Business Case Template for GTR/GRID Pilots

About this Document

This document is an example structure for a business case and minimum execution charter for a GRID pilot. Copy and customise it for the pilot. Approval of this document, or an equivalent local artefact containing the same execution information, can provide the G0 pilot-authorisation evidence used by the Pilot Participant Guide.

1. Executive Summary

Provide a concise overview of the proposed pilot: the opportunity, the problem being tested, the participating jurisdictions/organisations and the expected outcome.

2. Pilot Charter Summary

Complete this section even where the remainder of the business case is intentionally lightweight.

Item	Pilot response
Pilot name
Member State(s) / jurisdiction(s)
Pilot Sponsor
Participant Pilot Lead
Authoritative Registrar(s)
Register Operator(s), if different
Technical Lead
Key/Security Owner
GRID contact
Relying/test participant(s)
Purpose
Hypothesis/questions
In-scope capabilities
Out-of-scope capabilities
Data policy	Synthetic/non-sensitive by default
Expected duration
Success criteria
Known dependencies
Known risks

2.1 What is the pilot intended to learn?

State the decisions, assumptions or uncertainties that the pilot should generate evidence for. Avoid defining success only as deployment completion.

2.2 Explicitly out of scope

State what will not be tested. Examples can include production accreditation, production SLAs, operational personal data, production-grade HSM/KMS, full status infrastructure or trade-document truth beyond the identity questions being evaluated.

2.3 Data classification and handling

Confirm whether all data will be synthetic/test data. Identify any approved exception, its authority, handling requirements and retention/disposal plan.

3. Strategic Context and Market Drivers

Explain the regulatory, economic, environmental or operational drivers relevant to the sector or trade flow.

4. Core Challenge Statement

State the central question the pilot must answer.

5. Benefits

5.1 What issues will be addressed?

Describe and, where practical, quantify the exposures, problems, losses or inefficiencies that the pilot aims to address. Include the cost of compliance for relevant participants where applicable.

5.2 What value is to be unlocked?

Describe expected gains such as market access, operational efficiency, trust, reduced fraud or lower verification cost. Quantify where credible.

5.3 Target beneficiaries

Identify who benefits and how, for example producers/manufacturers, aggregators/processors, logistics entities, exporters/importers, regulators, certification bodies and financial institutions.

5.4 ROI expectations

What ROI might a full-scale implementation need to demonstrate? Record assumptions and low/medium/high estimates where they can be supported.

6. Use Case Definition

6.1 Scope

Define the product, service, sector or trade flow covered by the pilot.

6.2 Actors and authoritative sources

List the organisations/roles involved and identify the Authoritative Registrar(s) and underlying registers that provide authoritative identity/status information.

6.3 Current and future workflow

Describe how the process works today and what the pilot changes or tests.

6.4 Key pain and value points

Identify workflow issues, bottlenecks, trust gaps or risks and the value points the pilot is expected to test.

6.5 Verification questions

State the questions a relying party should be able to answer. Examples:

• Which authority is responsible for the foreign organisation identifier?
• Is the Registrar discoverable through GRID?
• Was the participant-origin material authenticated by GRID?
• Does the DIA or equivalent evidence correspond to the organisation identifier presented in the business document?
• What was the relevant status at the time being evaluated?

7. Assurance and Credentialing Architecture

Describe the credential types, identifiers, trust material, authoritative data and verification ecosystem needed for this pilot.

Distinguish GRID-to-Registrar participation/discovery evidence from Registrar-to-entity identity evidence, and distinguish both from assertions made by trading parties or external authorities.

8. Technical Blueprint

8.1 Actors and roles

List all actors and their responsibilities. Identify accountable ownership for pilot coordination, Registrar data, technical implementation and key/security management.

8.2 Data flow overview

Describe how source data, published metadata, GRID harvesting, DIAs and business documents move through the test flow.

8.3 Trust anchors

Identify authoritative datasets, registers and trust material.

8.4 Interoperability and standards

Reference relevant GRID schemas, identifier methods, credential specifications and other standards used in the pilot.

8.5 Platform and deployment profile

Record whether the participant will use GitLab, GitHub or an agreed self-hosted profile, together with any non-standard dependencies.

9. Governance Framework

Detail:

• accountable Authoritative Registrar(s);
• any delegated Register Operator(s) and delegation basis;
• credential issuers and verifiers;
• approval paths for material/status changes;
• security/key owner;
• dispute or correction pathways;
• update/review cadence; and
• pilot continuation/closeout authority.

10. Fraud Vectors and Mitigation Strategy

Describe the risks the pilot intends to test, such as identity misrepresentation, identifier substitution, credential replay, wrong-organisation credential use, fraudulent business documents, stale status or compromised trust material.

Be explicit about what GRID/DIA verification mitigates and what it does not. Verifying organisation identity does not by itself establish that a commercial invoice, shipment or other business claim is truthful.

11. Incentive Design and Value Distribution

Explain how expected benefits and costs are distributed across the participants and what would make participation sustainable.

12. Stakeholder Map and Engagement Model

12.1 Stakeholders

List relevant government bodies, businesses, associations, NGOs, technology partners and test/relying parties.

12.2 Engagement model

Describe coordination, governance meetings, working groups, escalation paths and feedback channels to the GRID project.

13. Pilot Plan and Gates

Map the implementation plan to the Pilot Participant Guide:

• G0 Pilot authorised
• G1 Environment ready
• G2 Trust material ready
• G3 Registrar data ready
• G4 Sovereign Node published
• G5 GRID connected
• G6 End-to-end functional
• G7 Lifecycle and failure tested
• G8 Pilot operational
• G9 Closed or transitioned

For each gate record owner, target date, expected evidence and dependencies.

14. KPIs and Success Metrics

Define measurable indicators appropriate to the pilot. These can include verification time, proportion of successful automated checks, defect counts, reproducibility, number of undocumented interventions required, identity mismatches detected, stale-state handling, participant effort and relying-party comprehension.

Success metrics should include learning outcomes, not only technical throughput.

15. Test and Evidence Plan

Identify the happy-path, negative, lifecycle, historical and recovery tests required for the pilot. The Pilot Test Sandbox contains a reusable cross-border supply-chain catalogue.

Define the evidence to be retained, for example source commit, CI run, GRID harvest ID, public URL, DIA hash/reference, test-case ID, timestamp and issue/defect reference.

16. Risk Register

Document risks across legal/regulatory, organisational, technical, security, privacy, operational, market and funding categories, with owner, mitigation and residual risk.

Include as applicable:

• key compromise;
• incorrect Registrar representation;
• accidental publication of operational/sensitive data;
• dependency drift;
• schema divergence;
• endpoint/DID instability;
• token expiry;
• harvester silent failure;
• participant/GRID lifecycle-semantic divergence; and
• a pilot artefact being mistaken for production/legal assurance.

17. Sustainability and Scale Strategy

Explain what evidence would justify continuation, expansion to additional products/sectors/jurisdictions, or transition to a subsequent pilot phase. Do not presume production adoption merely because the pilot is technically successful.

18. Budget and Resource Plan

Describe expected participant time, infrastructure, capacity building, technology and assurance/certification costs. The baseline GRID pilot is designed to use lightweight infrastructure; stakeholder and governance effort may dominate the technical build effort.

19. Closeout and Decision

Define who will make the close/continue/transition decision and what evidence will inform it.

At minimum the final review should capture:

• what worked and failed;
• which steps required undocumented assistance;
• which assumptions were validated versus simulated;
• unresolved legal, governance, security and interoperability questions;
• lessons for the GRID specifications and Pilot documentation;
• residual risks; and
• recommended next action.

20. Annexures

Optional supporting materials and references can include architecture diagrams, data-flow models, test plans, sample payloads, stakeholder letters, cost assumptions and evidence indexes.