Skip to main content

Founding Phase · Private Beta. The Institute is in private beta. Any example content is labelled as such and is never presented as real.

DSI
Template

DRep Decision Report Standard

A shared format for explaining DRep decisions clearly and consistently. Standardize the explanation, not the vote.

Type
Template
Difficulty
Foundation
Time
30 min
Version
v1.1.0
Updated
6/14/2026
communicationgovernance

What this helps you do

The DRep Decision Report Standard is a voluntary professional reporting format. It gives delegators a predictable place to find what a representative reviewed, what they relied on, what they were unsure about, and what would change their mind.

It standardizes reporting, never voting. Nothing in this standard tells a DRep what conclusion to reach, and the Institute never reviews the direction of a decision recorded with it - only whether the reasoning was published and legible.

Use it as-is, or adapt the headings to your own process. Adoption is a matter of professional practice, not membership.

When to use this

  • You have decided how to vote and need to publish reasoning delegators can audit.
  • You abstained and want the reason on record.
  • You changed position after new evidence and want the change documented.

When NOT to use this

  • To persuade other DReps how to vote.
  • To publish before you have actually decided; draft it, then finish it after the vote.

What you'll need

  • The governance action identifier
  • Your completed evaluation notes
  • Your current conflict disclosure
  • The evidence you relied on, with links

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. 1State the decision first, then the reasoning behind it.
  2. 2Separate what you verified from what you accepted on trust.
  3. 3Name the evidence that would have changed your mind.
  4. 4Link your current disclosure.
  5. 5Publish within your stated cadence, and leave the text unedited except for corrections that are marked as corrections.
  6. 6Adapt the headings if your process needs it, but keep decision, evidence, uncertainty and conflicts present.

The tool

Full template - v1.1.0

Quick Decision Report (Standard)

  • Governance action / proposal - title, or the governance action ID
  • Vote - Yes, No, or Abstain
  • Decision in one sentence - what you decided, in plain language
  • Primary reasons - one to three bullets, one reason per line
  • Main concern / tradeoff - the strongest argument against your own position
  • Material conflict or disclosure - write "None" if there is nothing to disclose
  • Date

Full Decision Report (Extended)

  • Governance action / proposal
  • Executive summary - the quick report summary expanded into a short paragraph
  • Vote
  • Problem / objective - what the proposal is trying to solve
  • Proposal approach - how it intends to solve it
  • Evidence reviewed - documents, data, ledger records and conversations, one per line
  • Benefits / expected impact
  • Cost / funding analysis - amount requested, milestones, proportionality
  • Risks
  • Tradeoffs
  • Alternatives considered
  • Open questions / unresolved issues
  • Conflicts / disclosures
  • Primary reasons
  • Final rationale - the reasoning you stand behind, in full
  • Conditions / recommendations - what would change your position, or what you would ask of the proposer
  • Date

How the two formats relate

  • The quick report is the default for most decisions and for high-volume voting periods
  • The full report is for decisions whose importance or complexity warrants more analysis
  • Both formats share one vocabulary and the same core fields, so a quick report expands into a full report without retyping
  • Core fields carried across both: action, vote, summary, primary reasons, tradeoffs, conflicts, date

Why a shared format

  • Delegators can compare reports across representatives without learning a new layout each time
  • Reasoning is separable from conclusion, so disagreement stays legible
  • Corrections have an obvious home and an obvious history
  • Adoption costs nothing and requires no membership

Fill out a report

1/7 fields · 14%

Work through the report one question at a time, or open every field at once. Start with the quick report and expand into the full report at any point — everything you have already written is carried across.

Step 1 of 7 · Quick Decision Report

Title, or the governance action ID.

Sign in to send this report to Decision Desk

Your draft stays in this browser. Sign in to move it into a case, publish a Decision Summary, and save reports to your account.

Sign in and come back hereCreate a free account
Preview the quick decision report
# Quick Decision Report

_DRep Decision Report Standard - Standard format_

## Date

2026-09-24

---

Written using the DRep Decision Report Standard, published by the DRep Standards Institute. The standard covers how a decision is explained. It does not determine how any DRep votes.

Quick Decision Report - Standard format. Your draft saves automatically in this browser; sign in to save it to your account. The Institute never determines, recommends, scores, approves, certifies, or coordinates how a DRep should vote. This standard covers the explanation only.

Fictional Example

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

Worked example - quick report (fictional action)

  • Governance action / proposal: Treasury withdrawal - ecosystem tooling maintenance (fictional)
  • Vote: Abstain
  • Decision in one sentence: I abstained because the milestone schedule is verifiable but the delivery capacity is not.
  • Primary reasons: the tooling is load-bearing for the ecosystem; the costs are proportionate to comparable work; the reporting commitment is written into the proposal.
  • Main concern / tradeoff: the contractor availability is stated but unverified, and abstaining withholds support from work that may be genuinely needed.
  • Material conflict or disclosure: None. No commercial relationship with the applicant.
  • Date: 2026-08-11

How to interpret the result

  • A published rationale lets delegators check whether your reasoning matches your vote.
  • Reasoning that cannot be written down clearly is usually reasoning that is not finished.

Limitations

  • It records reasoning; it does not justify a position or make one correct.
  • It cannot be read as guidance to any other DRep on how to vote.

Sources and methodology

Learn this method

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

  • communication-representation · Writing a Vote Rationale People Can Audit

    Writing a Vote Rationale People Can Audit

    Teaches the four traits a rationale needs to survive audit.

    Open lesson

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
v1.1.0
Published
8/9/2026
Last updated
6/14/2026
Next scheduled review
12/14/2026
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 (2026-06-14) - Migrated from the static library into the resource register.
  • v1.0.0 (2026-08-10) - Retired. Superseded by Auditable Decision Record & Correction Log. Kept for version history and existing member workspaces.
Next in the workflow

Use these alongside it

The tools that usually come before or after this one.

Use This Tool