Deliverables

Every deliverable this SOW commits to, one page each. Each page states what the SOW asks for in its own words, what the artifact contains, where its content is being assembled, which diagrams back it, and what still blocks it.

Source of record: resources/SOW7_Konrad_Manulife_Unified Portal Architecture and Roadmap_2026-08-25 SCOPE.docx.md, Schedule "A" — supplemented by §3 (Services), which names two executive presentations that Schedule "A" describes as activities.

Status at a glance

ID	Deliverable	Work stream	Status
D1.1	Validated understanding of objectives, vision and success criteria	WS 1	🟡 In progress
D1.2	Key observations, assumptions, open questions, architectural considerations	WS 1	🟡 In progress
D2.1	Target state architecture document	WS 2	⚪ Not started
D2.2	Executive target state architecture presentation	WS 2	⚪ Not started
D2.3	Stakeholder alignment and feedback summary	WS 2	⚪ Not started
D2.4	Consolidated list of open decisions and dependencies	WS 2	🟡 In progress
D3.1	Target state implementation roadmap	WS 3	⚪ Not started
D3.2	Two implementation cost options with ROM estimates	WS 3	⚪ Not started
D3.3	Executive roadmap and implementation presentation	WS 3	⚪ Not started

Status vocabulary: ⚪ not started · 🟡 in progress · 🔵 in review with the client · 🟢 accepted. Acceptance is by written confirmation from Manulife (SOW §5); nothing is marked 🟢 without it.

Timing

The SOW gives work stream durations but presents the project timeline as a graphic that did not survive conversion, so the calendar below is derived from the effective date plus the stated durations. It needs confirming against the delivery plan — tracked as an open question.

Work stream	Duration	Indicative window
WS 1 — Immersion & Validation	1 week	Week 1
WS 2 — Target State Architecture	3 weeks	Weeks 2–4
WS 3 — Implementation Roadmap & Cost Estimate	2 weeks	Weeks 5–6

Effective date 2026-08-31, six weeks total.

Acceptance process

From SOW §5, in short: each deliverable goes to Manulife's project manager in the agreed format; Manulife's assigned subject-matter reviewers respond in writing with acceptance or a list of deficiencies; if not accepted, Konrad has five business days (or a mutually agreed period) to remediate and resubmit at no additional cost. Fixed-fee services are deemed delivered on delivery.

Two consequences worth holding onto: the format has to be agreed before submission, which is still open (see open questions, item 1), and written acceptance is the only thing that closes a deliverable.

Format

Every deliverable in this repository is written as plain CommonMark so that pandoc docs/**/*.md remains a one-liner into Word or Confluence. Diagrams are separately exportable as PNG, SVG or self-contained HTML. That keeps every plausible handoff format reachable without rework, which is why the format question can stay open a little longer without becoming expensive — but not indefinitely.

What is explicitly out of scope

SOW Schedule "A" §3.0 lists these as additional services requiring a separate agreement. They are worth knowing by heart, because several sit temptingly close to what the client material asks for:

• Recreating the client's existing current-state technology and landscape analysis
• In-depth validation or remediation of inaccuracies in current-state documentation, beyond what is needed to inform the target state
• Detailed assessment of individual applications, platforms or technologies
• Implementation-level solution design — API/microservice/integration specifications, data models and schemas, infrastructure and network configuration
• Prototypes, POCs, production code, or configuration of any platform
• UX/UI designs or wireframes
• Requirements and user story creation
• Procurement, vendor selection or commercial negotiation
• Migration scripts, data migration plans, application migration runbooks
• Organizational change management and operating model design

That last one deserves a note. Both client reviews identify the operating model as a blocking gap — no named accountable owner, no cross-BU governance forum. We can and should surface it as an architectural dependency and a roadmap risk. Designing the operating model itself is out of scope. Keeping that line visible is what lets us raise the issue without absorbing the work.