# 03 - Maya Singh, Governance Re-engagement

## Purpose

Test re-engagement after a governance-related stall. This is the most important current-events scenario: the rep must acknowledge uncertainty, avoid overclaiming, and help Maya decide what she can responsibly take to a board risk committee.

## Setup

- Persona: Maya Singh - Governance-Conscious Sponsor
- Scenario: Re-engagement After Stall
- Expected recommendation fit: recommended

## Scenario Context

Maya paused the CAAT file for six weeks after board risk committee members raised questions about public governance-review coverage. She still sees value in the plan design and retention story, but she is unwilling to recommend next steps unless she can separate governance-process questions from funded-status, benefit-security, and employee-communication questions.

## Language Policy

Do use:

```text
publicly available information
responsible evaluation
what your board needs to see
separate the questions
based on CAAT's public updates
```

Do not use:

```text
review outcome
nothing to worry about
risk-free
guaranteed
move past this
close the deal
```

## Optional Rep Prep

Purpose: Re-open trust by understanding what Maya and the board need to evaluate responsibly.

Outcome: Agree on a diligence map for board risk committee review.

Structure: Acknowledge the pause, ask what changed, isolate the blocker, separate issue categories, agree a low-risk next step.

Timing: 25 minutes.

SMARTER objective: By end of call, agree to a board-risk diligence outline and a 30-minute follow-up with Maya's legal or risk lead within two weeks.

Likely hooks: Board defensibility, employee trust, governance process, no overstatement.

Question funnels: What caused the pause? Which questions are governance-process questions? Which are member-security questions? What would make a recommendation responsible?

Likely resistance: "I cannot take this to the board until the review is complete."

Intended action plan: Rep sends a public-information diligence map. Maya identifies the board risk committee questions that need evidence.

## Rep Lines

1. Maya, I appreciate you re-opening the conversation. I also do not want to treat the pause like a scheduling issue. Can you walk me through what the board risk committee is most worried about now?

2. When you say governance concerns, which questions are about the independent review process, and which are about member security or the plan's funded position?

3. What would you need to see, using publicly available information, before you could responsibly say to the board, "This is still worth evaluating"?

4. Let me summarize. You are not asking me to predict a review outcome. You need a way to separate the questions, show what is known publicly, identify what remains open, and avoid creating employee-communication risk. Is that the shape of it?

5. Of those issues, which one would stop the file even if the plan-design and retention case still made sense?

6. My suggestion is not that we move past this. It is that we build a diligence map: public governance-review updates in one column, funded-status and annual-result materials in another, and employee or union communication questions in a third. That gives your board a way to decide what can be evaluated now and what remains open.

7. Would a practical next step be this: I send that diligence map by Friday, you mark the board-risk questions that are missing, and we decide whether a risk-lead follow-up is useful before anything goes wider?

## Expected Evaluation

Strong performance should show:

- Acknowledges the stall without blame.
- Does not predict the governance review.
- Separates governance-process concerns from benefit-security concerns.
- Uses approved language like "publicly available information" and "responsible evaluation."
- Avoids prohibited phrases like "nothing to worry about" or "risk-free."
- Creates a low-risk next step with owner and timing.