Before comparing projects, check the quality of the evidence

Two project dossiers can contain the same headings and offer very different levels of evidence. One clearly labels an assumption about capacity. The other presents the assumption as a certainty because it appears in a polished table. Before comparing the projects, examine what each claim actually allows you to conclude.

The same preparation applies to an organisation assessing its maturity. A written procedure, an observed practice and a checked result are distinct pieces of information. Combining them in a single “compliant” box makes it harder to understand what works, what remains uncertain and what needs checking before a decision.

Start with the decision to inform

Write down the choice required: continue a study, authorise expenditure, revise the scope or defer a launch. Then identify the claims on which that choice depends. You do not need every available document; you need the evidence that answers the questions that matter.

For production capacity, specify the period, resources and operating conditions. For an organisation, define the activities and teams observed. A document answering a different question may be useful without being sufficient to support the decision before you.

Build a readable evidence register

The register below organises verification. It does not calculate a Project Passport score or replace its evaluation engine.

• State the claim. Replace “the market is validated” with something testable: an identified contact expressed a need on a specified date.
• Locate the evidence. Record the document title, version, author and date. A link to an entire folder does not identify the relevant passage.
• Define its scope. Specify the products, activities, territories or periods covered. A local conclusion does not automatically apply to the whole organisation.
• Expose its limits. Record assumptions, contradictions and conditions that reduce the document’s reach. Keep them visible rather than burying them in an appendix.
• Assign verification. Name the person able to confirm the fact or obtain the missing information, with a deadline compatible with the decision.

Keep a category for missing information. It helps you request a precise addition. Missing evidence does not automatically establish that a project is poor; it limits what you can reasonably claim at that stage.

Fictitious example: preparing a workshop

In a fictitious situation, a committee considers a production workshop proposal. The dossier includes an old quotation, capacity stated by the project owner and a letter of interest from a potential buyer. These documents are not interchangeable.

The register separates the cost requiring an update, the capacity requiring verification under the intended conditions and the commercial interest requiring clarification. The committee continues the study subject to conditions, without presenting that decision as full confirmation of viability. This example describes no NASCIELIS client and claims no funding secured.

Prepare for a Project Passport evaluation

ISO includes evidence-based decision making among its quality management principles. Our register is a practical NASCIELIS Strategy proposal, separate from an ISO requirement or certification.

The NASCIELIS method distinguishes findings, assumptions and missing information within the Diagnose stage. The register prepares that analysis; the evidence still needs examination in context.

Project Passport remains under the responsibility of NASCIELIS Strategy. Every organisation using it receives a commercial licence, with scope and rights defined in the contract. The public level 1 diagnostic is an initial self-assessment, separate from the Project Passport engine.

Before your next review, choose a decisive claim and ask someone who did not prepare the dossier to follow its evidence trail. If they cannot explain the conclusion and its limits, request clarification before making the decision.