Shareable Site Intelligence Reports: Evidence, Gaps and Handover

Identify the site, study boundary, revision, review date and intended decision. Explain whether the report supports initial screening, an option discussion or a more detailed assessment. State the sources consulted and the searches or surveys still needed. Avoid using a desktop summary as a formal specialist report without the required scope and review.

For each topic, record the available source, its date or retrieval date, coverage and key limitation. Distinguish no identified feature from unavailable or unqueried data. A requested layer may fail or be incomplete; inspect the delivered output rather than count requested topics. Separate source observations, interpretations and proposed responses.

Lead with the issues most relevant to the next decision. Link each issue to its supporting map, document or observation, then name the action, owner and evidence needed to close it. Keep alternative options and sensitivity assumptions visible. A short traceable explanation is more useful than an unexplained score or a large map collection.

The reviewed report-share page uses a token-based link and handles revoked or missing tokens. Treat a link that permits access without sign-in as information that a recipient may forward. Check the current sharing controls, intended audience and content before distribution. Do not assume a fixed expiry period or an access-audit capability unless the interface and policy establish it.

Open the delivered files and confirm that maps, legends, text and evidence references are usable. CAD or data exports need their own coordinate and geometry checks. Retain the reviewed version and communicate material changes; do not describe the shared page as an immutable audit record unless that property has been verified.