Change-request impact assessment

What it works from

• The change request
• The current SOW, plan or scope document
• Your materiality thresholds

What you get back

• Scope, cost, timeline and risk deltas made explicit
• A materiality score that decides the depth of assessment
• Approval wording or a processing note depending on the branch

Why this is expensive by hand

Not every change request deserves a formal impact assessment, but deciding which do is where scope creep hides. In practice it shows up as live delivery change control: assess incoming requests against the signed scope in minutes so decisions are not deferred to the next steering meeting. The value sits in the rigour, not the typing — yet the rigour is exactly what gets traded away when there is only 2–3 days of capacity for it.

How this Skill produces it

Here the same job runs as a Skill. Your material goes in; scope, cost, timeline and risk deltas made explicit comes out, alongside a materiality score that decides the depth of assessment. What sits between input and output is the codified method: thresholds, sequencing and the points where a human confirms a call — all of it visible and editable in the Skill. Net effect: 2–3 days down to ~15 minutes, no drift between runs, and every conclusion traceable back to the evidence behind it.