Official diagnostic intake · version 1.0

Request a diagnostic with a clear investigative starting point.

One structured intake supports all three diagnostic levels. It captures the decision, workflow, people, evidence, technology, and risk context, then produces a preliminary fit for human review.

Complete online Download the fillable PDF Review diagnostic options

Use the same official process in English or Portuguese.

Use the official document

An intake, not an automatic diagnosis

The answers establish an initial hypothesis. Formless Solutions then confirms the boundary, requests only the evidence that matters, and identifies the people needed for focused conversations.

What happens after submission

1. Framing
Review the decision, workflow boundary, urgency, and initial tier fit.
2. Evidence request
Confirm the smallest useful set of examples, documents, metrics, and access.
3. Conversations
Identify the people whose operating knowledge or decision rights must be heard.
4. Scope confirmation
Confirm the diagnostic level, price, timing, payment, and kickoff conditions in writing.

Investigative questionnaire

Diagnostic request

Complete what is known. Unknowns and evidence gaps are useful signals; do not invent certainty.

Fields marked * are required.

Information boundary

Do not submit passwords, API keys, trade secrets, sensitive personal data, or raw datasets. Describe the source and arrange a secure channel after framing.

Requester and organization

Identify who is requesting the review and the context in which the decision will be made.

Requester name *Organization *Role / title *Work email *Phone (optional)Website / organization profileShort title for this request *

Decision and desired outcome

Define the decision before the tool, and make the expected result observable.

What decision needs to be made? *Why does this need to be resolved now? *What observable outcome would indicate that the decision was sound? *Final decision owner *Decision deadline or window *Options already considered: build, buy, integrate, automate, train, redesign, defer, or stop

Workflow and initial boundary

Describe the actual work, including handoffs, exceptions, rework, and the explicit scope boundary.

Where does the workflow start and end? What triggers it, and what completes it? *Main steps, owners, and work handoffs *Exceptions, queues, rework, manual decisions, or failure pointsNumber of workflows involved *Approximate frequency / volumeWhat should remain explicitly outside the diagnostic?

People and governance

Identify who executes, reviews, approves, maintains, and experiences the consequences of the workflow.

Estimated number of participants *Does the decision cross more than one team or function? *Teams / functions involved *Who recommends, decides, approves, and operates? *Suggested interview contacts: name, role, relationship to the workflow, and topicRecent changes, incentives, resistance, dependencies, or capability gaps

Evidence and available sources

Indicate what exists and where it is. Access is requested only after confirming need, channel, and ownership.

Available source types

Process maps, SOPs, policies, or checklistsReal cases, anonymized samples, or input/output examplesMetrics, SLAs, dashboards, or indicator definitionsArchitecture, integrations, schemas, or data dictionariesBacklog, incidents, complaints, audits, or post-mortemsModel evaluations, prompts, logs, tests, or review criteria

Where are these materials, and who can authorize access? *Which measures currently describe time, quality, cost, volume, risk, or satisfaction?Known gaps: missing data, inconsistent definitions, bias, access, or quality

Technology, software, data, and AI

Complete what applies. The purpose is to locate technical dependencies and evaluation criteria, not to perform an audit at this stage.

How central is technical depth to the decision? *Systems, tools, spreadsheets, APIs, and integrations involvedInput/output data, origin, update cadence, storage, and ownersCurrent or proposed use of AI/ML, automation, RAG, or agents; include the human roleHow are — or should — quality, error, safety, cost, and behavior be evaluated?Legacy, vendor, access, security, performance, budget, or timing constraints

Risk, constraints, and readiness

Flag consequences, obligations, access constraints, and reversibility even when they are not yet quantified.

Could failure create material harm, low reversibility, or control obligations? *What happens if the workflow or decision fails? Who is affected? *Privacy, security, contracts, regulation, intellectual property, or other obligationsBudget, timing, availability, technology, policy, or organizational-change limits *Which access, examples, and people can be available during the diagnostic? *Preferred start windowScheduling constraintsWhat have we not asked that could change the framing?

Declaration and privacy

I confirm that I have not included credentials, secrets, sensitive personal data, or raw datasets. *I authorize Formless Solutions to use these details to assess, respond to, and keep a business record of this request. I have read the Privacy Policy. *