D1.1 · Validated understanding of objectives, vision and success criteria

Work stream	WS 1 — Immersion & Validation
SOW source	Schedule "A", WS 1 deliverables, first bullet
Status	🟡 In progress
Indicative window	Week 1

What the SOW asks for

Validated understanding of the business objectives, target state vision and success criteria

Supported by WS 1 activities 3 and 5: "assess the existing target state vision and architecture direction, including alignment to business objectives, and technology strategy" and "align on the objectives, success criteria and decision making process that will be used to develop and socialize the target state architecture and implementation roadmap."

What it contains

1. Business objectives — what Manulife is trying to achieve with a unified customer experience, in the client's own terms, sourced and cited.
2. Target state vision as it currently stands — a statement of the vision we found in the material, including where the material disagrees with itself.
3. Success criteria — how the programme will know the target state has been reached, and how this engagement will know its own output was useful.
4. Decision-making process — who decides what, in which forum, and what "agreed" means. The client material identifies this as a gap, so establishing it is part of the deliverable rather than a precondition to it.
5. Validation record — who confirmed each of the above, and when. The word in the SOW is validated; a synthesis nobody has confirmed does not satisfy it.

Where the content is being assembled

• Source reading and synthesis: Client resources
• Objectives and vision narrative: docs/architecture/vision-and-objectives.md (not yet written)
• Working notes and validation log: WS 1 tasks

Diagrams

None required. This deliverable is prose; the vision is carried by the target state architecture diagrams under D2.1.

Current state of the work

The reading is complete — all seven client artifacts are summarised under Client resources with citations. The validation has not happened, and that is the whole substance of the deliverable.

Three findings shape it:

There is a stated vision and it is unusually well articulated. The unified customer architecture sets out one enterprise relationship identifier, MDM as a governed ontology graph, OneTrust as consent system of record, a PingAuthorize PDP, and an operational profile that serves without mastering — across seven workstreams in three phases. Whatever else is unresolved, we are not starting from a blank page.

The client says the vision is not agreed. Concern #2 of the readiness review is "no agreed North Star… the MVP is being built without a target-state architecture agreed and approved with other Segments and CAN Architecture team. Every MVP decision risks being reversed." The assessment reaches the same conclusion from the other direction (F-02).

So "validated understanding" has a sharper meaning here than usual. The deliverable is not "we read your documents and understood them". It is establishing which of the several competing statements of intent is the one of record, and getting that confirmed by someone empowered to confirm it.

Open questions blocking completion

• Who is empowered to validate the vision — Canada Segment Architecture, the Chief Architect, the R2R Design Authority, the programme sponsor, or a combination?
• Is the June 2026 strategy document still the segment's position?
• What are the success criteria for the unified experience programme itself, as distinct from the MVP release? Nothing in the material states them.
• Does this engagement's WS 2 output become the North Star of record, or an input to someone else's?

All four are carried in open decisions and dependencies.

Acceptance

Written acceptance from Manulife's project manager per SOW §5, after review by assigned subject-matter experts.