PROJECT CHARTER — ORIGINAL FICTIONAL QUEUENOTE EXAMPLE
Checked 2026-10-28. Teaching material; no real project is authorized.
https://showmeyoursaas.com/articles/project-charter-template/

IDENTITY
Reference: QN-STATUS-01
Title: make current export status understandable to an authorized coordinator
Version: exercise draft 1
Owner: fictional Product role
Sponsor: fictional accountable release owner
Reviewers: Engineering, QA, Support
All roles and evidence references are invented.

PURPOSE
Problem: coordinator cannot distinguish a processing export from a failed export.
Fictional references: QN-OBS1 task observation; QN-SUP1 support note.
Limits: these are exercise notes, not research or proof of a market-wide problem.
Assumption: current job events can support an accurate status view.

AUTHORIZED OUTCOME PROPOSED
In a bounded pilot task, an authorized coordinator can identify the selected job's current state and agreed next action.
Acceptance details belong in the linked PRD.
Expected benefit: fewer avoidable support questions; remains an unmeasured hypothesis.
The charter does not promise a percentage improvement.

IN SCOPE
Current queued, processing, completed and failed states for one existing export workflow.
Permitted view of relevant job status.
Explanation and support reference for the agreed failure state.
Synthetic verification and two internal pilot workspaces.

OUT OF SCOPE
New queue engine, billing changes, scheduled exports, permissions redesign.
No production customer exposure is authorized by this draft.

RESOURCES AND DEPENDENCIES
Fictional limit: eight person-days across implementation, review, verification and documentation.
Not an estimate for another product.
Dependency: confirm event semantics before treating the design as feasible.
Risk: older records may not distinguish a failed attempt from a completed job with missing acknowledgement.
Next investigation: inspect a synthetic event fixture and document the contract.

APPROVAL TO START — PENDING EXERCISE
Sponsor reviews purpose, scope, eight-person-day limit, unknown event coverage, and stop conditions.
Record actual decision, date, and exact version only in a real authorized project.

SEPARATE RELEASE DECISION — NOT GRANTED
Required: acceptance evidence, server permission checks, tested disabled path, bounded audience, available support owner.
A start decision is not automatic approval for production exposure.

CHANGE TRIGGERS
Queue migration required.
Permission model must change.
Additional resources beyond the agreed limit.
Audience or workflow expands.
For each: record proposal, reason, effect, sponsor decision and date before treating scope as changed.

CLOSURE FORM
Actual result:
Evidence:
What remains unknown:
Unfinished work and owner:
No implementation, approval, pilot, or customer outcome occurred as part of this teaching example.