Govern authority, data, subcontracting, service continuity, incidents, exit and annual review before and after appointment.
selection criteria
selection criteria must be addressed within the full governance context of “Third-Party Provider Due Diligence for Family Offices: Before and After Appointment”. The board should identify a named owner, the authority under which that person acts, the evidence relied upon and the point at which specialist advice is required. A control is not complete merely because a policy exists: the record must show how the control operated, who challenged it and how exceptions were closed. For this topic, the working file should answer the control proposition—Govern authority, data, subcontracting, service continuity, incidents, exit and annual review before and after appointment.—and separately record ownership, timing, evidence, exceptions and review outcomes.
selection criteria must be addressed within the full governance context of “Third-Party Provider Due Diligence for Family Offices: Before and After Appointment”. A practical file should distinguish source documents from management assertions, record the date and provenance of each item, and preserve the reasoning that connects evidence to a decision. This makes the position reviewable by a successor, counterparty or adviser without reconstructing events from fragmented correspondence. For this topic, the working file should answer the control proposition—Govern authority, data, subcontracting, service continuity, incidents, exit and annual review before and after appointment.—and separately record ownership, timing, evidence, exceptions and review outcomes.
selection criteria must be addressed within the full governance context of “Third-Party Provider Due Diligence for Family Offices: Before and After Appointment”. Implementation should be proportionate to the structure. Smaller offices may combine roles, but they should not combine incompatible approvals without a documented compensating review. Larger arrangements need a controlled register, review calendar, escalation thresholds and evidence of closure. For this topic, the working file should answer the control proposition—Govern authority, data, subcontracting, service continuity, incidents, exit and annual review before and after appointment.—and separately record ownership, timing, evidence, exceptions and review outcomes.
selection criteria must be addressed within the full governance context of “Third-Party Provider Due Diligence for Family Offices: Before and After Appointment”. The board should identify a named owner, the authority under which that person acts, the evidence relied upon and the point at which specialist advice is required. A control is not complete merely because a policy exists: the record must show how the control operated, who challenged it and how exceptions were closed. For this topic, the working file should answer the control proposition—Govern authority, data, subcontracting, service continuity, incidents, exit and annual review before and after appointment.—and separately record ownership, timing, evidence, exceptions and review outcomes.
contract and service boundaries
contract and service boundaries must be addressed within the full governance context of “Third-Party Provider Due Diligence for Family Offices: Before and After Appointment”. A practical file should distinguish source documents from management assertions, record the date and provenance of each item, and preserve the reasoning that connects evidence to a decision. This makes the position reviewable by a successor, counterparty or adviser without reconstructing events from fragmented correspondence. For this topic, the working file should answer the control proposition—Govern authority, data, subcontracting, service continuity, incidents, exit and annual review before and after appointment.—and separately record ownership, timing, evidence, exceptions and review outcomes.
contract and service boundaries must be addressed within the full governance context of “Third-Party Provider Due Diligence for Family Offices: Before and After Appointment”. Implementation should be proportionate to the structure. Smaller offices may combine roles, but they should not combine incompatible approvals without a documented compensating review. Larger arrangements need a controlled register, review calendar, escalation thresholds and evidence of closure. For this topic, the working file should answer the control proposition—Govern authority, data, subcontracting, service continuity, incidents, exit and annual review before and after appointment.—and separately record ownership, timing, evidence, exceptions and review outcomes.
contract and service boundaries must be addressed within the full governance context of “Third-Party Provider Due Diligence for Family Offices: Before and After Appointment”. The board should identify a named owner, the authority under which that person acts, the evidence relied upon and the point at which specialist advice is required. A control is not complete merely because a policy exists: the record must show how the control operated, who challenged it and how exceptions were closed. For this topic, the working file should answer the control proposition—Govern authority, data, subcontracting, service continuity, incidents, exit and annual review before and after appointment.—and separately record ownership, timing, evidence, exceptions and review outcomes.
contract and service boundaries must be addressed within the full governance context of “Third-Party Provider Due Diligence for Family Offices: Before and After Appointment”. A practical file should distinguish source documents from management assertions, record the date and provenance of each item, and preserve the reasoning that connects evidence to a decision. This makes the position reviewable by a successor, counterparty or adviser without reconstructing events from fragmented correspondence. For this topic, the working file should answer the control proposition—Govern authority, data, subcontracting, service continuity, incidents, exit and annual review before and after appointment.—and separately record ownership, timing, evidence, exceptions and review outcomes.
The value of governance evidence lies not in document volume, but in whether the next decision-maker can understand, review and carry it forward.
ongoing monitoring
ongoing monitoring must be addressed within the full governance context of “Third-Party Provider Due Diligence for Family Offices: Before and After Appointment”. Implementation should be proportionate to the structure. Smaller offices may combine roles, but they should not combine incompatible approvals without a documented compensating review. Larger arrangements need a controlled register, review calendar, escalation thresholds and evidence of closure. For this topic, the working file should answer the control proposition—Govern authority, data, subcontracting, service continuity, incidents, exit and annual review before and after appointment.—and separately record ownership, timing, evidence, exceptions and review outcomes.
ongoing monitoring must be addressed within the full governance context of “Third-Party Provider Due Diligence for Family Offices: Before and After Appointment”. The board should identify a named owner, the authority under which that person acts, the evidence relied upon and the point at which specialist advice is required. A control is not complete merely because a policy exists: the record must show how the control operated, who challenged it and how exceptions were closed. For this topic, the working file should answer the control proposition—Govern authority, data, subcontracting, service continuity, incidents, exit and annual review before and after appointment.—and separately record ownership, timing, evidence, exceptions and review outcomes.
ongoing monitoring must be addressed within the full governance context of “Third-Party Provider Due Diligence for Family Offices: Before and After Appointment”. A practical file should distinguish source documents from management assertions, record the date and provenance of each item, and preserve the reasoning that connects evidence to a decision. This makes the position reviewable by a successor, counterparty or adviser without reconstructing events from fragmented correspondence. For this topic, the working file should answer the control proposition—Govern authority, data, subcontracting, service continuity, incidents, exit and annual review before and after appointment.—and separately record ownership, timing, evidence, exceptions and review outcomes.
ongoing monitoring must be addressed within the full governance context of “Third-Party Provider Due Diligence for Family Offices: Before and After Appointment”. Implementation should be proportionate to the structure. Smaller offices may combine roles, but they should not combine incompatible approvals without a documented compensating review. Larger arrangements need a controlled register, review calendar, escalation thresholds and evidence of closure. For this topic, the working file should answer the control proposition—Govern authority, data, subcontracting, service continuity, incidents, exit and annual review before and after appointment.—and separately record ownership, timing, evidence, exceptions and review outcomes.
exit and continuity
exit and continuity must be addressed within the full governance context of “Third-Party Provider Due Diligence for Family Offices: Before and After Appointment”. The board should identify a named owner, the authority under which that person acts, the evidence relied upon and the point at which specialist advice is required. A control is not complete merely because a policy exists: the record must show how the control operated, who challenged it and how exceptions were closed. For this topic, the working file should answer the control proposition—Govern authority, data, subcontracting, service continuity, incidents, exit and annual review before and after appointment.—and separately record ownership, timing, evidence, exceptions and review outcomes.
exit and continuity must be addressed within the full governance context of “Third-Party Provider Due Diligence for Family Offices: Before and After Appointment”. A practical file should distinguish source documents from management assertions, record the date and provenance of each item, and preserve the reasoning that connects evidence to a decision. This makes the position reviewable by a successor, counterparty or adviser without reconstructing events from fragmented correspondence. For this topic, the working file should answer the control proposition—Govern authority, data, subcontracting, service continuity, incidents, exit and annual review before and after appointment.—and separately record ownership, timing, evidence, exceptions and review outcomes.
exit and continuity must be addressed within the full governance context of “Third-Party Provider Due Diligence for Family Offices: Before and After Appointment”. Implementation should be proportionate to the structure. Smaller offices may combine roles, but they should not combine incompatible approvals without a documented compensating review. Larger arrangements need a controlled register, review calendar, escalation thresholds and evidence of closure. For this topic, the working file should answer the control proposition—Govern authority, data, subcontracting, service continuity, incidents, exit and annual review before and after appointment.—and separately record ownership, timing, evidence, exceptions and review outcomes.
exit and continuity must be addressed within the full governance context of “Third-Party Provider Due Diligence for Family Offices: Before and After Appointment”. The board should identify a named owner, the authority under which that person acts, the evidence relied upon and the point at which specialist advice is required. A control is not complete merely because a policy exists: the record must show how the control operated, who challenged it and how exceptions were closed. For this topic, the working file should answer the control proposition—Govern authority, data, subcontracting, service continuity, incidents, exit and annual review before and after appointment.—and separately record ownership, timing, evidence, exceptions and review outcomes.
Limitations
This article provides general governance information only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment, regulatory or fiduciary advice. Facts, jurisdictions, documents and professional duties alter the analysis; qualified relevant advisers should confirm the position before action is taken.
Primary-source register
- Afilcorp third-party governance methodology