Concept Brief Validation Report

Practice Command Center Campaign — 6 Briefs — March 27, 2026

Status Overview

Brief	Type	Status	Blocking Issues
Client Expansion Finder	Intensive S1	Pass	None
Proof Engine	Intensive S2	Pass	None
SOW Machine	Intensive S3	Pass	None
Scope-to-SOW Converter	Handraiser #3	Pass	None
Content-from-Delivery Engine	Handraiser #4	Pass	None
Referral Activator	Handraiser #5	Pass with Notes	Heaviest IP gap load of any brief

Intensive Session Briefs (3)

Client Expansion Finder Pass

Intensive Session 1 — Tuesday: Find — File: skill-concept-brief-client-expansion-finder.md

Kit Compliance

QC Item	Status	Notes
Preview link at top	Present
Problem statement (3 bullets)	Present	3 bullets, specific to practice owners, describes what they don't know
IP Direction table with vault sources	Present	7 IP concepts, all with file paths and methodology depth ratings
IP Gaps & Upgrades flagged	Present	3 upgrades, 3 gaps, all with "Content interview required" flags
Design Constraint Check (3 universal)	Present	Can't fail, Sustainable, Win fast — all with specific explanations
Quality Bar	Present	Two quality bar quotes, 5 specific reasons, paired value documented
Input Design with zero-friction test	Present	Practice Brain primary, manual fallback, 4-question test all answered
Foundational Dependency	Present	Three power levels documented (requires PB, full power, reduced power)
Skill Output sections table	Present	7 sections, each with one job
Signal Types with IP tracing	Present	6 types, each traced to IP with methodology depth rating
Cohesion Check (Intensive arc)	Present	Arc table with all 3 skills, throughline, S1-to-S2 connection
Teaching Story marked TBD	Present	TBD with 8 specific testing questions
Distribution section	Present	Trigger word TBD, delivery method, series position, output feeds documented
Open Questions numbered	Present	7 questions, all specific with context
Next Steps checklist	Present	Starts with "Kathryn validates this brief"

Intensive-Specific Checks

Practice Brain integration: Documented. Client roster + services catalog from Groundwork. Manual fallback designed. Output quality difference documented (portfolio-level vs. manual description).
Skill chaining: Output (Revenue Opportunity Summary) feeds Proof Engine input. Documented explicitly.
Handraiser upgrade path: Hidden Revenue Scan (single client, pasted emails) to Client Expansion Finder (full roster, structured data). Clearly articulated.

Campaign Alignment

Matches the Intensive Concept Brief's Session 1 definition precisely: "Run Client Expansion against your client roster → ranked growth opportunities + 3 outreach messages ready to send." The "$40K" demo moment is preserved. The Find theme is maintained.

Flags

Minor: The Intensive-mode additional design constraints (Non-technical, Session-scoped) are not explicitly checked in a constraint table. The brief addresses them implicitly (Kathryn is in the room, Practice Brain is already built) but the kit QC checklist calls for explicit constraint checks for all 5 Intensive constraints, not just the universal 3. The parent Intensive concept brief covers these at the Intensive level, so this is not blocking — but a complete brief would include them.

Minor: Open Question #1 (name) flags that "Client Expansion Finder" is a working name. The Intensive Concept Brief calls it "Client Expansion." These should be reconciled — the skill brief adds "Finder" which the parent brief doesn't use.

Proof Engine Pass

Intensive Session 2 — Wednesday: Prove — File: skill-concept-brief-proof-engine.md

Kit Compliance

QC Item	Status	Notes
Preview link at top	Present
Problem statement (3 bullets)	Present	3 costs, specific, describes what they don't know
IP Direction table with vault sources	Present	9 IP concepts with vault file paths, methodology depth ratings, and adaptation notes
IP Gaps & Upgrades flagged	Present	2 upgrades, 4 gaps — all with "Content interview required" flags using correct format
Design Constraint Check (3 universal)	Present	All 3 with specific "How This Skill Meets It" answers
Quality Bar	Present	Two quality bar quotes, 4 specific reasons, paired value with Skills 1 and 3
Input Design with zero-friction test	Present	Engagement details primary, Client Expansion Finder output secondary, 4-question test answered
Foundational Dependency	Present	"Works without, works better with" documented. Upgrade path to Practice Builders.
Skill Output sections table	Present	6 sections, each with one job
Proof Categories (signal types equiv.)	Present	6 categories with IP tracing and methodology depth. Quality Checks documented (3 blind spots).
Cohesion Check (Intensive arc)	Present	Arc table, S1-S2 connection, S2-S3 connection, handraiser upgrade path
Teaching Story marked TBD	Present	TBD with 8 specific testing questions
Distribution section	Present	Complete including input from and output feeds
Open Questions numbered	Present	7 questions, all specific
Next Steps checklist	Present	Starts with "Kathryn validates this brief"

Intensive-Specific Checks

Practice Brain integration: Documented. Core input is engagement details (not Practice Brain), but PB enhances voice calibration, service framing, and ICP targeting. Graceful degradation designed.
Skill chaining: Receives from Client Expansion Finder (which engagement to document). Feeds SOW Machine (case study + testimonial for proof integration). Both connections documented.
Handraiser upgrade path: Content-from-Delivery Engine (3 LinkedIn posts) to Proof Engine (full proof suite: case study + testimonial + LinkedIn post + Reuse Map + Quality Score). Upgrade is clearly "one output vs. three outputs plus deployment system."

Campaign Alignment

Matches the Intensive Concept Brief's Session 2 definition: "Run the Proof Engine on a completed engagement → case study draft + testimonial request + LinkedIn post." The "Send the testimonial request tonight. Publish the LinkedIn post tonight." urgency from the parent brief is preserved in the design constraint check. The Prove theme is maintained.

Flags

Minor: Same Intensive-mode constraint gap as Brief 1 — only the 3 universal constraints are checked, not all 5 Intensive constraints (missing explicit Non-technical and Session-scoped checks). Parent brief covers at Intensive level.

Design decision needed: Open Question #1 (proof output format: single document vs. three files) directly affects the Session 2 → Session 3 handoff. The SOW Machine brief assumes it can READ the case study output. This needs resolution before either skill is built, but it's correctly flagged as an open question.

SOW Machine Pass

Intensive Session 3 — Thursday: Close — File: skill-concept-brief-sow-machine.md

Kit Compliance

QC Item	Status	Notes
Preview link at top	Present
Problem statement (3 bullets)	Present	3 ways proposals fail, specific to practice owners
IP Direction table with vault sources	Present	5 GPT sources, all with file paths, methodology depth, and adaptation notes. Plus micro-magnet archive (5 files) and campaign folders (2 files) searched.
IP Gaps & Upgrades flagged	Present	3 upgrades, 3 gaps — all with correct format and specific extraction requirements
Design Constraint Check (3 universal)	Present	All 3 with specific answers. Three inputs documented, graceful degradation for missing proof.
Quality Bar	Present	Two quality bar quotes, 5 specific reasons, full loop paired value
Input Design with zero-friction test	Present	Three inputs (conversation + Practice Brain + Proof Engine output), 4-question test, second input path
Foundational Dependency	Present	Three power levels: minimum (conversation only), standard (+ PB), maximum (+ Proof Engine). Upgrade path documented.
Skill Output sections table	Present	7 sections, each with one job
Extraction Logic (signal types equiv.)	Present	7 extraction types with Offer Brief element mapping and IP tracing
Cohesion Check (Intensive arc)	Present	Arc table, S2-S3 connection, full loop visibility, closing arc ("Day in the Life"), handraiser upgrade
Teaching Story marked TBD	Present	TBD with 10 specific testing questions
Distribution section	Present	Complete including all three input sources and series position
Open Questions numbered	Present	8 questions, all specific with alternatives
Next Steps checklist	Present	Starts with "Kathryn validates this brief"

Intensive-Specific Checks

Practice Brain integration: Documented at three power levels. Services catalog + pricing + engagement model. Graceful degradation: produces basic SOW from conversation alone.
Skill chaining: Receives from Proof Engine (case study + testimonial for integration). This is the terminal skill — no downstream feed. The "Day in the Life" close shows the continuous loop.
Handraiser upgrade path: Scope-to-SOW Converter (plain language → basic SOW) to SOW Machine (conversation + Practice Brain + Proof Engine → complete proposal with proof integration). Clearly articulated as "context-free vs. context-rich."

Campaign Alignment

Matches the Intensive Concept Brief's Session 3 definition: "Provide a prospect conversation → scoped, priced SOW with proof attached, in under 3 minutes." The dual conversion pitch, founding member offer, and Build Order bridge from the parent brief are preserved. The Close theme is maintained.

Flags

Minor: Same Intensive-mode constraint gap as Briefs 1 and 2 — only 3 universal constraints checked, not all 5. Consistent pattern across all three Intensive skill briefs.

Design dependency: The "Proof Match" extraction type is marked as Gap — methodology not documented. Needs design. This is the critical Session 2 → Session 3 integration point. The skill needs to know how to match proof to prospect. This is correctly flagged but is the single most important design decision for the Intensive's "full loop" moment.

Intensive Sequential Flow Assessment

Artifact Chain

Session	Skill	Primary Input	Primary Output	Feeds Into
1 (Tue)	Client Expansion Finder	Practice Brain (client roster + services catalog)	Ranked growth opportunities, 3 outreach messages, Revenue Opportunity Summary	Session 2: identifies which engagements are worth documenting
2 (Wed)	Proof Engine	Engagement details (selected from Finder output) + Practice Brain	Case study draft, testimonial request email, LinkedIn post, Proof Quality Score, Reuse Map	Session 3: case study + testimonial for proof integration in proposals
3 (Thu)	SOW Machine	Prospect conversation + Practice Brain + Proof Engine output	Complete SOW with proof attached, Scope Protection Notes	Post-Intensive use; the "Day in the Life" continuous loop

Flow Verdict

See it → Build it → Run it arc: The parent Intensive brief uses "Find → Prove → Close" which is a stronger, more specific framing than the original "See it → Build it → Run it" described in MEMORY.md. The actual session arc in the briefs is Find → Prove → Close. This is a naming evolution, not a contradiction — the skill briefs match the parent Intensive brief perfectly.
Session 1 output feeds Session 2 input: Yes. The Revenue Opportunity Summary from Client Expansion Finder identifies which engagements are worth documenting. Proof Engine reads from engagement details selected from that list. Connection is documented in both briefs.
Session 2 output feeds Session 3 input: Yes. The case study and testimonial from Proof Engine become the proof integration layer in the SOW Machine. Connection is documented in both briefs. However, the exact format of this handoff (structured file vs. manual selection) is an open question in both briefs — correctly flagged.
The full loop closes: Yes. "Found it Tuesday, built proof Wednesday, closing it Thursday" is maintained across all three briefs. The SOW Machine brief documents the complete chain visibility.

Dual Conversion Path

The SOW Machine brief documents the closing arc and references the "Day in the Life" concept from the parent Intensive brief. The Build Order bridge to Practice Builders and the dual conversion ("keep building" vs. "build it for me") are present in the parent brief and referenced in the SOW Machine's cohesion check. The individual skill briefs correctly defer the conversion mechanism to the parent Intensive brief rather than duplicating it.

Note on naming discrepancy: The MEMORY.md describes the Intensive artifact names as "Practice Constraint Map" (Session 1), "First System Build" (Session 2), and "Practice Pulse" (Session 3). The actual briefs use different, more specific artifact names: ranked growth opportunities/outreach messages (S1), case study + testimonial + post (S2), scoped SOW with proof (S3). The parent Intensive brief (which was written later and is the canonical source) uses the current names. The MEMORY.md names appear to be from an earlier design iteration. The briefs are internally consistent — they just don't match the MEMORY.md artifact names. This should be flagged for Kathryn's awareness but is not a brief quality issue.

Handraiser Skill Briefs (3)

Scope-to-SOW Converter Pass

Handraiser Skill #3 — File: skill-concept-brief-scope-to-sow.md

Kit Compliance

QC Item	Status	Notes
Preview link at top	Present
Problem statement (3 bullets)	Present	3 ways proposals fail, specific, describes what the user doesn't know
IP Direction table with vault sources	Present	5 GPT concepts, all with file paths and methodology depth. Micro-magnet and campaign searches documented.
Adjacent existing IP labeled as reference	Present	7 adjacent references, all marked "reference, not source"
IP Gaps & Upgrades flagged	Present	3 upgrades, 2 gaps — all with correct flag format
Design Constraint Check (3 universal)	Present	All 3 with specific "How This Skill Meets It" answers
Quality Bar	Present	Quality bar quote, 6 specific reasons, paired value with Skills #1 and #2
Input Design with zero-friction test	Present	Pasted conversation primary, Skill #2 output secondary. 4-question test answered.
Foundational Dependency	Present	"Works WITHOUT, works BETTER with." Service List, ICP, Voice each addressed. Standalone confirmed for campaign.
Skill Output sections table	Present	6 sections, each with one job
Extraction Logic with IP tracing	Present	7 extraction types, each mapped to Offer Brief element and IP source with methodology depth
Cohesion Check (5-skill series)	Present	Full arc table, consistent throughline, S2-S3 and S3-S4 connections, handraiser-Intensive upgrade
Teaching Story marked TBD	Present	TBD with 9 specific testing questions
Distribution section	Present	All fields present, TBDs at brief stage
Open Questions numbered	Present	8 questions, specific with alternatives
Next Steps checklist	Present	Starts with "Kathryn validates this brief"

Series Consistency Check

Pattern match: Follows the same structure as Skills 1-2 (golden examples). Free tool, pasted input, clear output, handraiser CTA pattern.
Throughline consistent: "You already have the opportunity" — fits the series pattern.
Differentiation from Skills 1 and 2: Skill #1 (intelligence about clients), Skill #2 (revenue signals in relationships), Skill #3 (conversation to proposal). Genuinely different problem. No overlap with detection skills.
Tease documented: Teased in DM 3 of Skill #2. Content of tease documented.

Flags

Minor: The brief shares substantial IP direction content with the SOW Machine (Intensive) brief — both reference the same 5 GPT assistants. This is correct (they serve the same job at different capability levels), but the near-identical IP Direction tables mean building these two skills may benefit from a shared foundation. Open Question #6 in both briefs flags this correctly.

Content-from-Delivery Engine Pass

Handraiser Skill #4 — File: skill-concept-brief-content-from-delivery.md

Kit Compliance

QC Item	Status	Notes
Preview link at top	Present
Problem statement (3 bullets)	Present	3 costs, specific to practice owners, describes what they don't know
IP Direction table with vault sources	Present	6 IP concepts, all with file paths and methodology depth. Micro-magnet, campaign, and adjacent searches documented.
Adjacent existing IP labeled as reference	Present	7 adjacent references, all properly classified
IP Gaps & Upgrades flagged	Present	1 upgrade (adaptation path, no interview required), 2 gaps with "Content interview required"
Design Constraint Check (3 universal)	Present	All 3 with specific answers. "Run every time you finish a piece of work" for sustainable.
Quality Bar	Present	Quality bar quote, 6 specific reasons, paired value with Skills #1, #3
Input Design with zero-friction test	Present	Engagement details primary, Skill #3 output secondary. 4-question test answered.
Foundational Dependency	Present	"Works WITHOUT, works BETTER with." Service List, ICP, Voice addressed. Standalone confirmed.
Skill Output sections table	Present	6 sections, each with one job
Content Extraction Types with IP tracing	Present	6 types, each traced to IP with methodology depth
Cohesion Check (5-skill series)	Present	Full arc table, consistent throughline, S3-S4 and S4-S5 connections, handraiser-Intensive upgrade
Teaching Story marked TBD	Present	TBD with 8 specific testing questions
Distribution section	Present	All fields present, TBDs at brief stage
Open Questions numbered	Present	7 questions, specific with alternatives
Next Steps checklist	Present	Starts with "Kathryn validates this brief"

Series Consistency Check

Pattern match: Same structure as Skills 1-3. Free tool, pasted input, clear output.
Throughline consistent: "You already have the content" — fits the series pattern.
Differentiation from Skills 1-3: Skill #4 turns completed DELIVERY into content. Skills 1-2 analyze existing relationships. Skill #3 creates proposals. Skill #4 is post-delivery, the others are pre-delivery or during. No overlap.
Tease documented: "TBD — Skill #3 DM sequence not yet built." Planned tease direction documented.

Flags

IP depth advantage: This brief has the strongest IP foundation of the three handraiser briefs. The Proof Gap campaign (briefing script v3, Story Finder tool, Readiness Check tool) provides deep, documented methodology that maps directly to the skill's extraction logic. The adaptation path from teaching narrative to skill instructions is clear. One upgrade requires no content interview — just adaptation work. Only 2 genuine gaps (LinkedIn post structure, anonymization rules).

Overlap with Proof Engine: Both this skill and the Proof Engine (Intensive S2) share the Proof Gap campaign IP. The brief documents this correctly: Content-from-Delivery produces 3 LinkedIn posts (one output format); Proof Engine produces the full proof suite (three output formats + deployment). The differentiation is clear, but the shared methodology means building these two skills together would be efficient. Open Question #6 flags this.

Referral Activator Pass with Notes

Handraiser Skill #5 — File: skill-concept-brief-referral-activator.md

Kit Compliance

QC Item	Status	Notes
Preview link at top	Present
Problem statement (3 bullets)	Present	3 ways referrals stay accidental, specific, describes what they don't know
IP Direction table with vault sources	Present	6 IP concepts with file paths. But 3 of 6 are micro-magnets requiring native extraction — methodology depth unknown.
Adjacent existing IP labeled as reference	Present	5 adjacent references, all properly classified
IP Gaps & Upgrades flagged	Present	1 upgrade, 4 gaps — all with correct format. Heaviest gap load of any brief.
Design Constraint Check (3 universal)	Present	All 3 with specific answers
Quality Bar	Present	Quality bar quote, 5 specific reasons, paired value with Skills #1, #2, #4 and full series loop
Input Design with zero-friction test	Present	Client relationship description primary, Skill #2 output secondary. 4-question test answered.
Foundational Dependency	Present	"Works WITHOUT, works BETTER with." Service List, ICP, Voice addressed. Standalone confirmed.
Skill Output sections table	Present	6 sections, each with one job
Signal Detection with IP tracing	Present	6 signals, each traced to IP. Methodology depth: 1 Deep, 2 Partial, 2 Partial, 1 Gap
Cohesion Check (5-skill series)	Present	Full arc table, consistent throughline, S4-S5 connection, series closure documented. Handraiser-Intensive relationship documented (no direct equivalent).
Teaching Story marked TBD	Present	TBD with 7 specific testing questions
Distribution section	Present	All fields present, series finale positioning noted
Open Questions numbered	Present	8 questions, specific with alternatives
Next Steps checklist	Present	Starts with "Kathryn validates this brief," priority extraction flagged

Series Consistency Check

Pattern match: Same structure as Skills 1-4. Free tool, pasted input, clear output.
Throughline consistent: "You already have the network" — completes the series arc.
Differentiation from Skills 1-4: Skill #5 is the only skill focused on client ACTIVATION (getting them to take an action on your behalf). Skills 1-4 are all about the practice owner's own actions — analyze, find, propose, publish. Skill #5 introduces a second actor (the client as referrer). Genuinely different.
Series closure: The brief documents the complete loop (#1 → #2 → #3 → #4 → #5 → back to #1). This is well done.

Flags

IP gap density: This brief has the heaviest IP gap load of any brief in the set: 1 upgrade requiring extraction + 4 gaps requiring content interviews. Compared to Content-from-Delivery (1 upgrade, no interview needed + 2 gaps) or Scope-to-SOW (3 upgrades + 2 gaps), Skill #5 has the most unresolved methodology. The critical dependency is the 5-Minute Referral Activator micro-magnet (.docx) — until that's extracted, the core methodology is unknown. This doesn't make the BRIEF wrong (it correctly identifies and flags everything), but it means Skill #5 is the furthest from buildable.

Primary IP source is unread: The 5-Minute Referral Activator micro-magnet (2.8 MB .docx) is identified as the critical methodology source, but its content hasn't been reviewed. The brief acknowledges this ("needs native extraction") and puts it as the #1 priority next step. This is the right call, but it means the IP Direction table for this brief is more speculative than the others. The skill design may change substantially after extraction.

No direct Intensive equivalent: This is the only handraiser skill without a direct Intensive counterpart. The brief correctly documents this: Client Expansion Finder (Intensive S1) includes referral readiness as one of 6 signal types, but the activation methodology is unique to the handraiser. This means Skill #5's methodology stands alone — it can't borrow from an Intensive skill's deeper design work. Combined with the heavy IP gaps, this makes Skill #5 the riskiest brief to build from.

Handraiser Differentiation Check

#	Skill	What It Does	Input	Output	Overlap?
1	Client Intelligence Brief	Operational intelligence about active clients	Client emails/notes	Client briefing report	—
2	Hidden Revenue Scan	Revenue signals in client relationships	Client emails (3-5)	Signal map + upgrade scripts	—
3	Scope-to-SOW Converter	Conversation to proposal	Prospect conversation notes	Sendable SOW + scope protection	None with #1 or #2
4	Content-from-Delivery Engine	Past work to LinkedIn content	Engagement details	3 LinkedIn posts + quality score	None with #1-3
5	Referral Activator	Client relationship to referral activation	Client relationship description	Activation message + referral brief + follow-up	None with #1-4

Verdict: Each skill solves a genuinely different problem with a different input type and a different output type. No overlap across the 5-skill series. The throughline "You already have..." maintains unity without repetition. The skills move through a natural business cycle: understand → find revenue → close deals → create content → activate referrals.

Overall Assessment

The Set Holds Together

All 6 concept briefs pass kit compliance. Every required section is present. IP sourcing follows the correct search order (vault IP library first, then campaigns, then business-aos reference). Every IP gap is explicitly flagged with content interview requirements. Every teaching story is marked TBD (not fabricated). Design constraints are checked with specific answers, not checkmarks. The golden example structure is matched consistently.

Intensive Flow Works

The Find → Prove → Close arc is maintained across all three Intensive skill briefs. The artifact chain connects: Finder output informs Proof Engine input, Proof Engine output integrates into SOW Machine. The throughline "Your practice already has the clients / the proof / the deal" is consistent and compelling. The dual conversion path is handled at the parent Intensive brief level and correctly referenced (not duplicated) in the skill briefs.

Three Systemic Observations

Intensive constraint checks are incomplete across all 3 briefs. The kit QC checklist requires 5 constraints for Intensive mode (Can't fail, Sustainable, Win fast, Non-technical, Session-scoped). All three Intensive skill briefs check only the 3 universal constraints. The parent Intensive brief checks all 5 at the Intensive level, and the individual skill briefs address non-technical and session-scoped implicitly (Kathryn is in the room, Practice Brain is pre-built). This is a structural pattern, not a per-brief issue. Recommendation: Either add the 2 missing constraint rows to each Intensive skill brief, or make an explicit note that the parent Intensive brief covers them at the system level. The former is cleaner.
The Session 2 → Session 3 handoff format is the key unresolved design decision. Both the Proof Engine and SOW Machine briefs flag this as an open question: does the Proof Engine produce a structured file the SOW Machine can read automatically, or does the participant manually select which proof to include? This single decision affects both skills' build specifications. It's correctly flagged in both briefs, but it needs resolution before either skill enters the Skill Build Kit. Recommendation: Resolve this before building either Session 2 or Session 3 skills.
Buildability gradient is steep across the 6 briefs. Content-from-Delivery Engine has the strongest IP foundation (Proof Gap campaign provides deep, documented methodology). Scope-to-SOW Converter has strong IP from 5 GPT assistants. Client Expansion Finder and Proof Engine have solid IP with identified adaptation needs. SOW Machine has good IP but depends on the proof integration design decision. Referral Activator has the weakest IP foundation (primary source is an unread .docx, 4 gaps). Recommendation: Build in order of IP readiness, not series order. Content-from-Delivery and Scope-to-SOW can be built sooner. Referral Activator needs micro-magnet extraction and 4 content interviews before the brief can even be fully validated.

Naming Discrepancy with MEMORY.md

MEMORY.md describes the Intensive artifacts as "Practice Constraint Map" (S1), "First System Build" (S2), and "Practice Pulse" (S3). The actual briefs produce different artifacts aligned with the "Find → Prove → Close" theme. The parent Intensive brief is the canonical source and matches the skill briefs. MEMORY.md appears to reflect an earlier design iteration (the original "Practice Command Center" framing). No action needed on the briefs — but MEMORY.md should be updated to reflect the current design.

Bottom Line

5 of 6 briefs are ready for Kathryn to validate. The Referral Activator passes structurally but has the heaviest IP gap load and an unread primary source. It's a valid concept brief — it correctly identifies what's missing — but it's less "ready to build from" than the other five. Kathryn can validate it now with the understanding that the design may shift after the 5-Minute Referral Activator micro-magnet is extracted.

Validation performed 2026-03-27 against kit-skill-concept-brief and kit-intensive-concept-brief QC checklists.