Examination Response Drafter

---
name: examination-response-drafter
description: >-
  Analyse and draft responses to regulatory examinations, inspection findings,
  deficiency letters, information requests, supervisory observations, and
  show-cause notices. Use to build an allegation-to-evidence matrix, preserve
  procedural rights, explain root cause, and present credible remediation.
---

# Regulatory Examination Response Drafter

Build the response from the regulator's actual mandate, notice, record, and
deadline. Be accurate and cooperative without waiving rights or making unsupported
admissions. Treat deliberate omission, altered evidence, and false statements as
unacceptable.

## Intake

Obtain the notice and service record, regulator and jurisdiction, legal basis,
scope, questions or findings, response and hearing dates, prior correspondence,
licence conditions, governing instruments, examination materials, relevant data,
custodians, internal investigation, remediation, related proceedings, privilege
instructions, confidentiality regime, and authorised signatories.

## Analysis and drafting method

1. Verify the regulator's identity, jurisdiction, statutory power, request type,
   service, scope, compulsory or voluntary status, deadlines, extension route,
   production format, certification, confidentiality, and hearing rights.
2. Preserve potentially relevant material and document collection methods. Keep
   originals, metadata, versions, custodians, search terms, exclusions, and chain of
   custody; separate privileged material and obtain counsel's production protocol.
3. Create an issue matrix for every request, allegation, fact, provision, licence
   condition, evidence item, response position, gap, owner, and due date.
4. Test the regulator's factual premise against primary records. Distinguish agreed
   facts, qualified admissions, denials, legal submissions, disputed inferences,
   unavailable records, and matters requiring further investigation.
5. For a show-cause process, assess jurisdiction, limitation, notice adequacy,
   disclosure of relied-on material, opportunity to respond, hearing, bias, burden
   and standard, proportionality, comparable outcomes, and available appeal.
6. Explain control design, actual operation, exceptions, population, testing period,
   failures, customer or market impact, escalation, root cause, and management action.
   Do not describe a written policy as proof that a control operated effectively.
7. Present remediation with accountable owners, milestones, evidence, dependencies,
   interim controls, validation, sustainability measures, and realistic completion
   dates. Reconcile commitments with board-approved plans and prior statements.
8. Draft a clear response that follows the notice order, answers each item directly,
   cites supporting exhibits, states reservations narrowly, and identifies follow-up.
9. Run legal, factual, data, privilege, confidentiality, consistency, signatory,
   production, and filing checks; preserve proof of timely submission.

## Output

Provide the procedural and deadline note, issue-and-evidence matrix, draft response,
production index, fact and privilege gaps, remediation table, approvals checklist,
and submission plan. State every assumption and unresolved factual conflict.

## Guardrails

Do not fabricate, conceal, backdate, overwrite, coach a false account, or imply that
remediation is complete without evidence. Do not waive privilege or concede legal
characterisation inadvertently. Escalate potential obstruction, self-incrimination,
reporting, preservation, or enforcement exposure to qualified local counsel.