A project's overview is a card per review area — architecture, security, delivery, people, product, and the others your template includes. Each card carries a status, and each opens into the findings behind it.
The ratings
| Rating | What it asserts |
|---|---|
| Good | Examined, and the evidence supports a sound position |
| Warning | Examined, and something needs attention or a condition |
| Critical | Examined, and there is a material problem |
| Info | Context worth recording that is not itself a risk |
| In Progress | Being examined now |
| Not Assessed | No evidence was retrievable, so there is nothing to grade |
Not Assessed is not a low score. It is the honest answer when the material does not cover an area, and it is deliberately left out of the overall roll-up. Grading an unexamined area red would assert "we looked and it failed", which is false — and an empty project would read as a damning report rather than an empty one.
Levels of detail
Depending on your plan you see:
- Status colors across the areas — the at-a-glance read.
- Summary cards for every area — the finding count and headline per area.
- Detailed line items — each individual finding, its rating, its evidence and its citations.
If a level is not part of your plan, the card says so rather than showing an empty panel. Nothing is hidden silently.
What a finding contains
- A title and an assessment, in the language of a diligence report.
- A rating, chosen against the rating contract for that area.
- Citations — the document, page and passage the statement rests on.
- A review state: Draft until an analyst has read it, then Reviewed or Revised.
When an area says there is no evidence
That is usually a fact about the material, not a fault in the analysis: the question was asked and the documents do not answer it. Check the request list — the unanswered question should be on it. If you believe the answer is in a document you uploaded, see When a section says there is no evidence.