Mandate audit — 30 minutes

A separate diagnostic for missing or unclear decision authority. It produces a decision map, not units of work. Lack of time, a small group or lack of technical evidence alone is not a reason to choose it.

Three to five participants is a practical starting point: someone who knows the domain, someone who knows the code and a facilitator/driver. Roles may overlap. Invite a decision owner if useful; their attendance does not invalidate the audit. The facilitator owns the timer.

Frame — 3 minutes

Ask for a real backlog item, available context and the people present. A recently completed item can be examined retrospectively, but label that evidence separately. State: "We are finding which questions need evidence, which need a decision, and who can resolve them. We are not planning implementation."

Questions — 15 minutes

Generate a prioritised set of up to ten questions across business rules, exceptions, integrations, data, exclusions and verification. Ask one at a time; cover the most consequential questions within the timebox, not a quota. For each record two independent dimensions:

Ask for a resolver and next action where needed. Distinguish a confirmed owner from a proposed contact; leave unconfirmed ownership explicit. Never infer lack of authority from hesitant wording. Do not manufacture default answers for factual, legal or operational questions.

Resolution map — 7 minutes

For each unresolved question record the next action, proposed or confirmed resolver, deadline if agreed, and impact of waiting. Ask for observed wait times where available. Label estimates, ranges and unknowns; do not invent money values or turn an estimate into a measurement. Prioritise the few questions that block progress.

If participants want to discuss delegation levels, use their agreed framework and define its direction. The audit does not require familiarity with a management model. Record disagreements rather than forcing a single score.

Close — 5 minutes

Read back the map. Ask: "Which decisions would you like the team to own, and what information or support would that require?" Preserve the answer and label unresolved disagreement. Offer the document for review; do not send it to managers automatically.

Write to docs/mandate-audit/<item>.md, preserving previous records, or print:

# Mandate audit: <item>
Mode: mandate-audit
Date: <date or unknown>
Participants: <agreed identifiers and roles>
Item and context: <references>
Evidence basis: <live item or retrospective; number of items examined>

## Headline
Questions examined: N
Evidence: confirmed N / assumed N / unknown N
Authority: team N / external N / unclear N / not applicable N
Unresolved questions without a confirmed resolver: N
Wait-time evidence: <observations, estimates and unknowns kept separate>

## Resolution map
| Question | Evidence / source | Authority | Resolver / confirmation | Next action | Agreed due date | Waiting impact / basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

## Decisions the team would like to own
<participants' words, including disagreements>

## Already resolved
<answers and evidence>

## Limits and next review
<missing perspectives, evidence gaps and review arrangement>

Each dimension's counts sum to questions examined; the two dimensions must not be added together. No confirmed resolver does not mean nobody in the organisation owns a decision. Most authority inside the team does not prove full Mob Elaboration is appropriate: check scope, uncertainty, participants and timing again. One item supports a local conversation, not a general diagnosis of the organisation. Gather broader evidence before making broader claims.