# Regulatory Change Impact Assessment ## 1. Scope and Source Status Illustrative scenario only: Aster Retail, customer-services process, assumed jurisdiction 'Scenario jurisdiction' (no real legal system claimed). The user supplies a **fictional** instrument: s4 requires a dated complaints register; s5 requires handlers to be trained before launch. Stated effective date: 1 December 2026. These are user-provided scenario terms, **not verified legal obligations**. Current-state facts provided: register lacks dates and training is undocumented. Applicable entity, actual regulator, legislative status and authoritative source: To confirm. Baseline comparison: Not provided. ## 2. Executive Impact Summary Two process changes merit attention: include and preserve complaint dates, and evidence training before handlers go live. The existing undated register cannot demonstrate dating; absence of training records is an evidence gap, not proof that no training occurred. Management should confirm the rule/source and assign accountable owners before approving an implementation timetable. ## 3. Obligation and Change Register | ID | Scenario source | Supplied requirement | Baseline change | Applicability | Evidence status | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | RC-01 | Fictional s4 | Keep a dated complaints register | Baseline not supplied | Customer service — provisional | Current register described as undated; export not received | | RC-02 | Fictional s5 | Train handlers before launch | Baseline not supplied | Complaint handlers — provisional | No documented training evidence | Both obligation interpretations rely solely on the hypothetical text; validate all qualifiers and the legal status of the full instrument. ## 4. Process and Control Impact Matrix | ID | Process | Current state (provided) | Proposed operational change | Proposed owner | Priority | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | RC-01 | Complaint capture | Register has no dates | Add receipt/date and action timestamps; validate an exported sample | Service Operations Lead | High — preliminary | | RC-02 | Training and onboarding | Records not documented | Define handler list; deliver/record training prior to go-live | Learning Lead | High — preliminary | ## 5. Implementation Action Plan | Action | Linked ID | Deliverable | Owner (proposed) | Internal target (proposed) | Acceptance criteria | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | A1 | RC-01 | Updated register fields and instructions | Service Operations Lead | 16 Nov 2026 | Five sample entries show reliable complaint dates and change history | | A2 | RC-02 | Role-based training and completion report | Learning Lead | 23 Nov 2026 | Training record covers all active complaint handlers before go-live | | A3 | Both | Review and closure recommendation | Compliance Lead | 26 Nov 2026 | Evidence tested, exceptions logged and decision recorded | Internal dates are planning proposals, not statutory deadlines. The fictional supplied effective date is 1 December 2026; 'launch' timing remains to confirm. ## 6. Evidence and Assurance Plan | ID | Expected evidence | Currently held | Independent check | Status | |---|---|---|---|---| | RC-01 | Dated register extract, procedure, sample test | None provided | Review five entries and audit trail | Requested | | RC-02 | Handler roster, curriculum, dated attendance/completion | None provided | Reconcile roster with completions before launch | Requested | | Both | Reviewer approval and exception log | None provided | Authorised sign-off after evidence tests | Not yet evidenced | ## 7. Questions, Decisions and Escalations 1. Compliance: Is the hypothetical text complete, binding and applicable? Obtain authoritative reference and jurisdiction. 2. Operations: What is the actual launch date, and is it earlier than the stated effective date? 3. IT: Can the complaints system export timestamps and identify missing entries? 4. Learning: Were handlers previously trained without retained evidence? 5. Governance: Who has formal authority to approve readiness and temporary safeguards? ## 8. Management Briefing The scenario describes two candidate obligations and two gaps in operational demonstrability. Start register remediation and training evidence collection, but do not report completion. Escalate any inability to validate before the relevant implementation date to the named compliance reviewer. Proposed readiness status: **In progress — not validated**. ## 9. Assumptions and Limitations All rule text, entity, and dates are illustrative user inputs; owner names are role suggestions. No official source, control sample, system test, policy baseline or formal sign-off was reviewed. ## 10. Disclaimer and Review Sign-off This is a preliminary implementation-planning pack for a fictional regulatory scenario. It is not legal advice or compliance assurance. Qualified legal/compliance approval: **Not evidenced**.