answers only what the asker may know (N21)	✅ Lawful<br>✅ The limit survives every copy	❌ A worker may not learn that another line knows the child	Each line keeps its own record; sharing goes through a recorded consent or request

    Resolution Strategy: PRIORITIZE (the statutes)

    Decision: Option 2. The statutes prevail over convenience.

    Rationale: Legislation comes first (BC-7). FR-080 already requires a barred use to be blocked at the point of use.

    Decision Authority: The source hierarchy settles the requirement. The Ministry Privacy Officer rules on any class of record not covered.

    Impact on Requirements:

    • Added: criteria on FR-084 for a record class a federal statute governs.
    • Open: what happens to a restriction when a record transfers or is jointly managed is stated in no source.

    Stakeholder Management:

    • Workers (bear the cost): the duty to report a child in need of protection is unaffected, and a written request under the Act remains the route to another line's record.

    Future Consideration:

    • Measure, in discovery for M9, how often a worker needed a record they could not see.
11. C-11 PHASE Open

    A store that never overwrites against provisions that require removal

    Decision: Option 1 is preferred, subject to decision D13 on how each fact class is destroyed (DEP-07). Who decides: Ministry Records Officer with the Privacy Officer.

    Conflicting Requirements:

    • Requirement A: BR-007 and DR-004. History is permanent, and disposal is designed before the first record.
    • Requirement B: adoption and privacy provisions that require information to be removed: registry information when a registration ends, the proposal package from an applicant's record on decline or disruption, and misdirected information that the privacy statute treats as not collected only if it is deleted or returned.

    Stakeholders Involved:

    • Ministry Records Officer and Privacy Officer: own disposal.
    • Adoptive applicants, birth parents and adopted people: the Act protects their information.

    Nature of Conflict:

    • These are removals on an event in one person's matter, not disposal of a class of records on a schedule. C-2 settled the second and did not consider the first.

    Trade-off Analysis:

    Option	Pros	Cons	Impact
    Option 1: Treat each removal as a disposal event under DR-004, with a record that the removal happened	✅ One mechanism	❌ Needs per-record disposal, not only per-class	Extends decision D13
    Option 2: Hold these classes outside the permanent store	✅ Simple removal	❌ A second store with its own controls	Against N05

    Resolution Strategy: PHASE

    Decision: Option 1 is preferred, subject to decision D13 on how each fact class is destroyed (DEP-07).

    Rationale: The removal is a legal duty; the fact that it happened is itself a record the ministry must be able to show.

    Decision Authority: Ministry Records Officer with the Privacy Officer.

    Impact on Requirements:

    • Added: a criterion on DR-004 for the minimum retention the privacy statute sets.
    • Open: per-record removal is not yet a requirement.

    Stakeholder Management:

    • Records Officer: the classes concerned are listed in the data requirements for children's services.

    Future Consideration:

    • Settle with D13, before the first production event.
12. C-12 PHASE Open

    One payment point against immediate payments drawn on another ministry's account

    Decision: Open, pending ADR-010 and the Executive Financial Officer's decision (DEP-35). Group CF13 states the requirements for the office route so that either option can be built. Who decides: Executive Financial Officer.

    Conflicting Requirements:

    • Requirement A: FR-042. Every payment passes through one issuance service.
    • Requirement B: ministry finance policy. Immediate office payments for children's services are drawn on a bank account managed by another ministry, on its own cheque stock, with cheques printed in the office.

    Stakeholders Involved:

    • Executive Financial Officer: owns payment controls.
    • Offices: need to put money in a caregiver's or family's hands the same day.

    Nature of Conflict:

    • A second route to the bank is a second set of controls, audited separately (TA §C.6.8).

    Trade-off Analysis:

    Option	Pros	Cons	Impact
    Option 1: Bring immediate payments through the issuance service, with an urgent channel	✅ One set of controls	❌ Depends on same-day issuance being available in offices	Office cheque stock requirements fall away
    Option 2: Keep the office route and reconcile it	✅ No change for offices	❌ Two routes	The office cheque requirements in group CF13 stand

    Resolution Strategy: PHASE

    Decision: Open, pending ADR-010 and the Executive Financial Officer's decision (DEP-35). Group CF13 states the requirements for the office route so that either option can be built.

    Rationale: The architecture's position is one chokepoint; current policy describes two.

    Decision Authority: Executive Financial Officer.

    Impact on Requirements:

    • Conditional: the requirements for office-printed cheques and cheque stock in group CF13.

    Stakeholder Management:

    • Offices: no change until a same-day route through the issuance service is proven.

    Future Consideration:

    • Decide with ADR-010.
13. C-13 PRIORITIZE (N02, N13) Open

    One writer for each record against partners who keep their own

    Decision: Option 1 for Indigenous authorities. For delegated agencies and integrated teams, open until DEP-27, DEP-29 and DEP-31 are decided. Who decides: Chief Architect, with the Indigenous Child Welfare Director.

    Conflicting Requirements:

    • Requirement A: BR-011 and N05. Exactly one writer for each record at any moment.
    • Requirement B: the policies. A delegated Indigenous agency may record in its own case system. Each employer on an Integrated Child and Youth team keeps its own clinical record, with a shared summary held elsewhere. An Indigenous authority that takes over a matter takes the record with it (FR-084).

    Stakeholders Involved:

    • Delegated agencies, health authorities and Indigenous authorities: hold records under their own authority.
    • The ministry: remains answerable for what it did while the matter was its own.

    Nature of Conflict:

    • The same child's matter is written in more than one system by design. Which is the record, and for which period, must be stated or two systems will each believe they hold it.

    Trade-off Analysis:

    Option	Pros	Cons	Impact
    Option 1: Each party is the one writer of its own record; what crosses is evidence with its source (N02)	✅ Matches the law<br>✅ No merge	❌ No single file	Integrations, not shared screens
    Option 2: All parties work in the ministry's system	✅ One file	❌ Misstates custodianship; outside the ministry's authority for an Indigenous authority	Rejected for Indigenous authorities (TA §B.8)

    Resolution Strategy: PRIORITIZE (N02, N13)

    Decision: Option 1 for Indigenous authorities. For delegated agencies and integrated teams, open until DEP-27, DEP-29 and DEP-31 are decided.

    Rationale: An Indigenous governing body is a sovereign taking over a function, not a partner receiving a feed (TA §B.8).

    Decision Authority: Chief Architect, with the Indigenous Child Welfare Director.

    Impact on Requirements:

    • Recorded: integrations with delegated agencies' systems and the integrated teams' shared record are listed in §Integration Requirements.

    Stakeholder Management:

    • Delegated agencies: listed first among external users with direct access (INT-013).

    Future Consideration:

    • Decide in the architecture decision record under DEP-31.

Dependencies

Decisions and sources the requirements wait on, with their owners.

Target dates are relative, as the architecture gives them, because no programme start date has been set. Status is as at the date of this document.

Dependency	Description	Owner	Target Date	Status	Impact if Delayed
DEP-01	List of every old system that reads, writes or runs program logic (TA §A.6 row 5)	Executive Director, Application Services	Day 45	At Risk. The ARC-001-APP-v1.0 draft covers 61 applications, and practice shows 28 more tools workers use	HIGH
DEP-02	List of every integration, each one named (TA §C.13)	Programme Chief Architect	Month 4 of Module 0	At Risk. 224 interfaces listed; categories still open	HIGH
DEP-03	Signed commitment of capacity from the old platform's configuration team (TA §A.6 row 1)	Executive Director, Vendor and Contract Management	Day 60	At Risk	HIGH
DEP-04	Decision D3: build or buy the platform for writing rules	ED Digital Services with ADM Policy and Program Design	Day 90	At Risk	HIGH
DEP-05	Decision D12: what counts as "storage" when Protected C data is processed	Provincial CISO with Ministry Privacy Officer	Day 45 (longest lead time)	At Risk	HIGH
DEP-06	Written commitment on the exchange's availability target, funding for its authorization service, and deployment model (TA §A.6 row 2, §C.3.9)	Executive Director, provincial exchange programme, with Ministry CIO	Module 0 funding approval	At Risk	HIGH
DEP-07	Decisions D10 and D13: how history is migrated, and how each fact class is destroyed	Chief Architect with Records Officer; Records Officer with Privacy Officer	Before the first production event	Blocked. Depends on DEP-09	HIGH
DEP-08	Decision D8: the agreement registry as the only source of authority for access	Ministry Privacy Officer with Legal Services	Design freeze	At Risk	HIGH
DEP-09	ARCS/ORCS records schedules under the Information Management Act obtained; work plan for disposal classes and the shred-survivor list (TA §A.6 row 7)	Ministry Records Officer	Day 60	Blocked. Not yet obtained	HIGH
DEP-10	Ministry rulings on: 9 rules with conflicting effective dates; the conflicting count of identification documents; criteria for rescinding PWD designation; the warrant shelter calculation; 14 practice conflicts and 18 practice rules with no policy basis; 15 adjudicability rows with at least one value unsettled	ADM Policy and Program Design	Before each affected rule is released	Blocked. Not yet referred	HIGH
DEP-11	Obtaining Tier 3 sources: 18 decision spreadsheets (5 decide entitlement), about 85 SOPs, about 90 HR forms and letters, 29 intranet documents, the Health Supplement Summary and the hardship category hierarchy	Requirements lead with ministry owner	Phase A	At Risk	MEDIUM
DEP-12	Capacity and response table (TA §C.15.1) filled in from monitoring data	Ministry CTO with operations directorate	Design freeze	At Risk	HIGH
DEP-13	Check of about 200 decisions to see whether each can be rebuilt from recorded evidence	Policy Directors	90-day evidence programme	At Risk	HIGH
DEP-14	Test of whether policy analysts can write and release rules	ADM Policy and Program Design	Day 90	At Risk	MEDIUM
DEP-15	Standing panel to rule on policy interpretation, and a written position on errors found in the old system (TA §A.6 row 8)	ADM Policy and Program Design	Before the first shadow comparison	At Risk	HIGH
DEP-16	Legal decisions on: how each class of overpayment is recovered, interest, whether interim assistance is recoverable when an appeal is dismissed, signature tiers, the legal basis for exchange with the tribunal, and data residency	Legal counsel to the ministry with the Programme Policy Executive	Design freeze	At Risk	HIGH
DEP-17	Obligation, rules and adjudicability registers for child care subsidy, employment services and child protection (BR-014)	Chief Architect with each program policy authority	Before each program family's module starts	At Risk. Not started	HIGH
DEP-18	Phase G user stories and Phase H validation by practitioners (METH §5)	Requirements lead with regional operations	Before design freeze	At Risk. Only the 36-story pilot exists	MEDIUM
DEP-19	Independently assessed build-versus-buy evaluation of the whole platform (N11)	ED Digital Services, assessed independently	Before procurement	At Risk. Not started	HIGH
DEP-20	Confirmation of the deployed identity-service version and whether it supports token exchange and rich authorization requests	Ministry CTO with provincial identity service owner	Within 60 days of programme start	At Risk	MEDIUM
DEP-21	Added v1.5. The corporate financial system's cutoff calendar, how long each posting blackout lasts, and whether it accepts back-dated postings when it reopens (TA §C.6.6). Decides whether queued posting (NFR-A-005) is enough	Executive Financial Officer with the corporate financial system's service owner	Design freeze	At Risk	HIGH
DEP-22	Added v1.5. The numbers behind the emergency payment triggers, and the ceilings per cycle and per client (TA §C.6.9; FR-047)	Head of Service Delivery Operations with the Executive Financial Officer and the Programme Policy Executive	End of Module 0; rehearsed in the first business-continuity exercise	At Risk	HIGH
DEP-23	Added v1.5. Write-off thresholds, the delegated authority schedule, and whether administrative-error debt is written off automatically when it is classified (TA §C.7.4; FR-053)	Executive Financial Officer with legal counsel	End of Module 0	At Risk	MEDIUM
DEP-24	Added v1.5. The caps on automated raising per cycle and the threshold for reviewing a group of overpayments together (TA §C.7.6; FR-052)	Overpayment & Recovery business owner	Before the first live determination in any context	At Risk	HIGH
DEP-25	Added v1.5. Adoption of the default for migrated facts whose date of knowledge is unknown, the standard of evidence for reclassifying, and the authority of the person who may do it; with the measured share of legacy facts whose date can be decoded, inferred or not recovered, over at least 10,000 records (TA §C.7.5; FR-051, DR-013). Sets the size of the recoverable population and so the recovery workload	Programme Policy Executive with legal counsel; the layer's technical lead for the measurement	Design freeze; measurement by month 4 of Module 0	At Risk	HIGH
DEP-26	Added v1.6. Scope: whether the replacement covers child and youth mental health work, which policy requires to be documented solely in its own clinical system. Decides group CF15	Ministry CIO with the program policy authority for child and youth mental health	Before discovery for M9 closes	Open	HIGH
DEP-27	Added v1.6. Scope: whether the replacement holds the Integrated Child and Youth teams' shared record or exchanges with it. The record is run today for all partner employers by another ministry. Decides group CF16	Ministry CIO with the program policy authority	Before discovery for M9 closes	Open	MEDIUM
DEP-28	Added v1.6. Scope: whether the replacement covers youth justice. The manual never names the system being replaced CFDOBLG-C1. Decides groups CF17 and CF18	Ministry CIO with the Provincial Director of Youth Justice	Before discovery for M9 closes	Open	HIGH
DEP-29	Added v1.6. Whether the 2005 and 2009 standards for delegated Indigenous agencies remain in force. They differ from current ministry policy on time limits, reportable circumstances, removal clauses, file closure and family care homes, at the same tier, so the source hierarchy cannot settle it. Every requirement marked provisional on them waits on this	Provincial Director of Child Welfare with the Indigenous Child Welfare Director	Before M9 is scoped	Open	HIGH
DEP-30	Added v1.6. Documents the requirements need and do not hold: the Children and Youth in Care Policies (Chapter 5), Resource Work Policies (Chapter 8), the youth transitions policy, the ministry complaints policy, the records schedules, the current delegation matrix, the expenditure directives, and the others on ARC-001-CFD-v0.6-acquisition-list.csv	Program policy authority for each area	Before M9 is scoped	At Risk. 46 items listed	HIGH
DEP-31	Added v1.6. Architecture decision: how many case contexts the eight service lines need, and where agreements, court proceedings and the register of Indigenous laws and agreements sit in the context map. A change to the domain model, so it needs a decision record before any design	Chief Architect	Before discovery for M9 closes	Open. Not started	HIGH
DEP-32	Added v1.6. How each time limit set by policy is counted. 296 of the 1,058 limits in the register give no unit of days. The Interpretation Act settles statutory periods only	Program policy authority for each area	Before any clock is registered	Open	HIGH
DEP-33	Added v1.6. Answers to the 111 questions for the ministry (ARC-001-CFD-RECON-v0.2-ministry-questions.md) and to the further questions the requirement authors raised under Open. None has been put to the ministry	Program policy authority for each area	Before M9 is scoped	Open. Not sent	HIGH
DEP-34	Added v1.6. Whether contracted agencies in the early years and inclusion programs work in the ministry's system or keep their own files and report statistics. Group CF11 assumes the second; the service contracts that would settle it are not held	Program policy authority for early years and inclusion	Before M9 is scoped	Open	MEDIUM
DEP-35	Added v1.6. Whether offices continue to print cheques on local stock, and whether immediate office payments stay on a bank account managed by another ministry (C-12; ADR-010)	Executive Financial Officer	With ADR-010	Open	MEDIUM
DEP-36	Added v1.6. Commencement of the self-government amendments not yet in the consolidated Acts, including an Indigenous governing body's consent to adoption	Legal counsel to the ministry	Before M9 is scoped	Open	MEDIUM
DEP-37	Added v1.6. Extraction of the federal Youth Criminal Justice Act, and acquisition of the Youth Custody Regulation, the privacy and mental health regulations and the Provincial Court (CFCSA) Rules, so that policy can be checked against them	Chief Architect	With DEP-28	Open	MEDIUM
DEP-38	Added v1.6. Whether the replacement masters delegation records or receives them from the provincial delegation database policy names	Provincial Director of Child Welfare with the Chief Architect	Before discovery for M9 closes	Open	MEDIUM
DEP-39	Added v1.6. Whether the adoption registries and the search service are inside the replacement. They rest on the Adoption Act alone; no ministry policy for running them is held	Provincial Director of Adoption	Before M9 is scoped	Open	LOW

Risks to the requirements

These are risks to the requirements themselves: whether they are complete, well sourced and testable. Programme risks are outside this project's scope (_parked-governance/).

Risk ID	Description	Probability	Impact	Mitigation Strategy	Owner
R-1	Requirements copied from the old system's behaviour repeat its known defects. One entitlement stated in policy is reached today only by a manual adjustment, and the documented workaround calculates it wrongly	HIGH	HIGH	Source hierarchy (BC-1); rules written from policy; old system used only as a comparison, with its own class for old-system defects (FR-095); ministry position on errors found in the old system before shadowing (DEP-15)	ADM Policy and Program Design
R-2	Only 9.5% of procedures were compared with policy, so practice rules with no policy basis and further conflicts remain unfound	HIGH	MEDIUM	Finish Phase D; treat practice-only rules as provisional (FR-091)	Requirements lead
R-3	Platform requirements do not fit the program families not yet analysed	MEDIUM	HIGH	BR-014; re-test platform requirements against each family's register	Chief Architect
R-4	Conflicting effective dates in policy mean decisions in the affected periods cannot be replayed with certainty	HIGH	MEDIUM	DATE-CONFLICT status blocks release (FR-091); rulings (DEP-10)	ADM Policy and Program Design
R-5	The spreadsheets that decide entitlement have not been obtained, so their rules are unknown	HIGH	HIGH	Obtain them (DEP-11); treat their logic as unauthorised until a policy citation is found	Requirements lead
R-6	Continuity requirements are dropped as unsourced because N16 has no basis in the policy manual	MEDIUM	HIGH	Find the authority outside the manual (financial administration, records, service commitments); keep NFR-A requirements as MUST_HAVE	Ministry CIO
R-7	Without measured volumes, the non-functional sizing and the decision on combined caseworker screens cannot be supported	HIGH	HIGH	DEP-12; no approval of combined screens before the table exists	Ministry CTO
R-8	The records schedules have not been obtained, so disposal design, and therefore the first production event, is blocked	HIGH	HIGH	Treat DEP-09 as a Module 0 critical-path item	Ministry Records Officer
R-9	Older policy text was never published, so fewer old decisions can be fully replayed than stated	MEDIUM	MEDIUM	Capture history when first loaded (DR-008); declare the replay horizon before the first decision (FR-008)	Chief Architect with Records Officer
R-10	The assumption that decisions can be rebuilt from evidence fails for programs that rely heavily on discretion	MEDIUM	HIGH	DEP-13 sample; record discretionary input as a registered evidence type; start with smaller rule sets	Policy Directors
R-11	The design rests on terms the architecture has not settled: three names for decision classes, a list of tribunal outcomes wider than the law allows, and a context model with no place for information governance	HIGH	MEDIUM	FR-003, FR-099 and NOTE-003 raise each with the Chief Architect; requirements use one set of terms	Chief Architect
R-12	Policy analysts cannot write rules on the chosen platform, so rate changes stay tied to software releases	MEDIUM	MEDIUM	DEP-14 before D3 is final	ADM Policy and Program Design
R-13	A deadline register built from the obligation registers merges different clocks, because 18 clock identifiers are reused across partitions	HIGH	MEDIUM	FR-061 requires identifiers unique across the system; re-key them while building the register	Requirements lead
R-14	Added v1.6. The children and family requirements have had one author each and no second reader. An author may have misread a passage or missed one	MEDIUM	HIGH	Each requirement cites quotations checked against the source; a blind second read of a sample, as was done for the register; practitioner validation (Phase H)	Chief Architect
R-15	Added v1.6. Requirements rest on the 2005 and 2009 delegated-agency standards, whose standing is unconfirmed	HIGH	MEDIUM	Marked provisional; DEP-29	Provincial Director of Child Welfare
R-16	Added v1.6. Whole subjects have no requirement because the governing policy is not held: the working care plan, the ministry's own foster homes, the ministry complaints process, the use of autism funding	HIGH	HIGH	Provisions dispositioned practice-only and listed in the ledger; DEP-30	Program policy authority for each area
R-17	Added v1.6. Requirements by different authors overlap where packs shared provisions; cross-referenced, not merged. A builder may implement the same duty twice	MEDIUM	LOW	See also on each; merge at story authoring (Phase G)	Chief Architect
R-18	Added v1.6. Dispositions "not for a system", "not the ministry's" and "already required" were often made from the register row, which is lossy, and in some cases from the summary of the existing requirement	MEDIUM	MEDIUM	Reasons recorded per provision in the ledger; sample check before M9 is scoped	Chief Architect
R-19	Added v1.6. A scope decision removes a conditional group after design has started on a shared capability it shaped, such as recurring time limits or record classes kept apart	LOW	MEDIUM	Conditional requirements grouped and marked; platform criteria that come only from a conditional area say so	Ministry CIO

Risk Scoring: Probability × Impact = Risk Level

• High Risk (Red): R-1, R-5, R-7, R-8. Escalate to executives through the architecture's decision owners.
• Medium Risk (Yellow): R-2, R-3, R-4, R-6, R-9, R-10, R-11, R-13. Monitor actively.
• Low Risk (Green): R-12. Accepted until DEP-14 reports.

Back to the requirements overview.