> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.cortex.aic.io/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.cortex.aic.io/workflow-guides/direction/commissioning.md).

# Commissioning

**Open this area:** In the CORTEX menu, select **Intelligence cycle → Direction**.

Agree an exact brief, assess its design independently and retain customer challenge alongside the analysis.

**Who uses this:** Requirement owner, Analyst, Reviewer\
**Open in CORTEX:** `/direction`\
**In-app guide:** `/help?topic=commissioning`

**Expected result:** Commissioner and analyst share a retained brief with explicit quality criteria, deadlines and uncertainty; any provisional shortfall stays visible.

## Before you start

* Select the intended workspace and a current Draft, Active or InReview requirement with retained history.
* Prepare the decision need, questions, scope, exclusions, design, quality and acceptable uncertainty; distinguish the decision deadline from the assessment horizon.
* Appoint three distinct eligible accounts. Appointments require Direction write and assign; participants still need current workspace, handling and relevant Direction permissions.

## What to do

{% stepper %}
{% step %}

## Open the commission

On the requirement select **Analytical commission and decision context**. Inspect any retained brief before creating or changing work.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Complete the brief tabs

The page shows the current requirement, Direction authority and people eligibility. Complete **Decision and scope**, **Design and timing**, then **Accountable people**.

Find each participant by exact email; editing an email clears the earlier person, and only the current successful lookup can be selected. Required fields are marked and missing inputs appear immediately; a red tab needs attention. Back retains entered values.

Enter quality, uncertainty, the UTC deadline and ordered horizon, positive effort up to 10,000 days, constraints, design, options and assumptions.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Define measures the customer can evidence

Under **Agree actual outcome measures**, explicitly enable timeliness, relevance or utility only when a real definition is available.

Enter its purpose, success criterion, evidence source and UTC evidence date. Find a named measure owner through the shared people lookup; appointment requires Direction assignment authority and current owner eligibility.

Undefined measures remain absent rather than receiving an invented score.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Review, save and agree

Review the exact brief and enter a required change reason. A partial commission draft cannot be saved: all brief tabs must be complete.

Saving a new version clears current agreement and approval but retains earlier decisions and challenges.

The commissioner records agreement using Direction transition; the analyst agrees using Direction write. The independent assurer approves the design using Direction transition after both agreements.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Handle urgency explicitly

The commissioner may record urgent provisional use with its urgency and unresolved quality shortfall. This permits explicitly provisional commissioned analysis and never displays as approved.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Start connected analysis

Select **Start commissioned analysis** from the current approved or provisional brief.

The saved analysis pins that exact commission and requirement revision. Linked products retain the decision context, which is included in ordinary draft exports. Product review and dissemination approval remain separate.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Challenge and amend deliberately

The commissioner raises customer challenges; the analyst retains responses; only the commissioner resolves a responded challenge.

A revised brief requires fresh agreements and design approval. Existing analysis and products retain their original pins and show an impact notice if the current brief or requirement changed.
{% endstep %}
{% endstepper %}

## Check the result

* Does the quality target describe fitness for the intended decision, separately from delivery time?
* Are the horizon and deadline UTC values correct?
* Are roles distinct and supported by current grants?
* Are uncertainty, assumptions and resource limits explicit?
* Have unresolved challenges and changed requirements been reviewed?

## If you get stuck

<details>

<summary>Why is a participant or decision unavailable?</summary>

Check the exact email, full handling and workspace. People require Direction read/write to be appointed; commissioner and assurer decisions additionally need current transition permission. Assignment does not grant or restore access.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Why did agreement disappear after an amendment?</summary>

The new brief is a different decision context. Fresh commissioner/analyst agreement and independent design approval are required. Select an earlier saved version to inspect previous approvals; none was erased.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Why did saving or starting analysis fail?</summary>

Check red brief tabs for missing required text, a reversed horizon, invalid effort, overlapping roles or an incomplete enabled measure. Reopen a closed requirement before commissioning and refresh after another writer changes the commission. A changed requirement requires an amended brief.

The 128-revision and 32-challenge limits retain existing history and reject further additions; they never delete older decisions.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Can I change historical analysis to match a new brief?</summary>

Earlier analysis and products retain their exact brief. Review the impact and start explicitly commissioned follow-on analysis for the new brief. No automatic backfill, requirement closure or reinterpretation occurs.

</details>

## Responsibility and limits

* Commissioners own decision needs and resolve customer challenges without editing the analyst's conclusion.
* Analysts judge feasibility and retain responses; independent assurers review the agreed design.
* A provisional decision records a shortfall. It does not establish product quality, legal authority or release permission.
* Measures are part of the exact brief: changes clear current agreements and design approval. Earlier analysis/products retain their original definitions and owners. Historical missing measures are not backfilled. Definitions and a named evidence source do not themselves prove performance; missing evidence, success, failure and analytical correctness remain separate.

**Reference and scope:** GovS 010 commissioning and analysis design, AQuA specification and design documentation, and APP terms of reference inform this workflow. The distinct account and decision rules are CORTEX controls; a saved decision is not accreditation or release approval.

## Related workflows

* [Define and manage an intelligence requirement](/workflow-guides/direction/requirements.md)
* [Develop and independently review an assessment](/workflow-guides/analyse/analysis.md)
* [Author an intelligence Product and inspect its exports](/workflow-guides/products/product-drafts.md)
* [Acknowledge the exact package and close the feedback loop](/workflow-guides/feedback/feedback.md)