Example artefact
Fictional example only. Demonstrates DPS structure and wording discipline. For the canonical definition, see DPS structure →
Decision Provenance Summary (Fictional Example)
Page 1 — Evidence cover page
Page 2 — Decision context
Decision required: whether to adopt a standard incident notification protocol across third-party service providers, including internal escalation steps and external notification triggers.
Triggering circumstances: increased external scrutiny of service continuity incidents and the organisation’s reliance on multiple third-party providers.
Constraints present at the time: existing contracts in force for 6–18 months, limited ability to impose immediate contractual changes, and uneven incident reporting maturity across providers.
Time sensitivity: moderate (implementation required prior to the next renewal cycle).
Page 3 — Information state at time of judgement
Information available
- Existing provider incident logs (last 12 months, incomplete for two providers)
- Contract register and renewal dates
- Current escalation policy (internal v2.1)
- Benchmark incident notification protocol (sector template, non-binding)
Documents referenced (version-bound)
- Internal Escalation Policy v2.1 (hash recorded)
- Provider Reporting Addendum v0.9 (draft; not yet issued)
Known unknowns and declared uncertainties
- True incident frequency may be higher due to under-reporting in two providers
- Implementation cost range depended on provider tooling capability (not fully assessed)
Reliance events
- Consent relied upon: VES-2026-EXAMPLE-000041 (scope: analytics; website)
Page 4 — Judgement & responsibility (role-bound)
Roles exercising judgement
- Compliance & Assurance Partner
- Operations Lead
- Procurement Manager
Options considered
- Option A: adopt protocol immediately for all providers using a standard reporting form
- Option B: adopt protocol in phases aligned to renewal dates (selected)
- Option C: maintain current approach and re-evaluate after six months
Trade-offs acknowledged
- Immediate adoption improves consistency but increases friction with providers mid-contract
- Phased adoption reduces contractual risk but delays uniform reporting quality
Options explicitly not pursued
- Immediate contractual enforcement mid-term was not pursued due to contract constraints
Responsibility is recorded by role to reflect organisational decision structures at the time.
Page 5 — Subsequent events (appendix only, optional)
Not present in this fictional example. Subsequent events, where included, reference new records and do not edit earlier pages.
Notes
This example demonstrates DPS structure and wording discipline. It is not a compliance claim, audit opinion, or assurance report.