Service Assessment Report: [Service name], [Phase] assessment
A service assessment report records how a public digital service was
judged against a service standard at a phase gate (usually the end of
alpha, beta and before going live): the evidence the team showed for
each point, the panel's rating, what must change and by when. The
structure works with any point-based digital service standard. The
worked mapping uses the UK Government Service Standard (14 points, as
published on GOV.UK) and the GOV.UK Service Manual page "What happens
at a service assessment" (updated 7 September 2026), which rates each
point green, amber or red. Replace every [bracketed] value and every
row marked Example. Check the current standard and assessment rules
of your government or department before each assessment.
Document control
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Document ID | [SAR-2026-001] |
| Version | [0.1] |
| Status | [Self-assessment draft / Panel draft / Fact-checked / Published] |
| Service name | [Verb-based name, e.g. Apply for a ...] |
| Service owner | [@service-owner] |
| Department or agency | [Organisation] |
| Phase assessed | [Alpha / Beta / Live / Reassessment] |
| Assessment type | [Cross-government panel / Departmental panel / Peer review] |
| Rating scheme | [Green, amber, red / Met, not met] |
| Assessment date | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Owner | [@lead-assessor] |
| Approvers/reviewers | [@service-owner], [@departmental-assurance-lead] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Classification | [Official / Public after publication] |
Approvals
| Role | Name | Decision | Date |
|---|
| Lead assessor | [@name] | [Report issued] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Service owner | [@name] | [Fact check complete] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Assurance lead | [@name] | [Outcome recorded] | YYYY-MM-DD |
Revision history
| Version | Date | Author | Change summary |
|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | Team self-assessment and evidence pack |
| 0.2 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | Panel ratings and recommendations |
| 1.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | Fact-checked, approved for publication |
Contents
- Assessment summary
- Service description
- Team and assessment arrangements
- Evidence pack index
- Assessment against each point of the standard
- Recommendations and conditions
- Amber tracking
- Decision and next steps
- Glossary and references
- Standard and licence note
1. Assessment summary
| Item | Result |
|---|
| Overall outcome | [Green / Amber / Red] or [Met / Not met] |
| Points green or met | [n of 14] |
| Points amber | [n] |
| Points red or not met | [n] |
| May the service move to the next phase? | [Yes / Yes, with amber actions / No] |
| Deadline for amber actions | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Reassessment needed? | [Yes, date / No] |
Example: the Lakemoor Waters Agency beta assessment of "Apply for a
recreational fishing permit" rated 10 points green, 4 amber and none
red. Overall outcome: amber. The service may move into public beta
while the amber actions (points 3, 5, 10 and 12) are completed within
three months.
2. Service description
| Item | Description |
|---|
| What users are trying to do | [Outcome in the user's words] |
| Users | [Main user groups, with numbers per year] |
| Channels | [Online, phone, paper, face to face, intermediaries] |
| Start and end of the whole journey | [Where users start and finish, including other organisations] |
| Volumes | [Transactions per year, share by channel] |
| Policy or legal basis | [Law or policy the service delivers] |
| Phase history | [Discovery dates, alpha dates, earlier assessment outcomes] |
| Item | Description |
|---|
| What users are trying to do (Example) | Get permission to fish in agency-managed waters for a day, a season or a year |
| Users (Example) | About 180,000 anglers per year, plus 240 tackle shops that sell permits in person |
| Channels (Example) | Online, phone line, tackle shops |
| Volumes (Example) | 260,000 permits per year; 71% online in private beta |
3. Team and assessment arrangements
3.1 Service team
| Role | Name or vacancy | Permanent, contractor or supplier | Time on the service |
|---|
| Service owner | [@name] | [Type] | [Share] |
| Product manager | [@name] | [Type] | [Share] |
| Delivery manager | [@name] | [Type] | [Share] |
| User researcher | [@name] | [Type] | [Share] |
| Designers (service, interaction, content) | [@names] | [Type] | [Share] |
| Developers and technical architect | [@names] | [Type] | [Share] |
| Performance analyst | [@name] | [Type] | [Share] |
3.2 Panel and observers
| Role | Name | Organisation |
|---|
| Lead assessor | [@name] | [Organisation] |
| User research assessor | [@name] | [Organisation] |
| Design assessor | [@name] | [Organisation] |
| Technical assessor | [@name] | [Organisation] |
| Performance analysis or AI specialist (if relevant) | [@name] | [Organisation] |
| Observers (do not ask questions) | [@names] | [Organisation] |
GOV.UK practice (check the current page): a cross-government
assessment usually lasts about four hours, starting with a short
service overview and a demonstration of the user journey, followed by
panel questions. The page updated on 7 September 2026 says the panel
may include an AI specialist when the service includes AI, and may ask
how AI tools were used to design or build it.
4. Evidence pack index
| Evidence ID | Artefact | Phase produced | Link |
|---|
| EVD-01 (Example) | User research plan and findings, 42 sessions incl. 9 with assistive technology users | Alpha and private beta | [Link] |
| EVD-02 (Example) | End-to-end journey map including tackle shop and phone channels | Alpha | [Link] |
| EVD-03 (Example) | Accessibility audit against WCAG 2.2 AA and draft accessibility statement | Private beta | [Link] |
| EVD-04 (Example) | Performance framework and dashboard: completion rate, cost per transaction, satisfaction, digital take-up | Private beta | [Link] |
| EVD-05 (Example) | Architecture overview, threat model and DPIA | Beta | [Link] |
| EVD-06 (Example) | Public code repository and licence | Beta | [Link] |
| EVD-07 (Example) | Service level indicators, incident runbook and on-call rota | Beta | [Link] |
5. Assessment against each point of the standard
5.1 Ratings overview
| Point | GOV.UK Service Standard point | Rating (Example) |
|---|
| 1 | Understand users and their needs | Green |
| 2 | Solve a whole problem for users | Green |
| 3 | Provide a joined up experience across all channels | Amber |
| 4 | Make the service simple to use | Green |
| 5 | Make sure everyone can use the service | Amber |
| 6 | Have a multidisciplinary team | Green |
| 7 | Use agile ways of working | Green |
| 8 | Iterate and improve frequently | Green |
| 9 | Create a secure service which protects users' privacy | Green |
| 10 | Define what success looks like and publish performance data | Amber |
| 11 | Choose the right tools and technology | Green |
| 12 | Make new source code open | Amber |
| 13 | Use and contribute to open standards, common components and patterns | Green |
| 14 | Operate a reliable service | Green |
Count check (Example): 10 green, 4 amber, 0 red, 14 points.
5.2 Findings per point
Repeat this block for each of the 14 points.
Point [n]: [Point title]
| Item | Content |
|---|
| Rating | [Green / Amber / Red] |
| What the team showed | [Summary with evidence IDs] |
| What went well | [Panel observations] |
| What the team needs to explore | [Gaps, risks, missing evidence] |
| Linked recommendation | [REC-nn] |
Point 1: Understand users and their needs (Example)
| Item | Content |
|---|
| Rating | Green |
| What the team showed | 42 research sessions across day, season and annual permit holders, including 9 with assistive technology users and 6 with low digital confidence (EVD-01) |
| What went well | Research shaped the decision to let users buy a permit for someone else, a need found in alpha |
| What the team needs to explore | Needs of the 240 tackle shop staff who sell permits in person |
| Linked recommendation | REC-01 |
Point 3: Provide a joined up experience across all channels (Example)
| Item | Content |
|---|
| Rating | Amber |
| What the team showed | Journey map covering online, phone and tackle shop channels (EVD-02) |
| What went well | The phone team uses the same permit record as the online service |
| What the team needs to explore | Tackle shops still issue paper permits that do not reach the permit record for up to 10 days, so enforcement officers cannot check them |
| Linked recommendation | REC-02 |
Point 5: Make sure everyone can use the service (Example)
| Item | Content |
|---|
| Rating | Amber |
| What the team showed | WCAG 2.2 AA audit with 3 open issues on the date picker and a draft accessibility statement (EVD-03) |
| What went well | Assisted digital route by phone tested with users |
| What the team needs to explore | Fix the open date picker issues before public beta and publish the accessibility statement |
| Linked recommendation | REC-03 |
Point 10: Define what success looks like and publish performance data (Example)
| Item | Content |
|---|
| Rating | Amber |
| What the team showed | Dashboard for completion rate, satisfaction and digital take-up (EVD-04) |
| What went well | Clear link between metrics and the policy aim of reducing illegal fishing |
| What the team needs to explore | Cost per transaction is not yet measured, and no data is published |
| Linked recommendation | REC-04 |
Point 12: Make new source code open (Example)
| Item | Content |
|---|
| Rating | Amber |
| What the team showed | Repository exists but is private (EVD-06) |
| What went well | Secrets are held outside the code base |
| What the team needs to explore | Publish the code with an open licence, or record the reasons for keeping specific parts closed |
| Linked recommendation | REC-05 |
6. Recommendations and conditions
| ID | Point | Type | What must be shown | Owner | Due |
|---|
| REC-01 (Example) | 1 | Advice | Research findings on tackle shop staff needs | [@user-researcher] | Before live assessment |
| REC-02 (Example) | 3 | Condition | Permits sold in shops appear in the permit record within 24 hours | [@product-manager] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| REC-03 (Example) | 5 | Condition | No open WCAG 2.2 AA issues on the core journey; accessibility statement published | [@designer] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| REC-04 (Example) | 10 | Condition | Cost per transaction measured; performance data published | [@performance-analyst] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| REC-05 (Example) | 12 | Condition | Code published under an open licence, or exceptions recorded | [@technical-architect] | YYYY-MM-DD |
7. Amber tracking
| Recommendation | Status | Evidence of completion | Date checked | Checked by |
|---|
| REC-02 (Example) | [Open / In progress / Done] | [Evidence ID] | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] |
| REC-03 (Example) | [Status] | [Evidence ID] | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] |
| REC-04 (Example) | [Status] | [Evidence ID] | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] |
| REC-05 (Example) | [Status] | [Evidence ID] | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] |
8. Decision and next steps
| Item | Decision |
|---|
| Allowed next step | [e.g. Move to public beta] |
| Not yet allowed | [e.g. Close the paper channel] |
| Next assessment | [Phase, expected date] |
| Report publication | [Date and location; team fact check completed YYYY-MM-DD] |
GOV.UK practice: GDS publishes outcomes in its list of Service Standard
reports after the team has had a chance to fact check, and
cross-government panels usually send the report within three to five
working days.
9. Glossary and references
9.1 Glossary
| Term | Meaning |
|---|
| Discovery | Short phase to understand the problem and whether to build anything |
| Alpha | Phase to test riskiest assumptions with prototypes |
| Beta | Phase to build and run a real service with real users (private, then public) |
| Live | Phase where the service runs and keeps improving |
| Green | Standard met, service may continue |
| Amber | Standard not yet met, issues not critical, continue while fixing them |
| Red | Standard not met, critical issues, stay in phase until reassessed |
| Assisted digital | Support for people who cannot use the online service on their own |
9.2 References
10. Standard and licence note
Based on the UK Government Service Standard and the GOV.UK Service
Manual guidance on service assessments, published by the Government
Digital Service. Point titles are cited as published, for
identification; GOV.UK content is available under the Open Government
Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. The report structure,
guidance and example are original text. Other governments publish their
own digital service standards; replace the point list with the standard
that applies to you, and check the current GOV.UK pages before use, as
assessment rules change more often than the standard.