# Service Review Report: [Service name], [Period]

> Periodic service level report for one service or a group of services, prepared for a monthly or quarterly service review with the customer or business owner: executive summary, service level agreement (SLA) and service level objective (SLO) attainment, availability and error budget, incidents, major incidents, problems, changes, service requests, capacity and performance, customer satisfaction, supplier performance, risks, and improvement actions with owners. Structure aligned with ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018 with Amendment 1:2024 (the current edition as of October 2026), clause 8.3.3 service level management and clause 9.4 service reporting, with links to clauses 8.2.4, 8.3.2, 8.4.3, 8.7.1, 9.3 and 10.2. Replace every `[bracketed]` value and every row marked *Example*.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- One report per review period and per service or service group named in the service catalogue (`compliance/iso-20000-service-catalog`). Monthly for critical services, quarterly for others is a common rhythm; follow what the SLA says.
- Produce the numbers from the service management and monitoring tools, not by hand, and keep the definitions in section 10 stable across periods so that trends mean something.
- Lead with what the reader must decide or know (section 1). Most readers stop after the first page.
- Report misses honestly, with the cause and the action. A report with every target green for a year usually means the targets are too easy or the measurement is wrong.
- Related templates: Service Level Agreement (`ops/service-level-agreement`), SLO Document (`dev/slo-doc`), Error Budget Policy (`ops/error-budget-policy`), Incident Management Procedure (`ops/incident-management-procedure`), Problem Record (`ops/problem-record`), Change Enablement Policy (`ops/change-enablement-policy`), Capacity Plan (`ops/capacity-plan`), FinOps Cost Review (`ops/finops-cost-review`).
- Example: Corvid Commerce, a fictional online retailer, reporting on its online checkout service for the third quarter of 2026 (1 July to 30 September). All figures are fictional and computed consistently. Delete every *Example* row before use.
-->

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: Treat each report as a record. Once presented, corrections are issued as a new version with the change noted, never silently. -->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Report ID | [SRR-YYYY-QN-SVC] *Example:* SRR-2026-Q3-CHK |
| Service(s) | [Service name and catalogue ID] *Example:* Online checkout (SVC-CHK) |
| Reporting period | YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD *Example:* 2026-07-01 to 2026-09-30 |
| Version | [1.0] |
| Status | [Draft / Reviewed / Presented / Final] |
| Owner (service level manager) | [@service-level-manager] |
| Approvers/reviewers | [@service-owner], [@customer-representative] |
| Review meeting date | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Agreement reference | [SLA ID and version] *Example:* SLA-CHK version 3 |
| Data sources | [Monitoring tool, service management tool, survey tool] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Classification | [Internal / Customer confidential] |

### Approvals

| Role | Name | Decision | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service owner | [@name] | [Approved for presentation] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Customer or business representative | [@name] | [Accepted / Accepted with comments] | YYYY-MM-DD |

### Revision history

| Version | Date | Author | Change summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | Data extracted and draft written |
| 1.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | *Example:* Presented at the Q3 service review on 2026-10-14 |
| 1.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | *Example:* Corrected service request count after duplicate tickets were removed |

## Contents

<!-- Guidance: Keep aligned with the headings below. Remove sections that the agreement does not cover, but say so in section 10. -->

1. [Executive summary](#1-executive-summary)
2. [Service level attainment](#2-service-level-attainment)
3. [Availability and error budget](#3-availability-and-error-budget)
4. [Incidents and major incidents](#4-incidents-and-major-incidents)
5. [Problems and known errors](#5-problems-and-known-errors)
6. [Changes](#6-changes)
7. [Service requests and customer satisfaction](#7-service-requests-and-customer-satisfaction)
8. [Capacity, performance and suppliers](#8-capacity-performance-and-suppliers)
9. [Risks, improvement actions and decisions](#9-risks-improvement-actions-and-decisions)
10. [Definitions, data sources and references](#10-definitions-data-sources-and-references)

## 1. Executive summary

<!-- Guidance: Five to eight lines. State overall status, the biggest miss and its cause, what is being done, and what you need from the reader. Questions: what decision does the review meeting need to take? -->

| Item | Summary *(Example)* |
|---|---|
| Overall status | Amber: two of three months met the availability target; quarter average 99.940% against a monthly target of 99.900% |
| Main miss | August availability 99.870%, below the 99.900% target, mainly due to major incident INC-3125 (41 minutes of checkout outage) |
| Cause and action | Database failover left stale connections in checkout-api; root cause found (PRB-0042), fix implemented 2026-09-09 (CR-2231), no recurrence since |
| Service credit | Due for August under SLA-CHK section [n]; calculated by finance as [amount] |
| Other highlights | Change failure rate down from 4.55% in Q2 to 3.27%; incident response target met for 97.4% of incidents |
| Decisions requested | Approve funding for the database proxy project PRJ-118 (section 9); agree to move the storage expansion forward to January 2027 |

## 2. Service level attainment

<!-- Guidance: One row per service level target in the agreement. Show target, actual, status and trend versus the previous period. Explain every miss in one line and point to the section with detail. -->

| ID | Measure | Target | Jul | Aug | Sep | Quarter | Status | Trend vs Q2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SL-01 *(Example)* | Checkout availability (monthly) | 99.900% | 99.973% | 99.870% | 99.979% | 99.940% | Missed in Aug | Worse |
| SL-02 *(Example)* | Incident response within target | 95% | | | | 97.4% (150 of 154) | Met | Same |
| SL-03 *(Example)* | Incident resolution within target | 90% | | | | 93.5% (144 of 154) | Met | Better |
| SL-04 *(Example)* | Service requests fulfilled within target | 95% | | | | 96.0% (1,190 of 1,240) | Met | Same |
| SL-05 *(Example)* | Customer satisfaction (survey) | 85% satisfied | | | | 90.0% (371 of 412) | Met | Better |
| [SL-] | [Measure] | [Target] | | | | [Actual] | [Status] | [Trend] |

SLO view (internal objectives that sit behind the SLA, see `dev/slo-doc`):

| SLO | Objective *(Example)* | Quarter result *(Example)* | Error budget consumed *(Example)* |
|---|---|---|---|
| Checkout success rate | 99.9% of order submissions succeed over 28 days | Met in 2 of 3 windows | Exhausted in August, recovered in September |
| Checkout latency | 95% of order submissions complete in under 800 ms | Met | 41% |

## 3. Availability and error budget

<!-- Guidance: Show the arithmetic so that the customer can check it. State what counts as downtime and what is excluded (planned maintenance, customer-caused faults) exactly as the SLA does. -->

Downtime rule *(Example)*: a minute counts as downtime when fewer than 95% of checkout submissions succeed in that minute, measured by synthetic and real-user monitoring. Announced maintenance inside the agreed window is excluded under the SLA maintenance clause and listed separately.

| Month | Minutes in month | Unplanned downtime (min) | Availability | Allowed downtime at 99.9% (min) | Budget consumed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| July 2026 *(Example)* | 44,640 | 12 | 99.973% | 44.6 | 26.9% |
| August 2026 *(Example)* | 44,640 | 58 | 99.870% | 44.6 | 129.9% |
| September 2026 *(Example)* | 43,200 | 9 | 99.979% | 43.2 | 20.8% |
| **Quarter** | **132,480** | **79** | **99.940%** | **132.5** | **59.6%** |

Availability = 1 minus (unplanned downtime divided by minutes in the period). Allowed downtime = minutes in the period multiplied by 0.1%.

Downtime by cause *(Example)*:

| Incident | Month | Downtime counted (min) | Cause summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| INC-3098 | July | 12 | Payment provider outage, supplier fault |
| INC-3125 | August | 41 | Stale database connections after unplanned failover (PRB-0042) |
| INC-3130 | August | 17 | Expired certificate on internal payment gateway |
| INC-3141 | September | 9 | Supplier network fault at the payment provider |
| INC-3112 | August | 0 (22 minutes excluded, inside announced maintenance window MN-2026-14) | Same cause as INC-3125; reported for transparency |

Error budget policy actions taken (`ops/error-budget-policy`) *(Example)*: feature releases to checkout paused from 2026-08-22 to 2026-09-10 while reliability work CR-2231 and ALR-077 was completed.

## 4. Incidents and major incidents

<!-- Guidance: Report volumes and target attainment by priority, then the top categories and the major incidents. Show the previous period for comparison. Pitfall: reporting volumes only, which says nothing about user experience. -->

### 4.1 Incidents by priority

| Priority | Incidents | Response target met | Response % | Resolution target met | Resolution % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 *(Example)* | 1 | 1 | 100.0% | 1 | 100.0% |
| P2 *(Example)* | 4 | 4 | 100.0% | 3 | 75.0% |
| P3 *(Example)* | 37 | 36 | 97.3% | 34 | 91.9% |
| P4 *(Example)* | 112 | 109 | 97.3% | 106 | 94.6% |
| **Total** | **154** | **150** | **97.4%** | **144** | **93.5%** |

P2 resolution miss *(Example)*: INC-3141 waited 11 business hours for the payment provider; the supplier target was missed and is covered in section 8.

### 4.2 Top categories *(Example)*

| Cause category | Incidents | Share | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application, functional error | 46 | 29.9% | Mostly promotion code edge cases; problem PRB-0047 opened |
| Identity and access | 38 | 24.7% | Store staff password resets; self-service reset rolled out in September |
| Integration | 27 | 17.5% | Payment and tax service timeouts |
| Infrastructure | 21 | 13.6% | Including the three database and certificate incidents INC-3112, INC-3125 and INC-3130 |
| Other | 22 | 14.3% | |
| **Total** | **154** | **100.0%** | |

### 4.3 Major incidents

| Incident | Date | Severity | Duration | Customer impact | Postmortem | Problem |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INC-3125 *(Example)* | 2026-08-21 | SEV1 | 41 min | Checkout unavailable for all customers | PM-2026-09, published 2026-08-28 | PRB-0042, closed 2026-10-09 |
| [INC-] | YYYY-MM-DD | [SEV] | [min] | [Impact] | [PM-] | [PRB-] |

## 5. Problems and known errors

<!-- Guidance: Show that the organisation is removing causes, not only restoring service. Report open problems by age and the effect of fixes delivered in the period. -->

| Measure | Q2 *(Example)* | Q3 *(Example)* |
|---|---|---|
| Problems opened | 4 | 5 |
| Problems resolved or closed | 3 | 3 |
| Problems open at period end | 4 | 6 |
| Known errors published | 2 | 3 |
| Incidents linked to known errors | 9 | 14 |
| Open problems older than 90 days | 1 | 1 |

| Problem | Title | Priority | Status at period end | Next step |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRB-0042 *(Example)* | Checkout requests time out after database failover | P2 | Resolved, monitoring (closed 2026-10-09) | Database proxy project PRJ-118 to remove the risk class |
| PRB-0047 *(Example)* | Promotion codes rejected when basket contains a gift card | P3 | Known error KE-0021 | Fix planned in release 2026.11 |
| [PRB-] | [Title] | [P] | [Status] | [Next step] |

## 6. Changes

<!-- Guidance: Report change volumes by type, the failure rate and any change that caused an incident. Use the same definitions as the Change Enablement Policy (`ops/change-enablement-policy`) so that the numbers match. -->

| Measure | Q2 *(Example)* | Q3 *(Example)* |
|---|---|---|
| Changes implemented | 198 | 214 |
| Standard | 132 (66.7%) | 150 (70.1%) |
| Normal | 58 (29.3%) | 58 (27.1%) |
| Emergency | 8 (4.0%) | 6 (2.8%) |
| Failed changes (incident, backout or unplanned fix) | 9 | 7 |
| Change failure rate | 4.55% | 3.27% |
| Unauthorised changes detected | 0 | 0 |

Changes that caused incidents *(Example)*: CR-2198 (promotion engine release, backed out, INC-3117, P3). The pool configuration change that set up PRB-0042 was made in May 2026, in the previous quarter.

## 7. Service requests and customer satisfaction

<!-- Guidance: Requests are often most of the service desk's volume and most of the user experience. Report fulfilment against target and the satisfaction result with the number of responses, so that readers can judge it. -->

| Measure | Q3 *(Example)* |
|---|---|
| Service requests fulfilled | 1,240 |
| Fulfilled within target | 1,190 (96.0%) |
| Fulfilled late | 50 (4.0%) |
| Top request types | Access requests, store device replacement, report extracts |
| Survey responses | 412 |
| Satisfied or very satisfied | 371 (90.0%) |
| Main themes in comments | Faster password resets welcomed; delays on device replacement at two stores |

## 8. Capacity, performance and suppliers

<!-- Guidance: Show headroom against thresholds and forecast when a threshold will be crossed. For suppliers, report their performance against their own targets, because their misses become yours. -->

### 8.1 Capacity and performance

| Resource | Threshold | Peak or current | Trend | Forecast *(Example)* | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Orders database CPU (peak hour) *(Example)* | 75% | 68% | +1 point per month | Threshold not reached in the next 6 months at current growth | None; review in Q4 |
| Orders database storage *(Example)* | 80% | 71% | +2.1 points per month | 80% in about 4.3 months, early February 2027 | Expansion moved forward to January 2027 (decision requested) |
| Checkout latency p95 *(Example)* | 800 ms | 640 ms | Stable | Not applicable | None |

Detail is kept in the Capacity Plan (`ops/capacity-plan`).

### 8.2 Supplier performance

| Supplier | Service | Contracted target | Actual *(Example)* | Status | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Payment provider] *(Example)* | Payment authorisation | 99.95% monthly availability; P2 response within 2 hours | Two outages (INC-3098, INC-3141); one response target missed | Missed | Service credit claimed; quarterly supplier review on YYYY-MM-DD |
| [Cloud provider] *(Example)* | Managed database | Provider SLA | Met | Met | None |

## 9. Risks, improvement actions and decisions

<!-- Guidance: Carry actions from period to period until they are closed, with owner and date. Close the loop: each miss in sections 2 to 8 has an action here or a reason why none is needed. -->

### 9.1 Risks

| ID | Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RSK-CHK-03 *(Example)* | Payment provider outages continue at the Q3 rate | Medium | High | Second payment provider evaluation | [@service-owner] |
| RSK-CHK-05 *(Example)* | Peak trading in November exceeds tested load | Low | High | Load test at 2x last year's peak before freeze FRZ-01 | [@sre-lead] |

### 9.2 Improvement actions

| ID | Action | Source | Owner | Due | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SIP-031 *(Example)* | Database proxy project to remove failover risk class | PRB-0042 | [@platform-lead] | 2027-03-31 | Awaiting funding decision |
| SIP-032 *(Example)* | Certificate expiry monitoring for all internal endpoints | INC-3130 | [@sre-lead] | 2026-10-31 | In progress |
| SIP-033 *(Example)* | Self-service password reset for store staff | Incident category trend | [@service-desk-lead] | 2026-09-15 | Done |
| [SIP-] | [Action] | [Source] | [@name] | YYYY-MM-DD | [Status] |

### 9.3 Decisions from the review meeting

| Decision | Made by | Date |
|---|---|---|
| *Example:* Fund PRJ-118 database proxy in Q1 2027 | [Business owner] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| *Example:* Bring forward storage expansion to January 2027 | [Service owner] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| [Decision] | [@name] | YYYY-MM-DD |

## 10. Definitions, data sources and references

<!-- Guidance: Readers trust a report when they can see how each number is produced. Keep this section unchanged across periods unless a definition changes, and flag the change in the revision history. -->

| Measure | Definition | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Availability | 1 minus unplanned downtime minutes divided by minutes in period, downtime per the rule in section 3 | Monitoring tool |
| Response target met | Incident assigned and user contacted within the target for its priority, per `ops/incident-management-procedure` section 6 | Service management tool |
| Resolution target met | Incident resolved within target for its priority, clock pauses as defined in the procedure | Service management tool |
| Change failure rate | Failed changes divided by changes implemented, per `ops/change-enablement-policy` section 12 | Change records and pipeline |
| Customer satisfaction | Share of survey responses rating 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale | Survey tool |
| Sections not covered | [List sections removed and why] | |

| Section of this report | ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018 clause | Topic (short original label) |
|---|---|---|
| 1, 2 Summary and attainment | 8.3.3 Service level management, 9.4 Service reporting | Report performance against agreed targets |
| 3 Availability | 8.7.1 Service availability management | Monitor availability against requirements |
| 4 Incidents | 8.6.1 Incident management | Incident performance |
| 5 Problems | 8.6.3 Problem management | Problem trends |
| 6 Changes | 8.5.1 Change management | Change performance |
| 7 Requests and satisfaction | 8.6.2 Service request management, 8.3.2 Business relationship management | Requests and customer satisfaction |
| 8 Capacity and suppliers | 8.4.3 Capacity management, 8.3.4 Supplier management | Headroom and supplier performance |
| 9 Actions and decisions | 9.3 Management review, 10.2 Continual improvement | Decisions and improvements |
| Service scope | 8.2.4 Service catalogue management | Services covered by the report |

| Reference | Version or date checked | Use |
|---|---|---|
| ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018, Information technology, Service management, Part 1: Service management system requirements, with Amd 1:2024 | Current edition as of October 2026 | Clause numbers above |

## Standard and licence note

Structure aligned with ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018 with Amendment 1:2024, clause 8.3.3 service level management and clause 9.4 service reporting, with the related clauses listed in section 10. ISO/IEC 20000-1 is a copyrighted standard: this template cites clause numbers with short original labels only; no text, table or definition is copied. Official text: ISO, purchase or licensed access: https://www.iso.org/standard/70636.html, also sold by national standards bodies. Measures, targets, thresholds and every figure in the worked example are fictional and illustrative, not taken from any standard. All text is original, written for this collection. Check the current edition of any standard you certify against. Template licence: MIT.