{
  "name": "Umay Ana Institutional Pilot Package",
  "version": "1.0-draft",
  "status": "proposed_reference_package",
  "default_reference_scenario": {
    "participants_invited": 10000,
    "duration_days": 90,
    "farmer_access": "Institution-sponsored Umay Ana access under an agreed analysis allowance.",
    "institution_types": [
      "bank",
      "insurer",
      "reinsurer",
      "MRV provider",
      "green-finance program",
      "public institution"
    ],
    "note": "Participant count, duration, geography, crop scope, analysis allowance and integrations are configurable."
  },
  "workstreams": [
    {
      "id": "WS1",
      "name": "Participant onboarding & activation",
      "objective": "Recruit, consent and activate the agreed farmer cohort with minimum friction.",
      "outputs": [
        "onboarding funnel",
        "consent/purpose map",
        "activation dashboard",
        "support issue log"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "WS2",
      "name": "Field signal generation",
      "objective": "Generate useful farmer interactions and structured agricultural context.",
      "outputs": [
        "crop/location/season context",
        "weather-aware signals",
        "plant-health events",
        "sustainability evidence where used"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "WS3",
      "name": "Data quality & governance",
      "objective": "Measure completeness, provenance, coverage, permissions and data consistency.",
      "outputs": [
        "data coverage",
        "completeness",
        "source/evidence status",
        "quality exceptions"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "WS4",
      "name": "Institutional integration",
      "objective": "Expose agreed data through pilot dashboard, secure export or proposed API contract.",
      "outputs": [
        "partner mapping",
        "dashboard",
        "API/export",
        "request audit trail"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "WS5",
      "name": "Business & model validation",
      "objective": "Test whether field intelligence is operationally useful and whether selected signals justify deeper outcome validation.",
      "outputs": [
        "analyst feedback",
        "use-case review",
        "signal-outcome validation plan",
        "scale recommendation"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "phases": [
    {
      "phase": 0,
      "name": "Design",
      "days": "Pre-pilot",
      "focus": "Scope, cohort, consent, use case, integration and success criteria."
    },
    {
      "phase": 1,
      "name": "Connect",
      "days": "Days 1–15",
      "focus": "Partner mapping, onboarding flows, dashboard/API sandbox and support process."
    },
    {
      "phase": 2,
      "name": "Activate",
      "days": "Days 16–30",
      "focus": "Farmer activation, usage education and first data-quality review."
    },
    {
      "phase": 3,
      "name": "Observe",
      "days": "Days 31–75",
      "focus": "Field-signal generation, portfolio views and institutional workflow testing."
    },
    {
      "phase": 4,
      "name": "Evaluate",
      "days": "Days 76–90",
      "focus": "KPI review, outcome-validation analysis and scale/no-scale decision."
    }
  ],
  "illustrative_success_targets": {
    "important_note": "Illustrative negotiation targets, not current performance claims or contractual guarantees.",
    "onboarding": [
      {
        "metric": "Cohort mapping coverage",
        "target": "≥95% of agreed pilot list successfully mapped or exception-coded"
      },
      {
        "metric": "Activated participants by Day 30",
        "target": "≥40% of invited participants"
      },
      {
        "metric": "Purpose/consent status completeness",
        "target": "100% of externally shared records"
      }
    ],
    "engagement_and_signal_generation": [
      {
        "metric": "Active participant signal coverage",
        "target": "≥60% have at least one usable agricultural signal during pilot"
      },
      {
        "metric": "Meaningful interactions",
        "target": "Target set by use case; e.g. ≥3 structured interactions per active participant/month"
      },
      {
        "metric": "Multi-period coverage",
        "target": "≥50% of active participants have signals in 2+ pilot periods"
      }
    ],
    "data_quality": [
      {
        "metric": "Core-field completeness",
        "target": "≥75% on agreed institutional fields"
      },
      {
        "metric": "Provenance coverage",
        "target": "100% of exposed fields identify source class"
      },
      {
        "metric": "Evidence-status coverage",
        "target": "100% for sustainability/photo evidence records"
      },
      {
        "metric": "Data coverage reported",
        "target": "100% of dashboard/API summaries include coverage metadata"
      }
    ],
    "institutional_usefulness": [
      {
        "metric": "Analyst/underwriter usefulness",
        "target": "≥70% of pilot reviewers rate agreed views as useful or very useful"
      },
      {
        "metric": "Workflow adoption",
        "target": "At least one defined institutional workflow uses pilot output repeatedly"
      },
      {
        "metric": "Decision-boundary compliance",
        "target": "No automated approve/reject/pay/certify action driven solely by Umay Ana output"
      }
    ],
    "technical": [
      {
        "metric": "Pilot API/export availability",
        "target": "Target ≥99.5% during agreed monitored windows, excluding planned maintenance"
      },
      {
        "metric": "Traceability",
        "target": "100% of institutional responses/export batches traceable to request/batch ID"
      },
      {
        "metric": "Critical security incidents",
        "target": "0"
      }
    ]
  },
  "institution_specific_validation": {
    "banking": [
      "Do field signals add useful context to credit monitoring?",
      "Can crop/geography/season segmentation reveal portfolio concentrations?",
      "Where outcome data is available, which signals justify later testing against arrears/default or restructuring events?"
    ],
    "insurance": [
      "Can field signals prioritize where inspection or additional evidence is warranted?",
      "Do aggregated crop/region signals add context around accumulation events?",
      "Where claims data is available, which signals justify later validation against claims outcomes?"
    ],
    "mrv_green_finance": [
      "Can practice records reduce missing evidence for selected sustainability programs?",
      "What percentage of records can be mapped to a selected methodology's required fields?",
      "Which external measurements/verification steps remain necessary?"
    ]
  },
  "pilot_end_deliverables": [
    "Pilot KPI report",
    "Data coverage and quality report",
    "Institutional use-case findings",
    "Field-signal catalogue observed during pilot",
    "API/export integration review",
    "Governance and consent exception report",
    "Signal-outcome validation plan where partner outcome data exists",
    "Scale recommendation and production integration backlog"
  ],
  "commercial_structure": {
    "pricing": "Custom / scope dependent; no public pilot fee defined in this reference package.",
    "cost_drivers": [
      "participant count",
      "analysis allowance",
      "countries/languages",
      "custom onboarding",
      "dashboard scope",
      "API / partner-system integration",
      "data retention requirements",
      "support and training",
      "MRV / external verification partners",
      "security / compliance requirements"
    ],
    "scale_options": [
      "institution-sponsored farmer access",
      "per-active-farmer platform fee",
      "portfolio/API subscription",
      "enterprise license",
      "custom data/MRV integration"
    ]
  }
}