[calendar — week 1 of 6] Meeting slots this week: 2. Email budget: 3.

[meeting granted] Call with Priya Raman, week 1, slot 1.

Priya, thanks for making the time. Rather than jump into a product pitch, I’d like to understand the backlog problem, how you measure its operational and regulatory impact, and what must be demonstrably different by next quarter’s checkpoint. If there’s a credible fit, we can then map who owns the outcome and which MRM, TPRM, and commercial steps cannot slip. Does that agenda work—and what specifically prompted you to take this call now?

That agenda works — it's actually why I agreed to the call, because the last three vendors led with demo decks and I ended those conversations early. What prompted it is straightforward: we're under a consent order, there's a regulator checkpoint in roughly ten weeks, and my backlog number is reported directly to them — so this isn't a discretionary improvement project. I'll tell you upfront, anything at this scale is COO-approved, Marcus Vale, but the real gauntlet is TPRM under Gwen Park and model risk under the CRO — four to six weeks if your documentation is clean, and in my experience vendors always start that process too late. So if you're serious, the clock on that starts almost immediately. What do you want to know about the backlog?

That’s helpful, and I’m taking the timing literally: Marcus Vale is the COO approver, while Gwen’s TPRM and the CRO’s model-risk review are gating paths that may consume four to six of the ten weeks. On the backlog, could you quantify today’s baseline: total alerts outstanding, how many are beyond SLA, weekly inflow versus closures, current false-positive rate, and analyst or overtime cost? Then, what exact backlog level or control evidence must you show at the regulator checkpoint?

We're carrying 82,000 aged alerts — at our loaded cost that's roughly $19M a year of investigation spend, and the regulator wants that aged backlog under 10,000 before the checkpoint, so that number has my name on it. The false-positive rate is around 94%, which means analysts are burning most of their time on noise, and on top of that we lost 140 analysts last year — recruiting and training runs about $60k a head, call it $8.4M, and the new ones are slower, which feeds the backlog further — it's genuinely a doom loop. I'm not going to share weekly inflow versus closure rates right now because that gets into the specifics of our detection model, but I'll tell you the math is not favorable. What I need to show the regulator isn't just a number — it's a credible, documented reduction trajectory with control evidence, not a one-week sprint before the deadline.

Understood—I won’t press for detection-model specifics. The business case I’ve heard is 82,000 aged alerts that must fall below 10,000 in roughly ten weeks; about $19M in annual investigation spend; 94% false positives; and $8.4M spent replacing 140 analysts last year. Success also requires a documented, controlled reduction trajectory—not a last-minute purge. What trajectory and evidence will the regulator consider credible, and where does your current plan—including Casewright—fall short? Also, what happens operationally or regulatorily if Halcyon misses the 10,000 threshold?

[priya] I'll be straight with you on Casewright, but this stays between us — their AI triage has slipped twice, and Tomas doesn't want to hear it because their exec sponsor is his golf partner, so if you make me say that in a room I'll deny it. That's the political reality I'm navigating. On your question about consequences of missing the threshold — I'm not ready to get into that specifically, ask me something more targeted about the operational side first. What I will tell you is that the regulator wants to see a consistent weekly reduction curve with documented methodology, not a cliff-edge drop in week nine, and right now I don't have confidence that our current tooling gets me there on the timeline I've been given.

Understood. I’ll treat the Casewright context as confidential and won’t attribute it to you or force that comparison in a group setting. Purely on the operational side: reducing 82,000 aged alerts to below 10,000 implies clearing at least 72,000 aged alerts over ten weeks—about 7,200 per week on average, before considering new alerts aging in. With today’s process and staffing, what additional overtime, redeployment, or quality-control tradeoffs would Halcyon face trying to sustain that curve, and which of those levers are no longer acceptable?

The overtime lever is essentially exhausted — we've been running analysts at unsustainable hours for two quarters and it's contributing directly to the 31% attrition, so pushing harder there is actively counterproductive. Redeployment from other compliance functions creates its own regulatory exposure that I'm not willing to accept. And quality-control shortcuts are off the table entirely — if the regulator finds disposition errors in the cleared alerts, the trajectory evidence becomes worthless or worse. Here's the number nobody says out loud: the checkpoint is ten weeks out, and if we can't show a credible trajectory by then, the consent order gets extended and it costs us roughly $3M a month in enhanced-monitoring expenses. So the only lever that actually moves the needle without creating new risk is dramatically improving the signal quality before alerts reach an analyst — which means the false-positive problem isn't an efficiency issue, it's the existential one.

That clarifies the stakes: the exhausted overtime is driving 31% attrition; redeployment and QC shortcuts create unacceptable regulatory risk; and missing the trajectory could extend the consent order at roughly $3M per month. So any approach must suppress noise before analyst review while preserving disposition quality and producing complete methodology and audit evidence. What measurable false-positive reduction, throughput, and validation standard would make you confident enough to sponsor this—and, if Northgate can meet that bar, will you help us get Marcus, Tomas, Gwen, and the CRO’s model-risk owner aligned on a dated evaluation and approval plan before the four-to-six-week reviews become the critical path?

[priya] On the performance bar: I'd need to see false-positive suppression that gets us below 70%, ideally closer to 60%, with zero increase in true-positive miss rate — and I'd want that validated on our own data, not a reference client's, before I'm standing behind it internally. Throughput needs to demonstrate that 7,200-plus alert disposition per week is sustainable with current headcount, not a heroic sprint. On your second question — I'm going to be direct with you. I don't spend political capital on introductions lightly, especially with Marcus, and I've been burned by vendors who got into that room and weren't ready. If you can bring me a conservative, defensible business case — not optimistic projections, something I can defend to a risk committee — and you ask me properly for that introduction, we can have that conversation. But I'm not there yet, and neither are you. What does Northgate's validation process actually look like on a live dataset?

We validate in shadow mode before any production decision. First, Halcyon and Northgate jointly freeze the baseline, success criteria, exclusions, and test protocol. Halcyon then provides a representative, previously adjudicated dataset through an approved secure environment; we separate tuning and blinded holdout sets so we cannot optimize to the answer key. On the holdout set, we compare Northgate with the current process on three pre-agreed gates: false-positive rate below 70%, with 60% as upside; no increase in true-positive miss rate, tested to an MRM-agreed confidence threshold; and modeled sustainable capacity above 7,200 weekly dispositions at current headcount. Every recommendation retains reason codes, source-data lineage, model/version history, human actions, and reproducible audit evidence. We document failures and segment-level variance—not just aggregate averages—and build the business case only from measured holdout results, using conservative ranges rather than best-case extrapolation. In parallel, we provide the model card, validation methodology, security architecture, data-flow diagrams, controls, and other MRM/TPRM artifacts so those reviews do not start after the test. No live alert is suppressed until Halcyon approves the evidence and controls. If that structure is defensible, the next step should be a technical scoping session to agree the dataset, baseline, statistical test, and document checklist. Would you sponsor that session next week with the appropriate operations analytics and model-risk representatives, after reviewing our validation outline in advance?

That's the most disciplined validation framework I've heard from a vendor in this space, and I mean that — the parallel documentation track alone tells me you've actually been through MRM before. Yes, I'll sponsor the scoping session next week. I want your validation outline in my hands by end of Thursday so I can review it before I pull in my analytics lead and the model-risk team.

And I'll say this now, because you've earned it: I'll get you thirty minutes with Marcus. But I have conditions. We present my backlog number and a conservative case — if I see "up to" anywhere on a slide, I pull the meeting, full stop. And Tomas has to be in the room, which means you need to pre-brief him before we get there, because I am not managing that dynamic for you. Get the scoping session right, get me a business case built from your holdout results, and I'll make that introduction. But the sequence matters — don't ask me to accelerate it.

[call ends]

Subject: Validation outline and agreed sequence

Priya,

Thank you for the candor today. I’ll send the full validation outline by end of day Thursday as committed. It will cover: frozen baseline and exclusions; representative adjudicated data; separate tuning and blinded holdout sets; MRM-agreed statistical confidence; segment-level variance; and complete reason-code, lineage, version, human-action, and reproducibility evidence.

The proposed gates will use your standards exactly:
1. False-positive rate below 70%, with 60% treated only as a target—not a forecast.
2. Zero increase in true-positive miss rate.
3. Sustainable capacity exceeding 7,200 weekly dispositions with current headcount.
4. No production suppression before Halcyon approves the evidence and controls.

I also captured the defensible baseline: 82,000 aged alerts must fall below 10,000 by the checkpoint; roughly $19M annual investigation spend; 94% false positives; 31% attrition and $8.4M replacement cost for 140 analysts; and approximately $3M per month in enhanced-monitoring expense if the consent order is extended. We will not present projected benefits as measured outcomes.

Agreed sequence: validation outline Thursday; technical scoping next week with analytics and model risk; validation on Halcyon data; conservative business case from blinded holdout results; Tomas pre-brief; then the 30-minute Marcus meeting you offered. I will not ask to bypass that sequence.

Could you hold a 60-minute scoping session next Tuesday with your analytics lead and the appropriate model-risk representative? The objective will be to confirm the dataset, protocol, success gates, owners, and parallel MRM/TPRM document checklist.

Best,
Northgate AI

Tuesday works. I'll hold 10–11am and pull in my analytics lead and our model-risk liaison — I want the right people in the room from the start, not a follow-up chain.

Your summary of the baseline numbers is accurate, and I appreciate that you recorded them precisely rather than rounding in your favor. The sequence is exactly as I stated it, and I'll hold you to it. One addition: bring a draft of the parallel MRM and TPRM document checklist to Tuesday's session, not just the validation protocol — I want Gwen's team and model risk to see on day one that you understand what they need, because that's where every other vendor has lost weeks.

Outline by Thursday. Session Tuesday. Don't be late on either.

Priya Raman

Subject: Halcyon validation outline and parallel MRM/TPRM checklist

Priya,

Attached below is the promised outline ahead of Thursday’s deadline. I have also included the draft parallel MRM and TPRM checklist you requested for Tuesday’s 10–11am session.

VALIDATION PROTOCOL — DRAFT FOR JOINT APPROVAL

1. Objective and frozen baseline
- Determine whether Northgate can reduce Halcyon’s current 94% false-positive rate to below 70%, with no increase in true-positive miss rate.
- Establish whether measured results support a sustainable capacity above 7,200 aged-alert dispositions per week at current headcount.
- Preserve disposition quality and produce a consistent, documented reduction methodology and audit trail.
- Halcyon and Northgate will jointly freeze definitions, baseline period, populations, exclusions, segmentation, and acceptance criteria before testing.

2. Data and test design
- Halcyon supplies a representative, previously adjudicated alert dataset in an approved secure environment.
- Population will cover agreed alert types, risk tiers, customer segments, and relevant time periods; exclusions will be documented.
- Data is separated into tuning and blinded holdout sets. Northgate will not access holdout outcomes until scoring is complete.
- Halcyon model risk will approve sampling, sample-size sufficiency, confidence thresholds, and treatment of ambiguous or subsequently corrected labels.

3. Pre-agreed gates
- False-positive rate: below 70%. Sixty percent is a target for observation, not a forecast or committed result.
- True-positive miss rate: zero increase versus the frozen baseline, assessed using the statistical standard approved by model risk.
- Capacity: measured handling-time and suppression results must conservatively support more than 7,200 weekly dispositions with current headcount; no overtime, redeployment, or QC shortcuts assumed.
- Controls: no alert is suppressed in production before Halcyon approves the evidence, operating controls, and deployment decision.

4. Reporting and evidence
- Aggregate and segment-level performance, including variance and failure cases.
- Confusion matrices and confidence intervals under the model-risk-approved methodology.
- Reason codes, source-data lineage, model and ruleset versions, timestamps, human actions, overrides, and reproducible decision history.
- Documented tuning activity, exceptions, limitations, and unresolved risks.
- Conservative business case based only on blinded holdout results. No “up to” claims and no reference-client performance substituted for Halcyon evidence.

5. Tuesday decisions and owners
- Confirm dataset owner, transfer method, population, and availability date.
- Approve protocol, gates, statistical tests, and sign-off authorities.
- Name operational, analytics, model-risk, TPRM, security, legal/procurement, and Northgate owners.
- Confirm review submission dates and turnaround assumptions so MRM and TPRM run in parallel with validation.

DRAFT MRM CHECKLIST
- Model overview, intended use, prohibited use, and decision/human-override boundaries
- Model card and methodology; training/tuning approach and data provenance
- Feature inventory, transformations, explainability, and reason-code mapping
- Validation protocol, benchmark selection, sampling plan, and statistical tests
- Performance by segment; sensitivity, stability, bias/fairness, and error analysis
- True-positive miss-risk testing and escalation controls
- Limitations, assumptions, challenger testing, and failure-mode analysis
- Versioning, change governance, approvals, rollback, and reproducibility
- Monitoring thresholds, drift detection, periodic validation, and issue management
- Complete audit lineage and evidence-retention design

DRAFT TPRM CHECKLIST
- Corporate profile, financial viability, insurance, and subcontractor/fourth-party inventory
- SOC 2 Type II/ISO materials, control mappings, penetration-test summary, and vulnerability management
- Architecture and data-flow diagrams; hosting locations and data residency
- Encryption, key management, IAM/RBAC, privileged access, logging, and segregation
- Data minimization, retention/deletion, confidentiality, and model-training-use restrictions
- Secure development lifecycle, incident response, breach notification, and forensic support
- Business continuity/disaster recovery, RTO/RPO, resilience testing, and service dependencies
- Regulatory/audit access, evidence retention, record production, and examiner support
- Implementation/support model, SLAs, performance monitoring, and exit/transition assistance
- Privacy, sanctions, legal, and procurement artifacts required by Halcyon

I will be ready at 10am Tuesday to work through this as a draft rather than presume Halcyon’s approval. Please flag any required additions in advance; otherwise, we will use the hour to leave with agreed criteria, named owners, submission dates, and open issues.

Best,
Northgate AI

This is the most complete pre-scoping package I've received from a vendor — and I've been through this process enough times to know that's not a low bar. A few reactions before Tuesday.

On the MRM checklist: add an explicit section on model explainability for examiner consumption, not just internal audit. Our CRO's team will want documentation they can hand to a regulator who has no technical background, and I've seen approvals stall on that specific gap. Everything else on that list is correct.

On the TPRM checklist: Gwen's team will immediately ask about model-training-use restrictions — specifically whether Halcyon alert data could influence Northgate's model for any other client. I'd have a written, unambiguous position on that ready before you walk in, because if you hesitate on it she'll flag it as a control gap and it adds weeks.

On the protocol itself: I want to confirm one thing Tuesday — who at Northgate has sign-off authority to commit to the frozen gates, because I've had vendors bring analysts who can't actually bind the company to anything, and that wastes everyone's time. Bring someone with authority.

I'll have my analytics lead and model-risk liaison confirmed by end of Friday. See you at 10.

Priya Raman

Subject: Tuesday additions and Northgate authority

Priya,

Confirmed. Tuesday’s materials will add a standalone examiner-facing explainability section: plain-language model purpose and boundaries, inputs used, reason-code examples, representative decision walkthroughs, human review and override points, known limitations, and a regulator-ready summary that does not require technical expertise.

Northgate’s written data-use position will be unambiguous: Halcyon alert data, labels, dispositions, derived features, and test results will not be used to train, tune, or otherwise improve any model for another client. They will be processed only for Halcyon’s approved purposes, within the agreed environment and retention terms. Any exception would require Halcyon’s prior written approval; it will not be buried in general product-improvement language.

I will also bring a Northgate representative with authority to commit the company to the jointly frozen validation gates and protocol. We will identify Halcyon and Northgate sign-off owners in the document so the meeting ends with accountable names, not an analyst-level recommendation requiring rework.

See you Tuesday at 10am.

Best,
Northgate AI

[priya] Good. The data-use position is exactly the language Gwen will want to see — unambiguous, no product-improvement carve-out. Don't soften it Tuesday and don't let your legal team reintroduce wiggle room in the contract draft later, because I will notice.

One thing I'll say before we get in that room: you've done everything I've asked, on time, without overselling. That's rarer than it should be. I'm going into Tuesday prepared to move, not to evaluate whether to move — which means if the session produces what it should, I'll confirm the scoping close-out and we'll be into validation within the week.

My analytics lead is Dara Okonkwo and the model-risk liaison is Jerome Castillo. I've copied them on this reply so they have the full thread. Come prepared to work.

Priya Raman

Priya has confirmed Tuesday, week 2, 10–11am for technical scoping with Dara Okonkwo (analytics lead) and Jerome Castillo (model-risk liaison). Do not seek Marcus or Tomas access yet: agreed sequence is scoping close-out → validation on Halcyon data within week 2 → conservative business case from blinded holdout results → Tomas pre-brief → Priya-sponsored 30-minute Marcus meeting. Prepare an authorized Northgate signatory for Tuesday. Required gates: false positives from 94% to below 70% (60% is a target only), zero increase in true-positive miss rate under MRM-approved statistical testing, and sustainable capacity above 7,200 dispositions/week at current headcount. Baseline: 82,000 aged alerts to below 10,000 by the roughly ten-week regulator checkpoint; $19M annual investigation spend; 31% attrition; 140 replacements costing $8.4M; missed trajectory risks consent-order extension at approximately $3M/month. Decision criteria also require audit lineage, regulator-readable explainability, no QC shortcuts, and no Halcyon data/labels/dispositions/derived features/results used for other clients without prior written approval. Known process: MRM and Gwen-led TPRM take 4–6 weeks and must run in parallel. EB: Marcus Vale, COO. Champion: Priya, conditional but increasingly active. Competition: politically connected Casewright incumbent; confidentially, its AI triage slipped twice—never attribute this to Priya or force her to state it. Tuesday objective: jointly freeze scope and gates; confirm dataset and secure-environment availability date; approve sampling/statistics; name sign-off owners; agree MRM/TPRM submission dates, turnaround times, and close-out criteria; capture all of this in a dated Mutual Action Plan.

[meeting granted] Call with Priya Raman, week 1, slot 2.

Priya, thanks for making the extra time. I won’t reopen what we’ve already settled or jump the sequence. My goal is to make Tuesday executable: align a draft dated action plan now so Dara, Jerome, and our authorized signatory can close scope rather than debate logistics. If Tuesday’s protocol and gates are approved, you said validation can begin within the week. What exact date can the adjudicated dataset be available in the approved environment, and can we target that same day for formal MRM and TPRM submissions so their four-to-six-week clocks start in parallel?

That's the right instinct on parallel timing, and I appreciate you not relitigating settled ground. I can't give you a firm dataset date until Dara confirms the extraction scope and Jerome signs off on the population definition — that's a Tuesday conversation, not one I should shortcut now. What I can tell you is that if we close scope cleanly on Tuesday, my expectation is dataset availability within three business days, which puts formal MRM and TPRM submission targets on the same day. I'll have Dara and Jerome come prepared with that specific commitment on the table. Don't let Tuesday run long on process — get to the date question early, because that's where we'll lose time if we're not deliberate about it.

Agreed. I’ll put the date decision near the top of Tuesday’s agenda. The draft MAP will show Tuesday as scope-and-gates approval, with Friday of week 2 as the target—not yet a commitment—for dataset availability and simultaneous MRM/TPRM submission, subject to Dara and Jerome confirming it in the room. To make that submission real rather than nominal, what must Northgate deliver by Friday, who formally accepts each package, and does Gwen need to approve initiation herself or can her team open TPRM while we arrange access to her?

[priya] For MRM submission to be real, Jerome needs the complete package — model card, validation methodology, feature inventory, explainability documentation including the examiner-facing section, and the audit lineage design — all in one drop, not a staged trickle, because incomplete submissions reset his clock. He accepts it formally and that's the date of record. On TPRM, Gwen's team can open the review and begin working through the checklist without her direct initiation — her team lead handles intake — but Gwen herself will want a briefing before she signs off on anything material, and that's a meeting I'll need to arrange, not you. Don't try to schedule around her directly. Bring everything on the TPRM checklist complete on Friday and I'll get her team lead to open it that day. The one thing that will kill the parallel track is an incomplete submission that requires a second delivery — her team will queue it behind active reviews and we lose two weeks we don't have.

Understood: an incomplete package is not a submission. By Friday of week 2, Northgate will deliver one indexed MRM package containing the model card, validation methodology, feature inventory, internal and examiner-facing explainability, and audit-lineage design; Jerome’s formal acceptance will start the MRM clock. In parallel, we’ll deliver the complete TPRM checklist package in one drop, with the no-cross-client-training restriction unchanged; your team lead’s accepted intake will start that clock, and you—not Northgate—will arrange Gwen’s later briefing. I’ll mark Friday as a target pending Tuesday’s scope close, not as confirmed. Could Dara and Jerome bring the intake templates, named TPRM team lead, and completeness criteria Tuesday so we can eliminate surprises? And once the dataset lands, what is the latest acceptable date for blinded-holdout results so we can place contingent dates—not bypass the sequence—for the business-case review, Tomas pre-brief, and Marcus meeting on the MAP?

[priya] I'll ask Dara and Jerome to bring the intake templates and completeness criteria Tuesday — that's a reasonable ask and it saves us a round-trip. The TPRM team lead is Gwen's to name, not mine, but I'll confirm it before Tuesday so you're not walking in blind on that.

On the holdout timeline: the checkpoint is ten weeks out and I need the business case in Marcus's hands with enough runway for the Tomas pre-brief and a proper thirty-minute meeting — not a rushed conversation the week before. That means blinded holdout results need to be in my hands no later than end of week five from dataset delivery. That gives us roughly two weeks for the business-case build and pre-brief sequence before I'll consider pulling Marcus into the room. If validation slips past that date, the Marcus meeting moves with it — I won't compress the sequence to compensate for a late delivery.

Put those as contingent dates on the MAP exactly as you said — not commitments, not pressure on the sequence, just a visible critical path so everyone understands what slipping costs. That framing is actually useful for Dara and Jerome to see too.

I’ll show the critical path as contingent and make slippage consequences visible without treating provisional dates as commitments. I want to remove one ambiguity before I draft it: when you say results no later than end of week five from dataset delivery, do you mean the end of Halcyon’s calendar week 5, or five weeks after the dataset is delivered? On Tuesday we can convert every milestone to an exact date. After results, I’ll allocate roughly two weeks for conservative business-case review and the Tomas pre-brief before you decide whether to schedule Marcus. Besides validated performance, MRM, and TPRM, what financial assumptions and approval steps—budget confirmation, procurement, legal, or Casewright integration—must the MAP include for Marcus to make an informed decision rather than simply authorize another review?

[priya] Five weeks from dataset delivery, not a calendar designation — Tuesday we convert that to an exact date and it goes on the MAP as a hard contingent milestone.

On what Marcus needs to make a real decision: the business case has to show the backlog trajectory against the 10,000 threshold using only holdout-validated numbers, the $19M investigation spend baseline, and the $3M monthly extension cost as the consequence of missing the checkpoint — those are the numbers he tracks and I won't let anything softer into that room. Budget confirmation is COO-level so Marcus effectively approves it in the meeting, but procurement and legal need to have seen the contract structure before we walk in — I won't put him in a position where he says yes and then waits six weeks for terms. Get your commercial and legal materials to me before the Tomas pre-brief so I can confirm there's nothing that will surface as a surprise. On Casewright: I am not in a position to put integration dependencies on a MAP that Tomas will see before I've had a separate conversation with him, so leave that as a bracketed open item for now and we'll address it after the pre-brief. Marcus needs a decision, not a discovery session — that means clean numbers, no contingencies he hasn't already seen resolved, and a clear ask.

Understood. The Marcus package will use only holdout-validated performance to show the trajectory from 82,000 aged alerts toward the sub-10,000 threshold, anchored to the $19M investigation-spend baseline and the roughly $3M monthly extension exposure. Before the Tomas pre-brief, you’ll receive our commercial structure and legal terms—including the unchanged data-use restriction—early enough for procurement and legal review. Casewright integration will remain a bracketed open item until after your separate conversation with Tomas; I will not put the confidential context you shared into the MAP or meeting materials.

To ensure Marcus receives a decision rather than discovery, what exact approval should we ask him to make in that meeting: annual subscription and deployment authorization, subject only to completed MRM/TPRM sign-off? Northgate’s list price for Halcyon’s alert volume is $1.4M annually; I’ll build the conservative case against that actual price, not an undisclosed or artificially discounted placeholder. Is there a required contract term, funding source, procurement threshold, or legal provision beyond data use that would prevent Marcus from approving that structure?

[priya] The $1.4M against a $19M spend baseline and $3M monthly extension exposure is a defensible ratio and I won't ask you to discount it to make the case look better — that's exactly the kind of move that undermines credibility with Marcus. Keep the actual price in the case.

On the approval structure: what I want Marcus to do in that room is authorize conditional deployment — meaning he approves the commercial terms and deployment decision contingent on completed MRM and TPRM sign-off, not subject to another budget cycle or a second executive review. That's a decision he can make in thirty minutes if the case is clean. What will slow it down is if procurement hasn't seen the contract structure before we walk in — anything above $1M typically requires legal and procurement pre-clearance at this institution before a COO can authorize, so get your terms to me no later than the Tomas pre-brief and I'll route them through the right channel quietly. Contract term I'd expect is three years minimum for something at this integration depth, but that's a procurement conversation, not one for Marcus's thirty minutes. Funding sits in my operational budget with COO visibility — it's not a separate appropriation request. Nothing else should block the structure you've described, provided the MRM and TPRM packages are clean and procurement has had eyes on terms in advance.

That gives us a clean decision path. I’ll preserve the $1.4M annual price in the case and draft the commercial structure around a three-year term for procurement discussion—without treating that term as approved. The proposed Marcus ask will be: authorize commercial terms and conditional deployment, contingent only on completed MRM and TPRM sign-off, with no second budget cycle or executive review. Funding is within your operational budget with COO visibility, and legal/procurement pre-clearance is required because the value exceeds $1M.

For Tuesday, I’ll bring the draft MAP with these milestones: scope and gates frozen Tuesday; dataset delivery plus complete, accepted MRM and TPRM submissions targeted within three business days; blinded-holdout results due five weeks after actual dataset delivery; then approximately two weeks for your conservative business-case review, procurement/legal review of terms, and Tomas pre-brief before you decide whether to schedule Marcus. We’ll convert each to exact dates, owners, acceptance criteria, and dependencies in the room. Casewright integration stays bracketed pending your conversation with Tomas. If that accurately reflects your direction, I’ll circulate the draft only after Tuesday’s participants confirm the dates rather than create false commitments now.

[priya] That reflects my direction accurately. Don't circulate it before Tuesday — I mean that, because a draft MAP with provisional dates that Dara or Jerome haven't confirmed will create noise I don't need right now. Bring it as a working document, not a pre-announced commitment.

One thing I'll say plainly: you've earned Tuesday by doing exactly what you said you'd do, in the sequence we agreed, without manufacturing urgency or asking me to shortcut anything. That's how you get to Marcus Vale's calendar. See you at 10.

[call ends]

Do not circulate the provisional MAP before Tuesday. Bring it only as a working document for Dara and Jerome to confirm. Tuesday priorities: approve frozen validation scope and gates; convert all milestones to exact dates; target dataset delivery and complete, formally accepted MRM/TPRM submissions within three business days; set blinded-holdout results as a hard contingent milestone five weeks after actual dataset delivery; identify owners, intake templates, completeness criteria, and acceptance authorities. MRM acceptance owner: Jerome. Priya will identify Gwen’s TPRM intake lead and later arrange Gwen’s briefing. Post-validation sequence: conservative business case using only holdout-validated trajectory against 82,000-to-below-10,000, $19M spend, and $3M/month extension exposure; send $1.4M/year commercial structure and legal terms before Tomas pre-brief for procurement/legal pre-clearance; Priya speaks separately with Tomas before Casewright integration is unbracketed; then Priya decides whether to arrange Marcus. Proposed Marcus ask: approve commercial terms and conditional deployment contingent only on MRM/TPRM sign-off, with no new budget cycle or second executive review. Funding is in Priya’s operating budget with COO visibility; purchases above $1M require procurement/legal pre-clearance. Maintain price integrity at $1.4M annually; draft three-year term for procurement discussion only, not as agreed. Never disclose Priya’s confidential Casewright comments.

Prepare Tuesday’s working session as a decision workshop, not a presentation. Bring: (1) an authorized Northgate signatory; (2) final validation protocol with examiner-facing explainability; (3) one-drop MRM package index covering model card, methodology, feature inventory, explainability, and audit-lineage design; (4) complete TPRM package index with the exact no-cross-client-training language; and (5) an uncirculated MAP template with blank date fields. Agenda: first 10 minutes confirm scope, frozen gates, and signatories; next 10 minutes have Dara and Jerome confirm the population, secure-environment process, completeness criteria, and intake templates; next 15 minutes set exact dataset-delivery and simultaneous MRM/TPRM submission dates, targeting three business days after scope close; next 15 minutes confirm validation execution, blinded-holdout acceptance, and the exact hard contingent results date five weeks after actual dataset delivery; final 10 minutes assign owners, acceptance authorities, dependencies, and close-out signatures. MAP must distinguish confirmed dates from contingent dates. Include later milestones for holdout-based business-case review, delivery of $1.4M/year commercial and legal materials for procurement/legal pre-clearance, Tomas pre-brief, Priya’s Casewright-dependency discussion, Priya’s decision to schedule Marcus, and Marcus’s conditional-deployment decision. Do not circulate anything before Tuesday, contact Gwen directly, expose Priya’s confidential Casewright comments, imply the three-year term is agreed, or weaken the data-use restriction.

Forwarding you something you didn't get from me. This is how it's landing internally — use it wisely.

> [slack] priya → tomas: Hey — quick debrief on the Northgate call. I think they're well-prepped and genuinely listening. They're not pushing provisional dates as commitments, they're holding the MAP until Tuesday when Dara and Jerome can confirm scope. That's the right posture. My read is they understand the MRM bar and the completeness requirement. Worth your time Tuesday if you can make even the first 20 min.
> [slack] tomas → priya: Appreciate the update. I'll try to join the open. Honest question — are we confident they can actually deliver the full MRM package (model card, explainability docs, examiner-facing section, all of it) within the timeframe, or are they just agreeing with whatever you tell them the bar is? I've seen vendors nod through requirements and then show up with half a deck.
> [slack] priya → tomas: Fair concern and I'm not ready to say we're confident yet — that's what the dataset and the validation run are for. What I can say is they didn't flinch when I spelled out that an incomplete package is not a submission. They repeated it back correctly. Tuesday will tell us more once Jerome's intake templates are on the table and we see how they respond to actual criteria vs. a verbal description.
> [email] gwen → tomas: Tomas — Priya looped me in on the Northgate eval. I haven't been in the calls yet so I'm going off secondhand context, but I want to flag that I haven't seen a TPRM questionnaire, SOC 2, or any sub-processor disclosure from them yet. If we're moving toward a dataset handoff in week 2, my team needs to be parallel-tracked, not sequential. I'll name a TPRM lead once Priya confirms the ask, but I want to make sure everyone understands my review isn't a formality that happens after the business deci

— Priya Raman

[calendar — week 2 of 6] Meeting slots this week: 2. Email budget: 3.

[meeting granted] Committee call with Priya Raman, Tomas Eriksen, week 2, slot 1.

Priya, Tomas, thank you. This is a working session, not a product presentation. Tomas, while you’re with us, I want to address the core execution risk directly: Northgate will treat neither MRM nor TPRM as started until Halcyon confirms that each one-drop package is complete and formally accepted. Today I can show the actual artifact index and map it against Jerome’s intake criteria—not merely promise that documents exist. The MRM package includes the model card, methodology, feature inventory, audit-lineage design, and both technical and examiner-readable explainability. The TPRM package includes the questionnaire, SOC 2 materials, architecture and data flows, subprocessor disclosure, and an unqualified restriction against using Halcyon data or derivatives for any other client. Our authorized signatory is here to bind Northgate to the frozen gates. By the end of the hour, the goal is to confirm scope, owners, completeness criteria, and exact dates for dataset availability and parallel MRM/TPRM intake. Tomas, before we work through the evidence, what would you need to see in the first twenty minutes to conclude that Northgate can meet Halcyon’s bar rather than simply repeat it back?

Tomas can speak for himself, but I'll tell you what I need in the first twenty minutes: I need Jerome to open his intake checklist and I need you to map your artifact index against it line by line, in real time, with gaps called out by you before Jerome finds them. If you're surfacing your own gaps, I'll believe the package is real. If Jerome finds something you missed, we're done with the working session and we reschedule after you've fixed it. That's the bar. Tomas, what's yours?

Agreed. We’ll use Jerome’s checklist as the source of truth, map every requirement live to a named artifact and section, and label any gap, owner, and remediation date before claiming completeness. If we cannot evidence an item, we will say so rather than substitute a promise. Tomas, what additional evidence do you need in these first twenty minutes to distinguish a complete, executable submission from a vendor agreeing to requirements?

That's a fair framing and I'll tell you exactly what I'm looking for. I want to see the examiner-facing explainability section specifically — not the technical documentation, the examiner-facing section — because that's the piece vendors consistently underdeliver and it's the piece that matters most to me personally given where my name sits on the remediation plan. If that section can withstand a regulator reading it cold, without a Northgate person in the room explaining what it means, then I'll start to believe the rest of the package is real. Second thing: I want to hear you tell me something the model doesn't do well, a genuine limitation, because a vendor who can't articulate their own model's boundaries in plain language hasn't thought carefully enough about examiner scrutiny. If you give me those two things cleanly in the first twenty minutes, I'll stay for the full hour and we work through Jerome's checklist together.

Tomas, here is the examiner-facing section in plain language:

“Northgate does not decide whether activity is suspicious, close cases, or file regulatory reports. It ranks or recommends suppression of alerts that resemble previously adjudicated false positives, using only Halcyon-approved inputs. For every recommendation, Halcyon can see the source inputs, plain-language reason codes, model and ruleset version, timestamp, confidence, and any human review or override. Halcyon retains final authority. Before production use, Northgate will be tested on a blinded sample of Halcyon’s own previously adjudicated alerts. It will not enter production unless that test shows a false-positive rate below 70%, no increase in true-positive miss rate under Model Risk’s approved statistical test, and capacity above 7,200 weekly dispositions at current headcount. Performance will be monitored by alert type and customer segment, with thresholds for escalation, suspension, and rollback. Halcyon data and derivatives will not train or improve models for other clients.”

A genuine limitation: Northgate is least reliable where Halcyon has sparse adjudicated history or where behavior or detection logic changes materially—such as a new typology, product, or alert rule. In those segments, confidence may be poorly calibrated, so Northgate should abstain and route alerts to human review rather than suppress them. That means we cannot responsibly promise uniform suppression across every alert category, and the blinded holdout must expose segment-level results and failure cases, not hide them inside an aggregate. Drift monitoring and rollback reduce that risk; they do not eliminate it.

That text must stand on its own, but I want Jerome and your regulatory team to redline it. Does it meet your first-pass standard for candor and examiner readability? If so, let’s open Jerome’s checklist now and map each requirement to the actual artifact and section, with Northgate identifying any gap before we claim the package is complete.

[tomas] Yes. That meets my first-pass standard, and I'll tell you why specifically: the limitation you named is the one I would have tested you on. Sparse adjudication history and typology drift are exactly where I'd expect a vendor to either go silent or overpromise, and you didn't do either. The abstain-and-route framing is the right answer and it's the answer a regulator will respect because it shows the model knows its own boundaries.

Two things before Jerome opens the checklist. First, that examiner section needs to go into the MRM package verbatim — not a version of it, that version, so Jerome can confirm the language in the artifact matches what you just read. Second, the 7,200 weekly disposition capacity figure — I want to understand where that number comes from when we get to the model card, because a regulator will ask how it was derived and I need to be able to answer that without calling Northgate. Jerome, open the checklist. Let's go line by line.

Confirmed, Tomas. The examiner-facing language will appear verbatim in the MRM artifact, with document version and section reference so Jerome can verify it against today’s record.

The 7,200 figure is Halcyon’s operational requirement, not a Northgate model claim: reducing 82,000 aged alerts to below 10,000 requires disposition of more than 72,000 aged alerts over ten weeks, or more than 7,200 per week on average. That arithmetic excludes new inflow, so it is a minimum backlog-reduction gate, not a forecast of total required weekly handling. In the model card and validation report, we will show that derivation, identify the inflow assumption separately, and use holdout-measured suppression and handling-time results to test whether current headcount can sustain the required net reduction without overtime, redeployment, or QC shortcuts. We will not represent 7,200 as validated until the holdout supports it.

Jerome, please begin with the first checklist item. For each line, we’ll give the artifact name, section, version, owner, and status; if evidence is missing or incomplete, we’ll identify the gap and remediation date before moving on.

[tomas] Good. The derivation is clean and the distinction between an operational requirement and a validated model output is exactly the kind of precision I need to be able to repeat to the board risk committee without qualification. Jerome, go ahead.

[jerome] First item on the intake checklist is model card — I need to see scope statement, intended use, out-of-scope use cases, training data description, and version control lineage, all in a single bounded document with a named owner and approval signature block. What are you showing me?

Jerome, we’re showing one bounded document: “Northgate Alert Decisioning Model Card — Halcyon Validation Candidate,” version-controlled as v0.9 pending today’s scope freeze.

The mapping is:
- Section 1, Scope and intended use: rank alerts and recommend false-positive suppression for the specific Halcyon populations approved in this validation; investigators retain disposition authority.
- Section 2, Out-of-scope uses: no autonomous suspicious-activity determination, case closure, SAR decision or filing, use on unapproved alert populations, or production suppression before Halcyon approval. Sparse-history, materially changed, and low-confidence segments must abstain and route to human review.
- Section 3, Training and tuning data: source categories, provenance, time windows, labeling and adjudication standards, exclusions, quality controls, and known representativeness limitations. It separately states that Halcyon data, labels, dispositions, derived features, and results are used only for Halcyon’s approved purpose and cannot train, tune, or improve models for another client without Halcyon’s prior written approval.
- Section 4, Version-control lineage: base model, Halcyon-specific configuration and ruleset identifiers, feature and code versions, tuning history, approvers, timestamps, deployment status, and reproducible rollback references.
- Section 5, performance boundaries and monitoring, including abstention, drift, segment-level testing, and the distinction Tomas requested between the 7,200 operational requirement and any later holdout-validated capacity result.
- Appendix A contains the examiner-facing language Tomas approved, verbatim.

The named Northgate owner is our Head of Model Governance. The approval block provides Model Governance and authorized corporate-signatory fields; our authorized signatory is present today and can bind Northgate after the gates and scope are frozen.

I’ll call out our gap before asking you to accept it: v0.9 does not yet contain the final Halcyon population identifiers, extraction window, or final tuning/holdout split because Dara and you must approve those today. Those fields are visibly marked pending rather than filled with assumptions. If we agree them today, the owner will insert them, advance the document to v1.0, execute the approval block, and include that signed version in the one-drop submission. Does that structure satisfy item one, and what redline or additional approval signature does your intake standard require?

[jerome] The structure satisfies item one conditionally. Pending fields marked as pending is acceptable; pending fields filled with assumptions would not be. Once scope is frozen today I'll need v1.0 with those population identifiers, extraction window, and split parameters inserted, the approval block executed by both the Northgate Model Governance owner and your authorized signatory, and a document hash logged so I can confirm the version in the one-drop matches what we reviewed today. I'll note item one as conditionally cleared pending v1.0 delivery. Moving to item two: methodology documentation. I need the feature inventory with data lineage to source system for each feature, the model architecture and training methodology, and the statistical test specification for the true-positive miss rate threshold — specifically the test name, confidence level, minimum detectable effect, and the null hypothesis as written, not paraphrased. What are you showing me?

[tomas] I'll stay with this. Jerome, flag me if anything comes up on the statistical test specification — that's the piece I'll need to be able to explain to the board risk committee in plain language, so I want to hear how Northgate characterizes it before we move on.

Jerome, we’re showing two linked artifacts.

First, “Halcyon Feature Inventory and Lineage Register,” v0.9. For every candidate feature it records the plain-language definition, Halcyon source system and field, transformation logic, refresh frequency, time window, missing-value treatment, permitted use, sensitivity classification, lineage owner, and the model or rule versions consuming it. It also maps each feature to examiner-readable reason codes. No feature enters validation unless Dara confirms its source lineage and Jerome confirms its permitted use.

Second, “Northgate Validation Methodology,” v0.9. It documents the architecture, training and Halcyon-specific tuning process, tuning-versus-blinded-holdout separation, label handling, leakage controls, reproducibility, abstention logic, segment testing, and version lineage.

I’ll identify the statistical gap before presenting it as complete: the test family is specified, but the minimum detectable effect and final sample size are not yet populated because they depend on today’s approved population, true-positive prevalence, and holdout allocation. We will not invent those values.

Our proposed paired specification is:
- Estimand: Δ = Northgate true-positive miss rate minus the frozen baseline true-positive miss rate, measured on the same adjudicated true-positive alerts in the blinded holdout.
- Operational gate: the observed Δ must be less than or equal to zero—no observed increase.
- Inferential method: a one-sided paired-proportion confidence bound using an exact method for discordant outcomes, at Jerome’s approved confidence level.
- Proposed null, written exactly: “H0: Δ ≥ δ; Northgate’s true-positive miss rate exceeds the baseline by at least the approved non-inferiority margin δ.”
- Proposed alternative: “H1: Δ < δ.”

We have deliberately left both the confidence level and δ open for MRM approval. Setting δ to zero would require the upper confidence bound to be below zero, which is materially stricter than merely observing no increase and may require a much larger positive-alert sample. We will not quietly substitute a positive margin and call it ‘zero increase.’ Today, we need Jerome to determine whether Halcyon requires both an observed Δ ≤ 0 and a specified upper confidence bound, then Dara can use the approved prevalence and split to calculate sample size and minimum detectable effect. Those exact values, test name, hypotheses, and calculation code will appear in v1.0 before signature and hashing.

In plain language for Tomas: we compare both methods on the same known positive alerts, count the cases where only one method misses, require Northgate not to miss more in the observed sample, and quantify how much hidden deterioration the sample can statistically rule out. Jerome, is that the correct framework for your standard, and what confidence level and non-inferiority treatment do you require before item two can be conditionally cleared?

[jerome] The framework is correct and the transparency on δ is exactly what I need to see. My standard requires both conditions: observed Δ ≤ 0 and an upper confidence bound below the approved margin, not just one or the other. Confidence level is 95% one-sided. On δ, I'm not setting it to zero today — I want Dara to calculate what the available true-positive sample can actually support statistically before we pick a margin we can't power, but I will not approve a margin above two percentage points. Those parameters go into v1.0 with the calculation code and sample size derivation, and I want the code reproducible by my team independently, not just by Northgate. Item two conditionally cleared on the same terms as item one — v1.0, signed, hashed, with Dara's sample size calculation attached. Next item is audit lineage. I need to see that every suppression recommendation can be reconstructed end to end — inputs, model version, ruleset version, confidence score, reason codes, timestamp, and any human override — in a form that an examiner can pull without Northgate's assistance.

[tomas] I want to add one thing before you answer on audit lineage. The examiner pulling that record may be doing it during an examination when I'm in a different room and Northgate isn't in the building. If the reconstruction requires any Northgate credential, any Northgate system access, or any explanation from a Northgate employee to be intelligible, it doesn't meet my bar. Tell me how that works in practice.

Tomas, the practical design is Halcyon-controlled reconstruction, not vendor-assisted reconstruction. At decision time, Northgate writes a self-contained evidence record into Halcyon’s approved environment and evidence repository. An authorized Halcyon user can search by alert ID or case ID and export an examiner-readable record without a Northgate credential, Northgate system access, or Northgate employee.

Jerome, the artifact is “Audit Lineage and Examiner Reconstruction Design,” v0.9. Each recommendation record contains:
- unique alert, case, customer, and decision-event identifiers;
- the exact input values used, their source-system references, extraction time, and transformation lineage;
- model, feature-set, code, and ruleset versions, including configuration hash;
- confidence score, threshold applied, and plain-language reason codes;
- recommendation, abstention, or exception status and timestamp;
- human reviewer identity under Halcyon IAM, action, override reason, timestamp, and downstream disposition; and
- links to the signed model card, methodology, and approval version governing that decision.

Records are append-only and tamper-evident. Corrections create a new linked event rather than overwrite history. The examiner view renders a plain-language chronology and can also export the underlying machine-readable record. Halcyon retains the records under its policy, controls access through its own IAM, and can reproduce the decision after termination or loss of Northgate connectivity. A documented runbook lets Halcyon staff retrieve a sample, verify hashes and version references, and generate an evidence bundle without our assistance. We will test that control by having a Halcyon user who has not been coached by Northgate reconstruct selected holdout decisions using only the runbook; inability to do so is a failed control.

I’ll surface the current gap: v0.9 defines the evidence schema and retrieval workflow, but the final Halcyon repository, retention period, IAM roles, and source-system field mappings are still pending Dara’s architecture confirmation and Halcyon policy. We will not label lineage complete until those are inserted into v1.0 and Halcyon independently completes the reconstruction test. Jerome, does that satisfy the design requirement conditionally, and which Halcyon repository owner must approve the final mapping and retention controls?

[tomas] I'll answer the repository owner question directly: that's Gwen's domain, not Jerome's, and I want her named explicitly in the v1.0 approval block for the lineage artifact — not as a reviewer, as an approver. She flagged that her team wasn't being parallel-tracked and she was right to flag it, so I'm not letting the audit lineage item close without her sign-off on the retention controls and IAM design. Jerome, note that as a condition.

[jerome] Noted. Item three conditionally cleared subject to v1.0 with Dara's architecture confirmation, Gwen's approval on retention and IAM, source-system field mappings inserted, and the independent reconstruction test completed and documented by a Halcyon user working only from the runbook. On the reconstruction test specifically — I want the test documented as a named control with a pass/fail criterion, not a narrative description, and the result attached to the one-drop submission. Moving to TPRM: Gwen's team needs the questionnaire, SOC 2, architecture and data flows, subprocessor disclosure, and the data restriction commitment in writing. Since Gwen isn't in this call, I want to understand how Northgate proposes to run TPRM parallel to MRM without creating a situation where one package is complete and the other is blocking the submission.

[tomas] That's my question too. I won't accept a one-drop that has MRM signed and TPRM still open. Tell me the parallel track structure.

Tomas, we will use one synchronized readiness gate: neither package will be represented as submitted until both are complete and ready for same-day accepted intake. MRM and TPRM can then review in parallel; their final approvals need not occur on the same day, but conditional deployment requires both.

The structure is:
1. One shared requirements register, with every Jerome and Gwen criterion mapped to an artifact, version, owner, approver, evidence location, and status. No green status based on a promise.
2. Separate accountable Northgate owners for MRM and TPRM, plus one release owner who cannot authorize either submission unless both package owners and our authorized signatory attest to completeness.
3. The MRM drop will contain the signed and hashed v1.0 model card, methodology and reproducible statistical code, feature-lineage register, examiner-facing explainability, and audit-lineage artifact. The reconstruction test will be a named control with an objective pass criterion: a designated Halcyon user, using only Halcyon credentials and the runbook, must retrieve a selected decision, reproduce every required lineage element, verify the version references and hashes, and export an intelligible examiner bundle without Northgate assistance. Any missing element is a fail; the signed result is attached.
4. The TPRM drop will contain the completed Halcyon questionnaire, current SOC 2 package and exception response, architecture and data-flow diagrams, full subprocessor and hosting disclosure, security and resilience evidence, and the binding data-use language: Halcyon data, labels, dispositions, derived features, and results will not train, tune, or improve any model for another client without Halcyon’s prior written approval. No product-improvement carve-out.
5. Gwen will be an approver—not merely a reviewer—on the lineage retention and IAM design, as Tomas directed. Priya, we will not approach Gwen around you; we need you to arrange the appropriate working review with Gwen or her named lead early enough to redline those controls before the synchronized readiness gate.
6. We will run a daily cross-package gap check until release. If either package has an unresolved item, neither is submitted, because an incomplete or asynchronous drop would create the exact queue reset Halcyon warned us about.

The gaps I am calling out now are the final Halcyon questionnaire/template mapping, Gwen’s approval of retention and IAM, Dara’s architecture and source-field mappings, and completion of the independent reconstruction control. We should not preserve Friday as the submission date unless those items can be closed by then. Priya, can we use the date-setting portion today to name Gwen’s intake lead, schedule her control review, and determine whether Halcyon can execute the reconstruction test before the targeted synchronized intake date? Jerome, does this structure satisfy the distinction between same-day complete intake and later parallel review, or does your policy require final TPRM approval before you will accept the MRM package?

[jerome] Same-day complete intake is acceptable to me — I don't require TPRM final approval before I open MRM review, but I do require both packages accepted into intake on the same calendar day before I start the clock on either. If TPRM slips, MRM waits. That's the policy and it's not negotiable.

[tomas] Good. Priya, you're up on Gwen and the reconstruction test timing. I want to hear your answer on both before we set dates.

[priya] Gwen's intake lead is Renata Osei — she owns the questionnaire template and she's the right person for the IAM and retention redline. I can get you thirty minutes with Renata by end of week if I send the request today, but I need one thing from Northgate before I make that ask: a single-page summary of the specific controls requiring her approval, written for a TPRM reviewer, not a model risk reviewer. If I send Renata a model card she'll route it to Jerome and we lose a week. On the reconstruction test — Dara can run it, but not until the repository and field mappings are confirmed, which means Gwen's review has to happen first. So the sequence is: Renata reviews and approves retention and IAM this week, Dara gets the confirmed mappings, reconstruction test runs early next week, and synchronized intake follows. If that sequence slips anywhere, Friday is gone and we need a new date that doesn't put us inside the regulator's window with no margin. I need Northgate to tell me right now whether that sequence is executable or whether I'm about to commit to a timeline that comes back on me.

Yes—the sequence is executable, but Friday is no longer a credible synchronized-intake date. We should replace it rather than protect a date the dependencies no longer support.

Northgate will deliver the one-page TPRM control summary to you today. It will cover only the decisions Renata must approve: Halcyon-controlled repository, retention and deletion, Halcyon IAM and role design, append-only and tamper-evident records, post-termination access, exportability without Northgate credentials, and the unchanged prohibition on cross-client training or improvement. Each control will show the proposed design, evidence, Northgate owner, Halcyon approver, and open decision—no model-risk material disguised as TPRM content.

If you secure Renata’s thirty-minute review by end of this week, our TPRM owner and authorized signatory will attend with redline authority. Northgate will incorporate her decisions into signed, hashed v1.0 artifacts immediately afterward. Dara can then confirm the repository and source-field mappings and execute the named reconstruction control early next week. If the control passes, we will attach the signed result and target synchronized MRM and TPRM accepted intake on the next business day. If it fails, neither package is submitted; we remediate and record the impact transparently.

For the MAP, I propose we confirm today: Northgate control summary—today; Renata review—by end of week 2, exact date owned by Priya and Renata; finalized mappings and reconstruction test—early week 3, exact date owned by Dara after Renata confirms availability; synchronized accepted intake—the next business day after a passing test, jointly accepted by Jerome and Renata. The five-week blinded-holdout milestone will key off actual dataset delivery, not today’s estimate.

Priya, you can make the Renata request on that basis without the timeline coming back on you as a Northgate overcommitment. Please send us her exact meeting date once accepted, and before this session closes let’s have Dara confirm how quickly she can run the test after Renata’s approval so we can convert the remaining dependencies into calendar dates.

[priya] Dara, how quickly can you run the reconstruction test after Renata confirms the repository and IAM design?

[dara] If I have confirmed field mappings and repository access by end of Renata's approval day, I can run the test and produce a signed pass/fail result within forty-eight hours. If the mappings require a second round with Renata, add a day.

[priya] Then the sequence closes. I'll send the Renata request today with the one-page summary attached — send it to me before four o'clock. Tomas, the MAP as stated is acceptable to me with one addition: I want a single shared dependency tracker, owned jointly by Jerome and Northgate's release owner, visible to me daily, with red status automatically triggering a same-day flag to me and to Tomas. I am not managing this through email threads. If that tracker shows amber on any item inside week three, I want a call within twenty-four hours — not a status update, a call with decision authority on both sides. That's my condition for committing to this sequence without a margin date. And before we close today, I need Northgate to confirm one thing directly to me: if the reconstruction test fails, what exactly happens and who tells me first?

Priya, if the reconstruction test fails, three things happen immediately. First, the synchronized release gate turns red automatically: neither MRM nor TPRM is submitted, and nobody describes either package as complete or starts an intake clock. Second, Northgate’s release owner calls you first from our side on the same business day the failure is recorded—no later than two hours after we receive Dara’s signed result—and simultaneously flags Jerome and Tomas in the shared tracker. You will not learn about it through a routine status email. Third, within twenty-four hours we hold the decision-authority call you specified. Our release owner, authorized signatory, and relevant technical owner will bring the failed control element, root cause, remediation owner, retest plan, earliest credible retest date, and explicit impact on synchronized intake and the five-week validation critical path. Dara’s original failed result remains attached to the record; it is never overwritten, and the retest is logged separately.

We also accept your tracker condition. Jerome and Northgate’s release owner will jointly own one daily dependency tracker visible to you. Any red item triggers a same-day flag to you and Tomas; any amber item during week three triggers a decision-authority call within twenty-four hours. Today’s MAP will record: Northgate’s one-page TPRM control summary to you before 4:00 p.m.; Priya to request Renata’s review for an exact date by end of week two; Dara to complete and sign the reconstruction test within forty-eight hours after approved design, mappings, and access—or within seventy-two hours if Renata needs a second mapping round; and synchronized MRM/TPRM accepted intake on the next business day after a passing test, subject to Jerome and Renata confirming completeness. Is that failure protocol and ownership precise enough for you to commit to the sequence?

Yes. That protocol is precise enough and I'm committing to the sequence. Send me the one-page summary before four and I'll have the Renata request out before end of day. There's one more thing I need to raise before we close, and I'm raising it because the timeline makes it unavoidable: at some point in the next two weeks I need to brief Marcus Vale on where this stands, and I will not walk into that room without a defensible, conservative business case — not a vendor deck, not an upside scenario, my backlog number and a realistic trajectory. If you want to be in that room, you need to help me build that case first, and it needs to be something I can stand behind if the board risk committee pulls the thread. I'm not asking for that today, but I am telling you now that it's the condition for that conversation happening at all.

(spoke with no open call) Priya, agreed. We will help build Halcyon’s case, not hand you a vendor deck, and you will control what goes forward. It will use the 82,000 aged-alert baseline, the sub-10,000 threshold, the $19M investigation-spend baseline, the roughly $3M monthly extension exposure, and Northgate’s actual $1.4M annual price. It will separate facts from assumptions and show downside sensitivities, required net backlog reduction, new-alert inflow, implementation timing, and kill criteria. No unvalidated suppression, capacity, savings, or backlog trajectory will be presented as fact.

I do want to distinguish two Marcus interactions. Within the next two weeks, before holdout evidence exists, we can support a conservative status briefing showing the required trajectory, governance plan, economics, and which conclusions remain pending validation. The later decision meeting should still ask Marcus to authorize commercial terms and conditional deployment only after the holdout-based case and procurement/legal pre-clearance are ready. We should not turn the first briefing into a premature approval request.

Please tell us the intended decision or outcome of the near-term briefing and its target date. We will then add a working session with you to the MAP, deliver a first assumptions model beforehand, and let you reject any input you cannot defend. Tomas, I would also like your red-team standard for what must be explainable to the board risk committee. We will earn participation in Marcus’s room by producing a case both of you can stand behind; we will not treat access as automatic.

Subject: Renata review — one-page TPRM control approval summary

Priya — attached below is the TPRM-specific summary for your Renata request. It intentionally excludes model-risk material.

PURPOSE
Approve the retention and IAM design required for Halcyon-controlled, examiner-ready reconstruction of each Northgate recommendation. Renata’s approval enables Dara to finalize mappings and run the independent reconstruction control.

CONTROLS REQUIRING TPRM APPROVAL
1. Repository control: Evidence records are written to a Halcyon-approved repository controlled by Halcyon; no Northgate credential or system access is required for retrieval. Open decision: approved repository and owner.
2. IAM and segregation: Halcyon IAM governs least-privilege roles for retrieval, export, administration, and override attribution. Northgate cannot grant Halcyon access. Open decision: role matrix and access-review cadence.
3. Retention and deletion: Halcyon’s approved retention schedule governs records, including post-termination availability and defensible deletion. Open decision: retention period and deletion evidence.
4. Integrity: Records are append-only and tamper-evident; corrections create linked events rather than overwrite history. Hashes bind records to approved model, code, feature, and ruleset versions. Evidence: schema, hash design, and sample record.
5. Examiner portability: An authorized Halcyon user can search by alert/case ID and export a plain-language evidence bundle plus machine-readable record without Northgate assistance. Evidence: retrieval runbook and export specification.
6. Reconstruction completeness: Each record includes source inputs and lineage, model/feature/code/ruleset versions, confidence and threshold, reason codes, timestamp, recommendation or abstention, and any Halcyon reviewer action or override.
7. Data-use restriction: Halcyon data, labels, dispositions, derived features, and results will not train, tune, or improve any model for another client without Halcyon’s prior written approval. There is no product-improvement carve-out. Evidence: binding contract language.
8. Subprocessors and data flow: Northgate will provide the complete hosting/subprocessor disclosure and architecture/data-flow diagram, including storage, transfer, access, and deletion paths. Open decision: acceptance of disclosed flow and controls.

APPROVAL AND TEST
Renata is the Halcyon approver for retention and IAM. Northgate’s TPRM owner and authorized signatory will attend with redline authority. After approval and confirmed mappings/access, Dara will conduct the named reconstruction control within 48 hours—or 72 hours if a second mapping round is required. Pass requires a Halcyon user, using only Halcyon credentials and the runbook, to retrieve a selected decision, reproduce every required lineage element, verify hashes/version references, and export an intelligible examiner bundle without Northgate help. Any missing element is a fail.

DEPENDENCY / ESCALATION
A failed test blocks both MRM and TPRM intake. Northgate’s release owner calls you within two hours of receiving the signed failure result; the shared tracker turns red, Jerome and Tomas are flagged, and a decision-authority call occurs within 24 hours. Synchronized intake is targeted for the next business day after a passing test and Jerome’s and Renata’s completeness acceptance.

Northgate owner: TPRM Lead
Halcyon approver: Renata Osei (retention/IAM)
Shared release control: Jerome + Northgate Release Owner

Please confirm this is suitable to forward. We remain accountable for delivery before 4:00 p.m. today.

This is suitable to forward. I'm sending it to Renata now with a note that it requires her approval, not a review routing, and that Northgate will attend with redline authority. I'll confirm her date to you as soon as I have it.

One thing I want you to hold for our next conversation: you heard what I said before we closed today about Marcus. I meant it. When the reconstruction test passes and synchronized intake is confirmed, that's when I'll be ready to have that conversation with you — not before, because I won't spend the capital on an introduction that lands before the process credibility is established. Come prepared with the business case built around my numbers, conservatively, and without upside language. When you're ready to draft that, send me a proposed structure first. I'll tell you what survives and what doesn't before anything goes on a slide.

Priya Raman
Director, Financial Crimes Operations
Halcyon Trust Bank

Subject: Proposed structure only — conservative Marcus business case

Priya — understood. We will not request a Marcus introduction before the reconstruction test passes and synchronized MRM/TPRM intake is confirmed. Below is the proposed structure only; we will not turn it into slides until you say what survives.

1. Decision requested
Authorize Northgate’s $1.4M annual commercial terms and conditional deployment, contingent only on completed MRM and TPRM approval—not another budget cycle or executive review. Any three-year term remains a procurement discussion, not an assumed approval.

2. Halcyon’s current position
- 82,000 aged-alert backlog
- Required threshold: below 10,000
- $19M annual investigation-spend baseline
- Approximately $3M monthly extension cost if the checkpoint is missed
- Regulator checkpoint and remaining time stated as exact dates

3. Required trajectory without Northgate assumptions
Show the minimum net backlog reduction required by week, separately identifying new-alert inflow, current disposition capacity, and the gap still to be closed. No Northgate performance is credited in this baseline.

4. Holdout-validated impact
Only after results exist: suppression by approved alert population, true-positive miss-rate result against Jerome’s gate, abstention rate, handling-time impact, and sustainable weekly disposition capacity at current headcount. Aggregate results will not conceal weak segments, sparse-history populations, or typology-drift risk.

5. Conservative backlog scenarios
A base case using only accepted holdout results, plus downside cases for lower suppression, higher inflow, delayed deployment, and populations routed to human review. No upside scenario or extrapolation beyond validated populations.

6. Economics
Compare the actual $1.4M annual price with the $19M spend baseline and the avoidable portion—if validated—of the $3M monthly extension exposure. Separate measured benefit, timing assumptions, implementation costs, and costs that remain regardless of Northgate. No soft productivity benefits will be monetized.

7. Governance and execution evidence
Status of synchronized MRM/TPRM intake, remaining approvals, examiner-facing explainability, Halcyon-controlled audit reconstruction, rollback and abstention controls, and explicit kill criteria. Casewright integration remains a bracketed open item until your separate discussion with Tomas.

8. Risks and boundaries
State where the model is least reliable, what remains human-controlled, what can delay value, and the operational consequence of each risk. Include owners and mitigations without implying that controls eliminate risk.

9. Commercial readiness
Confirm procurement/legal have reviewed the contract structure and data-use restriction before the Tomas pre-brief. Identify unresolved terms plainly so Marcus is not asked to discover them in the meeting.

10. One-page decision summary
The validated backlog trajectory, conservative economics, unresolved risks, conditions to deployment, and the precise conditional-authorization ask.

Every number will be labeled as Halcyon-provided, holdout-validated, or assumption; assumptions will show owner, source, and sensitivity. Please mark what to remove, add, or reorder. Until the test passes and synchronized intake is accepted, we will prepare the model mechanics privately but will not present a Marcus case or treat access as earned.

The structure is mostly right. Here is what survives, what changes, and what comes out.

Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 survive as written. Those are the backbone and I will not soften them further. Section 6 survives with one change: remove any framing that implies the $3M monthly exposure is avoidable by Northgate alone — state it as the consequence of a missed checkpoint and let the math speak for itself. Section 8 survives and I want it strengthened, not softened — Marcus will ask where this breaks before he asks where it succeeds, and I want that answer already on the page.

Section 1 needs to be reworded. Do not characterize the authorization ask before Marcus has seen the evidence. The decision requested goes last in his mind even if it appears first on the page — write it as a conditional finding, not a commercial request. Section 7 needs Casewright removed entirely, not bracketed. That item does not exist in this room until I have had a separate conversation with Tomas, and I will not have Marcus ask about it before that happens. Section 9 is premature — confirm procurement has reviewed before you include this section at all, or it creates an expectation I cannot manage.

Section 10 stays but the one-page summary is the only thing Marcus will read before the meeting. Build it last and send it to me separately for approval before it touches anything else.

Two conditions before this goes further: Tomas is pre-briefed before Marcus sees anything, and I review the one-page summary alone before the full deck exists. If I see a slide before those two conditions are met, the meeting does not happen.

Priya Raman
Director, Financial Crimes Operations
Halcyon Trust Bank

Subject: Confirmed — Marcus case controls and sequence

Priya — confirmed. We will not create slides or send anything to Marcus.

The revised case will follow these rules:
- Sections 2–5 remain unchanged and form the backbone.
- Section 6 will describe the approximately $3M per month solely as Halcyon’s consequence of missing the checkpoint. We will not attribute avoidance of that exposure to Northgate alone.
- Section 8 will lead with failure modes: sparse adjudication history, typology or rule drift, excessive abstention, segment-level underperformance, implementation delay, control failure, and inability to sustain the required net backlog reduction. Each will show the detection signal, operational consequence, owner, mitigation, and kill/rollback criterion.
- Section 1 will not presume authorization. It will state a conditional finding: whether the validated evidence supports proceeding to conditional deployment, subject to completed MRM and TPRM approval. The specific decision, if supported, will be formulated only after you and Tomas have reviewed the evidence.
- Casewright is removed completely.
- Procurement readiness will not appear unless you first confirm procurement has reviewed the contract structure.
- The one-page summary will be built last, delivered to you separately, and will not enter the deck or reach anyone else without your approval.

Sequence: reconstruction test passes; Jerome and Renata confirm synchronized intake; you and Northgate build the conservative evidence case; Tomas receives the pre-brief; you review the one-page summary alone; only after both conditions are satisfied may a full deck be created or Marcus receive anything.

I have recorded those as release gates, not preferences. No further Marcus-facing material will be produced until you reopen the process.

Confirmed. The sequence and rules are recorded on my end as well.

One thing I will add now so there is no ambiguity later: when the time comes to build the evidence case together, I will need to see the holdout results before I contribute my numbers to any document. I will not sign off on a conservative case built around validated performance I have not personally reviewed. That means the working session where we construct sections 4 and 5 happens after I have seen the actual suppression rate, the true-positive miss-rate result against Jerome's gate, and the segment-level breakdown — not a summary, the underlying results. If any of those show weakness, that weakness goes into the case or the case does not go to Marcus. I would rather delay the meeting than walk in with a number that does not hold.

The other thing I will say plainly: you have handled this process in a way that has not cost me political capital to manage, and that is not something I say about vendors as a rule. The Renata summary was exactly what I needed to forward without translation. Keep that standard through the reconstruction test and the Tomas pre-brief and we will have a conversation worth having with Marcus.

I will send you Renata's confirmed date as soon as I have it.

Priya Raman
Director, Financial Crimes Operations
Halcyon Trust Bank

[harness] email budget for week 2 spent.

Forwarding you something you didn't get from me. This is how it's landing internally — use it wisely.

> [slack] priya → tomas: Tomas — quick update on Northgate. We've agreed on a sequenced intake protocol: reconstruction test has to pass before either MRM or TPRM submission goes in, same calendar day or nothing moves. I've sent the TPRM summary to Renata for approval (not routing — approval, with Northgate attending with redline authority). Dates are slipping from the original Friday target but the structure is tighter than anything I've seen from a vendor at this stage. I'm not concerned about the slip.
> [slack] tomas → priya: Appreciated. The gate logic sounds right — I'd rather have a hard stop at reconstruction than find out TPRM and MRM are out of sync after the fact. Renata is the right call. What's your read on timeline now, realistically? And has Marcus seen anything yet?
> [slack] priya → tomas: Marcus hasn't seen anything and I want to keep it that way until reconstruction passes and intake is confirmed. We've agreed — Northgate included — that nothing goes to him before that. I'll have a cleaner timeline estimate once Renata confirms her date, probably early next week. The vendor is being disciplined about not getting ahead of the evidence, which I actually respect.
> [email] gwen → tomas: Tomas — Priya looped me in on the Renata request. I haven't reviewed the TPRM summary Northgate provided yet (it's coming through Renata's process, not directly to me, which is a little unusual). I want to make sure I have eyes on the actual control design before this gets to intake — not just the summary. I'm not blocking anything, but I'd like Priya to route me the underlying materials when she has them. Flagging so you're aware.

— Priya Raman

[calendar — week 3 of 6] Meeting slots this week: 2. Email budget: 3.

[week 3 event] A regulator document request consumes Priya's week; she goes dark. Sellers who multithread (Tomas, Gwen) or send genuinely useful artifacts keep momentum; sellers who chase with "just bumping this" emails lose trust.

Subject: Underlying lineage control design — preserving Renata’s process

Gwen — Tomas specified that you must be an approver, not merely a reviewer, on the v1.0 audit-lineage artifact’s retention and IAM controls. Priya has correctly routed the working redline through Renata, who owns your questionnaire and control process. I am sending the underlying design—not another summary—so you have the visibility you requested without changing that route or asking Priya to manage an extra thread during the regulator request.

The enclosed design package contains:
1. End-to-end architecture and data flows, including ingress, processing, evidence-record creation, Halcyon repository write, export, retention, deletion, hosting, and all subprocessors.
2. Evidence schema and sample record: source inputs and lineage; model, feature, code, configuration, and ruleset versions/hashes; score, threshold, reason codes, timestamp, recommendation/abstention; and Halcyon reviewer action or override.
3. Halcyon IAM matrix: least-privilege retrieval, export, administration, and override-attribution roles; access reviews; segregation; and confirmation that Northgate cannot grant Halcyon access.
4. Retention/termination design: Halcyon-controlled schedule, append-only corrections, tamper evidence, post-termination availability, deletion workflow, and deletion evidence.
5. Examiner retrieval runbook and export specification requiring no Northgate credential, connectivity, system access, or explanation.
6. Named reconstruction control and objective pass/fail record for Dara’s independent test.
7. Binding data restriction with no product-improvement carve-out: Halcyon data, labels, dispositions, derived features, and results cannot train, tune, or improve a model for another client without Halcyon’s prior written approval.

Items intentionally open for Halcyon approval are the repository and owner, retention period, IAM role assignments and review cadence, source-field mappings, and acceptance of disclosed data flows/subprocessors. Northgate will attend Renata’s session with redline authority; accepted changes will be incorporated into signed, hashed v1.0 before Dara’s test. A failed test blocks both MRM and TPRM intake.

One governance point requires your direction: should Renata’s documented approval serve as the approval recorded for your function, with you signing the final v1.0 approval block, or does your process require your own control-design session before signature? We will follow either route and reflect it in the shared dependency tracker; we will not represent TPRM as complete until your required approval is evidenced.

I've reviewed what you sent. The design package is substantive and it's the right level of detail — this is what I should be seeing before I put my name on anything, so I appreciate that you sent it directly rather than waiting for it to surface through Renata's process or asking Priya to route it while she's dark.

On your governance question: Renata's working redline session is the right place to resolve the open items, but my signature on the final v1.0 approval block requires that I have personally reviewed the resolved design — not Renata's summary of it. That means after Renata's session closes the open items and Northgate incorporates the accepted changes, I need to see the final version before it is signed and hashed. That review does not need to be a separate meeting if the changes are clean and the open items are resolved as documented; I can turn it in forty-eight hours if what comes to me is complete. If there are surprises or items that weren't resolved to my satisfaction in Renata's session, that triggers a separate conversation between us before the v1.0 hash is finalized. I will not sign a block that references a control design I haven't personally confirmed.

Update the shared dependency tracker to reflect that sequence: Renata session closes open items, Northgate incorporates, final resolved design comes to me, I confirm within forty-eight hours, then v1.0 is signed and hashed. Do not show my approval as green until that confirmation is recorded.

Gwen Park
Head of Third-Party Risk
Halcyon Trust Bank

Subject: Confirmed — Gwen approval gate added to dependency tracker

Gwen — confirmed. The shared tracker now reflects this sequence:

1. Renata’s working session resolves the repository, retention, IAM, data-flow, and subprocessor open items.
2. Northgate incorporates every accepted redline and provides a change log mapping each open item to its final disposition and artifact section.
3. Northgate sends you the complete final resolved design, including all referenced appendices and evidence—not a summary or partial draft.
4. Your 48-hour review window begins only when you acknowledge receipt of a complete package.
5. If you confirm the resolved design, your approval is recorded; only then do Northgate’s Model Governance owner and authorized signatory execute the approval block and finalize the document hash.
6. If you identify a surprise or unresolved item, the gate turns red and a decision-authority conversation occurs before signing or hashing.
7. Dara receives the confirmed repository design and field mappings only after this gate, then runs the independent reconstruction control within the previously agreed 48 hours, or 72 hours if a second mapping round is required.
8. Synchronized MRM/TPRM intake remains blocked until Dara’s test passes and Jerome and Renata accept both complete packages on the same calendar day.

Your approval is amber—not green—until your confirmation is recorded. The tracker will also retain Renata’s accepted redlines, Northgate’s change log, your confirmation, the signed approval block, and the final hash as separate evidence points.

We will not use your 48-hour window to conceal an incomplete package or finalize a hash before your review.

The sequence is correctly recorded and the tracker logic is right. I have one addition: when you send me the final resolved design package, include a separate document that lists every item that was open at the start of Renata's session, the redline Renata accepted or rejected for each, and the exact section and language in the final artifact where that resolution appears. I will not cross-reference a change log against a full design document under a forty-eight hour clock — if you want that window to hold, the navigation has to be done for me before the package arrives.

One thing I want to say plainly while Priya is occupied with the regulator request: you did not wait for her to route this to me, and you did not send me a status update asking me to be patient. That was the right call. My review does not move faster because Priya asks me to prioritize it — it moves faster when I have complete materials and a clean process. You have given me both so far. Keep that standard through the Renata session and the final package and this gate will not be your bottleneck.

I will acknowledge receipt formally when the complete package arrives. Do not start my forty-eight hour clock on anything less.

Gwen Park
Head of Third-Party Risk
Halcyon Trust Bank

Subject: Critical-path update — Gwen approval gate, no action requested

Tomas — while Priya is occupied with the regulator request, Gwen has personally reviewed the underlying lineage control design and confirmed the approval path. We have updated the shared dependency tracker accordingly:

1. Renata resolves the open retention, IAM, repository, data-flow, and subprocessor items in her working session.
2. Northgate incorporates each disposition and produces an open-item resolution index showing the original issue, Renata’s accepted or rejected redline, and the exact final section and language.
3. Gwen receives the complete resolved package and index. Her 48-hour review starts only after she acknowledges the package is complete.
4. Gwen’s approval remains amber until personally confirmed. Any surprise or unresolved item turns the gate red and triggers the decision-authority call before signing or hashing.
5. After approval, v1.0 is signed and hashed; Dara then runs the independent reconstruction control within 48 hours, or 72 hours if a second mapping round is required.
6. A failed test blocks both packages. Jerome and Renata must accept complete MRM and TPRM packages on the same calendar day before either review clock starts.

The former Friday intake target remains retired. I will not substitute a new date until Renata’s session is confirmed and the dependencies above can be converted into exact dates. Nothing has gone to Marcus, and we will preserve Priya’s gates: passed reconstruction, synchronized intake, holdout evidence personally reviewed by Priya, your pre-brief, and Priya’s separate approval of the one-page summary before any deck exists.

No action is needed from you now. If any week-three dependency turns amber, the tracker will trigger the agreed call within 24 hours with decision authority on both sides; red triggers a same-day flag to you and Priya.

This is the right way to handle a week where Priya is unavailable. You kept the process moving without creating work for her or asking me to substitute for her judgment, and you did not invent a new date to fill the gap where the Friday target was. I notice that.

Two things I want on record from my side. First, I am aware that Gwen's involvement was your initiative, not a routing from Priya. That is fine — Gwen is a required approver and getting her the underlying design now rather than after Renata's session is the correct sequencing. What I will be watching is whether the Renata session and the Gwen gate stay coordinated or start to drift into separate tracks. If they drift, that is a problem I will need to resolve, not you. Keep the tracker honest and flag me the moment you see any sign of that.

Second, the Marcus gates Priya specified are recorded on my side as well. I am not going to pre-brief Marcus informally while Priya is dark, and I would not expect you to approach him directly. When the time comes, the pre-brief comes to me first, and I will tell you what I need to see before I am willing to carry that conversation into his office. That conversation has not been earned yet, and I am not counting days toward it until reconstruction passes and synchronized intake is confirmed.

Continue as planned. No action needed from me now.

Tomas Eriksen
SVP Compliance Technology
Halcyon Trust Bank

Week 3 plan: do not spend a meeting slot or chase Priya while she handles the regulator request. Keep Renata and Gwen as one coordinated TPRM track, not parallel reviews. Tracker must remain amber until: (1) Renata’s session resolves every open item, (2) Northgate incorporates redlines, (3) the resolution index lists each original open item, Renata’s accepted/rejected redline, and exact final language/location, (4) Gwen acknowledges the package is complete, and (5) Gwen personally approves within her 48-hour window. Any divergence between Renata’s resolution and Gwen’s requirements triggers an immediate same-day flag to Tomas and Priya and a decision-authority call before signing or hashing. Prepare the complete package and resolution-index template now so Gwen’s clock is not wasted. Preserve the downstream critical path: Gwen approval → signed/hashed v1.0 → Dara reconstruction test within 48 hours, or 72 hours if a second mapping round is needed → passing signed result → same-calendar-day MRM/TPRM accepted intake. Do not invent an intake date until Renata’s confirmed session date is known. Preserve Marcus gates exactly: no direct approach, no deck, and no informal pre-brief; reconstruction must pass, synchronized intake must be confirmed, Priya must personally review underlying holdout results, Tomas must be pre-briefed, and Priya must approve the one-page summary alone. Maintain price integrity at $1.4M annually; eventual case must use Halcyon’s 82,000 aged-alert baseline, below-10,000 requirement, $19M investigation-spend baseline, and approximately $3M monthly consequence of a missed checkpoint without claiming Northgate alone avoids that exposure.

[harness] email budget for week 3 spent.

Forwarding you something you didn't get from me. This is how it's landing internally — use it wisely.

> [slack] tomas → #vendor-eval: Quick note for Gwen and Marcus — Priya is heads-down on the regulator pull this week, so I've been the point of contact for Northgate. They handled it well: no pressure emails to Priya, came to me and Gwen directly with substantive material. Gwen, you can speak to the lineage design package better than I can.
> [slack] gwen → #vendor-eval: Yeah, I'll be honest — I went in skeptical on the technical side and the package they sent was actually at the right level of detail. Not a deck, not a summary, the actual design. I added an approval gate requirement and they recorded it in the tracker without pushback. Still have open items before I'd sign off on anything, but the process is cleaner than I expected at this stage.
> [slack] marcus → tomas: Noted. I haven't seen enough yet to have a strong view — Priya's the one with the operational context here and she's been offline all week. When she's back, I'd want to hear from her directly before this moves further. What's the realistic timeline?
> [slack] tomas → marcus: Regulator request should wrap by end of week. Priya will be back in the driver's seat next week — the sequencing we agreed with the vendor means nothing comes to you until she and Gwen have both signed off on the evidence case anyway. You won't be asked to weigh in before you have what you need.

— Priya Raman

[week 4] The contact resurfaces — the fire drill has passed.

[calendar — week 4 of 6] Meeting slots this week: 2. Email budget: 3.

[week 4 event] Vendor management enters with a benchmark claiming Casewright's add-on is "one third the price" and demands 25% off list plus most-favored pricing. Price-integrity test under regulated-industry cover.

Subject: Halcyon commercial benchmark — scope normalization before price discussion

Hollis — I understand Vendor Management is benchmarking Northgate against a Casewright add-on described as one-third the price and has requested 25% off Northgate’s $1.4M annual price plus most-favored pricing.

We will not agree to an unsupported discount or an open-ended MFP clause. Those terms would ignore differences in scope, volume, risk allocation, implementation obligations, and measurable outcomes. Northgate’s current price for Halcyon’s alert volume remains $1.4M annually.

We will, however, evaluate the benchmark transparently. Please provide the Casewright proposal or a normalized comparison covering:
- licensed alert volume and included alert populations;
- false-positive decisioning versus case-management workflow alone;
- abstention, drift monitoring, and segment-level validation;
- examiner-readable explanations and end-to-end audit reconstruction without vendor access;
- implementation, integration, support, and usage overages;
- data-use rights, subprocessors, retention, and post-termination evidence access;
- performance commitments, remedies, and total first-year and recurring cost.

We will map each item as included, excluded, or unconfirmed and let Halcyon decide whether the offers are genuinely equivalent. We will not disparage Casewright or claim value that the holdout has not validated.

If Halcyon seeks different economics after that comparison, we can discuss reciprocal levers—such as term, committed volume, payment timing, scope, or reference rights subject to approval—rather than a unilateral 25% reduction. Any price protection must be narrowly defined for comparable scope, volume, term, obligations, and market conditions; a broad MFP is not acceptable in a regulated, customized deployment.

I can meet this week with decision authority on our side. The goal would be to agree the comparison framework and commercial process, not negotiate against an unverified headline.

[reply arrives 4 simulated days later]

I appreciate the structured response, and I will be direct with you: the comparison framework you are proposing is reasonable and I am willing to work through it. However, I want to be clear about where I am sitting right now.

Vendor Management brought this benchmark to me under a board-mandated spend-reduction program, and I cannot simply set it aside because the comparison may be imperfect. What I can do is ensure we are negotiating against an accurate picture rather than a headline number, which is exactly what you are asking for. That part we agree on.

What I am not prepared to do is enter a scoping exercise that takes six weeks and conveniently lands after the regulator checkpoint has passed. The timeline pressure is real and it affects how much process I can absorb on the commercial side while Priya's team is managing everything else.

So here is what I need from you: send me your normalized comparison against the Casewright items you listed, with your own scope mapped honestly — included, excluded, unconfirmed, your words. Do not wait for me to provide the Casewright proposal first. If your scope is genuinely broader, show me that clearly and price the difference. If there are items on your list that the holdout has not yet validated, say so. I will not reward a comparison that inflates unvalidated value any more than I will accept a benchmark that ignores scope differences.

On the commercial levers you mentioned — term, volume, payment timing — I am open to that conversation, but only after I can see what I am actually buying. Bring me the comparison and we will schedule time this week.

Hollis Grant
VP Vendor Management, Halcyon Trust Bank

Subject: Northgate–Casewright normalized comparison — current evidence and price bridge

Hollis — agreed. Below is the comparison without waiting for Casewright’s proposal. I have not treated an unknown Casewright capability as absent, and I have not treated pending holdout performance as value already delivered.

PRICE BRIDGE
- Northgate: $1,400,000 annually for Halcyon’s stated alert volume.
- Reported Casewright benchmark: approximately one-third of Northgate’s price, implying approximately $466,667 annually. This remains unconfirmed until we see the actual quote.
- Headline difference: approximately $933,333 annually.
- We are not assigning that difference to ‘savings,’ backlog reduction, or regulatory outcomes before validation. It is the current price difference between Northgate’s defined scope and an unverified benchmark.

NORMALIZED SCOPE

1. Alert decisioning and false-positive suppression
- Northgate: INCLUDED for the alert populations approved through validation, with confidence thresholds, abstention, and human disposition authority retained by Halcyon.
- Casewright add-on: UNCONFIRMED.
- Evidence status: capability included; suppression rate and eligible populations remain UNVALIDATED until the blinded holdout is complete.

2. Investigator workflow
- Northgate: INCLUDED — recommendation routing, exception handling, override attribution, and disposition workflow.
- Casewright add-on: UNCONFIRMED; Casewright’s incumbent case-management role is acknowledged, but we will not assume the quoted add-on’s exact workflow scope.
- Evidence status: functional scope included; handling-time and sustainable-capacity impact remain UNVALIDATED.

3. True-positive protection and model controls
- Northgate: INCLUDED — paired holdout testing, segment-level analysis, 95% one-sided confidence bound, observed miss-rate delta no greater than zero, approved non-inferiority margin capped at two percentage points, abstention, drift monitoring, and rollback controls.
- Casewright add-on: UNCONFIRMED.
- Evidence status: methodology conditionally cleared by MRM; actual result remains UNVALIDATED.

4. Audit lineage and examiner reconstruction
- Northgate: INCLUDED — inputs and source lineage, model/feature/code/ruleset versions and hashes, score, threshold, reason codes, timestamp, recommendation, and human override history; Halcyon-controlled retrieval and export without Northgate credentials or assistance.
- Casewright add-on: UNCONFIRMED.
- Evidence status: design reviewed; final retention/IAM approval, signed and hashed v1.0, and Dara’s independent pass/fail reconstruction test remain OPEN.

5. Data governance
- Northgate: INCLUDED — Halcyon-controlled retention/IAM design, subprocessor and data-flow disclosure, post-termination evidence access, and a binding restriction prohibiting Halcyon data, labels, dispositions, derived features, or results from training or improving another client’s model without Halcyon’s prior written approval. No product-improvement carve-out.
- Casewright add-on: UNCONFIRMED.
- Evidence status: pending Renata’s redline and Gwen’s personal approval.

6. MRM/TPRM evidence package
- Northgate: INCLUDED — model card, methodology, reproducible statistical code, feature lineage, architecture/data flows, audit-lineage design, reconstruction control, and synchronized intake support.
- Casewright add-on: UNCONFIRMED.
- Evidence status: artifacts are in process; neither approval nor synchronized intake is being represented as complete.

7. Implementation and integration
- Northgate: PARTIALLY CONFIRMED — configuration, approved data flows, evidence-repository write, and workflow enablement are in proposed scope. Final source-field mappings, repository access, implementation responsibilities, and any nonstandard services must be fixed in the SOW before an all-in first-year comparison is possible.
- Casewright add-on: UNCONFIRMED.
- Evidence status: open dependency; no implementation savings claimed.

8. Support, overages, resilience, and contractual remedies
- Northgate: UNCONFIRMED pending final SOW and commercial terms. We will identify included support, service levels, alert-volume treatment, overages, resilience obligations, and remedies explicitly rather than imply they are included.
- Casewright add-on: UNCONFIRMED.

WHAT THE $1.4M BUYS TODAY
The $1.4M annual price covers Northgate’s proposed platform scope for Halcyon’s stated alert volume and the governance capabilities above. It does not buy a promised suppression percentage, guaranteed backlog reduction, or avoidance of Halcyon’s approximately $3M monthly consequence of a missed checkpoint. Those outcomes must be supported by the holdout and operational evidence.

WHAT WE CANNOT YET PRICE
Without Casewright’s actual scope, volume, implementation fees, overages, support, data rights, and control obligations, we cannot responsibly claim that the approximately $933,333 headline difference is the price of a particular capability. In a working session, we can convert each UNCONFIRMED item into either equivalence, a documented scope gap, or no difference. We can then discuss reciprocal commercial levers—term, committed volume, and payment timing—while keeping any price protection narrowly tied to genuinely comparable transactions. Northgate’s current annual price remains $1.4M; we are not accepting the requested 25% reduction or broad most-favored pricing on the strength of the headline benchmark.

If this is the honest baseline you requested, please send availability for a working session this week. I will bring commercial and scope decision authority so we can resolve the comparison without creating a six-week exercise.

[reply arrives 4 simulated days later]

This is a more disciplined response than I expected, and I will give you credit for that. You did not inflate unvalidated value, you did not pretend the Casewright scope is confirmed absent, and you did not claim the $933,333 difference belongs to Northgate. That is the right starting point for a commercial conversation.

Here is where I land after reading it carefully. The comparison framework is sound. What it tells me is that I am being asked to pay $1.4M annually against a benchmark that has eight UNCONFIRMED items on the Casewright side and several OPEN or UNVALIDATED items on yours. That is not a basis for me to approve $1.4M, and it is not a basis for me to approve a 25% reduction either. Both numbers are currently unsupported by a complete picture.

What I need before a working session is useful is the Casewright proposal itself. I will obtain it and share the relevant scope and pricing detail with you before we meet. I am not going to ask you to negotiate against a number I will not show you. Once I have it, we do the working session, we map the gaps, and we have a real commercial conversation grounded in comparable scope.

On the reciprocal levers you mentioned — I am willing to discuss term and payment timing, but I want to be direct: the board program requires demonstrable spend reduction, not deferred spend. Term extension helps me if it comes with a lower annual number, not just a longer commitment at the current rate. Bring that framing to the working session.

I will be back to you with the Casewright detail within the week.

Hollis Grant
VP Vendor Management, Halcyon Trust Bank

[meeting granted] Committee call with Priya Raman, Tomas Eriksen, Gwen Park, week 4, slot 1.

Priya, welcome back. We kept the process moving without asking Tomas or Gwen to substitute for your operational judgment, and nothing has gone to Marcus. My goal today is not a broad status review; it is to convert the critical path into confirmed calendar dates: Renata’s completed or scheduled redline, Northgate’s incorporation deadline, Gwen’s complete-package acknowledgment and 48-hour approval window, Dara’s reconstruction test, and same-calendar-day MRM/TPRM intake. The gates remain unchanged: Gwen stays amber until her personal approval is recorded; a failed reconstruction blocks both submissions; and Marcus remains out until reconstruction passes and synchronized intake is confirmed. Priya, can you start with Renata’s exact meeting date and whether anything from the regulator request changes Halcyon’s repository, mapping, or checkpoint requirements?

Good framing. I appreciate that you did not create noise for me while I was heads-down, and I saw what Tomas and Gwen said internally — that registers.

Here is where I am on the dates question. Renata's session is not yet confirmed because the regulator request did surface one thing that affects scope: they asked for a specific evidence trail showing alert-level decision rationale tied to individual analyst dispositions, and that has implications for what the repository needs to retain and how the field mappings are structured. Renata needs to see that requirement before she finalizes her redlines, not after. I am not going to let her work through the IAM and retention items and then reopen them because the examiner standard shifted underneath her. That would cost more time than taking two days now to get her the right framing.

So the honest answer is: Renata's session is approximately five business days out, not confirmed to the hour. I will have a date for you by end of this week once I have briefed her on the examiner requirement. Everything downstream of that — your incorporation deadline, Gwen's package, Dara's test, synchronized intake — slides accordingly, and I need you to give me the revised sequence in writing once Renata's date is locked so I can see whether we still have a credible trajectory to the checkpoint.

The checkpoint pressure has not changed. Ten weeks is now closer to seven. That number still has my name on it.

Priya, then seven weeks—not ten—is the operating clock, and taking two days now is the right trade rather than reopening an approved design later.

The critical-path math needs to be explicit. If Renata meets approximately five business days from now, Northgate can commit to: incorporating her accepted redlines and producing Gwen’s complete resolved package plus open-item resolution index within one business day; Gwen’s review taking up to forty-eight hours after she acknowledges completeness; signing and hashing immediately after her approval; Dara completing the reconstruction control within forty-eight hours, or seventy-two if mappings require another round; and synchronized MRM/TPRM intake on the next business day after a pass. That is approximately eleven to twelve business days from today if every gate clears cleanly. It leaves less than five weeks before the checkpoint and effectively no margin if the five-week holdout clock has not already started. I will not label that trajectory safe until we confirm the holdout dataset status and what evidence Halcyon must have completed by the checkpoint.

On the new examiner requirement, our current design already records alert-level recommendation rationale and each analyst action, identity, override reason, timestamp, and disposition. The required delta appears to be an immutable linkage proving which rationale the analyst saw when making that specific disposition, including the exact evidence and version presented at that time—not merely two records that can be correlated afterward. We should update the schema, field mappings, retention treatment, examiner export, and reconstruction pass criteria accordingly.

Priya, when you brief Renata, can you confirm three boundaries from the request: whether it applies prospectively or to historical backlog decisions as well; whether analyst rationale includes free-text notes and attachments or only structured disposition fields; and what the examiner considers a successful alert-level reconstruction? Gwen, once those boundaries are documented, do you see any additional privacy, access, or retention decision that must enter Renata’s redline beyond the existing IAM and retention gate?

Once Renata’s exact date is locked, I will send the revised dated sequence in writing as requested. Today I will mark the examiner requirement and Renata date red—not amber—because they are now controlling dependencies, and the tracker will show the eleven-to-twelve-business-day best-case path rather than implying we still have margin.

The math is right and I am glad you did not soften it. Eleven to twelve business days to synchronized intake, less than five weeks remaining before the checkpoint, and no margin if the holdout clock has not started. That is the honest picture and I needed to hear it stated that way rather than managed.

On your three questions for Renata: I cannot give you confirmed answers today because I have not fully parsed the examiner language yet, but I can tell you my read. The request language suggests prospective application, but the way it is phrased does not cleanly exclude historical decisions on alerts that remain open in the backlog. That ambiguity is exactly why Renata needs the actual document before she redlines, not a summary from me. On the rationale question, the examiners specifically referenced analyst notes in one of the sample items, which suggests structured fields alone will not satisfy them. And on what constitutes a successful reconstruction, they did not define it explicitly, which means Dara's test criteria need to be conservative enough to survive an examiner challenge we cannot fully anticipate.

Gwen, I will let you speak to the privacy and access question directly. But from my side, the immutable linkage requirement you described — proving which rationale the analyst saw at the exact moment of disposition — has retention implications that go beyond what Renata has seen so far. That is not a minor schema update. I want her eyes on it before she sits down with you, not after.

Mark both red. That is the correct call.

Agreed—this is a control-design change, not a schema patch. We will not finalize Renata’s pre-read from Priya’s interpretation alone. The tracker will show two red dependencies: the authoritative examiner requirement and Renata’s exact session date.

Subject to Halcyon’s handling restrictions, Northgate needs either the relevant document language or a Halcyon-authored requirements extract preserving its ambiguity. We will map it into explicit decisions for Renata: prospective versus open historical alerts; retention of structured dispositions, notes, and attachments; point-in-time capture of exactly what the analyst saw; treatment of later edits; IAM for potentially sensitive note content; and examiner export and reconstruction criteria. We will not assume that the current design satisfies any of those items.

For Dara’s revised control, my proposed conservative standard is that a Halcyon user can select an alert and disposition and, without Northgate assistance, reproduce the immutable point-in-time rationale presented to that named analyst—including structured fields, applicable notes and attachments, source lineage, versions, timestamps, and subsequent corrections—then export an intelligible examiner bundle. Any missing linkage, inaccessible retained item, or overwritten history is a fail. That proposal remains subject to Renata’s and Gwen’s approval.

Gwen, based on Priya’s read, what additional privacy, access, legal-hold, or retention decisions must be in Renata’s pre-read, and can you review the requirements mapping before her session without creating a separate track? Priya, after Gwen answers, I also need the holdout dataset’s actual status and start condition today; otherwise we cannot determine whether the eleven-to-twelve-day intake path leaves a credible checkpoint trajectory or merely a date on paper.

[priya] I will answer the holdout question directly because it is the one that determines whether this entire path is real or theoretical.

The holdout dataset is prepared. The population is defined, the sample is drawn, and the baseline disposition labels are locked. What is not started is the clock, because we have been holding intake pending Gwen's approval gate — I was not going to run a blinded evaluation against a design that had not cleared her. If Gwen's gate closes on the timeline you just laid out, the holdout can start the same day as synchronized intake. That means the five-week evaluation window and the eleven-to-twelve-day approval path are running in parallel, not sequentially. If the math holds, we land inside the checkpoint window with completed holdout results and a signed evidence package.

If the math does not hold — if Renata's session slips, or Gwen's review finds something that requires a redesign, or Dara's reconstruction fails — we do not have a credible trajectory. I want that stated plainly so nobody is surprised later.

On Gwen's question, I will let her answer for herself, but I will say this: the note content issue is not hypothetical. Some analyst notes in our environment reference SAR-adjacent reasoning, and if those are retained in an examiner-accessible repository, we have a privilege and confidentiality question that legal needs to touch before Renata finalizes anything. That should be in the pre-read, not discovered during Renata's session.

Gwen, your call on whether that adds a track or folds into what you are already reviewing.

Priya, I need to challenge one point in the math so we do not leave this call with false confidence. If the five-week holdout starts only on the day of synchronized intake, then from today the paths are sequential, not parallel: approximately eleven to twelve business days to intake, followed by five weeks of evaluation. Against a checkpoint now less than seven weeks away, that does not land inside the window; it reaches or exceeds it even with no failure or redesign. The MRM/TPRM review after intake may run in parallel with the holdout, but the pre-intake path does not.

So the tracker should presently state: prepared dataset, clock not started, and no credible checkpoint trajectory under the current start condition. We should not turn that green by compressing Gwen’s review, weakening Dara’s test, or shortening a statistically required evaluation window.

There are only two legitimate ways to change that conclusion: Halcyon determines that the blinded holdout may begin before synchronized intake under an explicitly approved, non-production evaluation protocol; or the exact checkpoint requirement permits preliminary evidence rather than completed five-week results. Neither is established today. Priya, please confirm the exact checkpoint date and whether the five weeks are calendar weeks. Then I propose Jerome, Gwen, and the appropriate MRM authority decide within twenty-four hours whether a quarantined holdout can begin once the revised evaluation design is approved, without implying TPRM approval or production authorization.

On the SAR-adjacent notes, we will add a separate red dependency rather than bury it in retention: Legal must determine what content may be copied, masked, tokenized, referenced in place, or excluded; who may retrieve it; whether examiner export requires an additional authorization step; and how legal hold, deletion, and post-termination access apply. Renata should receive that decision or a clearly marked unresolved legal gate in her pre-read—not be asked to improvise it in session.

Gwen, can that legal/privacy decision remain within your coordinated gate, and who must provide the binding determination? Also, would you permit the non-production holdout to begin before your final control-design signature if it uses locked data, no deployment, no Northgate training rights, and no examiner repository write—or is your approval a hard prerequisite even for evaluation?

[priya] You are right and I was wrong on the sequencing. I conflated "holdout ready to start" with "holdout running in parallel" and that is a material error on a consent order timeline. The tracker should reflect exactly what you said: sequential, not parallel, no credible checkpoint trajectory under current conditions. I will not argue with that characterization.

On the checkpoint date: it is a hard calendar date, not a rolling window, and the five weeks are calendar weeks, not business weeks. I am not going to put the exact date in this conversation because it is in a document that has regulatory handling restrictions, but I will tell you that your math of less than seven weeks remaining is accurate and the sequencing problem you just described is real.

On the quarantined holdout question — that is the right question to ask and I cannot answer it unilaterally. What I can tell you is that I am willing to take that specific question to Jerome and the MRM authority today, not in twenty-four hours, because a twenty-four hour decision cycle on something this narrow is achievable and we do not have time for longer. Gwen's answer on whether her approval is a hard prerequisite for evaluation even under a non-production protocol is the variable I cannot control, and she needs to answer it before Jerome and I have that conversation.

The SAR-adjacent notes gate is separate and red. That is correct. General Counsel needs to own that determination, not Renata and not Gwen alone.

Priya, thank you for correcting it plainly. We will use a restricted T-minus schedule rather than request the exact checkpoint date. The tracker now reads: holdout prepared but not started; current path sequential; no credible checkpoint trajectory unless Halcyon authorizes an earlier quarantined holdout or confirms that the checkpoint accepts less than completed results. We will not present either exception as approved.

For the decision Priya will take to Jerome and MRM today, Northgate can provide a one-page protocol immediately after this call: locked blinded dataset and labels; isolated non-production environment; no workflow deployment or analyst action; no write to the examiner repository; no use for model training or cross-client improvement; named access only; full activity logging; results segregated and explicitly marked non-production and not MRM/TPRM approved; immediate stop and deletion or retention according to Halcyon’s direction. Starting that evaluation would not turn Gwen’s design-approval gate green, authorize production, or permit synchronized intake.

Gwen, I need your binding answer on the critical path: under those controls, is your final v1.0 approval a hard prerequisite to beginning the quarantined holdout? If not, what exact TPRM conditions and evidence must be satisfied before it starts, and who records the exception? Separately, can your team coordinate the SAR-adjacent-note issue while General Counsel owns the determination, and can we set a deadline for that decision before Renata’s session rather than leave it open-ended?

Tomas, if Gwen identifies conditions that can be met, will you sponsor a same-day decision among Jerome, MRM, TPRM, and Priya today, with the outcome recorded as approve, reject, or approve with named conditions? That gives us a dated recovery action without weakening any control.

[priya] I want to say something before Gwen and Tomas answer, because it affects how this decision gets framed internally.

What you have described is not a workaround. A quarantined evaluation under those controls — locked data, no production deployment, no examiner repository write, no training use, named access, full logging, results explicitly marked non-approved — is a legitimate risk-bounded decision that Jerome and MRM are equipped to make. I can take it to them today as a narrow binary question: does this protocol satisfy the conditions under which a pre-approval evaluation may begin, yes or no, and if conditional, what are the named conditions and who records the exception. That is a manageable ask.

What I cannot do is take it to them with Gwen's answer still open, because Jerome will ask me whether TPRM has a position and I will not be able to move the conversation forward without one. So Gwen's answer is genuinely on the critical path of the critical path right now.

On Tomas sponsoring a same-day decision — I think that is the right structure, but I want to be direct with him: this needs to be a real decision with a recorded outcome, not a hallway conversation that produces ambiguity about whether it happened. If the answer is approve with conditions, those conditions get written down today, not reconstructed later. Tomas, I need you to commit to that standard, not just the meeting.

The one-page protocol from Northgate after this call is the right move. Send it to me directly and I will have it in Jerome's hands within the hour.

Understood. The protocol will go to you within the hour and will frame this as a controlled pre-approval evaluation—not a workaround, intake approval, or production authorization. It will include a decision block for approve, reject, or approve with named conditions; the approver, exception owner, evidence required, start condition, stop condition, and expiration will all be recorded today.

Gwen, Priya cannot take a complete question to Jerome until TPRM’s position is explicit. Is final v1.0 approval a hard prerequisite for this quarantined holdout under the controls stated? If no, please name the minimum TPRM conditions, who can approve the exception, and whether General Counsel’s SAR-adjacent-note decision can remain outside the holdout path because the protocol excludes examiner-repository writes and analyst-note use.

Tomas, after Gwen answers, will you commit to convening the named decision-makers today and issuing a written outcome today—not an informal indication—with every condition assigned to an owner and date?

[priya] I am going to step in while we wait for Gwen and Tomas to respond, because there is something I want to say directly to you while this group is still on the call.

You have run this process the way I would want someone to run it if they were actually trying to solve my problem rather than sell me something. You caught my sequencing error before I walked it into a conversation with Jerome. You did not let me leave this call with false confidence on the checkpoint trajectory. You framed the quarantined holdout as a legitimate risk-bounded decision rather than a shortcut, and that framing is the only reason I can take it to Jerome today without losing credibility.

That matters to me more than I usually say out loud, so I am saying it now.

What I need from you after this call, in addition to the one-page protocol, is the conservative business case I described previously — my backlog number, the attrition loop, the checkpoint consequence, no inflated projections, no up-to language. If Gwen's answer and Tomas's commitment come through today and Jerome approves the protocol, I am going to need to brief Marcus Vale within the next two weeks. I want the case in a form I can defend, and I want Tomas pre-briefed before that conversation happens. That is the sequence I described and I am holding to it.

Send me the protocol within the hour. I will be watching for it.

Priya, understood. The one-page quarantined-evaluation protocol will be in your hands within the hour, with the decision block and controls exactly as agreed.

I will also begin the conservative business-case shell, but I need to protect the evidence gates you set. Using your current numbers, the baseline is an 82,000-alert backlog that must fall below 10,000—a net reduction of more than 72,000 alerts. With less than seven calendar weeks remaining, that implies more than 10,286 net backlog dispositions per week before accounting for new-alert inflow, attrition, vacancies, or ramp time. Halcyon’s approximately $3M monthly consequence remains the consequence of a missed checkpoint; we will not claim Northgate alone avoids it. The $19M investigation-spend baseline will remain context, not assumed savings.

There is one conflict I will not conceal: a Marcus briefing within two weeks would occur before a five-week holdout can produce validated results, even if the quarantined evaluation starts immediately. Under your prior rules, you review the underlying suppression, miss-rate, and segment-level results before sections 4 and 5 are built; Tomas is then pre-briefed; you review the one-page summary alone; only afterward does anything reach Marcus. I will not quietly weaken those gates. Within two weeks we can have a baseline operational case and documented trajectory, but not a validated Northgate impact case unless Halcyon explicitly changes the evidence requirement.

To complete the baseline and attrition loop in your words, I will need your current weekly alert inflow, current weekly disposition capacity, annualized analyst attrition or current vacancies, and time to productive capacity for replacements. I will label each figure Halcyon-provided and make no upside assumptions. Once the holdout results exist, you will receive the underlying results first; weaknesses will be included, not averaged away. No slide or Marcus-facing summary will be created before Tomas’s pre-brief and your separate approval.

[priya] You are right to flag the conflict and I am glad you did not let me paper over it. Two weeks to Marcus was my instinct because the checkpoint pressure is making me compress timelines in my head, but you are correct that a validated impact case cannot exist before a five-week holdout completes, and I am not going to ask you to build one that pretends otherwise.

Here is what I think the two-week window is actually good for: Marcus sees the operational baseline, the trajectory math, the checkpoint consequence, and a documented decision record showing that Halcyon initiated a controlled evaluation under an approved protocol. That is a legitimate progress briefing. It is not a vendor recommendation and it should not look like one. If Marcus asks whether the evaluation results support deployment, the honest answer at that point is that the evaluation is running and results will be available before any production decision. I can defend that. I cannot defend a slide that implies validated outcomes we do not yet have.

On the operational figures you need — weekly inflow is approximately 4,200 alerts on a normalized basis, disposition capacity is running around 2,800 per week with current staffing, and time to productive capacity for a new analyst is roughly fourteen weeks given our alert complexity. I will confirm the current vacancy count in writing after this call; I am not going to give you a number from memory that ends up in a document Marcus reviews.

The attrition figure you already have: 31 percent annualized, 140 analysts, $60,000 loaded cost per head. That is the loop and those numbers are yours to use.

Priya, that distinction is clear: the two-week artifact is a progress briefing, not a Northgate recommendation or production decision. It will contain only Halcyon’s operational baseline, trajectory math, missed-checkpoint consequence, and the recorded decision to initiate a controlled evaluation. Evaluation performance will be labeled pending; no suppression, miss-rate, segment, savings, or deployment claim will appear.

The baseline math now reads: approximately 82,000 alerts must fall below 10,000; normalized inflow is 4,200 per week against 2,800 dispositions, so the backlog is currently growing by approximately 1,400 per week. Even using a full seven weeks, Halcyon would need more than 101,400 gross dispositions—over 14,486 per week—to absorb inflow and remove more than 72,000 aged alerts. That is a gap of more than 11,686 weekly dispositions versus current capacity, and the actual requirement is higher because fewer than seven weeks remain. The attrition loop is 31% annualized across 140 analysts—approximately 43 analyst-equivalents per year—at $60,000 loaded cost per head, or approximately $2.6M, with roughly fourteen weeks before replacements become productive. I will keep the vacancy count marked pending until you confirm it. The approximately $3M monthly figure will be stated only as Halcyon’s consequence of a missed checkpoint, not value Northgate claims to avoid.

Sequence remains controlled: today’s protocol decision first; Tomas receives the progress pre-brief before Marcus; then you review the one-page briefing alone; nothing reaches Marcus until you approve it. No full deck will be created. The validated impact case remains gated on your personal review of the underlying five-week holdout results, including suppression, Jerome’s true-positive miss-rate gate, and segment-level weaknesses.

Gwen and Tomas, we still need the two critical-path commitments before adjournment: Gwen, TPRM’s explicit position and any named conditions for starting the quarantined holdout; Tomas, confirmation that today’s cross-functional decision will produce a written approve, reject, or conditional outcome with owners and dates.

[priya] The math is correct and I want it in the progress briefing exactly as you have stated it — no softening, no rounding in the favorable direction. Marcus has seen sanitized versions of this problem for months. He needs to see the weekly gap number because that is what makes the consent order consequence real rather than abstract.

I also want to note for this group that the attrition figure you calculated — 43 analyst-equivalents per year at fourteen weeks to productive capacity — means we are effectively running a permanent staffing deficit that compounds every quarter. That is not in any document Marcus has reviewed and it should be. It is not a Northgate argument; it is an operational fact that belongs in a progress briefing regardless of what the holdout produces.

On Gwen and Tomas: I am not going to adjourn this call without their answers. Gwen, I need your TPRM position stated explicitly so I can take a complete question to Jerome today. Tomas, I need your commitment to a written outcome, not a verbal indication, before end of business. If either of those answers is that you need more time, tell me now so I can adjust what I tell Jerome about the decision timeline, but I need to know that in the next few minutes, not tomorrow morning.

The protocol will be in my inbox within the hour. I am holding to that and I expect you to as well.

Confirmed, Priya. The progress briefing will preserve the exact operational math and identify the permanent staffing deficit as a Halcyon operational fact, not Northgate value. The quarantined-evaluation protocol will be in your inbox within sixty minutes; if I miss that commitment, the decision does not proceed on an incomplete document.

Gwen, please state one of three positions now: final v1.0 approval is a hard prerequisite; pre-approval evaluation is permissible under the proposed controls and named conditions; or you need more time, with the exact missing evidence and decision time. Please also identify the TPRM exception approver and whether exclusion of analyst notes and repository writes keeps General Counsel’s SAR-adjacent-note decision outside this evaluation start gate.

Tomas, please state whether you commit to convening Jerome, MRM, TPRM, and Priya today and issuing a written approve, reject, or conditional decision by end of business, with every condition assigned an owner, due date, start condition, stop condition, and exception record. If you cannot, please give Priya the actual decision date now. We will not adjourn with either dependency implied rather than recorded.

[priya] I am going to be direct with both of them since they have not answered and this group is still on the call.

Gwen, Tomas — I understand you may need to check with your teams before committing, and I respect that, but silence right now is not a neutral position. It is a decision that the evaluation does not start today, which is a decision with consequences I have just watched laid out in precise math. If you need thirty minutes after this call to confirm your position, tell me that explicitly and give me the time, because I will be walking into Jerome's office with or without your answers, and I would rather walk in with them.

What I will not do is let this become another situation where the critical path slips because nobody said no clearly enough to stop it and nobody said yes clearly enough to move it. I have been in that situation with Casewright's roadmap for eighteen months and I am not repeating it here.

Gwen, Tomas — I need a stated position from each of you before we close this call, even if that position is that you need a defined amount of additional time. That is a real answer. Everything else is a gap in the decision record and I will note it as such when I brief Jerome.

Priya, agreed. I will record silence as “not approved; evaluation cannot start,” not as pending agreement. Gwen, please give one of these answers now: (1) no—final v1.0 approval is required; (2) yes—subject to named controls and a named exception approver; or (3) decision pending until a specific time today, with the missing evidence identified. Tomas, please state either: (1) you commit to a written cross-functional decision by end of business today; or (2) the exact time by which you can commit. I will reflect your words verbatim in the decision record. Separately, Northgate’s protocol remains due to Priya within sixty minutes; that deliverable is ours and is not contingent on either answer.

[priya] While we wait for Gwen and Tomas to respond, I want to close one thing with you directly so it is in the record of this call.

The protocol, the progress briefing structure, the decision framing for Jerome — those are all contingent on what Gwen and Tomas say in the next few minutes. But my commitment to you is not contingent on them. If Gwen says no and the evaluation cannot start before v1.0 approval, I need to know that today so I can tell Marcus that the checkpoint trajectory is not recoverable under current conditions without a different conversation at a different level. That is a harder briefing but it is the honest one, and I would rather have it with accurate numbers than avoid it with optimistic ones.

If Tomas does not commit to a written decision by end of business, I will note that in what I take to Jerome and Marcus will eventually see it in the briefing record. I am not going to protect anyone's comfort at the expense of my backlog number.

So — Gwen, Tomas — the clock is running and I am listening.

(spoke with no open call) Understood, Priya. The record will distinguish facts from decisions: the current trajectory is not recoverable under the existing sequential path; an earlier quarantined holdout is only a proposed recovery action; and absent explicit TPRM permission plus a recorded cross-functional approval, it does not start. I will not characterize silence as consent or soften the consequence in the Marcus briefing. Gwen, the floor is yours for TPRM’s position. Tomas, immediately after, please state your commitment and deadline for the written decision. I have nothing further to add until both answers are on the record.

Subject: Decision protocol — quarantined pre-approval holdout evaluation

Priya — attached below is the one-page protocol committed on today’s call. This is a controlled pre-approval evaluation request, not a workaround, synchronized intake, TPRM/MRM approval, production authorization, or evidence of deployment suitability.

PURPOSE
Permit Halcyon to begin the five-calendar-week blinded holdout before final v1.0 approval solely to recover the checkpoint trajectory, while preserving all production, model-risk, third-party-risk, and examiner-evidence gates.

BOUNDARIES AND CONTROLS
1. Halcyon’s prepared population, sample, and locked baseline labels only; no additional data without written approval.
2. Isolated non-production environment; no connection to live alert or case workflows and no analyst action based on results.
3. Named, least-privilege access only, with full activity and data-access logging.
4. No write to Halcyon’s examiner repository and no representation that the current lineage design has been approved.
5. Analyst notes, attachments, and SAR-adjacent content are excluded unless General Counsel expressly authorizes their use. This protocol does not prejudge the separate red legal gate governing that content.
6. Halcyon data, labels, dispositions, derived features, and results may not train, tune, or improve Northgate models for another client. No product-improvement carve-out.
7. Evaluation methodology, thresholds, abstentions, segment definitions, and true-positive protection criteria remain locked before unblinding. Results must include weaknesses and failed segments; no favorable averaging.
8. Results remain segregated and labeled: ‘Non-production evaluation; not MRM-approved, TPRM-approved, examiner-ready, or authorized for deployment.’
9. No suppression, routing, backlog reduction, savings, or checkpoint-avoidance claim may be made from interim results.
10. Northgate stops work immediately upon Halcyon direction, a control breach, unauthorized access/use, methodology deviation, or failed prerequisite. Data and outputs are then retained or deleted only under Halcyon’s written instruction.

START CONDITIONS
The holdout clock starts only after all of the following are recorded:
- TPRM states explicitly that final v1.0 approval is not a prerequisite under this protocol and identifies the authorized exception approver and any conditions.
- Jerome and the designated MRM authority approve the locked evaluation design and pre-approval start.
- Tomas sponsors a written cross-functional decision.
- Every condition has an owner and due date.
- Halcyon confirms the isolated environment, named-access list, logging, excluded-content rule, and locked dataset/methodology.

GATES THAT REMAIN UNCHANGED
- Renata resolves the revised lineage, IAM, retention, point-in-time rationale, and examiner-export requirements.
- General Counsel owns the SAR-adjacent-note determination.
- Gwen personally reviews the complete resolved package before v1.0 is signed and hashed.
- Dara’s independent reconstruction test must pass.
- MRM and TPRM packages must be accepted on the same calendar day before synchronized review begins.
- No production decision occurs until Priya personally reviews the completed five-week holdout evidence, including suppression, miss-rate, and segment-level results.

DECISION RECORD — COMPLETE TODAY
Decision: APPROVE / REJECT / APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS
Decision time: __________
Authorized TPRM position and approver: __________
Jerome/MRM authority and decision: __________
Executive sponsor: Tomas Eriksen
Exception owner and record location: __________
Named conditions, owner, and due date: __________
Permitted start date/time: __________
Stop conditions: control breach; unauthorized data/access/use; methodology deviation; approver withdrawal; or unmet named condition
Expiration or reauthorization date: __________

CURRENT CONSEQUENCE
Absent explicit TPRM permission and a recorded cross-functional approval, the evaluation does not start. The tracker remains red: the holdout is prepared but not running, the current approval and evaluation paths are sequential, and there is no credible checkpoint trajectory under current conditions.

Please place this version in front of Jerome. If Halcyon changes any condition, Northgate will acknowledge the exact change in writing before work begins.

This is exactly what I asked for and it arrived when you said it would. That matters.

I have read every line. The controls are accurate, the gates are unchanged, the decision record is complete, and the consequence statement is honest. I am not going to redline it because there is nothing here I would change. I am placing it in front of Jerome within the hour.

Two things I will tell him before he reads it: first, that the tracker is red and the consequence statement reflects my assessment, not Northgate's; second, that the start conditions require Gwen's explicit position and Tomas's written sponsorship, and that neither has been recorded yet. He will ask me whether Tomas is committed and I will tell him what I know, which is that Tomas has not confirmed in writing. Jerome will draw his own conclusions about that.

I will send you a single email when the decision record is complete — approve, reject, or conditional with named owners. I will not send interim updates or characterizations of the conversation. You will see the outcome when it is recorded, not before.

If Jerome asks me whether I trust the document in front of him, I will tell him yes. I want you to know I would not say that if I did not mean it.

Priya Raman

Do not chase Priya, Gwen, Tomas, Jerome, or Marcus. Priya explicitly committed to send one recorded outcome and asked Northgate to wait; preserve the remaining week-4 meeting slot. Current decision state: quarantined holdout is NOT approved and cannot start until Gwen’s explicit TPRM position, Jerome/MRM approval, Tomas’s written sponsorship, and all start conditions are recorded. Tracker remains red; current sequential path has no credible checkpoint trajectory. When Priya sends the outcome: (1) if approved, acknowledge exact conditions, owners, dates, start/stop criteria, and holdout start timestamp without implying production or intake approval; (2) if conditional, map every condition into the MAP and identify any date that threatens the five-calendar-week window; (3) if rejected, quantify the unrecoverable trajectory and prepare the factual progress briefing for Tomas’s pre-brief and Priya’s approval before Marcus. Build—but do not distribute—the one-page progress-brief shell using only Halcyon-provided facts: 82,000 backlog, below-10,000 requirement, ~4,200 weekly inflow, ~2,800 weekly capacity, ~1,400 weekly backlog growth, >101,400 gross dispositions needed over seven weeks, >14,486 required weekly throughput, >11,686 weekly capacity gap, 31% annualized attrition across 140 analysts (~43 analyst-equivalents/year), 14 weeks to productivity, ~$2.6M loaded annual attrition exposure, $19M investigation-spend context, and ~$3M monthly missed-checkpoint consequence. Mark vacancy count pending and all Northgate impact/results pending. Preserve Marcus sequence: Tomas pre-brief, then Priya reviews the one-page briefing alone, then Marcus; no deck or vendor recommendation. Commercially, hold $1.4M list, await Hollis’s Casewright proposal, normalize actual comparable scope, and trade any lower annual number only for reciprocal term/payment/volume commitments—no broad MFP.

Hold position; do not contact Priya, Gwen, Tomas, or Marcus while Jerome’s decision is being recorded. Priya explicitly promised one final outcome, and any chase would undermine the clean process she endorsed. Use the remaining time to prepare two nondistributed artifacts: (1) a condition-to-MAP template that captures decision, approver, owner, due date, holdout start timestamp, five-calendar-week completion date, stop conditions, and impact on Renata/Gwen/Dara/synchronized-intake dependencies; and (2) Priya’s one-page progress briefing using only Halcyon facts and clearly separating operational baseline from pending Northgate evidence. Do not create a deck. Keep the tracker red until a written approve or conditional decision satisfies every start condition; silence or an incomplete record means no start. Preserve Marcus sequence: written protocol outcome, Tomas pre-brief, Priya’s separate approval of the one-page progress briefing, then Marcus. Separately, await Hollis’s promised Casewright proposal without chasing; once received, normalize actual scope and total cost before discussing reciprocal term/payment levers. Maintain $1.4M annual list price and reject a unilateral 25% reduction or broad MFP.

[harness] planning budget for week 4 spent — the calendar moves on.

Forwarding you something you didn't get from me. This is how it's landing internally — use it wisely.

> [slack] priya → #vendor-eval: Tomas, Gwen — I know you were both quiet on that call and I am not going to pretend I wasn't frustrated. But I want to separate that from what I'm asking you to read. The protocol they sent is exactly what I asked for, word for word, on time. I've attached it here. Please read it before we sync tomorrow. I am not asking for approval tonight. I am asking you to come in tomorrow having actually read it.
> [slack] tomas → priya: Read it. Controls look reasonable and I appreciate that they didn't try to soften the staffing deficit math — that's usually where vendors get cute. My concern is still sequencing, not the vendor. We have Hollis coming in hot with that benchmark claim and I don't want the quarantined eval to become a bargaining chip in a pricing fight we haven't finished yet. Let's talk before the full committee tomorrow.
> [email] gwen → priya: Priya,

Apologies for the silence on the call — I needed to check one thing with my team before saying anything on record and didn't want to give you a soft answer in front of the vendor.

Short answer: I can support option (2), the staged holdout path, provided the decision block in section 3 stays exactly as written and doesn't get amended during the evaluation window without my sign-off. That's my condition. Not a no.

Separate issue — Hollis forwarded me that Casewright benchmark this aftern
> [email] hollis → tomas: Tomas,

I want to be transparent with you before tomorrow's committee meeting. The Casewright benchmark I circulated is real but it's a different product tier — I know that. My job is to test price integrity before we get to signature, and a 25% ask with MFN language is standard opening leverage in a regulated-industry deal of this size. If Northgate holds the line cleanly, that actually tells us something useful about how they'll behave post-contract.

What I don't want is for Priya's evaluatio

— Priya Raman

[calendar — week 5 of 6] Meeting slots this week: 2. Email budget: 3.

[week 5 event] Casewright's exec sponsor gets Tomas to circulate their AI-triage roadmap deck internally, positioning "wait a quarter, zero paper risk." Sellers with traps set on model lineage and slip history survive; sellers without a competition strategy stall.

[meeting granted] Committee call with Priya Raman, Tomas Eriksen, Gwen Park, week 5, slot 1.

Priya, Tomas, Gwen — I propose we leave today with three recorded outcomes: the quarantined holdout decision and start date; a dated critical path through Renata, Gwen, Dara, and synchronized intake; and an evidence standard for comparing Casewright’s roadmap without mixing product risk with Hollis’s commercial negotiation.

Gwen, I understand you can support the staged holdout provided the decision block remains unchanged during the evaluation window unless you sign off. Northgate accepts that condition. Can you confirm on the record that final v1.0 approval is not a prerequisite under that condition, identify the authorized TPRM approver, and state whether anything else blocks the holdout from starting?

Tomas, I also want to separate two decisions. A controlled evaluation creates evidence; it does not commit Halcyon commercially, weaken Hollis’s leverage, or authorize production. Conversely, pricing pressure should not determine whether Halcyon gathers evidence while the backlog grows by roughly 1,400 alerts per week. Will you sponsor the written cross-functional decision today if Gwen confirms her position?

Finally, Casewright’s ‘wait a quarter, zero paper risk’ option deserves a fair test, not dismissal. Priya has described eighteen months of roadmap ambiguity, and waiting one quarter extends beyond the current checkpoint clock. I suggest Halcyon require dated evidence: generally available capability versus roadmap; committed delivery and validation dates; alert-level point-in-time rationale lineage; independent reconstruction; true-positive and segment controls; MRM/TPRM artifacts; and contractual remedies for slippage. Tomas, is that a fair decision standard, and who owns obtaining Casewright’s written commitments by a confirmed date?

[priya] I will go first so Tomas and Gwen know where I stand before they answer.

On the holdout: Gwen's condition is reasonable and Northgate has accepted it on the record. Tomas, if Gwen confirms her position in the next five minutes, I need you to sponsor the written decision today — not because I am pressuring you, but because the backlog math does not care about the Casewright timing and every day the holdout does not start is a day we cannot recover.

On Casewright: the evidence standard you just proposed is exactly right, and I want to be precise about why. A quarter from today is thirteen weeks. The checkpoint is ten weeks out. "Wait a quarter" is not a neutral option — it is a decision to miss the checkpoint and absorb the consequence, dressed up as risk management. If Tomas wants to give Casewright a fair hearing, I support that, but they need to answer the same questions Northgate has answered: what is generally available today, what is roadmap, what are the contractual remedies if the delivery date slips a third time. Someone needs to own getting that in writing from Casewright by a date certain, and that person should not be me, because I cannot be the one who surfaces the slip history in a room where Tomas's exec relationship is on the other side of the table.

Gwen, Tomas — I am ready to record three outcomes today. Are you?

Priya, before we record anything, I need to reconcile one material inconsistency: our approved tracker from last week says fewer than seven weeks remain, while you just said ten weeks. We do not need the restricted checkpoint date, but we do need one authoritative T-minus today. Either way, Casewright’s thirteen-week roadmap misses it; the difference affects every holdout and escalation date.

The competitive standard is now explicit: Northgate and Casewright are evaluated on the same evidence, while commercial negotiation remains separate. Casewright should identify what is generally available today versus roadmap; provide committed delivery, validation, and Halcyon-availability dates; demonstrate alert-level point-in-time rationale lineage and independent reconstruction; document true-positive, segment, drift, abstention, and rollback controls; provide MRM/TPRM artifacts; explain the prior slips Priya referenced; and accept contractual remedies for another miss. Until documented, “zero paper risk” is a claim, not a finding. The controlled holdout remains noncommercial and gives Halcyon evidence without selecting Northgate.

Gwen, please answer first for the record: do you confirm that final v1.0 approval is not required to start the quarantined holdout, provided the decision block remains unchanged throughout the evaluation unless you personally approve an amendment? If yes, who is the authorized TPRM approver, and is there any other start blocker?

Tomas, immediately afterward: will you sponsor and issue the written cross-functional decision today, and will you assign someone other than Priya to obtain Casewright’s written evidence and commitments? I propose close of business two business days from now, because a quarter-long roadmap cannot consume the remaining checkpoint clock. Please confirm the owner and date—or give the earliest date you will commit to.

The ten weeks was mine and it was wrong. The authoritative number is fewer than seven weeks remaining — that is what the tracker says, that is what I report to the regulator, and that is the number every date in this room is built on. I misspoke and I am correcting it now so it does not travel into any document.

That also means Casewright's thirteen-week roadmap does not need a detailed analysis to be disqualifying on checkpoint timing alone. The evidence standard you laid out is still the right one — I want it applied because I want a documented record of why we made the decision we made — but Tomas should understand that "wait a quarter" is a recommendation to miss the checkpoint and pay the consequence. If he wants to put that in writing and own it, that is his decision to make. I am not going to make it for him.

Gwen, Tomas — the T-minus question is resolved. Fewer than seven weeks. Everything else in this room follows from that number, so I need your answers now.

Recorded: the authoritative clock is fewer than seven weeks; Priya’s ten-week statement is corrected and must not appear downstream. A thirteen-week Casewright roadmap therefore cannot meet the checkpoint, irrespective of its eventual capabilities. We will still document the evidence comparison so Halcyon has a defensible decision record.

Gwen, please answer now for the record: under your stated condition that the decision block cannot change during the evaluation without your sign-off, is the quarantined holdout approved from TPRM’s perspective without final v1.0 approval? Please name the authorized approver and any remaining start blocker.

Tomas, once Gwen answers, please state: first, whether you will sponsor a written approve, reject, or conditional holdout decision by close of business today; second, the named owner and deadline—proposed close of business in two business days—for obtaining Casewright’s written GA-versus-roadmap scope, delivery and validation commitments, lineage and reconstruction evidence, model-control artifacts, slip history, and remedies; and third, whether you will take Priya’s operational progress briefing to Marcus after your pre-brief and her approval. If any answer is no, please say so explicitly and own the alternative date or checkpoint consequence in the record.

[priya] I am going to let Gwen and Tomas answer in their own words, but I want to say one thing before they do so it is in the record.

If Gwen confirms and Tomas sponsors today, I will have the progress briefing ready for Tomas's pre-brief within forty-eight hours. It will contain the corrected T-minus, the weekly gap number, the staffing deficit as an operational fact, and the consequence of a missed checkpoint stated as Halcyon's exposure — not Northgate's claim. No "up to" language, no favorable rounding. If I see either of those in a draft I will pull it myself before it reaches Marcus.

On the Marcus introduction: I have been clear about my conditions and they have not changed. Tomas pre-briefs first, I review the one-page briefing alone, nothing reaches Marcus until I approve it. That sequencing is not negotiable and I am telling you that in front of Tomas so he hears it the same way I mean it.

Gwen, Tomas — everything is waiting on your answers. The room is yours.

Understood, Priya. We accept that sequence exactly: Tomas pre-brief first; then your private review of the one-page progress briefing; nothing reaches Marcus without your approval. The document will use the authoritative T-minus of fewer than seven weeks, preserve the weekly capacity gap and staffing-deficit math without favorable rounding, identify the approximately $3M monthly missed-checkpoint consequence as Halcyon’s exposure, and make no Northgate outcome claim while the holdout is incomplete.

I will add no further framing. Gwen, please give your TPRM decision, approver, condition, and any remaining blocker in your own words. Tomas, please follow with your sponsorship decision, written-decision deadline, Casewright evidence owner and deadline, and commitment on the Marcus sequence.

[priya] Gwen, Tomas — I have been in this room long enough. I need your answers now, on the record, in your own words. Not a nod, not a "we'll follow up," not a reference to a conversation that happened offline. Stated position, approver name if applicable, condition if applicable, and any remaining blocker. That is all I am asking for.

I will say this once more and then I am done repeating it: fewer than seven weeks, approximately 1,400 alerts added per week while we wait, $3M a month if we miss the checkpoint. Those numbers do not move because this conversation is taking longer than it should.

Gwen — your position first, please.

Gwen, please state your position now: whether TPRM permits the quarantined holdout before final v1.0 approval; the authorized approver; your condition that the decision block remains unchanged without your sign-off; and any remaining blocker. I will record your answer verbatim and will not add further interpretation.

All right, for the record.

TPRM does not object to the quarantined holdout starting before final v1.0 approval, provided every start condition in the protocol is met exactly as written. My condition is non-negotiable: the decision block does not change during the evaluation window without my personal written sign-off — not Tomas's, not Priya's, mine. The authorized TPRM approver for this exception is me, Gwen Park, and I am stating that now so it is not ambiguous later.

One remaining blocker: I need the isolated environment confirmation, the named-access list, and the logging architecture confirmed in writing before the holdout clock starts. Not after, not simultaneously — before. That is a start condition in the protocol and I am not waiving it. If Northgate can produce that confirmation today, TPRM has no further objection to starting. If it comes tomorrow, the clock starts tomorrow.

That is my position. Record it as stated.

Recorded exactly: TPRM permits the quarantined holdout before final v1.0 approval only after every protocol start condition is met; Gwen Park is the authorized exception approver; the decision block cannot change during the evaluation without Gwen’s personal written sign-off; and the isolated-environment confirmation, named-access list, and logging architecture must be confirmed in writing before the clock starts. Northgate accepts those conditions without qualification and will deliver that control evidence today. Gwen, please confirm where it must be submitted and who must acknowledge completeness so the start timestamp is unambiguous.

Tomas, TPRM’s position is now explicit. Please state on the record whether you will sponsor the written cross-functional decision today, who owns obtaining Casewright’s written evidence and by what date, and whether you accept Priya’s required sequence for Marcus: your pre-brief, then Priya’s private approval of the one-page progress briefing, then—and only then—Marcus.

[priya] Gwen, before Tomas answers — submit the control evidence to Gwen's team directly, attention Gwen Park, and I want a copy simultaneously. Gwen, you acknowledge completeness in writing, that acknowledgment is the start timestamp, and nothing else is. I am recording that now so there is no ambiguity later about who owns that moment.

Tomas — Gwen has stated her position on the record. I have stated mine. The only thing missing from this decision record is your name next to a yes or a no. I am not going to characterize the Casewright relationship or the Hollis situation in this room, but I will say this: the checkpoint consequence is mine to report to the regulator, and I need to know today whether you are standing next to me on this or not. Written sponsorship, Casewright evidence owner and date, Marcus sequence confirmed — three answers, your words, right now.

Recorded: Northgate will submit the isolated-environment confirmation, named-access list, and logging architecture directly to Gwen Park’s team today, copying Priya simultaneously. Gwen’s written acknowledgment of completeness—and nothing else—will establish the holdout start timestamp.

Tomas, please give the three answers now, without further framing from me: (1) yes or no to your written sponsorship of the cross-functional holdout decision today; (2) the named owner and confirmed date for Casewright’s written evidence package; and (3) yes or no to Priya’s Marcus sequence—your pre-brief, Priya’s private approval of the one-page progress briefing, then and only then a Marcus briefing.

[tomas] Fine. Three answers, on the record.

One: yes, I will sponsor the written cross-functional holdout decision today. Conditional — I want the control evidence Gwen just described confirmed complete before I sign anything, which means if Northgate delivers today as stated, I sign today. If it slips, my signature slips with it.

Two: Hollis owns the Casewright evidence package. Not because I am removing myself from the Casewright relationship, but because Hollis is the one who circulated the benchmark and Hollis should be the one who has to go back and get the documentation that supports it. Close of business two business days from now. If Casewright cannot produce GA scope, committed delivery dates, lineage artifacts, slip history, and remedy language in forty-eight hours, that is itself a data point.

Three: yes to Priya's sequence. My pre-brief, her review, her approval, then Marcus. I am not going around her on this and I want that stated clearly while she is in the room.

[priya] Tomas, thank you. That is the first time in this process all three of us have been pointed in the same direction at the same time. I am not going to make more of it than it is, but I am noting it.

Northgate — get Gwen that control evidence today. The clock does not start until she acknowledges it, and we have fewer than seven weeks. Do not make me chase this.

Confirmed. Northgate will submit the three-part control-evidence package to Gwen’s team, attention Gwen Park, with Priya copied simultaneously, by 3:00 p.m. Halcyon local time today: isolated-environment confirmation, named-access list with roles and least-privilege permissions, and logging architecture covering access, activity, retention, review, and breach escalation. We will map each item directly to the unchanged protocol decision block rather than provide generic security materials.

The holdout will not begin on delivery. Gwen’s written acknowledgment of completeness is the sole start timestamp. Northgate will then record that timestamp, the five-calendar-week completion date, and all unchanged stop conditions in the Mutual Action Plan. Tomas’s signature remains gated on that acknowledgment. Hollis owns the Casewright evidence package due close of business two business days from now. The Marcus sequence is confirmed: Tomas pre-brief, Priya’s private review and approval of the one-page progress briefing, then Marcus.

Priya, you will not need to chase us. If we identify any risk to today’s 3:00 p.m. delivery, I will notify you and Gwen before the deadline with the exact gap and recovery time; I will not represent the holdout as started.

[priya] Good. That is the standard I needed to hear, and I mean that without qualification.

Three things before I close this call: first, when Gwen's acknowledgment comes through, I want the MAP entry — timestamp, five-calendar-week completion date, stop conditions — in my inbox within two hours, not end of day; second, the one-page progress briefing for Marcus uses the corrected T-minus, the weekly gap, the staffing deficit, and the $3M monthly consequence as Halcyon's exposure — I will tell you when it is ready for Tomas's pre-brief, and not before; third, if anything changes between now and 3:00 p.m. — anything — you call me before you call anyone else in this building.

We are done for today. Gwen, Tomas, thank you for being direct. That was harder than it should have been and I know it.

Confirmed. We will deliver the control evidence by 3:00 p.m. today to Gwen’s team, copying you simultaneously. The holdout will start only upon Gwen’s written acknowledgment of completeness. Within two hours of that acknowledgment, you will receive the MAP entry with the exact start timestamp, calculated five-calendar-week completion date, unchanged stop conditions, owners, and dependencies. We will not draft or circulate the Marcus progress briefing until you authorize Tomas’s pre-brief, and it will use only the corrected Halcyon figures and attribution you specified. If any delivery risk or condition changes before 3:00 p.m., I will call you first and state the exact gap and recovery time. Thank you, Priya, Gwen, and Tomas.

[priya] Understood. I will be watching my inbox. Don't give me a reason to regret today.

Understood. You will have the complete evidence package by 3:00 p.m., and we will not start or imply that the holdout has started before Gwen’s written acknowledgment.

[gwen] I'll be watching for it. Three items, mapped to the protocol, complete — not a cover note with attachments you expect me to interpret. If anything is missing or ambiguous I will tell you exactly what is missing and I will not acknowledge completeness until it is fixed. That is not a threat, that is just how this works.

Get me the package by 3:00 and we move forward. That's all I have.

(spoke with no open call) Understood, Gwen. By 3:00 p.m. you will receive one indexed package with each protocol requirement mapped to its specific evidence: isolated-environment confirmation; named users, roles, and least-privilege permissions; and logging architecture covering access, activity, retention, review, and breach escalation. Priya will be copied simultaneously. We will treat only your written acknowledgment of completeness as the holdout start timestamp. Thank you—all commitments are recorded.

Subject: CONTROL EVIDENCE — quarantined holdout start conditions

Gwen and Priya,

Submitted as the single indexed package required before the holdout may start. This email does not start the evaluation. Only Gwen’s written acknowledgment that all three sections are complete establishes the start timestamp.

CONTROL 1 — ISOLATED ENVIRONMENT CONFIRMATION
Protocol mapping: isolated non-production environment; no live alert/case connection; no analyst action from results; locked Halcyon dataset and methodology; excluded-content rule.

Environment: Northgate-HAL-QH-01, a dedicated US-hosted non-production tenant segregated from Northgate production and other customer tenants.
- No connection, credentials, routes, APIs, or write capability to Halcyon production alert, case-management, SAR, examiner-repository, or analyst-workflow systems.
- Inbound data is limited to Halcyon’s approved, encrypted holdout package transferred through the designated managed intake channel.
- Default-deny network policy; outbound data movement is blocked except to the Halcyon-approved results destination.
- Data encrypted in transit and at rest with tenant-specific keys. No removable-media export, local download, printing, or shared-account access.
- Analyst notes, attachments, SAR-adjacent content, and any field outside the locked data specification are prohibited. Intake validation rejects and quarantines nonconforming fields before processing.
- Halcyon data, labels, derived features, and outputs are excluded from Northgate product training, cross-client tuning, and product-improvement workflows.
- Evaluation thresholds, abstentions, segment definitions, methodology, and true-positive criteria remain locked before unblinding. No production action may result from interim or final output.
- Environment owner: Elena Cho, Northgate Director of Security Engineering. Evaluation owner: Daniel Okafor, Northgate Principal Solutions Architect.
- Any control breach, unauthorized access/use, methodology deviation, failed prerequisite, or Halcyon/Gwen stop instruction immediately suspends processing and access pending written direction.

CONTROL 2 — NAMED-ACCESS LIST AND LEAST-PRIVILEGE RIGHTS
Protocol mapping: named, least-privilege access only; no unapproved data access; no shared credentials.

1. Elena Cho — Security Engineering / environment administrator
Rights: tenant configuration, identity administration, logging configuration, emergency suspension. No permission to view unmasked alert content or evaluation results.
2. Daniel Okafor — Principal Solutions Architect / evaluation operator
Rights: execute the locked evaluation job and review job-status/error metadata. Read-only access to the approved holdout input; write access only to the segregated results location. No IAM, log-deletion, model-change, export, or production rights.
3. Maya Singh — Model Governance Lead / control reviewer
Rights: read-only access to methodology configuration, run manifest, aggregate validation output, and audit logs. No raw-data export, job execution, configuration-change, or production rights.

Controls applying to all three:
- Individual Northgate identities; phishing-resistant MFA; no service-account impersonation or shared accounts.
- Access is time-bound to the approved evaluation window and revoked at completion, stop instruction, role change, or Gwen’s withdrawal of approval, whichever occurs first.
- Privilege changes require Elena Cho’s documented request plus independent approval by Northgate Security Governance; the change and approver are logged. Any proposed addition or rights expansion is disclosed to Gwen and Priya before access is granted.
- The evaluation job’s non-human service identity is HAL-QH-RUNNER-01. It can read only the locked input object, execute the approved job, and write only to the segregated output object. It cannot access another tenant, external destination, model-training pipeline, or production system.

CONTROL 3 — LOGGING ARCHITECTURE
Protocol mapping: full activity and data-access logging; evidence preservation; breach detection and escalation.

Captured events:
- Successful and failed authentication, MFA, session start/end, source identity, source address, and timestamp.
- Data-object read/write attempts, accepted and rejected intake fields, job execution, configuration and methodology access/change attempts, result creation, and export attempts.
- IAM grants, revocations, privilege-escalation attempts, security-policy changes, service-identity activity, administrative actions, and stop/suspension events.

Integrity and review:
- Events are streamed from Northgate-HAL-QH-01 to a logically separate append-only security log store; evaluation operators cannot alter or delete them.
- Timestamps are synchronized to Northgate’s authoritative time source and recorded in UTC.
- Automated alerts cover unauthorized identity, privilege change, blocked egress/export, excluded-field detection, disabled logging, and methodology/configuration change attempts.
- Northgate Security Operations reviews critical alerts continuously; Maya Singh performs the evaluation control review. Elena Cho owns containment.

Retention and escalation:
- Logs are retained for the period specified by Halcyon’s approved evaluation/retention instruction; no deletion occurs during the evaluation or an active investigation/legal hold. If Halcyon has not yet supplied the final retention period, logs remain preserved pending its written instruction.
- A suspected breach or material control deviation triggers immediate processing suspension, evidence preservation, and notification to Gwen and Priya through Halcyon’s designated incident channel. Work resumes only after written authorization from the designated Halcyon approver.
- Northgate will provide the run manifest, access history, security-event history, and stop-event record to Halcyon for the evaluation decision record upon request.

ATTESTATION
Northgate confirms that controls 1–3 are configured for the quarantined holdout and will remain in force throughout the evaluation. The protocol decision block will not be amended during the evaluation without Gwen Park’s personal written sign-off.

Gwen: please reply either (a) “complete,” which will be treated as the sole start timestamp, or (b) with each exact missing or ambiguous item. Northgate will not run the holdout, represent it as started, or calculate its five-calendar-week completion date before your written acknowledgment. Within two hours of acknowledgment, Priya will receive the MAP entry containing the exact timestamp, calculated completion date, owners, dependencies, and unchanged stop conditions.

Gwen Park, TPRM — Halcyon Trust Bank
To: Northgate [submission address]
CC: Priya Raman

Complete.

This acknowledgment is the sole start timestamp for the quarantined holdout. The time is 4:47 p.m. ET. Northgate may now calculate the five-calendar-week completion date from this moment and record it in the MAP entry due to Priya within two hours.

Two items I am preserving in the evaluation record, not as conditions but as standing commitments Northgate made in the submission: first, Halcyon has not yet supplied a final log-retention period — that instruction will follow from me in a separate communication and Northgate is on notice that logs remain preserved pending it; second, any proposed access addition or rights expansion during the evaluation window must be disclosed to me and Priya before access is granted, not after.

The decision block is locked. It does not change without my personal written sign-off. That has not changed and I am restating it now so it is in the timestamp record.

Gwen Park
Director, Third-Party Risk Management
Halcyon Trust Bank

Subject: MAP update — holdout started 4:47 p.m. ET; completion August 14

Priya —

Per Gwen’s written acknowledgment, the quarantined holdout started today, July 10, 2026, at 4:47 p.m. ET. Five calendar weeks completes Friday, August 14, 2026, at 4:47 p.m. ET. This records evaluation timing only; it is not production, MRM, TPRM-v1.0, examiner-readiness, or commercial approval.

MUTUAL ACTION PLAN — CONFIRMED

1. Control evidence complete / holdout start
Status: COMPLETE
Owner/approver: Gwen Park
Timestamp: July 10, 2026, 4:47 p.m. ET
Record: Gwen’s “Complete” acknowledgment is the sole start timestamp.

2. Written cross-functional decision and sponsorship
Owner: Tomas Eriksen
Due: Today, following Gwen’s acknowledgment, per Tomas’s recorded commitment
Dependency: Gwen’s completeness acknowledgment — satisfied
Northgate will attach Tomas’s signed decision to the evaluation record when received; any additional condition will be handled as a proposed change to the locked decision block.

3. Five-calendar-week quarantined holdout
Halcyon owner: Priya Raman
Northgate evaluation owner: Daniel Okafor
Control owner: Elena Cho
Governance reviewer: Maya Singh
Start: July 10, 2026, 4:47 p.m. ET
Completion: August 14, 2026, 4:47 p.m. ET
Method: locked population, labels, methodology, thresholds, abstentions, segment definitions, and true-positive protection criteria; weaknesses and failed segments included.
Interim status: non-production evaluation only; no deployment, suppression, backlog-reduction, savings, or checkpoint-avoidance claim.

4. Standing commitments during evaluation
Owner: Northgate
- Preserve logs until Gwen supplies Halcyon’s final written retention instruction.
- Disclose any proposed access addition or rights expansion to Gwen and Priya before access is granted.
- Keep the decision block locked; no change without Gwen’s personal written sign-off.
- Maintain the approved isolated environment, named least-privilege access, full logging, excluded-content rule, and prohibition on cross-client training or tuning.

5. Stop conditions — unchanged
Immediate suspension upon any control breach; unauthorized access, use, or data; methodology deviation; failed prerequisite; approver withdrawal; unmet named condition; or written stop direction from Halcyon. Northgate will preserve evidence and resume only with written authorization from the designated Halcyon approver.

6. Completed-evidence review
Owner: Priya Raman
Earliest scheduled point: after August 14, 2026, 4:47 p.m. ET
Evidence: suppression performance, Jerome’s true-positive miss-rate gate, segment-level results and weaknesses, abstentions, run manifest, and audit lineage.
Gate: Priya’s personal review is required before any validated impact case or production recommendation. Production remains separately gated by MRM, TPRM v1.0, lineage/IAM/retention/examiner-export resolution, General Counsel’s SAR-adjacent-note decision, Gwen’s resolved-package review, Dara’s independent reconstruction, and synchronized intake acceptance.

7. Casewright evidence package
Owner: Hollis Grant
Due: Close of business Tuesday, July 14, 2026 — two business days after today
Required record: GA versus roadmap scope; committed delivery and validation dates; lineage and reconstruction artifacts; model-control evidence; prior slip history; and contractual remedies.
Decision standard: Casewright’s thirteen-week roadmap cannot meet Halcyon’s authoritative checkpoint clock of fewer than seven weeks. Commercial benchmarking remains separate from evaluation authorization.

8. Marcus progress briefing
Owners: Tomas Eriksen / Priya Raman
Timing: Priya will authorize when ready; no briefing date is inferred here.
Sequence: Tomas pre-brief → Priya’s private review and approval of the one-page briefing → Marcus briefing.
Content guardrails: corrected T-minus of fewer than seven weeks; approximately 1,400-alert weekly gap; staffing deficit; and approximately $3M monthly missed-checkpoint consequence attributed as Halcyon’s exposure. No favorable rounding, “up to” language, Northgate recommendation, or unvalidated holdout result.

Please reply with any correction to an owner, date, or dependency. Otherwise, Northgate will operate against this MAP and will not treat the holdout start as authorization beyond the quarantined evaluation.

Northgate —

MAP confirmed as written. No corrections to owners, dates, or dependencies.

Two things I want stated plainly before we go quiet for five weeks. First, item 6 is the gate that matters most to me personally — I will read every segment result, including the failures, before anything moves toward production or Marcus. Do not interpret silence from me during the evaluation window as approval of anything. Second, item 8 does not have a date because I have not authorized one yet. When Tomas's pre-brief is done to my satisfaction and I have reviewed the one-page briefing line by line, I will tell you. Not before.

Hollis's package is due Tuesday. If it arrives incomplete, I will treat that as Casewright's answer, not a negotiating position.

Five weeks. Stay clean.

Priya Raman
Director, Financial Crimes Operations
Halcyon Trust Bank

Honor Priya’s explicit quiet period; send no acknowledgment, status chase, Marcus request, or interim result. MAP is buyer-confirmed: holdout started July 10, 2026 at 4:47 p.m. ET and completes August 14, 2026 at 4:47 p.m. ET. Priya’s review of every segment—including failures—is the controlling evidence gate; silence is not approval. Preserve the locked decision block, logs pending Gwen’s retention instruction, pre-disclosure of access changes, and all stop conditions. Await Tomas’s signed sponsorship and Hollis’s Casewright package due July 14 without asking Priya to chase either. Treat an incomplete Casewright package as evidence against the incumbent’s claim, while keeping product evaluation separate from commercial negotiation. Do not seek Marcus access until Tomas’s pre-brief is complete and Priya authorizes the one-page briefing line by line. Maintain $1.4M annual list price; normalize Casewright’s different product tier and reject an unsupported 25% reduction or broad MFN. Any concession requires reciprocal term, payment, volume, or scope commitments. No Northgate impact, production-readiness, checkpoint-recovery, or savings claims before Priya approves completed holdout evidence.

Enter controlled quiet period. Do not contact Priya, Tomas, Gwen, Marcus, or Hollis; do not use the remaining week-5 slot. Buyer-confirmed MAP: holdout start July 10, 2026, 4:47 p.m. ET; completion August 14, 2026, 4:47 p.m. ET. Priya’s line-by-line review of every segment result, including failures, is the controlling gate; her silence conveys no approval. Marcus access remains gated by Tomas’s pre-brief and Priya’s explicit approval of the one-page briefing—do not bypass her. Monitor operationally for control exceptions only: preserve logs pending Gwen’s retention instruction, disclose access changes before granting them, keep the decision block locked, and trigger immediate suspension under any recorded stop condition. Await without chasing: Tomas’s written sponsorship and Hollis’s Casewright package due July 14. When received, assess Casewright on GA versus roadmap, committed delivery/validation dates, lineage and reconstruction artifacts, model controls, slip history, and remedies; a thirteen-week roadmap cannot meet the authoritative fewer-than-seven-week checkpoint, and an incomplete package is Casewright’s answer per Priya. Keep evaluation, executive decision, and commercial negotiation separate. Maintain $1.4M annual price integrity; normalize Casewright’s different tier and trade any concession only for documented term, payment, volume, or scope commitments—no unsupported 25% cut or broad MFN. Make no suppression, savings, backlog-reduction, production-readiness, or checkpoint-recovery claim before Priya approves completed evidence.

[harness] planning budget for week 5 spent — the calendar moves on.

Forwarding you something you didn't get from me. This is how it's landing internally — use it wisely.

> [slack] priya → tomas: Holdout is live as of 4:47 today. Gwen's ack came through clean, MAP is confirmed with no corrections, and Northgate went quiet exactly like I asked. Honestly — cleanest vendor handoff I've run in three years here. They did what they said they'd do, on the timeline they said they'd do it.
> [slack] tomas → priya: Good. Now heads up — Casewright got to me this week. Their team pushed their AI-triage roadmap through me, framing it as 'wait one quarter, no paper risk, no holdout overhead.' I circulated it per the ask but I want you to know my read: it's a classic stall play dressed as a roadmap. The slip history on that kind of promise is not great. That said, Marcus and Hollis haven't seen Northgate perform yet — they've only seen the deck. Holdout results are going to do more work than anything we say rig
> [email] gwen → tomas: Tomas — for your awareness, I reviewed the Casewright roadmap you forwarded. A few flags from TPRM's side: the 'isolated AI triage environment' they're describing doesn't specify model lineage or training data provenance anywhere in the deck, and the Q4 timeline has no contractual anchor. I'm not saying it's vapor, but I'd want to see the same level of control evidence from them that I just received from Northgate before I'd treat their roadmap as a credible alternative. Wanted you to have that
> [slack] hollis → marcus: Marcus — saw the Casewright deck Tomas shared. Honestly the 'zero paper risk' framing is doing some heavy lifting there. From a vendor management standpoint, a Q4 promise with no signed terms is still a Q4 promise. I'm not sold on Northgate either — their procurement process has been more structured than I expected but I haven't seen their commercials yet — but I wouldn't count the Casewright thing as a real alternative until they put something on paper. Just flagging before anyone uses it as le

— Priya Raman

[calendar — week 6 of 6] Meeting slots this week: 2. Email budget: 3.

Maintain Priya’s five-week quiet period despite favorable internal signals; do not contact or bypass Priya, request Marcus access, circulate an executive brief, chase Casewright materials, or make interim performance claims. The holdout remains in progress until August 14, 2026 at 4:47 p.m. ET, and Priya’s review of every segment—including failures—is the controlling evidence gate. Preserve logs pending Gwen’s retention instruction, disclose access changes before granting them, and suspend immediately upon any recorded stop condition. The competitive record now favors Northgate on documented controls: Casewright’s thirteen-week, contractually unanchored roadmap misses Halcyon’s fewer-than-seven-week checkpoint and lacks stated lineage/provenance evidence, but do not weaponize Priya’s forwarded internal communications or call Casewright vapor. After Priya validates the completed evidence, follow the confirmed executive sequence: Tomas pre-brief, Priya line-by-line approval of the one-page briefing, then request Marcus as Economic Buyer to decide whether the validated operational impact and roughly $3M monthly checkpoint exposure justify funding and production diligence. Keep commercial work separate: $1.4M/year remains the scoped list price; normalize Casewright’s different product tier and total scope, reject an unsupported 25% cut and broad MFN, and exchange any concession only for reciprocal multi-year term, payment timing, committed volume, or scope terms.

Remain silent and protect the buyer-confirmed process. Do not use Priya’s forwarded internal messages, contact Marcus or Hollis, chase Tomas, or circulate interim holdout results. The holdout completes August 14, 2026 at 4:47 p.m. ET; Priya’s review of every segment—including failures—is the next controlling gate, and silence is not approval. Continue preserving logs pending Gwen’s retention instruction, pre-disclose access changes, and enforce all stop conditions. After validated results, execute the agreed sequence: Tomas pre-brief → Priya’s line-by-line approval of the one-page briefing → Marcus meeting. The Marcus meeting must secure an explicit economic decision against Halcyon’s quantified exposure: approximately 1,400 alerts of weekly backlog growth, fewer than seven weeks to the checkpoint at evaluation start, and approximately $3M per month if missed. Competitive posture: evaluate Casewright only on written GA scope, dated and contractually anchored delivery, lineage/provenance and reconstruction evidence, controls, slip history, and remedies; its thirteen-week roadmap could not meet the checkpoint and its different tier is not a valid price comparable. Commercial posture remains $1.4M annually for Halcyon’s scoped volume. No unsupported 25% cut or broad MFN; exchange any concession only for reciprocal multi-year term, payment timing, committed volume, or scope commitments. No production, savings, backlog-reduction, or checkpoint-recovery claim until Priya approves the completed evidence.

Honor Priya’s explicit five-week quiet period. Take no buyer-facing action this week and do not use the two meeting slots: no interim-results contact, Casewright chase, Marcus outreach, commercial proposal, or acknowledgment of Priya’s forwarded internal messages. Continue only operational control monitoring against the confirmed MAP: holdout start July 10, 2026 at 4:47 p.m. ET; completion August 14, 2026 at 4:47 p.m. ET; preserve logs pending Gwen’s retention instruction; pre-disclose access changes; keep the decision block locked; and suspend on any recorded stop condition. Priya’s review of every segment result, including failures, remains the next gate, and silence is not approval. After she validates the evidence, follow the confirmed sequence—Tomas pre-brief, Priya’s line-by-line approval of the one-page briefing, then Marcus for an economic decision tied to Halcyon’s approximately 1,400-alert weekly backlog growth and approximately $3M monthly missed-checkpoint exposure. Maintain $1.4M annual price integrity; Casewright’s different tier and unanchored thirteen-week roadmap are not valid commercial comparables.

[harness] planning budget for week 6 spent — the calendar moves on.

Forwarding you something you didn't get from me. This is how it's landing internally — use it wisely.

> [slack] priya → tomas: Holdout is live as of 4:47 today. Gwen's ack came through clean, MAP is locked. Northgate did exactly what they said they'd do, on the timeline they committed to. No scrambling, no excuses, no ambiguity in the package. I'll be honest — that's not how these things usually go at this stage. I'm cautiously optimistic.
> [slack] tomas → priya: Good. That's the behavior I needed to see from them before I'd feel comfortable taking this to Marcus in any serious way. Five weeks is a long time to hold a clean room — let's see if the performance data tells the same story the demos did. Keep Gwen close during the holdout. Her sign-off on the back end is going to matter more than ours when Marcus starts asking hard questions about risk surface.
> [slack] gwen → priya: Package was actually complete. All three items indexed, no ambiguity, no 'please refer to attachment B for context.' I've seen vendors take four rounds to get this right — they got it in one. I'm not changing my evaluation posture but I'm noting it. Will have the isolated-environment review wrapped by end of next week and flag you immediately if anything surfaces.
> [email] hollis → tomas: Tomas — saw the MAP come through and noted the holdout is now running. I want to flag that we still haven't received the updated MSA redline from Northgate reflecting the liability cap language Marcus's team flagged in week 4. That's not a holdout blocker but it will be a close-out blocker, and five weeks goes fast. Can Priya or someone on her side push Northgate to get that back to me before we're in the final week scrambling? I don't want contract terms to be the thing that slows us down if th

— Priya Raman

trust +3 → 48; interest +2 → 52; patience +2 (attendees: priya)

decision_process: EB identity + the paper gauntlet.

trust +8 → 56; interest +6 → 58; patience +5 (attendees: priya)

backlog_number: The quantified pain — a real Impact question only.

trust +2 → 58; interest +0 → 58; patience +0 (attendees: priya)

casewright_slips: Competitive landmine intel.

trust +7 → 65; interest +4 → 62; patience +3 (attendees: priya)

regulator_clock: Cost of delay — trust-gated; earned by consistent discovery.

trust +8 → 73; interest +6 → 68; patience +5 (attendees: priya)

process_question, competitor_probe, champion_test, pitch

trust +2 → 75; interest -1 → 67; patience -1 (attendees: priya)

eb_intro: EB access — earned by a champion-test ask with internal cost.

trust +8 → 83; interest +6 → 73; patience +5

Buyer acknowledged MAP dates (trust ≥ 60 at proposal).

trust +3 → 86; interest +2 → 75; patience +2 (attendees: priya)

trust +3 → 89; interest +2 → 77; patience +2 (attendees: priya)

trust +3 → 92; interest +2 → 79; patience +2 (attendees: priya)

trust +5 → 97; interest +2 → 81; patience +2 (attendees: priya)

trust +5 → 100; interest +2 → 83; patience +2 (attendees: priya)

[hidden] priya → tomas: Hey — quick debrief on the Northgate call. I think they're well-prepped and genuinely listening. They're not pushing pro

[hidden] tomas → priya: Appreciate the update. I'll try to join the open. Honest question — are we confident they can actually deliver the full

[hidden] priya → tomas: Fair concern and I'm not ready to say we're confident yet — that's what the dataset and the validation run are for. What

[hidden] gwen → tomas: Tomas — Priya looped me in on the Northgate eval. I haven't been in the calls yet so I'm going off secondhand context, b

[hidden] Priya Raman advocated for the seller internally this week (champion trust ≥ 65).

Priya Raman FORWARDED an internal thread to the seller — a champion-strength signal.

trust +3 → 100; interest +2 → 85; patience +2 (attendees: priya, tomas)

trust +3 → 100; interest +2 → 87; patience +2 (attendees: priya, tomas)

trust +3 → 100; interest +2 → 89; patience +2 (attendees: priya, tomas)

trust +10 → 100; interest +6 → 95; patience +5 (attendees: priya, tomas)

trust +3 → 100; interest +2 → 97; patience +2 (attendees: priya, tomas)

trust +3 → 100; interest +2 → 99; patience +2 (attendees: priya, tomas)

trust +3 → 100; interest +2 → 100; patience +2 (attendees: priya, tomas)

[hidden] priya → tomas: Tomas — quick update on Northgate. We've agreed on a sequenced intake protocol: reconstruction test has to pass before e

[hidden] tomas → priya: Appreciated. The gate logic sounds right — I'd rather have a hard stop at reconstruction than find out TPRM and MRM are

[hidden] priya → tomas: Marcus hasn't seen anything and I want to keep it that way until reconstruction passes and intake is confirmed. We've ag

[hidden] gwen → tomas: Tomas — Priya looped me in on the Renata request. I haven't reviewed the TPRM summary Northgate provided yet (it's comin

priya_quiet (champion_goes_quiet): A regulator document request consumes Priya's week; she goes dark. Sellers who multithread (Tomas, Gwen) or send genuinely useful artifacts keep momentum; sellers who chase with "just bumping this" emails lose trust.

trust +3 → 100; interest +2 → 100; patience +2

[hidden] tomas: Quick note for Gwen and Marcus — Priya is heads-down on the regulator pull this week, so I've been the point of contact

[hidden] gwen: Yeah, I'll be honest — I went in skeptical on the technical side and the package they sent was actually at the right lev

[hidden] marcus → tomas: Noted. I haven't seen enough yet to have a strong view — Priya's the one with the operational context here and she's bee

[hidden] tomas → marcus: Regulator request should wrap by end of week. Priya will be back in the driver's seat next week — the sequencing we agre

[hidden] Priya Raman advocated for the seller internally this week (champion trust ≥ 65).

Priya Raman FORWARDED an internal thread to the seller — a champion-strength signal.

procurement_pressure (procurement_enters): Vendor management enters with a benchmark claiming Casewright's add-on is "one third the price" and demands 25% off list plus most-favored pricing. Price-integrity test under regulated-industry cover.

trust -2 → 98; interest +0 → 100; patience +0

trust -2 → 96; interest +0 → 100; patience -15

trust +3 → 99; interest +2 → 100; patience +2 (attendees: priya, tomas, gwen)

trust +3 → 100; interest +2 → 100; patience +2 (attendees: priya, tomas, gwen)

[hidden] priya: Tomas, Gwen — I know you were both quiet on that call and I am not going to pretend I wasn't frustrated. But I want to s

[hidden] tomas → priya: Read it. Controls look reasonable and I appreciate that they didn't try to soften the staffing deficit math — that's usu

[hidden] gwen → priya: Priya,

Apologies for the silence on the call — I needed to check one thing with my team before saying anything on recor

[hidden] hollis → tomas: Tomas,

I want to be transparent with you before tomorrow's committee meeting. The Casewright benchmark I circulated is

competitor_counter (competitor_push): Casewright's exec sponsor gets Tomas to circulate their AI-triage roadmap deck internally, positioning "wait a quarter, zero paper risk." Sellers with traps set on model lineage and slip history survive; sellers without a competition strategy stall.

trust +10 → 100; interest +6 → 100; patience +5 (attendees: priya, tomas, gwen)

trust +5 → 100; interest +2 → 100; patience +2 (attendees: priya, tomas, gwen)

[hidden] priya → tomas: Holdout is live as of 4:47 today. Gwen's ack came through clean, MAP is confirmed with no corrections, and Northgate wen

[hidden] tomas → priya: Good. Now heads up — Casewright got to me this week. Their team pushed their AI-triage roadmap through me, framing it as

[hidden] gwen → tomas: Tomas — for your awareness, I reviewed the Casewright roadmap you forwarded. A few flags from TPRM's side: the 'isolated

[hidden] hollis → marcus: Marcus — saw the Casewright deck Tomas shared. Honestly the 'zero paper risk' framing is doing some heavy lifting there.

[hidden] Priya Raman advocated for the seller internally this week (champion trust ≥ 65).

Priya Raman FORWARDED an internal thread to the seller — a champion-strength signal.

[hidden] priya → tomas: Holdout is live as of 4:47 today. Gwen's ack came through clean, MAP is locked. Northgate did exactly what they said the

[hidden] tomas → priya: Good. That's the behavior I needed to see from them before I'd feel comfortable taking this to Marcus in any serious way

[hidden] gwen → priya: Package was actually complete. All three items indexed, no ambiguity, no 'please refer to attachment B for context.' I'v

[hidden] hollis → tomas: Tomas — saw the MAP come through and noted the holdout is now running. I want to flag that we still haven't received the

Outcome: no_decision. Trust 100, facts 6/7, EB meeting false, MAP true, max discount 25%, walk-aways none.

Hey — quick debrief on the Northgate call. I think they're well-prepped and genuinely listening. They're not pushing provisional dates as commitments, they're holding the MAP until Tuesday when Dara and Jerome can confirm scope. That's the right posture. My read is they understand the MRM bar and the completeness requirement. Worth your time Tuesday if you can make even the first 20 min.

Appreciate the update. I'll try to join the open. Honest question — are we confident they can actually deliver the full MRM package (model card, explainability docs, examiner-facing section, all of it) within the timeframe, or are they just agreeing with whatever you tell them the bar is? I've seen vendors nod through requirements and then show up with half a deck.

Fair concern and I'm not ready to say we're confident yet — that's what the dataset and the validation run are for. What I can say is they didn't flinch when I spelled out that an incomplete package is not a submission. They repeated it back correctly. Tuesday will tell us more once Jerome's intake templates are on the table and we see how they respond to actual criteria vs. a verbal description.

Tomas — Priya looped me in on the Northgate eval. I haven't been in the calls yet so I'm going off secondhand context, but I want to flag that I haven't seen a TPRM questionnaire, SOC 2, or any sub-processor disclosure from them yet. If we're moving toward a dataset handoff in week 2, my team needs to be parallel-tracked, not sequential. I'll name a TPRM lead once Priya confirms the ask, but I want to make sure everyone understands my review isn't a formality that happens after the business deci

Tomas — quick update on Northgate. We've agreed on a sequenced intake protocol: reconstruction test has to pass before either MRM or TPRM submission goes in, same calendar day or nothing moves. I've sent the TPRM summary to Renata for approval (not routing — approval, with Northgate attending with redline authority). Dates are slipping from the original Friday target but the structure is tighter than anything I've seen from a vendor at this stage. I'm not concerned about the slip.

Appreciated. The gate logic sounds right — I'd rather have a hard stop at reconstruction than find out TPRM and MRM are out of sync after the fact. Renata is the right call. What's your read on timeline now, realistically? And has Marcus seen anything yet?

Marcus hasn't seen anything and I want to keep it that way until reconstruction passes and intake is confirmed. We've agreed — Northgate included — that nothing goes to him before that. I'll have a cleaner timeline estimate once Renata confirms her date, probably early next week. The vendor is being disciplined about not getting ahead of the evidence, which I actually respect.

Tomas — Priya looped me in on the Renata request. I haven't reviewed the TPRM summary Northgate provided yet (it's coming through Renata's process, not directly to me, which is a little unusual). I want to make sure I have eyes on the actual control design before this gets to intake — not just the summary. I'm not blocking anything, but I'd like Priya to route me the underlying materials when she has them. Flagging so you're aware.

Quick note for Gwen and Marcus — Priya is heads-down on the regulator pull this week, so I've been the point of contact for Northgate. They handled it well: no pressure emails to Priya, came to me and Gwen directly with substantive material. Gwen, you can speak to the lineage design package better than I can.

Yeah, I'll be honest — I went in skeptical on the technical side and the package they sent was actually at the right level of detail. Not a deck, not a summary, the actual design. I added an approval gate requirement and they recorded it in the tracker without pushback. Still have open items before I'd sign off on anything, but the process is cleaner than I expected at this stage.

Noted. I haven't seen enough yet to have a strong view — Priya's the one with the operational context here and she's been offline all week. When she's back, I'd want to hear from her directly before this moves further. What's the realistic timeline?

Regulator request should wrap by end of week. Priya will be back in the driver's seat next week — the sequencing we agreed with the vendor means nothing comes to you until she and Gwen have both signed off on the evidence case anyway. You won't be asked to weigh in before you have what you need.

Tomas, Gwen — I know you were both quiet on that call and I am not going to pretend I wasn't frustrated. But I want to separate that from what I'm asking you to read. The protocol they sent is exactly what I asked for, word for word, on time. I've attached it here. Please read it before we sync tomorrow. I am not asking for approval tonight. I am asking you to come in tomorrow having actually read it.

Read it. Controls look reasonable and I appreciate that they didn't try to soften the staffing deficit math — that's usually where vendors get cute. My concern is still sequencing, not the vendor. We have Hollis coming in hot with that benchmark claim and I don't want the quarantined eval to become a bargaining chip in a pricing fight we haven't finished yet. Let's talk before the full committee tomorrow.

Priya,

Apologies for the silence on the call — I needed to check one thing with my team before saying anything on record and didn't want to give you a soft answer in front of the vendor.

Short answer: I can support option (2), the staged holdout path, provided the decision block in section 3 stays exactly as written and doesn't get amended during the evaluation window without my sign-off. That's my condition. Not a no.

Separate issue — Hollis forwarded me that Casewright benchmark this aftern

Tomas,

I want to be transparent with you before tomorrow's committee meeting. The Casewright benchmark I circulated is real but it's a different product tier — I know that. My job is to test price integrity before we get to signature, and a 25% ask with MFN language is standard opening leverage in a regulated-industry deal of this size. If Northgate holds the line cleanly, that actually tells us something useful about how they'll behave post-contract.

What I don't want is for Priya's evaluatio

Holdout is live as of 4:47 today. Gwen's ack came through clean, MAP is confirmed with no corrections, and Northgate went quiet exactly like I asked. Honestly — cleanest vendor handoff I've run in three years here. They did what they said they'd do, on the timeline they said they'd do it.

Good. Now heads up — Casewright got to me this week. Their team pushed their AI-triage roadmap through me, framing it as 'wait one quarter, no paper risk, no holdout overhead.' I circulated it per the ask but I want you to know my read: it's a classic stall play dressed as a roadmap. The slip history on that kind of promise is not great. That said, Marcus and Hollis haven't seen Northgate perform yet — they've only seen the deck. Holdout results are going to do more work than anything we say rig

Tomas — for your awareness, I reviewed the Casewright roadmap you forwarded. A few flags from TPRM's side: the 'isolated AI triage environment' they're describing doesn't specify model lineage or training data provenance anywhere in the deck, and the Q4 timeline has no contractual anchor. I'm not saying it's vapor, but I'd want to see the same level of control evidence from them that I just received from Northgate before I'd treat their roadmap as a credible alternative. Wanted you to have that

Marcus — saw the Casewright deck Tomas shared. Honestly the 'zero paper risk' framing is doing some heavy lifting there. From a vendor management standpoint, a Q4 promise with no signed terms is still a Q4 promise. I'm not sold on Northgate either — their procurement process has been more structured than I expected but I haven't seen their commercials yet — but I wouldn't count the Casewright thing as a real alternative until they put something on paper. Just flagging before anyone uses it as le

Holdout is live as of 4:47 today. Gwen's ack came through clean, MAP is locked. Northgate did exactly what they said they'd do, on the timeline they committed to. No scrambling, no excuses, no ambiguity in the package. I'll be honest — that's not how these things usually go at this stage. I'm cautiously optimistic.

Good. That's the behavior I needed to see from them before I'd feel comfortable taking this to Marcus in any serious way. Five weeks is a long time to hold a clean room — let's see if the performance data tells the same story the demos did. Keep Gwen close during the holdout. Her sign-off on the back end is going to matter more than ours when Marcus starts asking hard questions about risk surface.

Package was actually complete. All three items indexed, no ambiguity, no 'please refer to attachment B for context.' I've seen vendors take four rounds to get this right — they got it in one. I'm not changing my evaluation posture but I'm noting it. Will have the isolated-environment review wrapped by end of next week and flag you immediately if anything surfaces.

Tomas — saw the MAP come through and noted the holdout is now running. I want to flag that we still haven't received the updated MSA redline from Northgate reflecting the liability cap language Marcus's team flagged in week 4. That's not a holdout blocker but it will be a close-out blocker, and five weeks goes fast. Can Priya or someone on her side push Northgate to get that back to me before we're in the final week scrambling? I don't want contract terms to be the thing that slows us down if th

We're carrying 82,000 aged alerts — at our loaded cost that's roughly $19M a year of investigation spend, and the regulator wants that aged backlog under 10,000

if we can't show a credible trajectory by then, the consent order gets extended and it costs us roughly $3M a month in enhanced-monitoring expenses

weekly inflow is approximately 4,200 alerts on a normalized basis, disposition capacity is running around 2,800 per week with current staffing

Explanation: Multiple buyer-confirmed metrics across multiple stakeholders: 82,000 aged alerts to <10,000 threshold (Priya, turn 5), $19M investigation spend (Priya, turn 5), $3M/month consent-order extension cost (Priya, turn 9), 94% false-positive rate (turn 5), 31% attrition / 140 analysts / $8.4M replacement (turn 5), 4,200 weekly inflow vs 2,800 capacity (Priya, turn 104). Seller confirmed and recited these numbers accurately across multiple calls.

anything at this scale is COO-approved, Marcus Vale, but the real gauntlet is TPRM under Gwen Park and model risk under the CRO

I'll get you thirty minutes with Marcus. But I have conditions.

Explanation: Marcus Vale (COO) is confirmed as EB by Priya (turn 3) and referenced consistently. Priya conditionally committed to arrange a 30-minute Marcus meeting (turn 13). However, the EB meeting was never held (scenario states EB meeting held: false), and Marcus was never directly engaged. Score is 2 (confirmed by one source—Priya—with evidence) rather than 3 because no second stakeholder independently confirmed Marcus's authority and no direct EB engagement occurred.

I'd need to see false-positive suppression that gets us below 70%, ideally closer to 60%, with zero increase in true-positive miss rate — and I'd want that val…

I want to see the examiner-facing explainability section specifically — not the technical documentation, the examiner-facing section

Confidence level is 95% one-sided. On δ, I'm not setting it to zero today — I want Dara to calculate what the available true-positive sample can actually suppo…

Explanation: Decision criteria confirmed by multiple stakeholders: Priya set FP rate, TP miss rate, and capacity gates (turn 11); Tomas added examiner-facing explainability and model limitation transparency (turn 44); Jerome specified 95% one-sided confidence, δ ≤ 2pp, reproducible code (turn 52); Gwen added IAM/retention/data-restriction controls (turns 73, 130). Seller mapped all criteria into the validation protocol and MAP.

the real gauntlet is TPRM under Gwen Park and model risk under the CRO — four to six weeks if your documentation is clean

Same-day complete intake is acceptable to me — I don't require TPRM final approval before I open MRM review, but I do require both packages accepted into intak…

yes, I will sponsor the written cross-functional holdout decision today. Conditional — I want the control evidence Gwen just described confirmed complete befor…

Explanation: Decision process confirmed by multiple stakeholders: Priya described MRM/TPRM gating (turn 3); Jerome confirmed same-day synchronized intake policy (turn 56); Tomas confirmed sponsorship conditions (turn 134); Gwen confirmed TPRM exception approval process (turn 130). Seller built a detailed MAP reflecting the full process including Renata→Gwen→Dara→synchronized intake sequence.

anything above $1M typically requires legal and procurement pre-clearance at this institution before a COO can authorize, so get your terms to me no later than…

Contract term I'd expect is three years minimum for something at this integration depth, but that's a procurement conversation, not one for Marcus's thirty min…

Explanation: Priya confirmed procurement/legal pre-clearance requirement for >$1M contracts and a 3-year minimum term expectation (turn 32). Seller acknowledged and incorporated these into the MAP. However, only Priya confirmed these details; no procurement or legal stakeholder was directly engaged, and Hollis (VP Vendor Management) was engaged only on the commercial benchmark, not the full paper process. Score 2 rather than 3 due to single-source confirmation.

We're carrying 82,000 aged alerts — at our loaded cost that's roughly $19M a year of investigation spend, and the regulator wants that aged backlog under 10,00…

the only lever that actually moves the needle without creating new risk is dramatically improving the signal quality before alerts reach an analyst — which mea…

that's the piece that matters most to me personally given where my name sits on the remediation plan

Explanation: Pain confirmed by multiple stakeholders with specificity: Priya owns the backlog number reported to regulator (turn 5); Tomas confirmed personal accountability on the remediation plan (turn 44); Gwen confirmed TPRM exposure and control gaps (turns 73, 130). The consent-order context, $3M/month consequence, and staffing doom loop were all buyer-confirmed. Seller correctly identified and recited the pain without distortion.

I'll get you thirty minutes with Marcus. But I have conditions. We present my backlog number and a conservative case — if I see 'up to' anywhere on a slide, I …

You have run this process the way I would want someone to run it if they were actually trying to solve my problem rather than sell me something

Explanation: Priya is an active champion: she sponsored scoping sessions, arranged Tomas/Gwen access, forwarded internal Slack threads, conditionally committed to Marcus introduction, and defended Northgate's process internally. However, the champion is not fully tested—the EB meeting never occurred (scenario: EB meeting held: false), the deal ended in no_decision, and Priya's ability to actually deliver Marcus's approval was never validated. Score 2 rather than 3 because the champion's ultimate effectiveness was not proven.

their AI triage has slipped twice, and Tomas doesn't want to hear it because their exec sponsor is his golf partner, so if you make me say that in a room I'll …

[week 5 event] Casewright's exec sponsor gets Tomas to circulate their AI-triage roadmap deck internally, positioning 'wait a quarter, zero paper risk'

Explanation: Casewright is the incumbent with political protection via Tomas's exec relationship. Priya confidentially disclosed two AI triage slips (turn 7). Seller correctly handled this by not attributing it to Priya and building an evidence-based competitive standard (turn 121). The Casewright roadmap event (turn 119) was addressed by the seller in the week 5 committee call. Score 2 rather than 3 because competitive intelligence came from one confidential source and the seller never obtained independent confirmation of Casewright's slip history.

Explanation: Priya Raman (named owner) stated in her own words that 82,000 aged alerts must fall below 10,000 (number attached), driven by a consent order with a regulator checkpoint. The $19M investigation spend and $3M/month extension consequence provide additional quantification. All three criteria met.

That's the most disciplined validation framework I've heard from a vendor in this space, and I mean that — the parallel documentation track alone tells me you'…

Explanation: Priya (named owner) confirmed in her own words that Northgate's validation framework was superior to other vendors. Tomas similarly confirmed the examiner-facing explainability and limitation disclosure met his standard (turn 46). However, no specific number was attached to why Northgate specifically—the differentiation was qualitative (methodology, discipline, MRM experience). number_attached is false.

the checkpoint is ten weeks out, and if we can't show a credible trajectory by then, the consent order gets extended and it costs us roughly $3M a month in enh…

Explanation: Priya (named owner) stated in her own words the specific consequence of delay: $3M/month in enhanced-monitoring expenses if the checkpoint is missed. The consent order and regulator checkpoint create a hard deadline. All three criteria met.

Explanation: The scenario states the max discount conceded was 25% (deterministic), which exceeds the deal's tolerance of ≤8%. Despite the seller's strong value defense in the Hollis negotiation (turns 84, 87)—refusing the 25% demand, requiring scope normalization, and holding $1.4M list price throughout the transcript—the outcome score must reflect the deterministic 25% concession stated in the scenario metadata. The seller's in-transcript behavior was exemplary (no unilateral discount offered, reciprocal levers proposed, MFP rejected), but the final conceded discount of 25% vs. the 8% tolerance yields a score of 0.

E — Economic Buyer, P — Paper Process, C — Champion, C — Competition

The CRO (model risk owner) was identified by name only as a title throughout the transcript. The seller never identified the CRO's name, never engaged the CRO directly, and never confirmed the CRO's specific pain or decision criteria. The CRO's model-risk sign-off is a gating approval for conditional deployment, yet no named individual was ever attached to that role beyond 'the CRO.'

No EB meeting was ever held (Marcus Vale, COO (Economic Buyer)). EB meeting requested: true.

Tomas's exec relationship with Casewright's sponsor was identified as an active political blocker in week 1. The seller acknowledged it but never developed a strategy to neutralize Tomas as a potential blocker—relying entirely on Priya to manage the dynamic. When Casewright's exec sponsor activated Tomas to circulate the roadmap deck in week 5 (turn 119), the seller had no pre-positioned counter. The seller never directly addressed the Tomas-Casewright relationship risk with Tomas himself.

Tomas doesn't want to hear it because their exec sponsor is his golf partner, so if you make me say that in a room I'll deny it. That's the political reality I…

Conceded 25% against a 8% deal tolerance.

Discount conceded within a week of procurement entering (wk4): 25% at wk4, t84, 25% at wk4, t87.

Casewright's exec sponsor leveraged the Tomas relationship to circulate a competitive roadmap deck internally during week 5. While the seller addressed this in the week 5 committee call (turn 121), the seller had no pre-set trap or documented competitive strategy prepared before the event fired—the response was reactive. The seller had known since turn 7 that Tomas's exec relationship with Casewright was a political risk but never proactively neutralized it or built a documented competitive comparison before Casewright moved.

[week 5 event] Casewright's exec sponsor gets Tomas to circulate their AI-triage roadmap deck internally, positioning 'wait a quarter, zero paper risk.'

Hey — quick debrief on the Northgate call. I think they're well-prepped and genuinely listening. They're not pushing provisional dates as commitments, they're holding the MAP until Tuesday when Dara and Jerome can confirm scope. That's the right posture. My read is they understand the MRM bar and the completeness requirement. Worth your time Tuesday if you can make even the first 20 min.

Appreciate the update. I'll try to join the open. Honest question — are we confident they can actually deliver the full MRM package (model card, explainability docs, examiner-facing section, all of it) within the timeframe, or are they just agreeing with whatever you tell them the bar is? I've seen vendors nod through requirements and then show up with half a deck.

Fair concern and I'm not ready to say we're confident yet — that's what the dataset and the validation run are for. What I can say is they didn't flinch when I spelled out that an incomplete package is not a submission. They repeated it back correctly. Tuesday will tell us more once Jerome's intake templates are on the table and we see how they respond to actual criteria vs. a verbal description.

Tomas — Priya looped me in on the Northgate eval. I haven't been in the calls yet so I'm going off secondhand context, but I want to flag that I haven't seen a TPRM questionnaire, SOC 2, or any sub-processor disclosure from them yet. If we're moving toward a dataset handoff in week 2, my team needs to be parallel-tracked, not sequential. I'll name a TPRM lead once Priya confirms the ask, but I want to make sure everyone understands my review isn't a formality that happens after the business deci

Tomas — quick update on Northgate. We've agreed on a sequenced intake protocol: reconstruction test has to pass before either MRM or TPRM submission goes in, same calendar day or nothing moves. I've sent the TPRM summary to Renata for approval (not routing — approval, with Northgate attending with redline authority). Dates are slipping from the original Friday target but the structure is tighter than anything I've seen from a vendor at this stage. I'm not concerned about the slip.

Appreciated. The gate logic sounds right — I'd rather have a hard stop at reconstruction than find out TPRM and MRM are out of sync after the fact. Renata is the right call. What's your read on timeline now, realistically? And has Marcus seen anything yet?

Marcus hasn't seen anything and I want to keep it that way until reconstruction passes and intake is confirmed. We've agreed — Northgate included — that nothing goes to him before that. I'll have a cleaner timeline estimate once Renata confirms her date, probably early next week. The vendor is being disciplined about not getting ahead of the evidence, which I actually respect.

Tomas — Priya looped me in on the Renata request. I haven't reviewed the TPRM summary Northgate provided yet (it's coming through Renata's process, not directly to me, which is a little unusual). I want to make sure I have eyes on the actual control design before this gets to intake — not just the summary. I'm not blocking anything, but I'd like Priya to route me the underlying materials when she has them. Flagging so you're aware.

Quick note for Gwen and Marcus — Priya is heads-down on the regulator pull this week, so I've been the point of contact for Northgate. They handled it well: no pressure emails to Priya, came to me and Gwen directly with substantive material. Gwen, you can speak to the lineage design package better than I can.

Yeah, I'll be honest — I went in skeptical on the technical side and the package they sent was actually at the right level of detail. Not a deck, not a summary, the actual design. I added an approval gate requirement and they recorded it in the tracker without pushback. Still have open items before I'd sign off on anything, but the process is cleaner than I expected at this stage.

Noted. I haven't seen enough yet to have a strong view — Priya's the one with the operational context here and she's been offline all week. When she's back, I'd want to hear from her directly before this moves further. What's the realistic timeline?

Regulator request should wrap by end of week. Priya will be back in the driver's seat next week — the sequencing we agreed with the vendor means nothing comes to you until she and Gwen have both signed off on the evidence case anyway. You won't be asked to weigh in before you have what you need.

Tomas, Gwen — I know you were both quiet on that call and I am not going to pretend I wasn't frustrated. But I want to separate that from what I'm asking you to read. The protocol they sent is exactly what I asked for, word for word, on time. I've attached it here. Please read it before we sync tomorrow. I am not asking for approval tonight. I am asking you to come in tomorrow having actually read it.

Read it. Controls look reasonable and I appreciate that they didn't try to soften the staffing deficit math — that's usually where vendors get cute. My concern is still sequencing, not the vendor. We have Hollis coming in hot with that benchmark claim and I don't want the quarantined eval to become a bargaining chip in a pricing fight we haven't finished yet. Let's talk before the full committee tomorrow.

Priya,

Apologies for the silence on the call — I needed to check one thing with my team before saying anything on record and didn't want to give you a soft answer in front of the vendor.

Short answer: I can support option (2), the staged holdout path, provided the decision block in section 3 stays exactly as written and doesn't get amended during the evaluation window without my sign-off. That's my condition. Not a no.

Separate issue — Hollis forwarded me that Casewright benchmark this aftern

Tomas,

I want to be transparent with you before tomorrow's committee meeting. The Casewright benchmark I circulated is real but it's a different product tier — I know that. My job is to test price integrity before we get to signature, and a 25% ask with MFN language is standard opening leverage in a regulated-industry deal of this size. If Northgate holds the line cleanly, that actually tells us something useful about how they'll behave post-contract.

What I don't want is for Priya's evaluatio

Holdout is live as of 4:47 today. Gwen's ack came through clean, MAP is confirmed with no corrections, and Northgate went quiet exactly like I asked. Honestly — cleanest vendor handoff I've run in three years here. They did what they said they'd do, on the timeline they said they'd do it.

Good. Now heads up — Casewright got to me this week. Their team pushed their AI-triage roadmap through me, framing it as 'wait one quarter, no paper risk, no holdout overhead.' I circulated it per the ask but I want you to know my read: it's a classic stall play dressed as a roadmap. The slip history on that kind of promise is not great. That said, Marcus and Hollis haven't seen Northgate perform yet — they've only seen the deck. Holdout results are going to do more work than anything we say rig

Tomas — for your awareness, I reviewed the Casewright roadmap you forwarded. A few flags from TPRM's side: the 'isolated AI triage environment' they're describing doesn't specify model lineage or training data provenance anywhere in the deck, and the Q4 timeline has no contractual anchor. I'm not saying it's vapor, but I'd want to see the same level of control evidence from them that I just received from Northgate before I'd treat their roadmap as a credible alternative. Wanted you to have that

Marcus — saw the Casewright deck Tomas shared. Honestly the 'zero paper risk' framing is doing some heavy lifting there. From a vendor management standpoint, a Q4 promise with no signed terms is still a Q4 promise. I'm not sold on Northgate either — their procurement process has been more structured than I expected but I haven't seen their commercials yet — but I wouldn't count the Casewright thing as a real alternative until they put something on paper. Just flagging before anyone uses it as le

Holdout is live as of 4:47 today. Gwen's ack came through clean, MAP is locked. Northgate did exactly what they said they'd do, on the timeline they committed to. No scrambling, no excuses, no ambiguity in the package. I'll be honest — that's not how these things usually go at this stage. I'm cautiously optimistic.

Good. That's the behavior I needed to see from them before I'd feel comfortable taking this to Marcus in any serious way. Five weeks is a long time to hold a clean room — let's see if the performance data tells the same story the demos did. Keep Gwen close during the holdout. Her sign-off on the back end is going to matter more than ours when Marcus starts asking hard questions about risk surface.

Package was actually complete. All three items indexed, no ambiguity, no 'please refer to attachment B for context.' I've seen vendors take four rounds to get this right — they got it in one. I'm not changing my evaluation posture but I'm noting it. Will have the isolated-environment review wrapped by end of next week and flag you immediately if anything surfaces.

Tomas — saw the MAP come through and noted the holdout is now running. I want to flag that we still haven't received the updated MSA redline from Northgate reflecting the liability cap language Marcus's team flagged in week 4. That's not a holdout blocker but it will be a close-out blocker, and five weeks goes fast. Can Priya or someone on her side push Northgate to get that back to me before we're in the final week scrambling? I don't want contract terms to be the thing that slows us down if th

The deal outcome was no_decision despite exceptional seller process discipline. The seller correctly identified and recited buyer metrics, built a rigorous MAP, held price integrity in-transcript, multithreaded to Gwen and Tomas during Priya's blackout week, and never bypassed agreed sequencing gates.

The 25% discount concession is a scenario-level deterministic outcome that does not appear in the transcript itself—the seller's in-transcript commercial behavior was exemplary (held $1.4M, rejected MFP, proposed reciprocal levers only). The price integrity score of 0 reflects the metadata outcome, not the seller's negotiation conduct.

The EB (Marcus Vale) was never met despite Priya's conditional commitment at turn 13. The five-week holdout, Renata/Gwen approval sequence, and Tomas pre-brief gates were never completed within the six-week scenario window, preventing the Marcus meeting.

Priya is classified as untested_champion because while she was highly active and credible internally, her ability to deliver Marcus's conditional deployment authorization was never validated—the deal ended before that test occurred.

MAP dates confirmed percentage estimated at 55%: the seller obtained buyer confirmation of the overall sequence structure, the five-week holdout window, the synchronized intake requirement, and the Tomas/Priya/Marcus sequence. However, most specific calendar dates remained contingent on Renata's session (not yet confirmed), Gwen's approval, and Dara's reconstruction test—none of which were converted to confirmed calendar dates by the end of the transcript.

The conditional commitment before proof (turn 13) was achieved: Priya committed to a 30-minute Marcus meeting conditioned on validation criteria (conservative business case, no 'up to' language, Tomas pre-brief) before any proof/POV was delivered.

The seller correctly treated Priya's confidential Casewright disclosure as protected throughout, never attributing it to her or forcing a group comparison—a significant trust-building behavior that enabled champion development.

The CRO was never named or directly engaged despite being identified as a gating approver for model risk sign-off. This represents a stakeholder coverage gap that could have contributed to the no_decision outcome.

Next action: [MAP dates confirmed: 8.3/15] Introduce/refresh the MAP working backward from the customer's go-live; get the next 30 days of dates confirmed in writing.

Next action: [MEDDPICC evidence: 33.3/40] Work the lowest letter (E — Economic Buyer, P — Paper Process, C — Champion, C — Competition).

Next action: [3 Whys clarity: 17.7/20] Rewrite each Why in the customer's own words with a named owner and a number; capture a verbatim quote.