# UNTP Community Activation — Inception Diagnostic & Phase 1 Proposal Template
*For trust architects guiding a community through the Inception Phase of a Community Activation Program (CAP). Use Part A to run the diagnostic, Part B to score what you heard, and Part C to turn that into a proposal the community can vote on.*
**Purpose:** Help Trust Architects investigate a community, assess its readiness for coordinated action and prepare an evidence-based proposal for progressing to the Discovery Phase of a Community Activation Program.
**Companion Knowledge Base article:** *[Questions to Ask During the Community Activation Inception Phase](https://kb.pyx.io/docs/Trust_Architecture/TA-cap-inception-questions)*
---
## How to use this template
1. **Run the diagnostic** (Part A) as a set of structured conversations — interviews, workshops, or a survey — with a representative cross-section of the community: buyers, suppliers, the convening association, and (if relevant) regulators or financiers. Capture verbatim quotes where you can; they're persuasive evidence later.
2. **Score what you heard** (Part B) to test whether the community is actually ready for coordinated action, not just experiencing generic frustration.
3. **Draft the proposal** (Part C) using the evidence gathered. The ask is narrow and time-boxed: *"Authorize us to move from Inception into the Discovery Phase,"* not *"Approve a multi-year implementation."* Keep Phase 1 cheap, fast, and low-risk so the community can say yes without staking much.
---
## Part A — Diagnostic Interview Guide
For each question, capture: **what was said**, **who said it** (role/organisation, not necessarily named), and **how strongly/widely it was felt** (one voice vs. a chorus).
### 1. Industry Pressure and Change
*Why now? What's the catalyst?*
- What has changed in the last 12–24 months?
- What new requirements are emerging?
- What are customers, regulators or buyers asking for that they weren't asking for before?
- What industry trends are creating pressure on participants?
- What challenges are members talking about most often?
- **What would happen if nothing changes in the next 12 months?**
- **Are there specific dates or deadlines (regulatory effective dates, buyer mandates, trade agreements) attached to this pressure?**
- **Have peer industries, regions, or competitors already moved on this — and what happened to those who didn't?**
### 2. Operational Friction
*Where is the community already paying a cost it would rather not pay?*
- What is creating the most frustration today?
- What processes consume significant time and effort?
- What information is repeatedly requested?
- What information is repeatedly recreated?
- What manual workarounds have emerged?
- Where are people doing duplicate work?
- **What does this friction cost — in time, money, or lost deals — and who bears that cost?**
- **Is the cost concentrated on a few participants (e.g. smaller suppliers) or spread evenly across the community?**
- **What would "good" look like if this friction were removed — has anyone already sketched this?**
### 3. Trust and Verification
*What needs to be trusted, and what's broken about how that trust is established today?*
- What claims need to be trusted?
- What evidence is needed to support those claims?
- Who verifies information today? And how onerous is that task?
- Where is fraud occurring?
- What information is difficult to verify?
- Where are people relying on PDFs, emails or manual checks?
- **What happens downstream when a false or unverifiable claim slips through today — who is exposed?**
- **Are there existing trust mechanisms (audits, certifications, registries) that could be made digitally verifiable rather than replaced outright?**
- **Whose trust is actually at stake — consumers, regulators, business partners, or all three — and does that differ by participant?**
### 4. Interoperability and Ecosystem Coordination
*How does information move today, and where does it break down at the seams?*
- Who exchanges information with whom?
- What systems need to interact?
- Where are handoffs occurring?
- Which participants operate across multiple ecosystems?
- What information is requested in multiple formats?
- Are different initiatives solving the same problem differently?
- **What identifier schemes, data standards, or platforms are already in use that any solution would need to interoperate with, not replace?**
- **Are there adjacent or competing initiatives this community should align with, or deliberately differentiate from, rather than duplicate?**
- **What is the geographic/jurisdictional scope of the exchange — domestic only, or cross-border?**
### 5. Community Readiness
*Are the conditions actually present for coordinated action?*
- Is there a pressing problem or requirement that could be a catalyst for change?
- Who cares most about solving the problem?
- Who would benefit if it was solved?
- Is there an organisation capable of convening stakeholders?
- Are there existing communities that could be mobilised?
- Is funding or sponsorship available or already designated?
- **Is there a credible group of first movers willing to pilot ahead of the rest of the community?**
- **What is this community's track record with prior collaborative or digital initiatives — what worked, what stalled, and why?**
- **What formal governance body or decision process exists to authorise community-wide action, and who sits on it?**
### 6. Governance, Capacity and Risk *(recommended addition)*
*Can this community actually deliver, and what could stop it?*
- Who has the formal authority to commit the community or association to a coordinated programme?
- What capacity — staff time, technical skill, prior digital-trust experience — can the community contribute itself, versus needing external support?
- What are the biggest risks to this initiative stalling (participant fatigue, a competing initiative, loss of a key champion, lack of buy-in from one critical stakeholder group)?
- What would cause a key stakeholder to walk away, and how likely is that?
- Is there a single accountable sponsor inside the convening organisation, or is ownership diffuse?
---
## Part B — Readiness Scorecard
Rate the strength of evidence for each area as **Strong / Moderate / Weak**, with one line of justification drawn from Part A. This becomes the evidence base for the proposal in Part C — and an honest go/no-go check before you ask the community to commit to anything.
| Area | Signal strength | Evidence (1 line) |
|---|---|---|
| Industry Pressure and Change | | |
| Operational Friction | | |
| Trust and Verification | | |
| Interoperability and Ecosystem Coordination | | |
| Community Readiness | | |
| Governance, Capacity and Risk | | |
**Rule of thumb:** a community is ready to propose Phase 1 when *Industry Pressure* and *Community Readiness* are both at least Moderate. Weak signals in *Operational Friction*, *Trust and Verification*, or *Interoperability* don't block a proposal — they define which problem the Discovery Phase should focus on. A Weak rating on *Governance, Capacity and Risk* is the one that should give you pause: without a convener and an accountable sponsor, there's no one to carry the proposal forward even if everyone agrees the problem is real.
---
## Part C — Phase 1 (Inception) Proposal Template
*This is the document the trust architect presents to the community. It asks for one decision: authorization to proceed from Inception into the Discovery Phase. Keep it short — a community will approve a focused, low-cost next step far more readily than an open-ended commitment.*
### 1. Executive Summary
*Three to five sentences: the catalyst, the problem, what you're asking for, and what it costs.*
### 2. The Catalyst for Change
*Drawn from Part A, Section 1. Name the specific regulation, buyer requirement, or trend, and its date if there is one. This is the "why now."*
### 3. The Problem We're Solving
*Drawn from Part A, Sections 2 and 3. State the friction and trust gaps in concrete terms — ideally with a cost estimate (time, money, deals lost, audit hours) and a quote from a member. Avoid solutioning here; describe the problem, not UNTP.*
### 4. Who's Affected and Who Benefits
*Drawn from Part A, Sections 4 and 5. Map the buyers, suppliers, and any cross-ecosystem participants. Identify the engaged buyers and committed suppliers — the CAP foundational elements that make a project viable — explicitly.*
### 5. Why Act Together, Why Now
*Drawn from Part A, Sections 5 and 6. Make the case that this is a coordination problem, not something any single organisation can solve alone, and that the convening organisation and a credible first-mover group already exist.*
### 6. What a Community Activation Program Offers
*Reference what the community gains by coordinating through UNTP rather than building independently: reduced cost and risk via re-used registered components (software, identifier schemes, conformity schemes, extensions), interoperability with other UNTP communities, and access to UNECE guidance and sectoral fora.*
### 7. Proposed Scope of This Phase (Inception)
*Be explicit that this phase is about building consensus and producing a business case — not implementation. Typical Inception deliverables:*
- Confirmed catalyst and problem statement (this document)
- Stakeholder map and engagement plan
- Identification of a first-mover / pilot group
- A scoped Discovery Phase plan and budget
### 8. Governance and Decision-Making
*Who sponsors this inside the convening organisation, who needs to approve moving to Discovery, and on what cadence will the community be updated?*
### 9. Resourcing Ask for This Phase Only
*Keep this small and specific — e.g. secretariat time, a facilitator for stakeholder workshops, a Discovery-Phase scoping study. State the cost and who is being asked to fund it.*
### 10. Decision Gate: How We'll Know to Proceed to Discovery
*Define the criteria that would justify moving forward — e.g. a minimum number of committed first movers, confirmed sponsor funding, or a deadline tied to the catalyst identified in Section 2.*
### 11. Risks and Mitigations
*Drawn from Part A, Section 6. Name the top two or three risks to this initiative (e.g. competing initiative, participant fatigue, loss of champion) and what will be done to manage each.*
### 12. The Ask
*One sentence. E.g.: "We ask [governing body] to authorize the Discovery Phase, with a budget of [X] and a target decision date of [date]."*