The problem you recognise
Decisions are being made without a complete evidence chain. Multiple stakeholders bring conflicting requirements into the gate review. There is no single system of truth — there is a PLM record, a spreadsheet someone updated last week, an email thread with the risk register, and a presentation that was assembled the night before. The gate decision is made from the presentation.
Spreadsheets are bridging PLM, ERP, MES, MRO, and DOORS. Someone reconciles them manually before every programme review. That person is not available on the day of the review. The version that gets committed to is not the latest version.
Configuration management is disconnected from the decisions that authorised the changes. The change is approved. The rationale dies in email. Three years later, when the auditor asks why requirement 3.2.1 was modified in baseline R4, the answer is “I think Dave knew — Dave left in 2024.”
Schedule and cost risk are invisible until it is too late to mitigate. The risk register is updated quarterly. The programme is updated daily. The gap between them is where the slippage hides.
What Clarity does for you
DeZolve Truth Vector — decision trustworthiness scored from live evidence. Before you approve a baseline, DeZolve traverses the complete evidence chain — requirement to architecture, architecture to options, options to analysis — and scores the trustworthiness of the decision against the strength of the evidence. Not a static checklist. A live query against the current model state. The evidence chain is always current, not assembled the night before a gate review.
L5 as structural parent of change, baseline, and release management. In Clarity, every formal change traces to the decision that authorised it. The decision record references the baseline it was made against, the analysis that supported it, and the invariant constraints it was required to respect. When an auditor in 2031 asks why a design decision was made in 2026, the answer is a navigation through the live Lx graph — not a reconstruction from memory.
Lx overlays — cost, schedule, supplier risk, and TRL woven into every option. Clarity’s Lx.10 overlay (cost) and Lx.11 overlay (programme management, schedule, milestones) are not bolted-on dashboards — they are assessment layers across the same digital thread as every engineering entity. You see cost, schedule, supplier risk, and TRL simultaneously on every option at every lifecycle phase. No separate spreadsheet. No reconciliation step before the review.
Baseline diff — change impact as a query, not a manual exercise. Compare any two baselines. Every difference is a queryable change record with proposer, rationale, approval, and invariant status. The change impact of a proposed modification is a query on the CI graph — computed, not estimated.
Why this matters specifically to you
The programme risks that come from fragmented evidence are compounding:
- Gate review failure — a gate is committed to based on incomplete evidence; the incomplete evidence becomes a contractual baseline; the contract disputes begin
- Decision traceability gap — a decision made in year one of a 30-year programme cannot be answered in year ten; the cost of reconstructing intent from artefacts is significant; the cost of getting it wrong is existential
- Supplier integration failure — multi-supplier programmes with inconsistent BOM formats and no shared baseline create reconciliation cycles before every milestone; Clarity’s 16 BOM views eliminate the reconciliation step
- Schedule slip invisibility — milestones defined in a planning tool that is not connected to the engineering model produce optimistic schedules; when the model slips, the milestone does not update until someone notices
How it works
- Single system of truth. The Lx digital thread is the authoritative baseline. PLM, ERP, and MES can be ingested as source data via the Orchestrator posture — Clarity sits above the existing tool stack, consuming what already exists.
- Gate-ready evidence chain always current. No assembly required before a review. Navigate the Lx graph; generate the gate review report; the scope-matrix report includes every required evidence point against the standard you specify.
- Multi-stakeholder conflict resolution. Competing requirements are captured at L0 with stakeholder attribution. L3 scenario analysis runs the trade study across the conflict surface. The decision is made from the analysis, not from the strongest voice in the room.
- Change management at the API level. No change can be made without a change record. Invariant constraints are enforced before approval — not checked after. Three-ring enforcement prevents downstream propagation of constraint violations.
Your entry path
Enterprise evaluation — for multi-stakeholder Defence, aerospace, or regulated-sector programmes.
Contact us to discuss programme structure, integration with existing PLM/ERP, and deployment model (SaaS, own-account, or cleared partner).
→ Request enterprise evaluation
Free tier — for Tier 2–4 programme leads evaluating independently. Start today, no credit card.
→ Start free at compliancewithclarity.com
Read more
- The DeZolve Decision Intelligence Framework — the full truth vector architecture and evidence scoring
- How Programmes Actually Work: Non-Linear Entry — entering the Lx chain mid-programme, not just at inception
- The Orchestrator — and the Lightweight Replacement — integrating Clarity above existing PLM/ERP without rip-and-replace
- Thirteen Lifecycle Phases, One Graph — the complete lifecycle traceability architecture