Board Brief

Audience: the board and its safety / risk committee. Directors do not manage the site; they oversee whether management's systems work and whether the assurance they receive is true. Their learning is about oversight and assurance, not operations.

Engine: PMLC = python3 <skills-root>/learnings-coach/scripts/pmlc.py (this skill needs the learnings-coach skill installed alongside it). Read learnings-coach/references/learning-principles.md and the board question block in output-style.md.

Gather

PMLC profile <ws>
PMLC select <ws> --level 4 --top-rated --brief
PMLC select <ws> --tag assurance --level 3 4 --brief        # audit and assurance findings
PMLC timeline <ws> --before incident                 # signals that existed before the event

Look specifically for: audit recommendations left open, internal audits that did not detect conditions, indicators that looked green while conditions degraded, risk acceptance without documented authority.

Write (two to three pages)

1. What happened and why it matters to the board (one paragraph, no technical detail beyond what a director needs).
2. What the investigation says about the management system: three to five governance-relevant learnings (assurance that did not detect, signals that did not escalate, risk accepted without authority, resources).
3. Questions for directors to ask management: eight to twelve, in the board question format (question, why it matters, what good evidence looks like). Mix: this site, all sites, assurance quality.
4. Assurance the board should request: what independent verification, at which sites, by when (as a request to management, not a plan).
5. Indicators for the board dashboard: three to five leading indicators that would have shown deterioration earlier.

Output

Write the pack <run>/outputs/board-brief.json (schema: learnings-coach/references/pack-schema.md), then:

PMLC check-pack <ws> <run>/outputs/board-brief.json     # fix every problem it lists
PMLC pack <ws> <run>/outputs/board-brief.json           # -> board-brief.html (primary) and board-brief.md

Sections → kinds: 1 and 2 para · 3 question ×8–12 (question, why, good_evidence, to the role asked) · 4 table (verification, sites, by when; row_cites) · 5 indicator ×3–5. Set "scope": {"levels": [3, 4], "min_rating": "top"}. Put data-quality corrections in data_quality, findings left out on purpose in exclusions, and same-condition findings in supporting_cites.

{"kind": "question", "question": "How do we know critical spares meet their specification at every site?",
 "why": "…", "good_evidence": "…", "to": "Chief Executive", "cites": ["FND-…"]}

Neutral, factual tone; no blame of management or staff; roles only. Any owner is the function that owns the change, not who "was involved" (learning-principles.md).