RAID Log (RAG)
This RAID log is structured to highlight what matters most in finance: customer impact, data integrity, channel stability, operational capacity, and evidence-based Go/No-Go criteria.
RAG legend: 🔴 High attention / escalate • 🟡 Manage closely • 🟢 Monitor
| ID | Type | Description | RAG | Owner | Mitigation / Plan | Trigger / Escalation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-01 | Risk | Migration inaccuracies leading to incorrect balances / missing transactions | 🔴 | Data Migration Lead | Full-volume rehearsals; reconciliation controls; independent verification; exception handling playbook | Reconciliation variance above tolerance in any dress rehearsal |
| R-02 | Risk | Customers unable to log in / view accounts due to performance or auth failures | 🔴 | Channels Lead | Peak load testing; error budget thresholds; monitoring; fallback support channels | Peak test failure OR sustained error rate above threshold |
| R-03 | Risk | Payments (direct debits/standing orders/transfers) fail or process inconsistently | 🔴 | Payments Lead | E2E payment testing; reconciliation; staged validation; contingency processing plan | Any failed payment scenario in critical paths not resolved before Go/No-Go |
| D-01 | Dependency | Vendor incident response readiness (on-call, runbooks, triage tooling) | 🟡 | Vendor Manager | Contracted rota; joint drills; runbooks signed off; clear ownership boundaries | Unverified runbooks or gaps in coverage during cutover window |
| A-01 | Assumption | Frontline capacity can absorb customer queries without material service degradation | 🟡 | Change Manager | Surge staffing plan; scripts; escalation route; “what to tell customers” decision tree | Readiness simulation shows overload; training completion below target |
| I-01 | Issue | Incident volume exceeds war-room triage capacity post-cutover | 🟡 | Ops Lead | Triage matrix; severity-based routing; expanded staffing; incident comms cadence | Backlog grows for 2+ cycles; customer wait times exceed agreed threshold |
| R-04 | Risk | Over-optimistic status reporting hides readiness gaps | 🔴 | Programme Director | Outcome metrics required; independent assurance sign-off; explicit “unknowns” section in status reports | Key outcomes not evidenced by test results or independent validation |
The risk isn’t only what can go wrong. It’s what the programme becomes unwilling to hear.
← Back to Pack overview