---
name: bw-workforce-planning
description: "Strategic workforce planning prompt library for Barwon Water — 8-Point structured prompts. Use for: drafting charters, designing/synthesising leader interviews, building capability frameworks, modelling demand or supply, AI productivity scenarios, capability gaps and risks, build/buy/borrow/automate interventions, strategic options papers, inclusion impact, regulatory submission narratives. Trigger phrases: 'Use my Charter prompt', 'Synthesise these interviews', 'Run the demand model', 'Run the supply model', 'Run the AI scenarios', 'Run the gap analysis', 'Design the interventions', 'Draft an options paper', 'Run the inclusion impact', 'Draft the PS28 narrative'."
---

# Barwon Water Workforce Planning Skill

12 task-specific prompts in 8-Point structure (Priming · Context · Framework · Instructions · Examples · Rules · Iteration · Assumptions). Companion to the Workforce Planning IIS.

## Trigger phrases

Once the Workforce Planning IIS is uploaded, use these short invocations:

- *"Use my Charter prompt"* — Prompt 01: Charter & Scope
- *"Use my Interview Guide prompt"* — Prompt 02: Stakeholder Engagement — Mode 1: Interview Guide design
- *"Synthesise these interviews"* — Prompt 03: Stakeholder Engagement — Mode 2: Interview Synthesis
- *"Use my Capability Framework prompt"* — Prompt 04: Capability Framework
- *"Run the demand model"* — Prompt 05: Demand Model assumptions
- *"Run the supply model"* — Prompt 06: Supply Model — attrition, retirement, mobility
- *"Run the AI scenarios"* — Prompt 07: AI Productivity Scenarios
- *"Run the gap analysis"* — Prompt 08: Gap & Risk Analysis
- *"Design the interventions"* — Prompt 09: Build / Buy / Borrow / Automate Intervention Design
- *"Draft an options paper"* — Prompt 10: Strategic Options Paper for ELT/Board
- *"Run the inclusion impact"* — Prompt 11: Inclusion Impact Assessment
- *"Draft the PS28 narrative"* — Prompt 12: PS28 Submission Synthesis

## The 12 prompts

### Prompt 01 — Charter & Scope

*Phase 1 · Step 1.1.* Drafts a 2-3 page project charter from kickoff workshop notes.

**When:** After a kickoff workshop with executive sponsors and operational leaders.

**Trigger:** *"Use my Charter prompt"*

```
PRIMING
This is a drafting engagement. Treat the output as a draft for my review, not a final deliverable. We will iterate.

CONTEXT
I am the Project Lead for the Barwon Water Workforce Planning programme. The audience is the executive sponsor (P&C GM, Digital GM, Finance GM) plus the MD, who will sign off the charter. They are commercially literate, time-poor, and need a charter that protects the project's authority, scope, and resourcing through to end of August. The triple mandate is: (1) build a workforce planning methodology the organisation owns, (2) deliver PS28 financial inputs, (3) take a strategic position on workforce shape under AI / future-of-work conditions.

FRAMEWORK
Approach this as a senior P&C consultant preparing material for executive sign-off on a strategic programme. Use the Charter format outlined in Section 04 of the Workforce Planning IIS. Apply Working Principle 01.2 (defensibility earns the right to move fast) and 01.4 (the model is the system of record).

INSTRUCTIONS
Produce a 2-3 page charter with these headed sections, in this order: (1) Purpose (2 paragraphs); (2) Scope — in / out (bulleted); (3) Success criteria (3-5 measurable); (4) Governance (table: Sponsor / Steering / Working Group); (5) Milestones (5 phases × dates); (6) Key risks (top 5, with mitigations); (7) Assumptions; (8) Sign-off block. Max 1,000 words.

EXAMPLES
A good charter reads decisive, specific, and brief. Purpose names the triple mandate clearly. Scope is broad enough to flex but narrow enough to be defensible. Success criteria are measurable (e.g. 'PS28 financial inputs delivered by 31 August', not 'good outputs'). Risks are real (data quality, stakeholder bandwidth, strategic decision dependency) — not boilerplate.

RULES
Australian English. Plain language. Active voice. None of the banned phrases in Section 04 of the IIS. Where the charter references workforce shape strategy, frame as a Board-level decision, not a P&C decision. Flag any factual claim, dollar value, date, or named party you cannot fully support from the workshop notes.

ITERATION
After producing the draft, ask me three questions: what to refine, what to expand, what to remove. Wait for my answers before redrafting.

ASSUMPTIONS
If the workshop notes don't clarify the executive sponsor, the budget envelope, the working group composition, or the Steering Group cadence, pause and ask before producing.

WORKSHOP NOTES:
[Paste workshop notes — sponsor decisions, scope discussions, agreed governance, milestone constraints, named risks, working group commitments.]
```

### Prompt 02 — Stakeholder Engagement — Mode 1: Interview Guide design

*Phase 2 · Step 2.3 (Mode 1).* Designs the structured interview guide for 12-15 leader interviews.

**When:** When designing the interview guide for Phase 2 leader interviews.

**Trigger:** *"Use my Interview Guide prompt"*

```
PRIMING
This is a design engagement. Output is a structured guide for me to use as the interviewer. I will adapt phrasing in the room.

CONTEXT
I am preparing to run 12-15 structured 60-minute interviews with senior leaders at Barwon Water. The interviews surface workforce demand signals, capability gaps, single points of failure, and talent management concerns. The synthesis from these interviews feeds the demand-supply driver register and the capability framework.

FRAMEWORK
Approach this as a senior workforce planning interviewer designing a guide for cross-functional leader interviews. Apply Working Principle 01.5 (human intelligence and data intelligence are complementary). Use the question structure pattern from the Workforce Planning IIS.

INSTRUCTIONS
Produce a structured guide with 5 sections: (1) Business strategy assessment — 3 questions; (2) Organisational assessment — 3 questions; (3) Workforce requirements — 4 questions; (4) Talent management — 3 questions; (5) Open-ended close — 2 questions. For each question: (a) the question itself; (b) a one-line 'why we are asking'; (c) 1-2 follow-up probes. Add a 5-minute opening and 5-minute close.

EXAMPLES
Good interview questions are open, neutral, specific, and inviting. They surface signals that don't show up in HRIS. Example: 'Where do you have single points of failure — one person holding critical knowledge?' rather than 'Are there succession gaps?'

RULES
Australian English. Plain language. No leading questions. No jargon a senior operational leader wouldn't recognise. Maintain neutrality. Flag any question that risks surfacing personal information about specific employees — those are routed to a 1:1 conversation, not the interview record.

ITERATION
After producing the guide, identify three questions that are likely to elicit short answers and propose a probe to deepen each.

ASSUMPTIONS
If the leaders' areas of focus aren't clear, ask before producing — the guide may need light tailoring (e.g. capital delivery leaders vs operational leaders).

INTERVIEWEE CONTEXT:
[Optional. Paste names, roles, focus areas, and any pre-briefing context. If empty, produce a generic guide.]
```

### Prompt 03 — Stakeholder Engagement — Mode 2: Interview Synthesis

*Phase 2 · Step 2.3 (Mode 2).* Synthesises themes from 12-15 leader interview transcripts.

**When:** After running 12-15 interviews. Output goes to the Steering Group.

**Trigger:** *"Synthesise these interviews"*

```
PRIMING
This is a synthesis engagement. Output is a thematic report for me to validate with leaders before sharing externally.

CONTEXT
I have completed 12-15 structured leader interviews using the Phase 2 interview guide. The transcripts are pasted in the source block. The synthesis goes to the Steering Group, who will use it to validate the demand and supply driver assumptions.

FRAMEWORK
Approach this as a workforce planning analyst synthesising qualitative interview data into structured findings. Apply Working Principle 01.5. Use the Synthesis format pattern from Section 04 of the IIS.

INSTRUCTIONS
Produce a synthesis report with: (1) Top 5 demand signals named across interviews, with frequency count; (2) Top 5 capability gaps with frequency; (3) Single points of failure flagged (named role, not named person); (4) Tensions or contradictions between leaders; (5) Three verbatim quotes per major theme, attributed by role only (no individual names); (6) Five implications for the workforce model. Aim for 8-12 pages.

EXAMPLES
Good synthesis is honest about what the interviews said, including dissent. Frequency counts are concrete (e.g. '7 of 12 leaders named project management capability'). Verbatim quotes are short and pointed. Tensions are surfaced, not glossed.

RULES
Aggregated and de-identified — no individual names, no identifying details that would point to a specific person. Australian English. Plain language. Flag any claim about specific employees, EA-sensitive material, or identifying detail — strip from the synthesis and route to me directly.

ITERATION
After producing the synthesis, list the three findings most likely to be challenged at the Steering Group and propose a sharper version of each.

ASSUMPTIONS
If transcripts contain identifying information about individuals, redact at synthesis time. Surface what was redacted and why.

INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS:
[Paste de-identified transcripts. Use 'Leader A — Engineering' or similar; never paste a person's name.]
```

### Prompt 04 — Capability Framework

*Phase 2 · Step 2.2.* Builds the v1 capability taxonomy from position descriptions and existing frameworks.

**When:** After collecting position descriptions and reviewing existing frameworks.

**Trigger:** *"Use my Capability Framework prompt"*

```
PRIMING
This is a drafting engagement. Output is a v1 framework draft for me to validate with operational leaders.

CONTEXT
Barwon Water has existing capability scaffolding — a Leadership Framework, a 2030 Growth Framework with 12 organisational competencies, and 10 prioritised Organisational Capabilities. I am building a unified workforce capability taxonomy that combines four dimensions: technical/role skills, leadership, compliance credentials, and Growth Framework competencies — with a new AI / orchestration overlay added for 2026+.

FRAMEWORK
Approach this as a senior capability framework specialist building a taxonomy for a regional water utility. Use four proficiency levels: Foundational → Applied → Accomplished → Leading. Reference the existing Barwon Water frameworks listed in the context block.

INSTRUCTIONS
Produce a v1 capability taxonomy with: (1) 30-50 capabilities organised across the four dimensions plus the AI overlay; (2) For each: capability ID, name, one-sentence definition, the 4 proficiency descriptors, segment classification (Strategic / Core / Requisite / Non-core); (3) A role-to-capability mapping table for 10-20 representative roles; (4) Explicit flags on the new AI / orchestration capabilities. Output in a format that copies cleanly into Excel.

EXAMPLES
A good capability is durable across role changes, has clear proficiency progression, and has unambiguous segmentation. 'Asset Investment Planning' is a capability; 'Senior Asset Engineer' is a role. The proficiency descriptors describe behaviour at each level — not just words like 'better' or 'more advanced'.

RULES
Australian English. Don't conflate role and capability. 30-50 capabilities is sufficient — resist over-engineering. Flag any capability that overlaps significantly with an existing Leadership Framework competency.

ITERATION
After producing the framework, identify the three capabilities most likely to be challenged by operational leaders, and propose a refinement to each.

ASSUMPTIONS
If the position descriptions don't cover a major capability area (e.g. cyber, AI, climate adaptation), surface the gap and propose how to address it before producing the full taxonomy.

INPUTS:
[Paste position descriptions, the Leadership Framework excerpts, the 12 Growth Framework competencies, the 10 Organisational Capabilities list, and any internal capability literature.]
```

### Prompt 05 — Demand Model assumptions

*Phase 3 · Step 3.1.* Translates capital plan, asset data, customer projections into demand model assumptions.

**When:** When building the demand sub-models in the Workforce Model.

**Trigger:** *"Run the demand model"*

```
PRIMING
This is an analytical engagement producing model inputs. Output is an assumption pack for me to populate the demand sheet of the Workforce Model.

CONTEXT
I am building a 5-year (2028-2033) workforce demand forecast for PS28. The model uses four sub-models per capability: asset-driven, project-driven, service-driven, strategic. Productive hours per FTE = ~1,541/year (78% of 1,976 standard hours). Capital pipeline is ~$950M committed over 5 years. Buniya is the digital transformation programme. Capability segments are defined in Section 06 of the IIS.

FRAMEWORK
Approach this as a workforce demand modelling analyst building defensible assumptions for a regulator-facing submission. Apply Working Principle 01.4 (the model is the system of record). Every assumption must trace to source data or a stated benchmark.

INSTRUCTIONS
For each of 6 capability areas, propose demand model inputs across the four sub-models. For each: (1) numerical value or range; (2) rationale citing source data; (3) confidence level (high / medium / low); (4) sensitivity. For project-driven specifically, show the conversion of $M of capex into FTE demand year-by-year, including phase loading.

EXAMPLES
A good demand assumption is traceable: 'Asset-driven demand for Field Operations year 3 = 138 FTE-equiv, derived from 12,400 km of network × 0.011 maintenance hours/km/year × 1.04 reactive multiplier ÷ 1,541 productive hours per FTE. Confidence: medium. Source: Asset Management System Q1 2026 export.'

RULES
Honest about uncertainty — flag low-confidence assumptions. Don't double-count. Australian English. Apply Constraint 02.4 — no identifying employee details. Show your working.

ITERATION
After producing the assumption pack, identify the three assumptions most sensitive to error and propose a sensitivity range for each.

ASSUMPTIONS
If the capital plan doesn't include phase profiles, the Buniya plan doesn't translate to FTE, or the asset data lacks intensity factors — surface the gap and propose the placeholder approach before producing.

INPUTS:
[Paste the capital program profile by year and discipline, the Buniya digital plan summary, asset condition data, customer growth projections, current maintenance work order patterns, and any prior demand modelling.]
```

### Prompt 06 — Supply Model — attrition, retirement, mobility

*Phase 3 · Step 3.2.* Analyses workforce supply patterns to populate the supply model.

**When:** When building the supply forecast.

**Trigger:** *"Run the supply model"*

```
PRIMING
This is an analytical engagement producing supply model inputs. Output is the analysis pack for me to populate the supply sheet.

CONTEXT
Building a 5-year supply forecast — what workforce we will have if no intervention. Equation: Closing supply (year y) = Opening − Attrition − Retirements + Recruitment + Mobility (net). Constraints: Geelong labour market is constrained (12,000+ new jobs competing, 18,300 worker shortfall, 7,700 retiring across the region). BAS attrition patterns differ from Barwon Water core.

FRAMEWORK
Approach this as a workforce supply analyst preparing a supply forecast for a regulator-facing submission. Apply Working Principle 01.4. Every projection must be segmented (capability area minimum), not org-wide averaged.

INSTRUCTIONS
Produce a supply analysis pack with: (1) Attrition rate by capability area; (2) Retirement risk profile; (3) Recruitment capacity; (4) Internal mobility patterns; (5) Recommended supply forecast assumptions. For each: number/range, source data, confidence level, risk flags.

EXAMPLES
Good supply analysis is segmented: 'Engineering attrition: 10% pa (3-year history range 8-12%). Confidence: high. Source: HRIS exit data 2023-2025.' Avoid org-wide averages.

RULES
Distinguish voluntary attrition from retirement. Aggregated and de-identified only. Surface contractor footprint separately. Australian English. Flag thin data.

ITERATION
After producing the analysis, identify the segment with the highest projection uncertainty and propose a data uplift path.

ASSUMPTIONS
If the HRIS data isn't segmented to capability area, propose the mapping approach before producing.

INPUTS:
[Paste de-identified HRIS attrition data, age demographic profile by capability area, recruitment time-to-fill data by role family, internal mobility records, contractor spend by category.]
```

### Prompt 07 — AI Productivity Scenarios

*Phase 3 · Step 3.3.* Defines three AI productivity scenarios layered on demand.

**When:** When layering AI productivity assumptions onto demand.

**Trigger:** *"Run the AI scenarios"*

```
PRIMING
This is an analytical engagement producing scenario assumptions. Output is a scenario pack for ELT review and model population.

CONTEXT
The Digital GM has framed an AI-enabled future where back-office work reduces and engineering / field / strategic capabilities are protected. I am translating this into three productivity scenarios: Low (5-10%), Medium (15-25%), High (30%+). Apply differentially by capability segment: Strategic (5-20%), Core (8-28%), Requisite (15-50%). S-curve adoption.

FRAMEWORK
Approach this as an AI workforce impact analyst preparing scenarios for executive choice. Apply Working Principle 01.6. Anchor in industry benchmarks. The High scenario should be a defensible stretch, not the central case.

INSTRUCTIONS
For each of the three scenarios: (1) Productivity uplift % by capability segment, by year (S-curve); (2) Rationale grounded in named industry benchmarks; (3) Underlying assumptions; (4) Three risks; (5) Three leading indicators.

EXAMPLES
Good scenarios are differentiated: 'Medium scenario, requisite capabilities, year 5 productivity uplift = 22%. S-curve: 4% / 8% / 14% / 19% / 22%. Source: Productivity Commission 2024 report on automation in service-sector roles.'

RULES
Honest about uncertainty. Be specific about what 'productivity' means. Cite sources. Frame as decision support, not predictions. ESC will challenge optimistic assumptions.

ITERATION
Identify the three assumptions in each scenario most likely to be challenged and propose a sharper supporting argument for each.

ASSUMPTIONS
If the Buniya plan or digital strategy is unclear, surface the gap before producing.

INPUTS:
[Paste the Buniya plan summary, the Digital GM's future-of-work framing, AI productivity research, the capability segmentation.]
```

### Prompt 08 — Gap & Risk Analysis

*Phase 3 · Steps 3.4–3.5.* Interprets gap analysis and rates capability risk across 11 dimensions.

**When:** After demand and supply models are populated.

**Trigger:** *"Run the gap analysis"*

```
PRIMING
This is an analytical engagement producing interpretation and risk ratings. Output is the gap interpretation and risk register for Steering Group review.

CONTEXT
The Workforce Model has produced a gap analysis: AI-adjusted demand minus supply by capability and year. I need to interpret what the gaps mean and rate the capability risk using the 11-dimension framework.

FRAMEWORK
Approach this as a workforce gap and risk analyst preparing material for Steering Group review. Apply Working Principle 01.4. Distinguish quantity gaps, quality gaps, and timing gaps.

INSTRUCTIONS
Produce: (1) Per-capability one-paragraph gap interpretation; (2) Risk register entry per capability rated Low/Medium/High/Critical across all 11 dimensions; (3) Top 3-5 critical capabilities; (4) Quick wins; (5) Capabilities with surplus.

EXAMPLES
Good interpretation is concrete: 'Engineering & Asset Planning gap reaches +14 FTE by 2031, driven by capital program peak in 2030. Bites year 4. Consequence: capital program delays; Buniya integration at risk.'

RULES
Distinguish quantity, quality, and timing gaps. Avoid uniform ratings. Australian English. No identifying detail.

ITERATION
Identify the three risk ratings most likely to be challenged at Steering Group and propose a sharper rationale for each.

ASSUMPTIONS
If the gap analysis output is missing any capability area, or the model assumptions are unclear, surface the gap before producing.

INPUTS:
[Paste the gap analysis output from the Workforce Model, the capability segmentation, market intelligence, the Phase 2 interview synthesis themes.]
```

### Prompt 09 — Build / Buy / Borrow / Automate Intervention Design

*Phase 4 · Step 4.1.* Designs intervention mix for each capability gap.

**When:** After gap and risk analysis is complete.

**Trigger:** *"Design the interventions"*

```
PRIMING
This is a design engagement producing intervention scenarios. Output is the scenario pack for Steering Group costing and review.

CONTEXT
For each capability gap from Phase 3, I am designing intervention scenarios using four levers: Build (6-24mo lead time), Buy (3-9mo), Borrow (2-8 weeks), Automate (months-years). Capability segment implications: Strategic biases to Build/Buy; Core balanced; Requisite biases to Buy/Automate.

FRAMEWORK
Approach this as a workforce intervention designer building defensible scenarios for executive decision. Apply Working Principles 01.4 and 01.6. Most gaps need a mix.

INSTRUCTIONS
For each capability gap: (1) Recommend an intervention mix — % by lever, year by year; (2) Cost each intervention; (3) Sequence with lead times; (4) Identify dependencies; (5) Flag risks; (6) Check inclusion impact.

EXAMPLES
Good mix: 'Engineering year-5 gap of 14 FTE: Build 6 FTE (start year 1, 18-month ramp); Buy 5 FTE (years 1-3); Borrow 3 FTE-eq (years 2-4 peak); Automate −2 FTE demand (Buniya year 3+). Total cost ~$3.2M over 5 years.'

RULES
Don't recommend single-lever solutions for gaps over 5 FTE. Don't underestimate Build lead times. Apply Constraint 02.5 (Fair Work consultation triggers).

ITERATION
Propose a 'low intervention' alternative for each gap that uses 30% less spend but accepts more risk.

ASSUMPTIONS
If the cost rates or contractor benchmarks aren't current, surface this before producing.

INPUTS:
[Paste the capability gap analysis, segmentation, current footprint, market data, EA cost rates, contractor bill rates, recruitment costs.]
```

### Prompt 10 — Strategic Options Paper for ELT/Board

*Phase 4 · Step 4.2.* Drafts the workforce-shape options paper for Board decision.

**When:** The most consequential output of the project.

**Trigger:** *"Draft an options paper"*

```
PRIMING
This is a drafting engagement for a Board-level decision paper. Output is a draft for me to iterate with the coalition GMs before submission.

CONTEXT
The Board must decide what workforce shape Barwon Water adopts over 2028-2033 in an AI-enabled environment. The Digital GM has framed one pathway ('Protect & Transform'). My job is to present 2-3 credible options for Board choice.

FRAMEWORK
Approach this as a strategic advisor drafting an options paper for ELT and Board. Apply Working Principle 01.7 (real options, not straw men). Stress-test each option equally.

INSTRUCTIONS
Draft 8-12 pages: (1) Executive summary (1pg); (2) Strategic context (2pg); (3) Each option in detail (2pg each): description, workforce shape, cost, capability outcome, inclusion impact, risk, change burden, conditions; (4) Comparison table (1pg); (5) Recommendation with rationale (1pg); (6) Decision required.

EXAMPLES
A good options paper presents real choices, with cases for and against clearly drawn. Recommendation is decisive — one or two sentences with no hedging. The strongest option is supported with evidence, not adjectives.

RULES
Australian English. Analytical, balanced, decisive. Stress-test each option equally. Apply Constraints 02.5 and 02.6. Honest about uncertainties.

ITERATION
Identify the three sections most likely to attract Board challenge and propose a sharper version of each.

ASSUMPTIONS
If you cannot articulate a clear recommendation, the options aren't well understood. Surface this before producing.

INPUTS:
[Paste intervention scenario pack, gap analysis, capability segmentation, financial implications by option, inclusion impact modelling, Phase 2 interview synthesis themes, the Digital GM's framing email.]
```

### Prompt 11 — Inclusion Impact Assessment

*Phase 4 · Step 4.3.* Models representation impact of strategic options.

**When:** Mandatory for any workforce reshape strategy.

**Trigger:** *"Run the inclusion impact"*

```
PRIMING
This is an analytical engagement producing impact assessment. Output is the assessment pack supporting the Strategic Options Paper.

CONTEXT
Barwon Water has 2028 representation targets across 5 dimensions: Aboriginal & TSI 4.0%, All Abilities 17.5%, Neurodivergent 15%, CALD 25%, Gender 43% women / 57% men.

FRAMEWORK
Approach this as an inclusion and diversity impact analyst. Apply Working Principle 01.6 — model honestly. Use aggregated, de-identified data only.

INSTRUCTIONS
For each strategic option: (1) Per-dimension impact: starting %, projected by 2028 and 2033, gap to target; (2) Mechanisms driving the impact; (3) Mitigations where worsened; (4) Permanent risks flagged; (5) Compare options.

EXAMPLES
Good impact analysis is honest: 'Option A worsens gender representation by 2031: women drop from 41% to 36% as back-office reduces. Mitigations: targeted hiring in growth areas.'

RULES
Aggregated and de-identified only. Apply Constraint 02.4. Honest about trade-offs.

ITERATION
Identify which option's inclusion outcome is most fragile and propose a strengthened mitigation for it.

ASSUMPTIONS
If the demographic data isn't segmented to capability or function level, propose the segmentation approach before producing.

INPUTS:
[Paste current demographics by capability, attrition patterns segmented by demographic, hiring data, the strategic options being modelled, the People Strategy 2028 targets.]
```

### Prompt 12 — PS28 Submission Synthesis

*Phase 5 · Step 5.1.* Drafts the regulatory submission narrative.

**When:** When drafting the PS28 narrative for ESC.

**Trigger:** *"Draft the PS28 narrative"*

```
PRIMING
This is a drafting engagement for a regulator-facing document. Output is a draft to be reviewed by Pricing/Strategy before lodgement.

CONTEXT
The Essential Services Commission applies the PREMO framework to Victorian water price submissions. Workforce costs are a major component. The narrative accompanies the workforce financial inputs handed to Link 8 (Revenue Model).

FRAMEWORK
Approach this as a regulatory submission writer with deep familiarity with PREMO. Apply Working Principle 01.4 and 01.2.

INSTRUCTIONS
Draft 15-25 pages: (1) Workforce overview; (2) Strategic context; (3) Demand drivers; (4) Supply context; (5) Capability investment cases; (6) Productivity assumptions; (7) Workforce shape strategy; (8) Financial trajectory; (9) Sensitivity and risk; (10) Customer outcomes link.

EXAMPLES
Good regulatory narrative is plain, evidence-led, traceable. 'FTE increases from 446 in 2026 to 487 by 2033 driven by [specific driver]. Supported by [specific evidence], traceable to [specific model output].'

RULES
Plain language. Every assertion ties to evidence. Honest about assumptions. Australian English. Pricing/Strategy peer-reviews before lodgement.

ITERATION
Identify the three sections most likely to attract ESC challenge and propose a sharper version of each.

ASSUMPTIONS
If the approved strategic pathway, model outputs, or sensitivity analysis is missing or unclear, surface the gap before producing.

INPUTS:
[Paste the Workforce Model PS28 Outputs sheet, the approved strategic pathway from Phase 4, Strategy 2030 priorities, the customer outcomes framework, EA outcomes, the sensitivity analysis.]
```