Project: Ending Harassment

The principal progress to date is the preparation of a coherent planning baseline for Ending Harassment – Evidence into Action as an international, independent, subscription-funded Governance project.

Revised Project Information, 60 Governance Framing Questions, a Strategic Plan, Manifesto, Business Case, PHC Proposal and 90-Day Plan have been prepared and their JSON files validated. Together they define the global remit, evidence-led approach, intended services, independence principles, phased development and provisional financial assumptions.

The documents connect institutional concerns with evidence, responsibilities, corrective actions and review. They distinguish planning intentions from verified findings and establish proposed approval gates before sensitive work, paid service activation and expansion.

This is progress in project definition and readiness planning. Import into PHC, formal adoption, appointments, operational systems, institutional participation and funding have not been verified in the supplied material. No completed institutional review, implemented reform or reduction in harm is reported.

The main barrier to operational mobilisation is the gap between a documented plan and an authorised, resourced operating arrangement. The accountable operating or hosting body, named lead, decision rights, essential appointments and provider engagements remain to be confirmed.

Commercial viability also remains untested. Subscription tiers, willingness to pay, delivery capacity, actual supplier costs and affordability require validation. The proposal's opening-cash scenario is not secured funding, and expressions of interest must not be treated as paid subscriptions.

Before sensitive evidence or live institutional assessments can be accepted, the project needs confirmed safeguarding, confidentiality, fair response, complaints, conflict-management and publication controls, supported by competent people and tested systems. Relevant country and institutional requirements will need assessment for each review.

These are unresolved readiness conditions, not evidence that misconduct or operational failure has occurred. They constrain what can responsibly be offered and should be resolved or reflected in a narrower scope before commitments are made.

1. Confirm accountability: establish the authorised operating body, accountable lead, oversight, delegated decisions and unconflicted complaint and escalation routes. Record appointments and authority explicitly.
2. Adopt the planning baseline: review the prepared documents, resolve inconsistencies against actual resources and confirm which versions are approved and imported into PHC. Set Day 1 only when the first stage is authorised and adequately resourced.
3. Undertake the readiness review: test scope, evidence access, safeguarding, skills, independence, demand and funding. Record a go, revise or no-go decision rather than assume launch.
4. Validate the model: obtain consultant and supplier terms, assess unpriced obligations, test subscription interest and affordability, and approve actual service entitlements, prices, cash requirements and intervention thresholds.
5. Build and test controls: configure suitable PHC governance records, restricted evidence storage, document control and subscription-finance records. Test permissions, recovery, fair response, complaints and publication checks before operational use.
6. Establish bounded participation: seek written agreement for a small initial institutional cohort and safe stakeholder input. Activate subscriptions only when the promised services can be delivered; adjust both receipts and spending if readiness slips.
7. Create the reporting baseline: assign action owners, dates and completion evidence; record actual commitments, receipts and activity; and review progress at the proposed Day 30, 60 and 90 gates.

These actions are proposed next steps. Appointed owners, deadlines and approval evidence should be entered into the project record rather than inferred from this report.