Review queue & gaps

Canonical taxonomy item 5.1.3 (under Governance) has no label in the source taxonomy slide.

Recommendation. Confirm with the taxonomy owner (Corporate Support) what 5.1.3 should be, or formally remove the placeholder.

Canonical taxonomy item 4.1.2 (under Project Development) has no label in the source taxonomy slide.

Recommendation. Confirm with the taxonomy owner what 4.1.2 should be, or formally remove the placeholder.

'HR Strategy & Human Capital Maturity Index' does not map cleanly onto the canonical sub-item '2.3.3 HR Services – Job Evaluation, Job Grading & Job Placement'; it has been placed under Organisational Design as the closest legitimate functional area.

Recommendation. Taxonomy owner to confirm whether HR Strategy/HCM Maturity should sit alongside, or replace, the Job Evaluation/Grading/Placement sub-item, since the source pack has no content for the latter.

'PPP Centre of Excellence Design & Infrastructure Financing Structuring' and 'Commercialisation & Go-to-Market Strategy' originate from the pack's own legacy taxonomy headings ('Investments (INV)' and 'Growth') which do not exist in the current five-domain canonical taxonomy.

Recommendation. Both have been mapped to Programme / Project Development as the closest legitimate functional area, per the legacy taxonomy rule. Taxonomy owner to confirm or propose an alternative home.

The generic Engage-Design-Pilot-Collect-Analyse-Report evaluation cycle and SERVQUAL reference originate from the pack's legacy 'M&E, Research, Surveys' / '7. Other (OTH)' index heading, which does not exist in the current taxonomy.

Recommendation. Mapped to Culture Survey (2.4.3) as the closest legitimate functional area. Taxonomy owner to confirm this is the intended long-term home, given the technique is more broadly reusable than culture surveys alone.

The same Mandate/Vision/Strategy–Operating–Organisational Design–Governance & Reporting review diagram recurs at slides 201-205 and 244 across what appear to be at least two different client engagements, with slide titles including draft markers ('WIP for tender', 'REVIEW', 'zzzz').

Recommendation. Consolidated into a single canonical 'Governance & Institutional Review Framework' methodology per the zero-duplication rule. Corporate Support to confirm which client instance(s), if any, may be cited as named worked examples — the source slides do not label the diagrams with client names, so none have been asserted here.

21 of the 55 taxonomy sub-items across all five domains (see full list in-app under Governance ▸ Review Queue) have no methodology content beyond the index slide (slide 2): Competitor Analysis, Business Case (partial), Turnaround (partial), Due Diligence, Business Process Model/Notation/Software, Process Mining, Internal Control, Pilot Framework, Job Evaluation/Grading/Placement, OCA, Navigating Complexity, Systems Specifications (partial), Digital Strategy Execution (partial), Growth & AI Offerings, IT Governance (partial), Risk Assessment Framework, Business Continuity, ESG Reporting, plus unlabelled items 4.1.2 and 5.1.3.

Recommendation. Corporate Support / Practice Leads to prioritise which of these gaps to fill first; ESG Reporting and Risk Assessment Framework are recommended priorities given their prominence in AIA's public Governance, Risk & Compliance service line.

Several slides carry internal curation instructions in visible text or notes (e.g. 'update text in red before using', 'note this is applied to universities, text in red to be updated', 'BLY - ensure to take out reference to bly', 'ensure to take out reference to client name'), which are curation instructions, not methodology content.

Recommendation. These instructions have been used internally to decide what to publish and have NOT been surfaced as methodology guidance to end users, per the brief. Retained here for governance traceability only.

Only 2 of 245 slides in the source pack carry genuinely completed governance metadata in the speaker notes (Outcomes Based Approach – AIA_METH_SF_SD001; Government Planning Methodology – AIA_METH_SF_SD002a). All other methodologies show 'Not specified in source' for Methodology Code, Version, Date Last Updated, Reviewer(s) and/or Related Client Projects.

Recommendation. See the Knowledge Dashboard's Metadata Health panel for the full completeness breakdown by methodology. Practice Leads to complete the standard metadata template (slide 4 of the source pack) for their methodologies going forward.