LDR.4:4.2 - Obtain relevant trusted judgement

Ask the decision makers and affected participants whose advice they need, about which question and under what information conditions. A trusted former colleague, peer or specialist may sit outside the formal project. Their relevance comes from the judgement the participant relies on, not from an invented position in a stakeholder chart.

Arrange a permitted conversation, example or private consultation. Ask what consequence concerns the adviser, what experience or grounds support that concern and what could answer it. Give enough substance for a useful judgement. A slogan about the proposal’s benefits cannot answer a question about duplicate work or a new failure mode.

Do not confuse the adviser with an authorized representative. Advice can change the proposal while the decision maker retains the decision and the contributor retains control of their own commitment. If the adviser is speaking on behalf of someone, establish that mandate separately.

Pursue advice that can change the present decision or an affected contribution. There is no requirement to map everyone’s entire informal network, contact people covertly or circulate confidential information. If relevant consultation cannot be supported, retain the limitation and decide whether a narrower use, another source or delay is warranted. Cheap AI analysis can help formulate the question; it cannot manufacture the person’s actual advice or consent.