# Project Charter — Youth & Fitness Program Evidence Loop

## Decision this workspace supports

Which program supports appear promising enough to continue, what remains uncertain, and what should
be observed next before the team discusses changes?

## Practical objective

Turn rough program observations into:

- an organized evidence record;
- a bounded interpretation that shows both support and counterevidence;
- a concise brief for the next school-support discussion;
- a durable decision and next-action record.

## Definition of useful progress

Progress is useful when:

1. every factual statement in the meeting brief resolves to a dated source record;
2. observation, interpretation, and decision are visibly separated;
3. uncertainty and missing evidence are stated before a recommendation;
4. a person approves consequential interpretations and decisions;
5. the project closes each cycle with an owner and a next action.

## Working roles

| Role | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| Program professional | Supplies context, records observations, corrects interpretations, and owns the final decision. |
| SDA | Frames the decision, designs the evidence and workflow architecture, configures the project-agent brief, sets quality gates, and reviews the system. |
| Project agent | Works only from approved project sources; organizes records, drafts components, identifies contradictions, runs defined checks, and updates project state. |
| Support-plan team | Applies professional and institutional judgment in the actual meeting; the workspace does not replace that authority. |

## Scope and safeguards

- This demonstration contains no student data.
- Examples are fictional and are not evidence about a real person or program.
- The workspace supports preparation and traceability; it does not make clinical, legal, eligibility,
  accommodation, or educational decisions.
- Consequential interpretations remain in `PROPOSED — HUMAN REVIEW` state until a named person
  approves them.