Appearance
D2.3 · Stakeholder alignment and feedback summary
| Work stream | WS 2 — Target State Architecture |
| SOW source | Schedule "A", WS 2 deliverables, second bullet |
| Status | ⚪ Not started |
| Indicative window | Weeks 2–4 |
What the SOW asks for
Stakeholder alignment and feedback summary
Supported by WS 2 activity 6: "conduct working sessions and alignment discussions with the various lines of business IT and leadership teams to get buy in on the vision and approach."
What it contains
| Section | Content |
|---|---|
| Sessions held | Who, when, what was covered, what was shown |
| Feedback received | What each stakeholder group said, attributed and unsoftened |
| What changed as a result | The architecture revisions each piece of feedback drove |
| Where alignment was reached | Explicitly, per group and per topic |
| Where it was not | The disagreements that remain open, and what they block |
The last row is the one that makes this deliverable worth reading. A summary that reports alignment everywhere is a summary nobody believes. The client material contains an open disagreement between a delivery team and a segment architecture function; a document that reports it as resolved would be wrong, and would be seen to be wrong.
Stakeholder groups
Derived from the client material — to be confirmed and completed during WS 1.
| Group | Interest |
|---|---|
| Canada Segment Enterprise Architecture | Authors of the strategy and both critical reviews |
| Unified Project delivery team | Authors of the ADS; owns the MVP build |
| Manulife ID / CIAM | Owns identity, the BU Mapping Service, and the platform the MVP runs on |
| Group Benefits | Own gateway, largest API surface, MVP1 in scope |
| Group Retirement (GWAM) | MVP1 in scope; Login Handler change required |
| Wealth (GWAM) | Net-new experience API required; FCC capacity constraint |
| Manulife Bank | MVP scope |
| Individual Insurance | Largest tenant on the shared gateway |
| Seg Funds, Affinity | MVP scope; Affinity de-prioritized in the initial release |
| Privacy Office | Coverage letter and PIA position — currently unrequested |
| Security / CISO | Threat model, SEC control mapping, penetration test gates |
| R2R Design Authority / Chief Architect | Criticality classification and architecture approval |
Where the content is being assembled
- Session notes: WS 2 tasks
- Resulting architecture changes:
docs/architecture/ - Resulting decisions: Decision log
- Unresolved items: Open decisions and dependencies
Diagrams
The diagram version history is built for exactly this deliverable. Cutting a version at each stakeholder session — labelled with something a reader recognises, like "WS2 identity session", carrying the feedback that drove the revision — produces a timeline at /diagrams/history/<slug> that shows, per revision, what changed and whether it was structural or layout only.
That turns "we incorporated your feedback" from an assertion into an artifact. The version log should be cut alongside sessions as they happen, not reconstructed afterwards; a snapshot is immutable once taken, and reconstructed history would make the deltas lie.
Acceptance
Written acceptance from Manulife's project manager per SOW §5.