FROZION — AI APPLICATION PLANNING WORKSHEET

Use with the Readiness & Adoption guide. Work on one application and one intended operating scope. This is a planning aid, not an automated assessment or permission to deploy.

Application name:
Process owner:
Review participants:
Date / version:
Intended next checkpoint:

APPLICATION BRIEF

1. PURPOSE & SUCCESS
What starts the work, and what counts as complete?
Consider: Name the business outcome and today’s baseline. Agree measures such as completion time, manual handoffs, rework or time spent waiting; set targets for your own process.
Our answer:
Open questions:
Owner:

2. PEOPLE & RESPONSIBILITIES
Who needs to see, decide or act?
Consider: List the participant groups, process owner and reviewers. Include external participants where needed, and define what each role should be permitted to do.
Our answer:
Open questions:
Owner:

3. SYSTEMS & INFORMATION
Where do authoritative records and required facts live?
Consider: Name the systems, documents and channels. Confirm access, data quality, freshness needs, integration ownership and any restrictions on where information can be processed.
Our answer:
Open questions:
Owner:

4. AI & HUMAN JUDGMENT
Which steps benefit from AI, and who decides?
Consider: Separate interpretation, drafting or recommendations from calculations, business rules and authorized actions. State when a person must review and what they need to see.
Our answer:
Open questions:
Owner:

5. EXCEPTIONS & COMPLETION
What happens when the normal path cannot continue?
Consider: Include missing information, changed facts, unavailable reviewers, failed updates and uncertain results. Give unresolved work an owner and a clear status.
Our answer:
Open questions:
Owner:

6. OPERATION & CHANGE
Who will run, support and improve the application?
Consider: Agree support ownership, access administration, operating costs, change review and the evidence to retain. Include the people who will use and maintain it after launch.
Our answer:
Open questions:
Owner:

FIRST-RELEASE BOUNDARY
Included in this release:
Explicitly outside this release:
Current baseline and proposed success measures:

READINESS EVIDENCE MAP
For each area, record: Not reviewed / Needs work / Evidence ready for review. Include a reference to the evidence, the unresolved question, an owner and a review date.

A USEFUL RESULT
Question: Can people complete the intended task?
Consider: Show representative cases, agree acceptable quality and compare the result with the current process. Include the participant experience and the cost of completing the task.
Status:
Evidence reference:
Gap / next action:
Owner:
Review date:

USABLE INFORMATION & CONNECTED SYSTEMS
Question: Do the required facts and system connections work?
Consider: Review representative records, missing or stale information and permitted access. Show which system remains authoritative and how reported updates are confirmed.
Status:
Evidence reference:
Gap / next action:
Owner:
Review date:

CLEAR AUTHORITY & HUMAN REVIEW
Question: Are permissions and required decisions respected?
Consider: Demonstrate permitted and denied actions, the reviewer’s responsibility and the information they receive. Check what happens if the proposal or relevant facts change.
Status:
Evidence reference:
Gap / next action:
Owner:
Review date:

OWNED EXCEPTIONS
Question: Can work wait, fail or need help without disappearing?
Consider: Demonstrate missing evidence, an unavailable dependency and an uncertain external result. Identify who resolves each condition and how the participant sees its status.
Status:
Evidence reference:
Gap / next action:
Owner:
Review date:

AN EXPLAINABLE OUTCOME
Question: Can a reviewer reconstruct what happened?
Consider: Show the relevant inputs, decisions, human reviews and reported results for a case. Check that the evidence needed by each reviewer is available to them.
Status:
Evidence reference:
Gap / next action:
Owner:
Review date:

AN OPERATING PLAN
Question: Can the team support and change it?
Consider: Name the operating owner. Agree monitoring, escalation, user onboarding, cost and performance limits, change validation and a way to stop or limit use if needed.
Status:
Evidence reference:
Gap / next action:
Owner:
Review date:

ADOPTION DECISION
Checkpoint: Scope / Bounded pilot / Operation / Expansion
Scope proposed for this checkpoint:
Evidence reviewed and by whom:
Unresolved gaps and dependencies:
Decision: Proceed within agreed limits / Resolve gaps / Revisit scope
Conditions and remaining risks accepted by the responsible team:
Operating owner:
Next review date:
Changes that trigger an earlier review:

Marking evidence as ready does not verify it. The responsible team must review the evidence and decide the appropriate next step.