Skip to main content

Applications for the autumn mentorship cohort are open until 30 September. Apply now

DSI
Template

Governance Action Intake & Classification Brief

A one-page intake brief that establishes what a governance action actually asks DReps to decide, before any analysis begins.

Type
Template
Difficulty
foundational
Time
30 min
Version
v1.0.0
Updated
8/9/2026
governance actionsprocess

What this helps you do

Most poor governance decisions start with a misread of the action itself: the wrong type, the wrong deadline, or a requested outcome nobody restated in plain language.

This brief is the first pass. You record the identifying facts, restate the requested outcome in your own words, separate claims from unknowns, and leave with a short research list. It produces questions and a work plan, not a position.

When to use this

  • A new governance action has appeared and you have not yet read it closely.
  • You are triaging several actions and need a consistent first pass for each.
  • You are handing an action to a collaborator and need a shared factual baseline.

When NOT to use this

  • You have already completed a full analysis and only need to write a rationale.
  • You are trying to decide how to vote; this brief deliberately stops before judgement.
  • The action metadata is not yet on chain and you would be recording rumour.

What you'll need

  • The full on-chain action metadata (title, identifier, submitter, type)
  • The submission date and the voting deadline or expiry epoch
  • The proposal document or anchor content in full
  • Any linked budget, specification, or supporting material

Estimated completion time

30 minutes

Working time for one governance action, assuming the inputs listed here are already to hand.

How to use it

  1. 1Copy the identifying facts verbatim from the on-chain metadata rather than from a summary written by someone else.
  2. 2Record the submission date and the deadline first, then work backwards to set your own research cut-off.
  3. 3Restate the requested outcome in one sentence, in your own words. If you cannot, that is your first finding.
  4. 4List the governance mechanism and the ratification requirements that apply to this action type, and note where you verified them.
  5. 5Note constitutional and guardrail considerations that a reader would expect you to have checked.
  6. 6Split the proposal into key claims and key unknowns. A claim is asserted; an unknown is absent.
  7. 7Turn each unknown into an initial question addressed to the proposer or to a source.
  8. 8Close with the follow-up research required and who or what can answer it.

The tool

Full template - v1.0.0

Identification

  • Action title, copied verbatim
  • Action ID or transaction reference
  • Submitter and any declared affiliation
  • Action type
  • Submission date
  • Expiration or voting deadline

What is being asked

  • Requested outcome in one plain sentence
  • Requested funds, if applicable, with currency and denomination
  • What changes on chain if this ratifies
  • What changes off chain if this ratifies
  • Who is affected and how

Procedural frame

  • Relevant governance mechanism
  • Ratification requirements that apply to this action type
  • Where you verified those requirements, with a link
  • Constitutional or guardrail considerations
  • Any prior or competing action that interacts with this one

Claims and unknowns

  • Key claims, quoted rather than paraphrased
  • Key unknowns, stated as absences rather than doubts
  • Initial questions for the proposer
  • Required follow-up research and who can answer it
  • Your research cut-off date
Fictional Example

Invented for illustration. It does not describe a real governance action, proposal, or organisation.

Fictional intake: Regional Developer Hubs pilot

  • Action title: Regional Developer Hubs Pilot (fictional)
  • Action type: treasury withdrawal
  • Deadline: 12 days from first read; research cut-off set at day 8
  • Requested outcome, restated: fund three physical developer hubs for twelve months and report quarterly
  • Requested funds: 1,850,000 ADA in one withdrawal
  • Key claim: hubs will onboard 400 new builders. Quoted verbatim from section 3.
  • Key unknown: no definition of onboarded, and no baseline count
  • Initial question: how is an onboarded builder counted, and by whom?
  • Follow-up research: prior hub-style funding outcomes; whether the three host organisations are independent of the submitter

How to interpret the result

  • A brief where the requested outcome cannot be restated in one sentence usually signals a proposal that bundles several decisions together. Treat that as a finding to raise publicly.
  • A long unknowns list is not a negative verdict. It is a measure of how much work remains before any verdict is possible.
  • If your research cut-off falls after the voting deadline, you have a scheduling problem, not an evidence problem. Say so openly.

Limitations

  • This is a reading tool. It does not assess whether claims are true; that work belongs to the claim-evidence map.
  • Ratification requirements change through protocol parameter updates. Verify them against the current on-chain values rather than trusting a copy in any document, including this one.
  • The brief captures the action as published. It goes stale if the proposer amends the anchor content.

Sources and methodology

Learn this method

This tool records the work. The Training Lab teaches how to do it.

  • governance-foundations · Constitutional Basics for DReps

    Constitutional Basics for DReps

    Practises classifying an action from its on-chain metadata.

    Open lesson
  • Lab lesson planned

    A dedicated lesson on intake and classification briefs is planned.

Downloads

  • Markdown export: the complete tool, including metadata, instructions, the template, limitations, sources and version history.

No other file formats are published for this resource. We list a format only when the file exists.

Version and governance

Current version
v1.0.0
Published
8/9/2026
Last updated
8/9/2026
Next scheduled review
2/9/2027
Licence
CC BY 4.0
Editorial status
Not yet externally reviewed

No named reviewer is shown because no external review has been completed. Attribution appears only once a verified reviewer has signed off.

Changelog

  • v1.0.0 (2026-08-09) - First published edition.
Next in the workflow

Use these alongside it

The tools that usually come before or after this one.

WorksheetIntermediate60 min

Claim-Evidence Map & Citation Log

A row-per-claim map that separates what a proposal asserts from the evidence actually supplied for it, with a citation log you can publish.

Workflow
Verify Claims & Evidence
Formats
Markdown
Use ToolView Details
Use This Tool