> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.experio.cloud/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Templates & Worksheets

> Copy-ready templates for every workshop, from the kickoff agenda to the go-live checklist.

Every workshop produces a written decision. These templates give each decision a fixed shape, so the FFE, the PM and the super user all record the same things in the same place. Copy a template into your shared workspace (a wiki page, a Word document, or a Markdown file in the project folder), fill it in during the workshop, and link it from the [decision log](#decision-log).

<Tip>
  Create the golden question list as a Markdown file named `questions.md` in the engagement's shared project folder, starting from the [Golden question list](#kickoff-and-discovery) template below. It is the one artifact every phase reads: modelling, validation, and acceptance. A plain file is also easy to hand to the [knowledge-model copilot](/implementation/key-concepts#knowledge-model-copilot) when it is available in your release.
</Tip>

The examples use the Northbridge Consulting model from the [worked example](/implementation/worked-example).

## Kickoff and discovery

<AccordionGroup>
  <Accordion title="Kickoff agenda">
    Use for the kickoff meeting in Phase 1 (90 minutes).

    ```markdown theme={null}
    # Kickoff: <Client name> x Experio
    Date: <date>   Location / link: <link>

    | Time | Topic | Lead |
    |---|---|---|
    | 0:00–0:10 | Introductions, roles (sponsor, super user, SMEs, IT, FFE, PM) | PM |
    | 0:10–0:25 | Why we are doing this: business goals, success measures | Sponsor |
    | 0:25–0:40 | How Experio works: data to graph to answers (short demo) | FFE |
    | 0:40–0:55 | Roadmap, workshop calendar, what we need from you each week | PM |
    | 0:55–1:10 | Candidate use cases and their SMEs | Sponsor, super user |
    | 1:10–1:20 | Access and environment: SSO, data sources, IT contacts | FFE, IT |
    | 1:20–1:30 | Homework for Workshop 1 and 2; next steps | PM |

    ## Decisions
    - Use cases in scope: <UC1, UC2, ...>
    - Success measure: <e.g., 80% of golden questions pass>

    ## Homework
    | Owner | Task | Due |
    |---|---|---|
    | <SME> | Bring 10–15 real questions for your use case | <date> |
    | <IT admin> | Confirm connector access to <systems> | <date> |
    ```
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Use-case one-pager (one per use case, Workshop 1)">
    ```markdown theme={null}
    # Use case <UC#>: <name>
    SME: <name, role>     Users: <who, how many>

    ## Problem today
    <2–3 sentences: what takes too long, what is missed, what it costs>

    ## Who asks, and when
    | Persona | Situation | How often |
    |---|---|---|
    | <BD Director> | <writing a qualification section> | <weekly> |

    ## What a good answer looks like
    <one paragraph, or paste a real example>

    ## Where the truth lives
    | Data | System | Owner |
    |---|---|---|
    | <projects> | <Deltek export> | <Finance/PMO> |

    ## Outputs
    - [ ] Chat answers   - [ ] Document (DOCX/PPTX/XLSX)   - [ ] Multi-step agent flow

    ## Success measure
    <e.g., "Qualification section drafted in 30 minutes instead of 1 day">

    ## Golden questions
    See questions.md, IDs <Q1–Q3>.

    ## Agent candidates
    See agent candidate card(s): <name>
    ```
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Golden question list (questions.md)">
    One row per question. **Type** is one of `lookup`, `list`, `aggregate`, `relationship`, `generative`. **Priority** is `must`, `should`, `nice`. **Status** is `draft`, `agreed`, `passing`, `failing`, `retired`.

    ```markdown theme={null}
    # Golden questions: <Client name>
    Owner: <super user>   Last updated: <date>

    | ID | Use case | Persona | Question | Expected answer | Source of truth | Type | Priority | Status |
    |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
    | Q1 | UC1 | BD Director | Which cloud migration projects did we deliver for healthcare clients since 2023, and who led each? | 4 projects: NB-2023-044 (lead: ...), ... | Deltek projects.csv + SOWs | list | must | agreed |
    | Q2 | UC1 | BD Director | Draft a past-performance summary for our work with Lakeshore Health. | Covers the 3 Lakeshore projects, each cited | SOWs, case studies | generative | must | agreed |
    | Q7 | UC3 | Contracts Counsel | Which SOWs expire in the next 90 days, and for which clients? | List as of test date, checked against the contract register | SOWs | list | must | draft |
    ```

    Write the expected answer before the first ingestion. If nobody can write it, the question is not ready.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Agent candidate card (Workshop 1)">
    ```markdown theme={null}
    # Agent candidate: <name>
    Use case: <UC#>   Owner (reviewer): <name>

    | Box | Answer |
    |---|---|
    | Trigger | <chat request / Launch a flow menu / upload> |
    | Inputs (required / optional) | <role*, skills*, client> |
    | Graph retrieval | <which golden question the first step answers> |
    | LLM steps | <rank / classify / extract / write> |
    | Human review | <who, what they check, what they may edit> |
    | Output | <chat answer / DOCX / PPTX / filled XLSX> |
    | Document template | <name, if any> |
    | Frequency and volume | <e.g., 10 per week> |
    | Why not just chat? | <fixed steps, review, file output> |
    | Success measure | <e.g., shortlist accepted without rework 4 times in 5> |
    ```
  </Accordion>
</AccordionGroup>

## Data and modelling

<AccordionGroup>
  <Accordion title="Data inventory (Workshop 2)">
    ```markdown theme={null}
    | # | Source | System | Structured / unstructured | Format | Owner | Key field(s) | Volume | Refresh | Access method | Sensitive? | Use cases |
    |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
    | 1 | Employees | Workday | structured | employees.csv | HR | employee_id, work_email | 650 rows | weekly | export to SharePoint | yes (HR) | UC2 |
    | 2 | Engagements | SharePoint "Engagements" | unstructured | PDF, DOCX | BD / Legal | client folder name | ~4,000 files | continuous | connector | contracts | UC1, UC3 |
    ```

    Access method is one of: connector (Box, Google Drive, SharePoint, Dropbox), upload, REST API, or export file. There is no direct database connector; database data arrives as an export or an API.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Key crosswalk (Workshops 2 and 7)">
    Shows how the same thing is identified in each source, so keys can be made identical before loading.

    ```markdown theme={null}
    | Entity | Canonical key | Source A (field, example) | Source B (field, example) | Documents (how it appears) | Normalisation needed | Owner |
    |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
    | Client | Salesforce account name | accounts.csv: name "Lakeshore Health" | projects.csv: client "Lakeshore Health, Inc." | folder "Lakeshore Health"; text "LSH" | strip suffixes; synonym LSH | Sales ops |
    | Project | project_code | projects.csv: NB-2024-117 | assignments.csv: NB-2024-117 | status report title "NB-2024-117 ..." | none | PMO |
    | Employee | work email | employees.csv: rchen@... | assignments.csv: rchen@... | resume: "Bob Chen" | name variants: human review | HR |
    ```
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Ontology worksheet (Workshop 3)">
    One block per entity type, then one table for relationships.

    ```markdown theme={null}
    ## Entity type: <Project>
    Description: <one sentence the extraction model will read>
    Key (match property): <project_code>
    Vector index: <yes / no>  (yes if documents must match it by meaning or name variants)

    | Attribute | Type (text/number/date/boolean/list/enum) | Extraction instructions | Format hint | Required? |
    |---|---|---|---|---|
    | name | text | Official project name as in the SOW title | | yes |
    | project_code | text | Code like NB-2024-117 | NB-YYYY-NNN | yes |
    | start_date | date | Contract start, not kickoff | YYYY-MM-DD | no |
    | service_line | text | Choose from @ServiceLine | | no |

    ## Relationships
    | Relationship | From | To | Attributes (name: type) | Meaning / when to create |
    |---|---|---|---|---|
    | FOR_CLIENT | Project | Client | | The client that pays for the project |
    | WORKS_ON_PROJECT | Employee | Project | role: text, start_date: date, end_date: date, hours: number | Person staffed on the project |
    ```
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Taxonomy CSV (Workshop 4)">
    Import on the taxonomy type's page in **Model & Define > Taxonomies**. The import merges with existing items. Add synonyms in the UI after import. Use either format.

    <Tabs>
      <Tab title="Path format">
        ```csv theme={null}
        path,description,status
        Healthcare,,active
        Healthcare > Providers,Hospitals and health systems,active
        Healthcare > Payers,,active
        Healthcare > Life Sciences,,active
        Financial Services > Banking,,active
        Financial Services > Insurance,,active
        Public Sector > Federal,,active
        ```
      </Tab>

      <Tab title="Level columns format">
        ```csv theme={null}
        level1,level2,level3,description,status
        Cloud,,,,active
        Cloud,Azure,,,active
        Cloud,Azure,Azure Data Platform,Synapse Fabric and Azure SQL,active
        Cloud,AWS,,,active
        ```
      </Tab>
    </Tabs>

    ```markdown theme={null}
    Taxonomy: <Industry>   Source system: <Salesforce Industry picklist>
    Owner of updates: <Sales ops>   Refresh: <quarterly re-import>
    Used in: <Client.industry extraction instructions (@Industry); "Tag project industry" rule>
    ```
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Artifact type spec (Workshop 5)">
    ```markdown theme={null}
    # Artifact type: <Statement of Work>
    Classification instructions: <what makes a document this type, and what it is NOT>
    Folder filters: <"Engagements" library>
    Sample files for Test Ingestion: <3–5 file names, including one hard case>

    ## Extraction policy
    Mode: <full / metadata_and_snippet / metadata_only>   Model tier: <large / medium / small>
    Validation pass: <on / off>   Excel override: <n/a>

    ## Entities
    | Entity type | Processing type (Create Only / Create or Match / Match Only) | Attach Document? | Attribute overrides (extraction instructions) |
    |---|---|---|---|
    | Contract | Create or Match | yes | contract_type: always "SOW" |
    | Client | Create or Match | no | |
    | Project | Match Only | no | project_code: look in title and header |

    ## Relationships
    | Relationship | From | To | Required upstream? |
    |---|---|---|---|
    | WITH_CLIENT | Contract | Client | yes (Client first) |
    | GOVERNS | Contract | Project | yes |

    ## Test Ingestion results
    | File | Top score (type) | Entities OK? | Relationships OK? | Notes |
    |---|---|---|---|---|
    ```
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Mapping worksheet (Workshop 6)">
    ```markdown theme={null}
    # Data mapping: <projects.csv>
    Data source: <name>   Ontology: <name>
    Record ID column: <project_code>   Timestamp column (incremental sync): <last_modified>
    Load order position: <3 of 5, after employees and accounts>

    ## Node mappings
    | Column | Entity type | Attribute | Operation (create / match / create-or-match) | Match property |
    |---|---|---|---|---|
    | project_code | Project | project_code | create-or-match | project_code |
    | project_name | Project | name | | |
    | client_name | Client | name | match | name |

    ## Relationship mappings
    | Relationship | Start entity (column → property) | End entity (column → property) | Relationship attributes |
    |---|---|---|---|
    | FOR_CLIENT | Project (project_code → project_code) | Client (client_name → name) | |

    Check: every relationship end is created by a node mapping in this or an earlier load.
    Structured matching is exact-value only; confirm key values are formatted identically.
    ```
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Matching decision card (Workshop 7)">
    ```markdown theme={null}
    # Matching: <Client>
    Default strategy or override: <override>
    Match key: <name>
    Candidate methods: [ ] Exact [ ] Vector Similarity [ ] Fuzzy [ ] Phonetic [ ] Synonym
    Normalisation: [ ] strip suffixes (Inc, LLC) [ ] prefixes [ ] abbreviations [ ] punctuation
    Filters: <temporal / relationship, e.g., same Practice>
    Thresholds: auto-merge ≥ <0.9>   AI disambiguation <0.7–0.9>   human review <0.5–0.7>   new < <0.5>
    Synonyms to add: <LSH = Lakeshore Health>
    Vector index needed on this type: <yes / no>
    Human reviewer in Conflict Resolution: <name>   Expected weekly volume: <n>

    Test pairs
    | Value A | Value B | Should match? | Result |
    |---|---|---|---|
    | Lakeshore Health, Inc. | Lakeshore Health | yes | |
    | Bob Chen | Robert Chen | yes (review) | |
    ```
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Enrichment rule card (Workshop 8)">
    ```markdown theme={null}
    # Enrichment rule: <Tag project industry>
    Why: <which golden question it serves, e.g., Q1>
    Target entity type: <Project>   Scope: <all / only where industry is empty>
    Input: [ ] full node [ ] selected attributes: <description> [ ] neighbourhood: <{related.Client.industry}>
    Prompt: <instruction text; use @TaxonomyName for controlled values>
    Output: [ ] attribute <industry> [ ] node [ ] relationship <type> [ ] node + relationship
    Taxonomy: <@Industry>
    Run: [ ] on demand from Model & Define > Enrichment Rules [ ] as a step in Process > Flows <flow name>
    Test on: <10 sample nodes>   Accepted if: <9 of 10 correct, checked by SME>
    Owner: <name>
    ```
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Access-control policy worksheet (Workshop 9)">
    ```markdown theme={null}
    # Access control: <Client name>
    Data owner sign-off: <name, date>   Sponsor sign-off: <name, date>

    ## Baselines (list EVERY label in the graph; no row = private)
    | Label | private / public_read | Reason |
    |---|---|---|
    | Contract | private | Confidentiality terms |
    | Project | public_read | Needed firm-wide |

    ## Grant rules (team)
    | Relationship (exact name) | Person → | Who it covers |
    |---|---|---|
    | WORKS_ON_PROJECT | Employee → Project | Staffed consultants |

    ## Propagation (hold the left, may also read the right)
    | If you hold | over | direction (inbound / outbound) | you may also read |
    |---|---|---|---|
    | Project | GOVERNS | inbound | Contract |

    ## Containment (roll-up axes)
    | Axis name | Relationship | Direction (down / up) | Attached to baseline |
    |---|---|---|---|

    ## Management roll-up
    Use it? <yes / no>   Relationship: <REPORTS_TO>   Direction: up   Attached to no baseline

    ## People who need access without being staffed
    | Group | How they are connected (relationship, data source, owner) |
    |---|---|

    ## Test personas (at least 3)
    | User | Level | Question IDs | Expected result | Preview as user result | Pass? |
    |---|---|---|---|---|---|

    ## Rollout
    Shadow from: <date>   Enforce from: <date>   Switch approved by: <name>
    ```
  </Accordion>
</AccordionGroup>

## Running the project

<AccordionGroup>
  <Accordion title="Decision log">
    ```markdown theme={null}
    | ID | Date | Workshop | Decision | Why | Alternatives considered | Decided by | Affects (config) | Status |
    |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
    | D-012 | 2026-05-04 | WS7 | Documents never create Projects (Match Only) | Finance's project list is the truth | Create or Match | Marcus Lee, Sam Whitfield | SOW, Status Report artifact types | done |
    ```

    Status is `proposed`, `agreed`, `done`, or `reversed`. Never delete a row; reverse it with a new one.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Golden-question scoring sheet">
    Score in chat, one row per question per run. Record the persona if access control is on. Root cause is one of `classification`, `extraction`, `matching`, `mapping`, `retrieval`, `missing data`.

    ```markdown theme={null}
    # Scoring run <n>: <date>   Assistant: <name>   Scored by: <name>

    | ID | Persona / user | Answer (summary or link) | Citations correct? (yes / partly / no / none) | Result (pass / partial / fail) | Root cause | Evidence (lineage, Graph Evaluation, Test Ingestion) | Fix owner | Fix |
    |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
    | Q1 | BD Director | Listed 3 of 4 projects | yes | partial | matching | NB-2023-044 attached to "Lakeshore Health Inc" duplicate | FFE | add suffix normalisation, merge duplicate |
    | Q7 | Contracts Counsel | Correct list | yes | pass | | | | |

    Summary: pass <n> / partial <n> / fail <n>   Must-have pass rate: <%>
    ```
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Tuning log (pilot and validation)">
    One row per configuration change made during tuning. Recording what was reprocessed means you know which later results reflect the fix.

    ```markdown theme={null}
    | Date | Symptom (question, review pattern, Graph Evaluation issue) | Root cause | Change made (page > setting) | Reprocessed (files / step, or mapping rerun) | Result | By |
    |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
    | 2026-05-19 | 31 classification reviews, SOW amendments at 0.6–0.7 | classification | Artifact Types > SOW > classification instructions: "An amendment that changes an existing SOW is a Statement of Work" | Requeued affected files from Classify | Reviews dropped to 4 | FFE |
    | 2026-05-20 | Q9 fail; `incorrect_attribute` on `liability_cap` | extraction | Ontology > Contract > `liability_cap` instruction: "convert amounts written in words to a number in USD" | Requeued MSAs from Ingest | Graph Evaluation: MSA poor → good | FFE, Marcus Lee |
    ```
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Handover pack">
    ```markdown theme={null}
    # <Client> Experio handover pack   <date>

    ## 1. Configuration record
    - Ontology: current revision number, entity-type and relationship list, and the rationale (which golden questions each type serves)
    - Taxonomies: source system, owner and refresh cadence for each
    - Artifact types: spec per type (classification rules, entities, processing types, extraction policy)
    - Data mappings: source file or API, owner, load order, match properties
    - Matching strategies and review thresholds; who works Conflict Resolution
    - Enrichment rules: purpose, inputs, outputs, when they run
    - Access-control policy worksheet and mode (if used)
    - Assistants, AI Instructions, document templates, agent flows

    ## 2. Decision log
    - Full log, with open and reversed items

    ## 3. Accuracy
    - questions.md with expected answers
    - Scoring sheets for every round and the final pass rate
    - Tuning log
    - Known limitations accepted by the sponsor

    ## 4. Runbook
    - Scheduled flows and what to do when one fails
    - Adding a new data source or library
    - Changing the ontology safely (save, check Compatibility, review stale items, reprocess)
    - Refreshing a taxonomy from its source system
    - Onboarding a user and assigning permissions

    ## 5. Operating cadence and contacts
    - Weekly, monthly and quarterly tasks, with owners
    - Experio support contacts and escalation path
    ```
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Go-live readiness checklist">
    ```markdown theme={null}
    ## Data
    - [ ] Full ingestion complete; Jobs show no stuck or failed runs
    - [ ] Conflict Resolution queue empty or owned
    - [ ] Ontology Compatibility shows no invalid dependents
    - [ ] Graph Evaluation run on every full-mode artifact type; no "poor" results unresolved
    - [ ] Enrichment rules run after the final load; scheduled Flows in place for refresh

    ## Accuracy
    - [ ] Final scoring run: must-have golden questions meet the agreed pass rate
    - [ ] Every failure has a root cause and an accepted workaround or fix date

    ## Access and security
    - [ ] SSO configured and tested; user groups and permissions assigned
    - [ ] Access control (if used) in enforce mode, persona tests passed, sign-off recorded
    - [ ] Disclosure text agreed

    ## Consumption
    - [ ] Assistants enabled; AI Instructions reviewed
    - [ ] Document templates generate correct branded files
    - [ ] Agent flows published, Sub-agent descriptions written, reviewers named
    - [ ] MCP and Integrations instructions sent to users who need them

    ## People
    - [ ] Pilot users trained; training for wider rollout scheduled
    - [ ] Super user can change ontology, artifact types, mappings, assistants without help
    - [ ] Hypercare contacts, hours and escalation path published
    - [ ] Handover pack delivered (decision log, questions.md, worksheets)

    Sign-off: Sponsor <name, date>   Super user <name, date>   FFE <name, date>
    ```
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Weekly status report">
    ```markdown theme={null}
    # <Client> x Experio: week <n> status   <date>
    Overall: <green / amber / red>   Phase: <e.g., 2 Model>

    ## Done this week
    - <WS3 Ontology agreed; 8 entity types, 13 relationships>

    ## Next week
    - <WS4 Taxonomies (Tue), WS5 Artifact Types (Thu)>

    ## Metrics
    | Measure | Last week | This week |
    |---|---|---|
    | Golden questions agreed | | |
    | Golden questions passing | | |
    | Files ingested / in review | | |
    | Open Conflict Resolution items | | |

    ## Risks and issues
    | Item | Impact | Owner | Due | Status |
    |---|---|---|---|---|

    ## Decisions needed from the client
    - <who, what, by when>

    ## Homework status
    | Owner | Task | Due | Status |
    |---|---|---|---|
    ```
  </Accordion>
</AccordionGroup>

## Related

<CardGroup cols={2}>
  <Card title="Running workshops" icon="users" href="/implementation/running-workshops">
    How to prepare, facilitate and follow up each workshop.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Worked example" icon="building" href="/implementation/worked-example">
    The full Northbridge Consulting model these templates are filled from.
  </Card>
</CardGroup>