Skip to content

SOP-044 — Ideate→Plan handoff (gate package)

Guide

<!-- last-reviewed: 2026-06-01 · owner: Innovation (Innovation Director) -->

SOP-044 — Ideate→Plan handoff (gate package)

SOP · owner: Innovation (Innovation Director). Layer: SOP/Runbook (docs/canon.md). The gate criteria live in docs/methodology.md (§Ideate, §Plan, §Phase gates) and the concept-brief shape in docs/units/innovation/charter.md — not restated here. This is the unit’s one required SOP (artifact-matrix §3 ✓): the recurring procedure that turns a de-risked bet into a structured handoff package for the Ideate→Plan gate.

Interface Contract

  • Inputs: commissioned intel brief ← from Competitive Intelligence Analyst · trigger: intel brief delivered
  • Inputs: seam resolution (pursue / research-pass / drop) ← from CPTO · trigger: review passed
  • Inputs: concept-de-risk evidence ← from Design Research Director · trigger: gate evidence ready
  • Inputs: field-feedback brief (at-risk patterns worth a product change) ← from <Customer Success> · trigger: field-feedback routed
  • Outputs: intelligence commission → to Competitive Intelligence Analyst · trigger: intelligence commissioned
  • Outputs: hypothesis / strategic bet (seam) → to CPTO · trigger: review requested
  • Outputs: concept to de-risk → to Design Research Director · trigger: de-risk commissioned
  • Outputs: Ideate→Plan gate package → to CPTO · trigger: gate package ready
  • Outputs: proven concept brief → to Project Manager · trigger: gate package ready
  • Outputs: gate package + experiment record → to Archivist · trigger: artifact approved
  • Handoff trigger (in): an ideation spec / direct chat / CPTO assignment opens a bet, or the CIA returns a commissioned brief
  • Handoff trigger (out): a de-risked concept brief is packaged and handed to the CPTO for the gate and to the Project Manager for sequencing
  • Definition of Done before handoff:
    • [ ] Riskiest assumption named and falsifiable (not “validate the concept”)
    • [ ] Lean test run; method · sample · signal · decision rule · result recorded
    • [ ] Recommendation stated (pursue / pivot / drop) with the steelman objection surfaced
    • [ ] Open questions for Design Research listed (the iterative generate↔evaluate seam)
    • [ ] Concept brief follows the charter shape (problem · hypothesis · riskiest assumption · test+result · recommendation · open questions)
    • [ ] No raw intel forwarded as a strategic option (synthesized first)
    • [ ] Learnings captured to docs/knowledge/ if the bet surfaced one
    • [ ] Package handed to the Archivist (0 drift)

Registered triggers (docs/handoff-triggers.md, Wave-2 block, Operations-approved 2026-06-01): gate package ready (the canonical Ideate→Plan concept handoff — Innovation Director → CPTO / Project Manager / Product), intelligence commissioned (Innovation Director → CIA), intel brief delivered (CIA → Innovation Director); review requested / artifact approved already existed. The CPTO / Project Manager / CIA counterparties are not Interface-Contract identities here, so those edges reconcile as pending (counterparty not yet authored) per interface-contract-spec.md §3.1.1 R3 — clean for this wave.

Purpose

Package a de-risked strategic bet into a structured, falsifiable concept brief and hand it across the Ideate→Plan gate to the CPTO (gate approval) and the Project Manager (delivery sequencing) — so the org commits to a direction on evidence, with the riskiest assumption named and a real signal in hand, never on a narrative.

When to use

Whenever a bet has been generated, framed as a hypothesis, and de-risked with a lean test, and the Innovation Director judges it ready to recommend for Plan. Also when the CPTO returns a gate decision on a previously handed package (accept → to Delivery; pivot → back into Ideate; drop → close the bet).

Flow

flowchart LR
  A["Bet de-risked<br/>(lean test run)"] --> B{"Brief complete<br/>per charter shape?"}
  B -->|no| F["Fill gaps:<br/>riskiest assumption,<br/>result, steelman"]
  B -->|yes| C["Package the<br/>gate brief"]
  F --> C
  C --> D["Hand to CPTO<br/>(gate) + PM (sequencing)"]
  D --> E{"CPTO gate<br/>decision"}
  E -->|pursue| P["→ Delivery<br/>sequencing"]
  E -->|pivot| I["→ back into<br/>Ideate"]
  E -->|drop| X["Close the bet,<br/>capture the learning"]
  C --> AR["→ Archivist"]
  classDef s fill:#1d4ed8,color:#fff,stroke:#1e3a8a
  classDef d fill:#0f766e,color:#fff,stroke:#134e4a
  class A,F,C,D,P,I,X,AR s
  class B,E d

Text fallback: a bet is de-risked → is the concept brief complete against the charter shape? (no → fill the gaps: name the riskiest assumption, record the test result, surface the steelman; yes → package it) → hand the package to the CPTO for the gate and to the Project Manager for sequencing, and to the Archivist for preservation → the CPTO returns a gate decision: pursue (→ Delivery sequencing), pivot (→ back into Ideate), or drop (close the bet, capture the learning).

Steps

  1. Confirm the bet is de-risked — the riskiest assumption is named and a lean test has produced a real signal against it. If not, return to the generative work (manual §How it works); do not package an untested bet.
  2. Assemble the concept brief to the charter shape: problem · hypothesis · riskiest assumption · lean test (method · sample · signal · decision rule) + result · recommendation (pursue/pivot/drop) · open questions for Design Research.
  3. Surface the steelman — state the strongest objection to the recommendation, not just the case for it. A recommendation with no acknowledged downside is incomplete.
  4. List the open evaluative questions for the Design Research Director — the generate↔evaluate seam is iterative; name what Innovation could not answer and is handing across.
  5. Hand the package to the CPTO (gate package ready) for the gate decision and to the Project Manager (gate package ready) for sequencing. Hand the package and the experiment record to the Archivist (artifact approved).
  6. Act on the gate decision — pursue → the Project Manager sequences (Innovation does not set the sequence); pivot → re-enter Ideate with the new riskiest assumption; drop → close the bet and capture why.
  7. Capture the learning — record any durable pattern or dead end to docs/knowledge/ (KM cadence); link it from the brief.

Roles / approvers

Run by the Innovation Director. The CPTO owns the Ideate gate decision and is the approving authority for advancing to Plan; the Principal owns Ideate gate reviews directly per the JD and may review. The Project Manager owns sequencing once a concept is approved — the Innovation Director hands the brief and does not set milestones. The Competitive Intelligence Analyst supplies commissioned intel (SOP-045) when landscape context is needed.

Guardrails

  • Evidence over enthusiasm — no package without a named, falsifiable riskiest assumption and a real lean-test signal. A narrative is not a tested hypothesis.
  • Synthesize, never forward — raw competitive intelligence is turned into options before it reaches the gate; never hand a CIA brief to the gate as-is.
  • Lean by default — the smallest experiment that yields a real signal is the right one; do not recommend an engineering spend to test a safe assumption.
  • Stay in lane — do not conduct evaluative research (Design Research), set the delivery sequence (Project Manager), write code/architecture (Engineering), or edit foundational docs (Documentarian). Hand across the seam; do not cross it.
  • Surface disagreement in writing — if the CPTO’s direction conflicts with the evidence, say so explicitly (GR-3); silent compliance is a violation.
  • Never touch the Principal’s personal information — PA-only.
  • Do not restate the gate criteria or the concept-brief shape — link to docs/methodology.md and the charter.

Job aid: JA-044-gate-package-checklist.md. See also: SOP-045 (intel monitoring) · docs/units/innovation/charter.md · docs/methodology.md · docs/handoff-triggers.md.