---
title: "Stakeholder Briefings: Workbench Blueprints HIPAA Data-Handling Review"
description: "One standalone HIPAA and data-handling compliance review fanned out into four audience briefings (Legal, Engineering, CS/Support, Executive) from a single traceable master document."
artifact: stakeholder-briefings
version: "1.0"
repo_version: "2.28.0"
skill_version: "1.0.0"
created: 2026-06-20
status: sample
thread: workbench
context: Workbench enterprise collaboration platform - standalone HIPAA and data-handling compliance review for Blueprints projected to four lenses
---
<!-- PM-Skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills | Apache 2.0 -->

## Scenario

Workbench's compliance lead has completed a standalone HIPAA and data-handling review of Blueprints ahead of selling into healthcare ops and compliance teams. The review found three gaps: protected health information (PHI) can land in the Yjs co-editing layer where it is hard to redact, audit-log retention is shorter than HIPAA expectations, and there is no signed Business Associate Agreement (BAA) template ready for healthcare prospects. The findings have to reach four audiences - legal (owns the BAA and the obligation read), engineering (owns the technical remediation), CS/Support (will field healthcare-customer questions), and the executive sponsor (decides whether HIPAA readiness is in scope for this cycle). Rachel V. runs `foundation-stakeholder-briefings` against the review. The skill proposes Legal, Engineering, Executive, and CS/Support for a compliance source; Rachel takes the proposal as-is.

**Source Notes:**

- Workbench is fictional.
- All metrics [fictional].

## Prompt

```
/foundation-stakeholder-briefings @blueprints-hipaa-review.md

Source: standalone HIPAA + data-handling compliance review of Blueprints
(compliance/privacy/security). This is NOT a launch or a spec - it is a
gap-finding review run ahead of selling into regulated healthcare ops teams.

Findings [fictional]:
1. PHI exposure in the CRDT layer: Blueprint content (incl. potential PHI) is
   stored as opaque Yjs binary; we have no redaction or selective-deletion path
   inside the co-editing document. Severity: high.
2. Audit-log retention: current retention is 12 months; HIPAA-aligned customers
   expect 6 years for access logs. Severity: medium.
3. No BAA: there is no Business Associate Agreement template ready; we cannot
   contractually take on PHI today. Severity: high (hard blocker for healthcare).

No incident has occurred; this is preventive. Remediation owners would be Karen
L. (Eng) and Legal. Decision: is HIPAA readiness in scope for this cycle, or do
we gate healthcare deals until a later cycle? Owned by Sandra C. (Head of
Product). Audiences: take the compliance proposal (Legal, Engineering,
Executive, CS/Support).
```

## Output

```markdown
# Stakeholder briefings: Blueprints HIPAA + data-handling review

## Master document

**What and why**

- M1: This is a preventive HIPAA and data-handling review of Blueprints, run ahead of selling into regulated healthcare ops and compliance teams; no incident has occurred.
- M2: Healthcare prospects would put protected health information (PHI) into Blueprints, which raises the bar on how that content is stored, retained, redacted, and contractually covered.

**Decisions**

- M3: The review found three gaps that must be resolved before Workbench can responsibly take PHI, two of them high severity.

**Status**

- M4: Finding 1 (high): Blueprint content, including potential PHI, is stored as opaque Yjs binary in the co-editing layer, and there is no redaction or selective-deletion path inside that document.
- M5: Finding 2 (medium): audit-log retention is currently 12 months [fictional], while HIPAA-aligned customers expect access logs retained for 6 years [fictional].
- M6: Finding 3 (high): there is no Business Associate Agreement (BAA) template ready, so Workbench cannot contractually take on PHI today - a hard blocker for any healthcare deal.

**Risks and open questions**

- M7: Findings 1 and 3 are hard blockers: until the CRDT redaction path exists and a BAA is in place, taking PHI is a legal and technical exposure, not just a feature gap.
- M8: Remediation has real engineering cost (the redaction path touches the CRDT storage model) and real legal cost (drafting and negotiating a BAA), so doing it this cycle competes with other roadmap work.

**Asks**

- M9: Decision on whether HIPAA readiness is in scope for this cycle, or whether healthcare deals are gated until a later cycle, owned by Sandra C. (Head of Product).

**Timeline**

- M10: The review is final now; remediation scoping (Karen L. for engineering, Legal for the BAA) starts as soon as the scope decision lands.

## Briefings

--- BEGIN: Legal ---

**Draws on:** M2, M3, M6, M7

**Primary ask:** Confirm that no healthcare/PHI deal closes until a BAA is in place, and start drafting the BAA template.

**Two hard blockers stand between us and PHI: no BAA, and no redaction path - the BAA is yours**

**What this means for Legal**

The review is preventive, not a response to an incident (M1), but it identifies obligations that bind before the first healthcare customer, not after. The moment a prospect puts PHI into Blueprints (M2), Workbench is acting as a business associate, and three gaps have to be closed first (M3). The one you own outright: there is no Business Associate Agreement template ready (M6), which means we cannot contractually take on PHI today - it is a hard blocker, not a paperwork formality.

The clear line to hold is that no healthcare or PHI-bearing deal closes until a signed BAA is in place (the primary ask), and that the BAA drafting starts now so it is not the thing that stalls a deal later. Be aware the technical side is also a blocker, not just the contract: there is no way to redact or selectively delete PHI inside the co-editing document yet (M7), so even with a BAA, our ability to honor deletion and minimization obligations depends on engineering remediation landing too.

--- END ---

--- BEGIN: Engineering ---

**Draws on:** M4, M5, M8

**Primary ask:** Scope the CRDT redaction/selective-deletion path and the extended audit-log retention, with effort estimates, for the scope decision.

**The redaction-in-CRDT gap is the hard technical one; audit-log retention is the smaller fix**

**What this means for Engineering**

Two findings are yours to scope. The hard one: Blueprint content is stored as opaque Yjs binary, and there is no redaction or selective-deletion path inside the co-editing document (M4). That is non-trivial because the CRDT format is append-oriented and not designed for targeted removal, so honoring "delete this PHI" or "redact this field" likely means changes to the storage model, not a UI toggle. The smaller one: audit-log retention is 12 months today, and HIPAA-aligned customers expect 6 years for access logs (M5) - a retention-policy and storage-cost change more than an architecture change.

Both have real cost that competes with other roadmap work (M8), so the deliverable here is an honest scope, not a fix yet: estimate the CRDT redaction/selective-deletion path and the extended-retention change separately, with effort and risk, so the scope decision is made on real numbers rather than a hunch. Flag clearly if the redaction path is large enough to be its own multi-sprint effort.

--- END ---

--- BEGIN: CS/Support ---

**Draws on:** M1, M3, M9

**Primary ask:** Hold a single approved line for healthcare prospects asking about HIPAA, and route deal-specific questions to Legal, until the scope decision lands.

**Healthcare customers will ask "are you HIPAA-ready" - here is the line to hold until we decide**

**What this means for CS/Support**

Healthcare ops prospects are going to ask directly whether Workbench is HIPAA-ready, and right now the honest answer is "review complete, remediation pending a scope decision" (M1, M3) - not "yes," and not "no." The risk for your team is improvising answers that either over-promise readiness or scare off a winnable prospect, before the company has actually decided whether HIPAA is in scope this cycle (M9).

So the ask is to hold one approved line until that decision lands: acknowledge that we have done a HIPAA review, that we are scoping the remaining work, and that we will not take PHI until we can do it properly - then route anything deal-specific (timelines, BAA, what data they can put in) to Legal rather than answering it yourself. One consistent line beats five well-meaning improvised ones, especially with regulated buyers who notice inconsistency.

--- END ---

--- BEGIN: Executive ---

**Draws on:** M2, M3, M8, M9

**Primary ask:** Decide whether HIPAA readiness is in scope this cycle, or whether healthcare deals are gated until a later cycle.

**HIPAA readiness is a real market door with a real cost - in scope this cycle, or gated?**

**What this means for the Executive sponsor**

There is a clear opportunity and a clear price. Healthcare ops and compliance teams are exactly the regulated, documentation-heavy buyers Blueprints is built for (M2), but the review found three gaps - two of them hard blockers - that must close before we can responsibly take their data (M3). This is not a bug to wave through; it is a build-and-legal investment that competes directly with other roadmap work this cycle (M8).

The decision is binary and it is yours (M9): put HIPAA readiness in scope now - funding the CRDT redaction path and the BAA, and accepting the roadmap tradeoff - or gate healthcare deals until a later cycle and keep the team focused on the current GA. Either is defensible; what is not defensible is selling into healthcare without deciding, because the blockers are legal exposure, not feature polish. Make the scope call so engineering and legal can plan against it.

--- END ---

---

## Translations applied (internal)

- "PHI stored as opaque Yjs binary with no redaction/selective-deletion path" kept precise for Engineering; rendered for Legal as "no way to honor deletion and minimization obligations yet" and omitted from the CS/Support and Executive blocks as a mechanism (audience-specific).
- "Business Associate Agreement (BAA)" expanded on first use and kept for Legal and Executive; for CS/Support reduced to "we will not take PHI until we can do it properly" so frontline staff are not negotiating contract terms.
- "audit-log retention 12 months vs. 6 years expected" kept as a concrete spec for Engineering; surfaced to others only as part of "the three gaps" (audience: Engineering owns the fix).
- "hard blocker" kept literal for Legal and Engineering (it gates the deal); rendered for the Executive as "legal exposure, not feature polish" to frame the stakes of deciding.

**Flagged but kept** (may need review):

- "no incident has occurred / preventive" - kept in the Executive and CS/Support blocks to avoid implying a live breach. Confirm this framing is consistent with how Legal wants the review characterized externally if a prospect asks.

## Sources and References

- Source artifact: blueprints-hipaa-review.md [fictional]
- **Generated:** 2026-06-20T15:55:00Z | **Skill version:** 1.0.0 | **Audiences:** Legal, Engineering, CS/Support, Executive | **Input quality:** high (standalone compliance review with severity-graded findings, named remediation owners, and a named decision-maker)
- **Invariant self-check:** 4 briefings; all Draws-on IDs resolve to M1-M10; one Primary ask each; master reviewed as audience-neutral.
```
