Purpose

When to use this template

Use it when a decision materially affects people, accessibility, policy, delivery, operations, cost, or organizational learning; when the rationale may later be questioned; or when future teams need to know what changed and why.

Keep it proportional. Routine reversible choices need less detail than high-risk, difficult-to-reverse decisions. Link to governed evidence rather than copying sensitive source material into the record.

Structure

Record six connected parts

Record control

  • Decision title and stable ID
  • Status: proposed, decided, superseded, or archived
  • Accountable decision owner
  • Contributors and reviewers
  • Decision date, effective date, and next review
  • Related effort, intake, research, requirement, and delivery records

Decision context

  • Decision that must be made
  • People, services, systems, and outcomes affected
  • Constraints and decision deadline
  • What happens if no decision is made

Evidence considered

  • Source or stable reference
  • Supported finding
  • Confidence and representativeness
  • Limitations, contradictions, and evidence gaps
  • Date collected or last verified

Options and implications

  • Options considered, including maintaining the current state
  • User, mission, operational, technical, cost, and timing implications
  • Accessibility, privacy, safety, ethical, policy, and security implications
  • Dependencies, reversibility, and material risks

Decision and rationale

  • Selected option
  • Rationale tied to evidence and stated outcomes
  • Assumptions and uncertainty
  • Dissenting views and unresolved concerns
  • Authority used and required approvals

Action and review

  • Actions, owners, dates, and acceptance evidence
  • Communication and documentation updates
  • Measures that will indicate the decision is working
  • Review triggers, including new evidence or changed conditions
  • Superseding decision and change history

Reusable artifact

Copy the Markdown template

Paste this structure into a governed knowledge, documentation, or work-management system and adapt its metadata to local policy.

# HCD decision and evidence record

## Record control
- Decision title:
- Stable ID:
- Status: Proposed
- Accountable owner:
- Contributors and reviewers:
- Decision date:
- Effective date:
- Next review:
- Related records:

## Decision context
- Decision to make:
- People, services, systems, and outcomes affected:
- Constraints and decision deadline:
- Consequence of no decision:

## Evidence considered
For each material source:
- Source or stable reference:
- Supported finding:
- Confidence and representativeness:
- Limitations, contradictions, and evidence gaps:
- Collected or last verified:

## Options and implications
For each option, including the current state:
- Option:
- User and mission implications:
- Operational, technical, cost, and timing implications:
- Accessibility, privacy, safety, ethics, policy, and security:
- Dependencies, reversibility, and risks:

## Decision and rationale
- Selected option:
- Evidence-based rationale:
- Assumptions and uncertainty:
- Dissenting views and unresolved concerns:
- Decision authority and approvals:

## Action and review
- Actions, owners, dates, and acceptance evidence:
- Communication and documentation updates:
- Measures of effectiveness:
- Review triggers:
- Superseding decision and change history:

Review

Quality checks before closing the record

  • Is the decision stated separately from its rationale?
  • Can material claims be traced to an appropriate source?
  • Are confidence, limitations, contradiction, and dissent visible?
  • Were accessibility and affected people considered explicitly?
  • Is authority clear, including approvals or escalation?
  • Do actions have owners and observable acceptance evidence?
  • Will changed conditions or new evidence trigger review?
  • Can a future reader identify which decision superseded this one?