Resources

Working templates for origination

Use these structures in your own working documents or commercial system. Each template is organized around a decision, so the record carries the context needed by the next person in the process.

Operating view

  1. 01Brief

    Capture the rules that guide selection and approval.

  2. 02Record

    Keep research evidence and conversation context distinguishable.

  3. 03Review

    Connect the receiving team’s feedback to a practical adjustment.

Section 01

Adapt the structure to the decision

Start with the fields that someone will use. Give each field a clear definition and identify who keeps it current. Preserve the relationship between the business record, any conversations and the latest agreed action. Adding detail is worthwhile when it changes a decision or prevents the next person from repeating work.

The wording below provides a reusable structure rather than a completed example. Copy the headings into your own document and supply the information appropriate to your scope. Keep sensitive information within your approved internal process; these templates do not require you to send it through this website.

Section 02

Template: the origination brief

Use before research begins. Have the person responsible for the commercial objective resolve conflicting criteria and confirm the receiving decision.

  • Objective: state the commercial decision the work should support and the constraint it should address. Name the desired output in terms another team can use.
  • Target definition: record business model, customer profile, geography and other relevant criteria. Label each as required or preferred, and list explicit exclusions.
  • Evidence standard: specify which facts initial research should establish, which questions can remain open and when an uncertain record needs review.
  • Responsibilities: identify the roles approving selection rules, outreach and exceptions. Define the handoff boundary and the client team that receives the work.
  • Revision note: retain what changed in the brief, why it changed and which existing work needs reconsideration. Avoid silently applying new criteria to old comparisons.

Section 03

Template: the research record

Use for each business considered. The purpose is to explain the selection judgment without presenting unverified information as fact.

  • Business context: capture the characteristics relevant to the brief. Use enough identifying information in your internal system to avoid duplicate records or confusion between related entities.
  • Fit rationale: connect each material inclusion criterion to a fact and its source. Record when the source was reviewed so that stale information can be recognized later.
  • Uncertainty: state the important unknowns and distinguish a research inference from information expressed directly by the business. Identify which question merits further investigation.
  • Disposition: record include, exclude or review, with a reason. Add the responsible role and the next action only where further work is warranted.

Section 04

Template: the qualified handoff

Use when a record is ready for the client’s next assessment. Keep the summary concise, with a route back to the supporting context.

  • Reason for handoff: explain why this business and this conversation meet the agreed requirement for client review. State the decision requested from the receiving team.
  • Conversation substance: summarize what was actually discussed, who participated by relevant role and which needs, intentions or constraints were expressed. Keep assumptions distinct.
  • Open questions: identify missing information that could affect the next decision. Do not present preliminary origination work as a completed lending or investment assessment.
  • Ownership and disposition: name the receiving role, the proposed next action and any contact instructions. Record acceptance, requests for clarification or rejection with the reason.

Section 05

Template: the operating review

Use to decide an adjustment. A short review with a clear decision is more actionable than a long report whose implications remain unstated.

  • Review question: name the uncertainty being examined, such as segment relevance, conversation quality or a recurring handoff gap. Select evidence that speaks to that question.
  • Comparison basis: identify the records, definitions and maturity of the work. Explain changes in targeting or qualification before interpreting movement in counts or rates.
  • Finding and alternatives: describe what the records support, what remains uncertain and which other explanations could fit the evidence. Inspect individual records where the totals are ambiguous.
  • Decision and follow-through: state the adjustment, its owner and the evidence to inspect next. Retain the rationale so later reviewers can understand what the team was trying to learn.