Handover deliverable · 3 of 6 · Target M3–M5

Reporting assurance during migration

Risks we are watching, checks and reconciliation, and confidence before publish — one narrative.

DRH migration context: Legendary Care (case-based) → PathwayOne (action-based). Parallel run Dec 2025–Jan 2026; Mar 2026 definition crunch.

A — Risks we are watching

These are not IT tickets — they are reporting meaning risks with named owners. Phase D (Feb–Mar 2026) combines definition drift with two source models.

ID	Risk	Owner	Status	Residual
R001	Definition drift during parallel run	Performance lead	Open	High
R002	Dashboard refreshes with wrong meaning	BI lead	Open	High
R009	Rejected referral logic changes between old and new systems	Clinical lead	Open	High
R013	Dashboard feed succeeds but measure meaning has changed	Performance lead	Open	High

All migration risks (13 rows)

ID	Risk	Owner	Status	Residual
R003	Weekly referral feed discontinued Feb	IM&T	Mitigated	Low
R004	Team code remap incomplete	Service manager	Open	Medium
R005	MHSDS-like return uses legacy logic	Mandatory reporting owner	Open	High
R006	Duplicate actions in PathwayOne	BI lead	Open	Medium
R007	Phase D spans two source models for Mar reporting	Performance lead	Open	Medium
R008	Case object no longer exists — pathway logic must be derived	BI lead	Open	High
R010	Pathway start date logic changes (access vs first contact)	Service manager	Open	Medium
R011	Activity count includes admin actions unless explicitly excluded	CSDS owner	Open	High
R012	Local and national definitions diverge post-migration	Mandatory reporting owner	Open	Medium

migration_risk_register.csv

B — Checks and reconciliation

Mar 2026 validation — is the definition chain still intact?

Check	Rule	Result	Pass?
VAL-01	No duplicate ActionId in month	1 duplicate (DRH-PAT-005663)	Fail
VAL-02	All teams map via crosswalk	1 INVALID_TEAM row	Fail
VAL-03	Referral count within ±15% of agreed	+14.9% (154 vs 134)	Fail
VAL-04	Orphan cases without actions post-cutover	3.2%	Pass
VAL-05	Admin actions excluded from activity	2 admin rows flagged	Pass
VAL-06	MHSDS-like matches agreed referrals	154 submitted (dashboard)	Fail

Reconciliation by team — Mar 2026

Team	Old	New default	Agreed	Dashboard
AA-MH-NORTH-01	42	48	38	44
AA-MH-SOUTH-01	38	45	36	41
AA-MH-EAST-01	35	40	33	37
AA-CRISIS-01	22	25	20	23
AA-PCL-01	14	10	7	9
TOTAL	151	168	134	154

VAL-03 and VAL-06 failed: dashboard still refreshes (+14.9% vs agreed) but OPT-C shows −11%. Publication held until definition chain is signed off.

Definition migration reconciliation · Low-confidence rows in map · validation_checks_register.csv

C — Confidence and publish decisions

High — definition chain signed off Medium — owner confirmation required Low — do not use for Board Do not use — chain broken or unvalidated

During phase D, default to Medium or below for any KPI touching both Legendary Care and PathwayOne.

Report	Confidence	Fallback	Publish decision
Executive MH dashboard	Low	Manual reconciliation pack	Withhold from Board
MHSDS-like monthly	Medium	Legacy pipeline fallback	Submit 134 not 154
Local demand-capacity pack	High	n/a	Safe for service review
Waiting list risk report	Medium	Old case stock comparison	Use with definition caveat

Mar 2026 actions: Executive dashboard withheld from Board (Low). MHSDS-like submit 134 not 154. Demand-capacity pack safe for service review.

Formatted confidence report · reporting_confidence_register.csv

In plain English

This is the safety checklist for reporting during the IT migration. First we list what could go wrong and who owns each risk. Then we show the checks we ran and whether the numbers still match what we agreed. Finally we say which reports are safe to publish, which need a caveat, and which we withheld from the Board. It replaces three separate registers that were saying the same thing in different ways.