White paper · Proposed operating model
The Collection Management and Reporting System
The CMRS white paper proposes a way to connect business questions, evidence, human review, reporting and decision feedback.
October 2026 · PDF · 6 pages. Open download. No form or sign-up.
Buddy Jericho · Founder of Indago
A proposed operating model whose benefits remain to be demonstrated. Described ambitions are not a claim of current availability.
01 / The problem
A report can survive while its reasoning disappears
When the context behind an assessment sits in private notes and conversations, another analyst must reconstruct the work before advising the business. Why was the risk accepted? Which question remains unanswered? What would justify changing the advice?
A shared report is only part of the handover. Teams also need to understand the evidence, assumptions, review responsibilities and conditions that make the advice useful.
02 / Proposed operating model
Start with the decision. Preserve the working record.
The proposed CMRS record would connect five parts of the work:
The business question
What activity is at risk, who is authorized to decide, and when is advice needed?
The evidence
Where did the information come from, when was it obtained, and what restrictions apply?
The assessment and review
What does the evidence support, which assumptions remain uncertain, and what has been reviewed?
The unresolved work
Which questions remain open, who owns them, and when should they be revisited?
The decision and feedback
What was decided, why, and what would trigger reconsideration?
These are connected working elements of the proposed CMRS record, not software controls.
CMRS describes a function rather than a requirement to buy another platform. Existing intelligence, case-management and collaboration systems may already provide some or all of it. The test is whether the combined workflow preserves useful context without creating unnecessary duplicate work.
03 / Evaluation
Test the model in one recurring workflow
Establish a baseline before making changes. Agree who reviews the work and what success means for accuracy, timeliness and total cost. Include manual record maintenance, rework and governance in the evaluation.
01 · Continue the work
Ask another analyst to take over. Can they recover the reasoning, unresolved questions and review responsibilities?
What to measure
Measure retrieval and handover effort, including the time needed to maintain the record manually.
02 · Update the advice
Introduce a source correction. Can the team identify affected advice, complete review and reach the right recipients within the agreed window?
What to measure
Measure missed links, source-link errors and reviewer effort.
03 · Change a tool without losing context
Introduce an approved source or model. Can the team preserve the question, evidence history, permissions and reporting standard?
What to measure
Count integration work, rework and validation effort.
04 · Deliver service worth the total cost
Compare factual errors, unsupported claims, reporting timeliness and the capacity to support additional requirements.
What to measure
Include subscriptions, integration, AI usage, retries, human correction, training, maintenance and governance.
Time released creates capacity. It becomes cash savings only when spending falls. Report additional service, future expenditure avoided and actual cost reductions separately.
04 / Clear boundaries
Separate current capabilities from the full proposal
Today: Current capabilities described in the paper
Indago provides shared projects, collections, reusable templates and AI-assisted reporting. Rufus, Indago’s AI co-pilot, supports ideation and analysis by helping users explore material, consider available tools and develop workflows. Users can select models for reports or individual sections, and reports can return to collections for further analysis. Notes, instructions and shared or individual conversations support coordination.
Available datasets and external tools depend on the deployment. These descriptions are first-party product information, not an independent product assessment.
Human responsibilities and manual work to verify
People define the decision and collection requirements, check sources, assess uncertainty, review advice and make authorized decisions. A demonstration should show exactly how the team records ownership, maintains handover notes, checks a correction's implications and communicates an update.
Confirm which steps are supported directly, which require manual work and which rely on another system. Include that effort in the evaluation.
Proposed functions and future ambitions
The full connected CMRS record still requires implementation and evaluation. Spoken handovers, systematic identification of every assessment affected by a correction, and dependable comparison across model changes remain future ambitions described in the paper.
These are directions for development and evaluation, not claims of current availability or delivery commitments.
Next step
Bring one recurring workflow to the discussion
Where does your team lose context today? What would another analyst need to continue the work? Which change in evidence should prompt a review?
Use a recurring requirement to examine those questions with Indago. A focused demonstration should identify current capabilities, manual steps and development needs before you decide whether to expand, revise or stop an evaluation.