To be completed BEFORE submitting any Working Group proposal for DAO review.

Every Working Group proposal in DEP 2 must align with the DAO-Wide Master Plan and uphold the principles of decentralized, regenerative, multi-stakeholder collaboration.

This checklist ensures proposals are complete, coherent, and contribute to the DAO’s collective direction.

Working Groups must complete this checklist before presenting the proposal at the weekly DAO meeting.

1. Alignment With the DAO-Wide Master Plan

1.1 Mission Fit

Does the proposal clearly support the DAO’s Cohort 2 mission?

1.2 Impact Sub-Goal Alignment

Does the proposal contribute to the WG’s assigned impact sub-goal?

1.3 Regeneration Sub-Goal Alignment (if applicable)

If the WG has regeneration responsibilities, does the proposal fit its regeneration sub-target?

1.4 Timeline Alignment

Does this proposal fit into the DAO’s phased timeline defined in the Master Plan?

1.5 Synergy Map Alignment

Does the proposal support cross-WG synergy (e.g., Documentation, Communications, Regeneration, Tokenomics)?

1.6 External Stakeholder Alignment

If partners, ambassadors, volunteers, customers, or other collaborators are involved, is their role aligned with the Master Plan?

If any of the above is unclear → proposal needs revision before submission.

2. Clarity & Feasibility

2.1 Clear Problem / Purpose

Is the need for this activity clearly explained?

2.2 Clear Action Plan

Are activities step-by-step, realistic, and achievable?

2.3 Clear Output Definition

Are deliverables specific, measurable, and evidence-based (artworks, sessions, prototypes, stories, data…)?

2.4 Clear Roles

• Are all contributors listed with clear responsibilities?
• Is local vs. global involvement clarified (if hybrid)?
• Are external collaborators accurately scoped (partners, volunteers, ambassadors, customers)?

2.5 Feasible Timeline

Can the proposal be completed within the proposed timeframe?

3. Budget Envelope Compliance

3.1 WG Budget Envelope Adherence

Does the requested budget fit within the WG’s allocation?

3.2 Clear Budget Breakdown

Are line-by-line costs included and reasonable?

3.3 Essential Spending Only

Is every cost strictly necessary?

3.4 Regeneration-Consistent Spending (if applicable)

Does spending align with regeneration strategy and ethical guidelines?

3.5 Documentation Plan for Spending

Is there a clear plan for receipts, payment proof, and reporting?

4. Regeneration Considerations (If Applicable)

4.1 Regeneration Purpose

Is the regeneration component clearly explained?

4.2 Expected Regeneration Value

Are projections realistic?

4.3 Audience & Partner Clarity

• Is the target audience clearly identified (customers, participants, institutions, communities)?
• Are partner roles clear?

4.4 Risk Awareness

Are regeneration risks and mitigation steps included?

4.5 Alignment With WG Regeneration Sub-Goal

Does the proposal support the WG’s regeneration contribution target?

5. KAT Token Considerations (If Relevant)

5.1 KAT Reward Logic Alignment

Does the proposal follow the DAO’s KAT rules, aligned with the KAT Reward & Privilege Framework?

5.2 Multi-Stakeholder KAT Eligibility

Are DAO Members and external contributors (collaborators, partners, ambassadors, volunteers, customers, KAT holders) recognized appropriately?

5.3 Tokenomics DAO Support (If Needed)

Does this proposal require direct support from the KAT Tokenomics DAO (e.g., reward logic, dashboards, testnet support)?

5.4 Trackable KAT Flow

Are KAT-related contributions easy to track and report?

If KAT is irrelevant → mark N/A.

6. Dependency & Risk Review

6.1 Cross-WG Dependencies

Does the proposal rely on another WG (Documentation, Regeneration, Communications, Tokenomics)?

6.2 Cross-DAO Dependencies

Does execution require collaboration with another DAO?

6.3 External Stakeholder Dependencies

Are partners, ambassadors, volunteers, venues, customers, or local collaborators confirmed and available?

6.4 Risks Identified & Mitigated

Are risks listed with clear mitigation strategies?

6.5 Resource Availability

Tools, venues, technology, platforms, and human resources confirmed?

7. Documentation & Reporting Readiness

7.1 Documentation Plan

Clear plan to capture outputs: photos, audio, logs, transcripts, files, evidence?

7.2 Archive Contribution Plan

Does the proposal specify how all outputs will be stored in the DAO archive?

7.3 Completion Report Commitment

Has the WG committed to submitting a completion report after execution?

7.4 Weekly Reporting Preparedness

Is the WG prepared to give updates at the weekly DAO meeting (mandatory for DAO Members)?

8. Final Coherence & Readiness Check

8.1 Proposal is Self-Contained

Can any DAO Member understand it without extra explanation?

8.2 WG Internal Agreement

Has the WG aligned and approved the proposal internally?

8.3 Ready for DAO Feedback

Is the proposal complete enough for meaningful DAO discussion?

8.4 Ready for DAO Voting

Are all elements ready for an informed Yes / No / Revisions decision?

If any answer is NO → revise before submission.

9. Submission Requirements

Before submitting for DAO review:

• Checklist completed

• Proposal shared 24 hours before the weekly DAO sync

• All attachments included

• WG dependencies confirmed

• External stakeholder roles confirmed

• Master Plan references explicitly stated

• KAT relevance stated (or N/A)

10. Summary

This checklist ensures WG proposals:

• Stay aligned with the Master Plan
• Support DAO-wide coherence
• Strengthen synergy across WGs
• Respect budget envelopes
• Integrate multi-stakeholder participation
• Use symbolic KAT ethically
• Maintain transparent documentation
• Enable smooth weekly reporting

Alignment → Clarity → Feasibility → Budget → Regeneration → KAT → Dependencies → Documentation → Submission.