RAIDD Log

Lighthouse Financial Services Company — Every risk, assumption, issue, dependency and decision carried by the Beacon Index Advantage program, with a 2-digit ID assigned in the fact pack before the first artifact was written, so nothing in this suite ever needed to invent a register entry after the fact. Status current as at 16 October 2026.

Risk Register (R-01..12)

Assumptions (A-01..08)

Issue Log (I-01..06)

Dependency Log (DEP-01..07)

Decision Log (D-01..11)

Gate Conditions Summary (GC-01..05)

Gate Conditions carry their own full register — owner, verification method, evidence and a post-closure efficacy finding — because a condition is a binding obligation with a due date, not a tracked item like the five categories above. This log carries only a status summary so a reader does not have to leave the RAIDD log to see whether a condition is open; the Gate Conditions Register is the sole source of truth for condition detail.

What the register says when you read it sideways

A register is only a control if somebody reads across it. Five findings fall out of the tables above that none of the individual rows state.

1. In stage-gate, a RAIDD log is gate evidence — not a management tool

On a conventional program the register is an internal tracking artifact; nobody outside the PMO reads it. Here it is tabled at every gate and the Board scores feasibility and residual risk position partly from it. That changes what belongs in it: an entry exists to be defensible in front of five executives who can cancel the program, not to reassure the team. It is the reason every risk above carries a named individual rather than a function, and the reason the closed entries stay visible instead of being archived — a Board that cannot see what was closed cannot judge whether closing it was right.

2. Two risks realized, and the register shows what each cost

Both movements are downward for structurally different reasons, and the distinction matters at a gate: one was solved, the other was deleted. Only the second reduces the program's future exposure permanently.

3. The register got riskier in exactly two places, and both are Gate 2 blockers

R-05 (hedging readiness) rose 15 → 20 and R-07 (distribution deprioritization) rose 12 → 16. Every other open risk is flat. That is not a coincidence: those two are the risks behind the only two Gate Conditions still open, GC-05 and the residue of GC-04. The register and the conditions register are telling the same story from opposite ends — which is what you want, and would be a defect if they disagreed.

4. Ownership concentrates, and that is itself unmanaged

Twelve risks sit with eight owners, but the two highest-scoring open risks (R-05 at 20, R-06 at 15) both trace to functions with a single credentialed decision maker — the Director of ALM & Hedging and the Lead Pricing Actuary. R-10 was the generic version of that exposure and it realized. The register does not currently carry a successor-risk for the hedging seat, and the Chair's position is that it should before Gate 2.

5. A decision is not a full stop — D-03 created R-12

Cutting from five crediting strategies to three (D-03, under GC-01) closed I-02 and retired R-04. It also concentrated future sales into fewer strategies, which is R-12 — a risk that did not exist before the decision that resolved two others. It was raised as a formal dissent at Gate 1 rather than discovered later. Registers that only record what a decision closed, and never what it opened, drift toward looking like every choice was free.

Assumption validity at the status date

Assumptions are the entries most likely to rot quietly, because nothing forces a re-read. All eight are re-tested at each gate; this is their position at 16 October 2026.

Maintained by C. Tyrrell, NPD Program Manager and Chair of the Gate Review Board. Related: Program Charter §16–19 · Gate Conditions Register · Gate 2 Readiness Assessment.