Skip to content

implementation-feasibility.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
239 lines (183 loc) · 12.3 KB

implementation-feasibility.md

File metadata and controls

239 lines (183 loc) · 12.3 KB

Hack23 Logo

🛠️ Implementation Feasibility Template

📊 Can the Policy Actually Be Delivered — By When, At What Cost, With What Risks?
🎯 Legal · Administrative · Technical · Fiscal · Workforce · Timeline

Owner Version Effective Date Classification

📋 Document Owner: CEO | 📄 Version: 1.2 | 📅 Last Updated: 2026-04-25 (UTC) 🏢 Owner: Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | 🏷️ Classification: Public

📌 Template instructions: Produce this document on every run. If the current bill has concrete delivery obligations (budget line, infrastructure, IT system, procurement, workforce change), assess that bill directly; otherwise, use this template to audit implementation feasibility for the relevant delivery backlog or previously announced measures. Save as analysis/daily/${ARTICLE_DATE}/${DOC_TYPE}/implementation-feasibility.md.

✨ What to produce: A structured feasibility review across six delivery dimensions (Legal, Administrative, Technical, Fiscal, Workforce, Timeline) with evidence and a calibrated overall-feasibility verdict (READY / FEASIBLE / CONSTRAINED / HIGH-RISK / UNLIKELY).

🔄 Tradecraft Context

Element Value
F3EAD Stage ANALYZE — delivery risk assessment
PIRs Served PIR-5 (Fiscal Trajectory — budget feasibility), PIR-7 (Democratic Norms — accountability for delivery)
Admiralty Floor Ministry statements require [B2]; budget figures require [A1] (official appropriation documents)
WEP + ODNI Delivery-risk scenarios use WEP (likely/unlikely for on-time delivery); confidence MODERATE (ministries rarely disclose implementation challenges publicly)
Source Diversity Floor P1 (delivery-risk claims): ≥3 sources (budget dok_id + ministry statement + expert assessment); avoid single-ministry-spokesperson claims
SAT(s) Applied Premortem Analysis (assume failure and explain why), Key Assumptions Check (delivery assumptions)
ICD 203 Standards 2 (uncertainties — delivery risks), 5 (customer relevance — implementation milestones), 6 (logical argumentation)

📋 Feasibility Context

Field Value
Feasibility ID FEA-YYYY-MM-DD-NNN
Generated YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM UTC
Subject measure dok_id and short title
Responsible ministry / agency e.g., Finansdepartementet + Skatteverket
Statskontoret relevance Relevant report/page URL or "none found"
Declared start date YYYY-MM-DD
Declared completion date YYYY-MM-DD
Budget envelope SEK X.Y billion
Overall verdict 🟢 READY / 🟢 FEASIBLE / 🟡 CONSTRAINED / 🟠 HIGH-RISK / 🔴 UNLIKELY

🧭 Feasibility Overview

radar
    title Feasibility score by dimension (1–5)
    axis Legal, Administrative, Technical, Fiscal, Workforce, Timeline
    curve Current[4, 3, 4, 3, 2, 3]
Loading

If Mermaid radar is unavailable in the renderer, replace with the following graph:

graph LR
    D1["⚖️ Legal<br/>4/5"] --- OUT["🏷️ Overall<br/>🟡 CONSTRAINED"]
    D2["🏛️ Administrative<br/>3/5"] --- OUT
    D3["🖥️ Technical<br/>4/5"] --- OUT
    D4["💰 Fiscal<br/>3/5"] --- OUT
    D5["👷 Workforce<br/>2/5"] --- OUT
    D6["🗓️ Timeline<br/>3/5"] --- OUT

    style D1 fill:#4CAF50,color:#FFFFFF
    style D2 fill:#FFC107,color:#000000
    style D3 fill:#4CAF50,color:#FFFFFF
    style D4 fill:#FFC107,color:#000000
    style D5 fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF
    style D6 fill:#FFC107,color:#000000
    style OUT fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF
Loading

📊 Dimension-by-Dimension Review

⚖️ Legal feasibility — 4/5

Check Status Evidence
Constitutional authority (Regeringsformen) 🟢 Within budgetary prerogative
EU compatibility 🟡 State-aid risk flagged; notification path open
Secondary-law impact 🟢 Skattelag amendment required, scheduled
Litigation exposure 🟢 Low

🏛️ Administrative feasibility — 3/5

Statskontoret overlay: administrative-capacity, coordination, backlog, regulatory-burden and efficiency claims should cite Statskontoret first when a relevant public report/page exists. Record URL, report title, publication date, retrieval time and Admiralty grade in data-download-manifest.md.

Check Status Evidence
Responsible agency capacity (Skatteverket) 🟡 Prior surcharge adjustment completed in 4 months; validate against relevant Statskontoret report/page where available
Inter-agency coordination (SCB, Tullverket) 🟢 Precedent exists
Guidance-document turnaround 🟡 Normal 90-day cycle
Reporting / auditing 🟢 Standard reports available

🖥️ Technical feasibility — 4/5

Check Status Evidence
IT systems change (Skatteverket) 🟢 Tax-rate parameter update
Fuel-monitoring system integration 🟢 Petrol-station price reporting already in place
Data pipeline / reporting 🟢 Existing telemetry
Cyber-risk exposure 🟡 Standard elevated-attention review

💰 Fiscal feasibility — 3/5

Check Status Evidence
Budget envelope sufficient 🟡 SEK 2.8 B annualised vs. estimated SEK 2.4 B
Revenue offset identified 🟠 Not explicitly earmarked
Debt-ceiling impact 🟢 Within surplus-target tolerance
Future-year commitments 🟡 Sunset clause at 12 months but renewal risk

👷 Workforce feasibility — 2/5

Check Status Evidence
Staff available at Skatteverket 🟠 Existing hiring freeze
Skill mix (policy + IT + call-centre) 🟠 Call-centre surge capacity limited
Contractor routes 🟡 Ramavtal (framework agreements) available but slow
Training needs 🟢 Minimal

🗓️ Timeline feasibility — 3/5

gantt
    title HD03236 Implementation Timeline
    dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD
    section Legal
    FiU committee process    :done,   l1, 2026-04-15, 2026-04-21
    Chamber vote             :active, l2, 2026-04-22, 3d
    SFS publication          :        l3, after l2, 5d
    section Administrative
    Skatteverket guidance    :        a1, 2026-05-01, 30d
    Call-centre scaling      :        a2, 2026-05-15, 45d
    section Technical
    IT parameter update      :        t1, 2026-05-10, 10d
    Price-reporting update   :        t2, 2026-05-20, 14d
    section Effect
    Pump-price drop visible  :milestone, pe, 2026-07-15, 0d
Loading

🚦 Critical Dependencies

# Dependency Owner Risk if missed
D1 Chamber vote passes by 2026-04-24 Kammaren Entire package delayed
D2 SFS publication within 5 days post-vote Regeringskansliet Delays IT update
D3 Skatteverket IT parameter change Skatteverket Implementation date slips
D4 Call-centre staffing Skatteverket HR Citizen complaints surge
D5 EU-Commission non-intervention Commission Formal review forces 6-12 m delay

🧯 Risk Register (feasibility-specific)

# Risk L I Score Mitigation
FR-1 EU state-aid review opens before SFS 3 5 15 Pre-notify Commission now
FR-2 Call-centre capacity overwhelmed 4 3 12 Activate framework contract
FR-3 Price-reporting integrity issues 2 4 8 Independent pump-price audit
FR-4 Revenue-offset gap breaks surplus target 3 4 12 Identify offset before Q3 budget
FR-5 Workforce gap at Skatteverket 4 3 12 Emergency hiring authorisation

📊 Comparable Delivery Benchmarks

Comparable measure Delivery time Outcome
2022 Electricity-price support 6 months to first payment Delivered but with CRM overload
2019 Reduced VAT on e-books 5 months On-time, minimal issues
Norway Strømstøtte 2023 3 months Delivered with price-cap simplification

✅ Verdict and Preconditions

Overall: 🟡 CONSTRAINED — deliverable by declared date only if D1, D3, D4 land on schedule and EU Commission does not intervene.

Precondition Status Action required
EU pre-notification submitted 🔴 Not done Open dialogue this week
Call-centre surge contract triggered 🔴 Not done Authorise by 2026-05-01
Revenue-offset identified 🔴 Not done Include in Q3 budget bill

📎 Links

Link Path
Risk register risk-assessment.md
Scenario analysis scenario-analysis.md
Comparative international comparative-international.md
Per-document analysis documents/HD03236-analysis.md

Document Control

✅ Pass-2 Self-Audit Checklist (v4.4 — required)

Purpose: AI-FIRST principle requires a Pass-2 read-back-and-improve. After producing this artifact in Pass 1, re-read it end-to-end and verify each item below. Document any remediation in methodology-reflection.md §"Pass-2 audit log". Any unchecked ❌ box at the end of Pass 2 forces a Pass-3 rewrite of the affected section.

  • Tradecraft anchors honoured — F3EAD stage matches the artifact's role; PIRs declared in the §Tradecraft Context block are actually addressed in the body; Admiralty grades attached to every external source; WEP band + ODNI confidence on every probabilistic judgement.
  • Source diversity floor met — at least the minimum number of independent MCP sources required by the artifact's tradecraft block are cited; single-source claims are explicitly labelled [SINGLE-SOURCE — corroboration pending].
  • Evidence specificity — every quantified claim cites a dok_id (Riksdag), an SCB / IMF dataflow code, or a named external source with date; no "according to data" / "studies show" hand-waves.
  • Named-actor discipline — every political claim names ≥ 1 person (party + role + dated act/quote) or labels the absence ([diffuse — no named actor]).
  • Counter-narrative present — at least one explicit competing hypothesis, dissent quote, or framed objection appears in the body; "no opposition recorded" is itself a finding to label, not silence.
  • Election 2026 lens applied — the §"Election 2026 Implications" subsection (or equivalent) addresses electoral salience, coalition pressure, and forward indicators; not boilerplate.
  • No illustrative content shipped as fact — every [REQUIRED] placeholder is filled OR removed; every Example: block is clearly fenced or removed; no fabricated dok_id, vote count, or quote leaks into the final artifact.
  • Cross-references resolve — every [link](file.md) in this artifact points to a file that exists in the run folder (analysis/daily/$ARTICLE_DATE/$SUBFOLDER/) or to a methodology / template under analysis/.
  • Mermaid renders — every fenced ```mermaid block parses (no missing class definitions, no orphan nodes, no >40-node graphs that overflow viewport on mobile).
  • Line-floor check — artifact length ≥ the per-artifact floor in reference-quality-thresholds.json; shorter artifacts trigger Pass-2 rewrite, never a [truncated] note.