> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.therisk.global/organization/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.therisk.global/organization/finance-readiness/lawful-handoffs.md). # Lawful handoffs The lawful handoff: the documented, one-to-one release of a readiness dossier to a competent party the programme owner names, on the owner's written direction. And the rule for every financing vehicle **Where this fits.** Finance readiness › the last step · all six sectors · Foundry pillar (readiness and handoffs view of the National Portfolio), Reports (G6) · GRA releases; the programme owner directs; the receiving institution decides · Reporting (G6) and after · canonical page. ## In brief "A handoff is the documented release of a readiness dossier by [The Global Risks Alliance](/organization/institutions/gra.md) (GRA) to a competent regulated party the programme owner chooses, on the owner's written direction. That party reviews independently and decides under its own authority. GRA introduces no one, recommends no counterparty and takes no transaction fee" ([Lawful handoffs](https://globalriskalliance.com/finance-readiness/handoff/)). **Boundary.** No introduction of counterparties, and no negotiation, arrangement, placement or execution of any transaction. No pay tied to any transaction, and no money held or moved for anyone. No assurance that the receiving party will proceed. Any financing vehicle, whether a project company, a special purpose vehicle, a national company, a fund or a facility, is formed, if at all, by competent lawful actors outside the programme, under their own law, licences and governance.
A readiness dossier climbs five rungs, each a record and not a grade: evidence assembled, with one of nine evidence labels on every source; scenarios compared, as a range and never a single number; safeguards checked, each open question with an owner; diligence questions registered, so that what remains unknown is listed for the receiving institution; and release for independent review, only on the programme owner's written direction, to a competent party the owner names, with a release record. The receiving institution then decides under its own authority, on its own criteria. A rung not reached is shown as not reached, with the reason written down.

From evidence to an institution's own decision. The last step is never the programme's: readiness is fitness for a stated next step, not approval, bankability or certification. A design, not a record of any dossier. Source: globalriskalliance.com/finance-readiness/ and /finance-readiness/handoff/. As of 2026-10-21.

Figure data (text alternative) | Element | Description | Connected to | | ------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- | | Evidence assembled | One evidence label on every source | Scenarios compared | | Scenarios compared | A range across scenarios, never one number | Evidence assembled; Safeguards checked | | Safeguards checked | Each open question has an owner | Scenarios compared; Diligence questions registered | | Diligence questions registered | What remains unknown, listed openly | Safeguards checked; Release for review | | Release for review | On the owner's written direction; release record kept | Diligence questions registered; The institution decides | | The institution decides | Under its own authority; never the programme | Release for review |
## Four steps, each one recorded | Step | What happens | | ---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 1. Written direction | The programme owner names, in writing, the party that should receive the dossier. GRA does not suggest one | | 2. Agreement to review | The receiving party agrees to review the dossier, and to the terms on which it receives the data | | 3. Release with limits | The dossier goes out with its version, evidence labels, open questions and any restrictions on use or onward sharing | | 4. Release record | GRA keeps a record of what was released, to whom, when and on what terms. Its role ends there | ## What each receiving party does next | Receiving party | Its own process | What the handoff must not do | | -------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------- | | Development lender | Project appraisal, safeguards categorisation, credit approval | Pre-empt categorisation or imply an approval | | Insurer or reinsurer | Underwriting, pricing and capacity decisions under its own licence | Carry a price, a rate-on-line or a placement | | Bank | Credit committee and collateral valuation | Present a lending recommendation | | Ministry of finance | Budget, debt management and procurement under public law | Name a provider or instrument as preferred | Supervisors and public finance authorities may use evidence they receive or that is published. No participant gains privileged access to any authority. ## Why the handoff is one-to-one A dossier goes to the party the owner names, one at a time or in parallel by the owner's choice. It never goes through a meeting of competitors. "That keeps price, capacity and terms out of any collective setting", consistent with GRA's competition and antitrust safeguards. The receiving party may share the dossier further only within the terms set at release, which reflect the rights the owner granted. The owner may withdraw at any stage and ask for data to be returned or deleted within agreed terms. Safeguards follow the standards that lenders apply. GRA reads its handoff against the IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability (2012). Safeguard questions are identified early, each with an owner, so that they do not stall a decision late. The [readiness ladder](/organization/finance-readiness.md#the-readiness-ladder) records whether safeguards were checked before any release. ## Financing vehicles: the rule Earlier pages of this documentation describe a range of financing and delivery vehicles, among them: * project special purpose vehicles and a national consortium company; * national, regional and universal financing-for-development frameworks (NFD, RNFD and UNFSD); * capital-stack designs, investor councils and development-finance rails. That analysis is kept for its reasoning on national ownership, the separation of common value from investable value, and the conditions under which resilience becomes investable. It is read under one rule: 1. **The programme never forms, owns, operates, arranges or advises on a vehicle.** It prepares evidence, standards and readiness dossiers. 2. **A vehicle exists only if competent lawful actors form it**, outside the programme, under national law, with their own licences, governance and accountability. 3. **Nothing in the programme is a financing signal.** A portfolio entry, a readiness rung, a gate decision, a report or a standard is never an approval, a rating, a pipeline listing or a promise of capital. 4. **Execution belongs to regulated institutions.** Payment, clearing, settlement, custody, issuance, collateral, treasury, insurance administration and claims are performed only by regulated institutions. A record that a step is complete in a programme system is not payment settlement. 5. **Amounts are never invented.** Any figure comes from its source, with its evidence label. Nothing claims that capital moved or that a project was financed unless the competent institution's own record says so. These rules carry the honesty and separation rules of the programme's development-finance and rails design into the documentation, together with the GRA boundary on every site. ## Earlier texts * [Consortiums model: vehicles](/organization/cooperation/consortiums/model/viii.-vehicles.md) * [National Nexus Financing for Development (definition 2.16)](/organization/organization/architecture/ii.-definitions/xvi.-national-nexus-financing-for-development-nfd.md), [Regional (2.17)](/organization/organization/architecture/ii.-definitions/xvii.-regional-nexus-financing-for-development-rnfd.md) and [Universal (2.18)](/organization/organization/architecture/ii.-definitions/xviii.-universal-nexus-financing-for-sustainable-development-unfsd.md) * [Nexus Financing for Development](/organization/standardization/nexus-rail/nexus-financing-for-development-nfd.md) and [Regional Nexus Financing for Development](/organization/standardization/nexus-rail/regional-nexus-financing-for-development-rnfd.md) * [Nexus Compute](/organization/acceleration/nexus-compute.md), whose investability argument is being moved into this part ## Sources * IFC (2012). *Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability*. Washington, DC: International Finance Corporation. Cited by GRA on [Lawful handoffs](https://globalriskalliance.com/finance-readiness/handoff/). * GRA: [Lawful handoffs](https://globalriskalliance.com/finance-readiness/handoff/); [Finance and insurance readiness](https://globalriskalliance.com/finance-readiness/). * [Sources library](/organization/reference/sources.md). --- # Agent Instructions This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com. ## Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the following URL with the `ask` and `goal` query parameters: ``` GET https://docs.therisk.global/organization/finance-readiness/lawful-handoffs.md?ask=&goal= ``` `ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. `goal` is what the user is ultimately trying to achieve, the reason they need the answer. Sharing it helps GitBook give you a better, more relevant answer. A goal is most helpful when it describes the outcome the user wants rather than restating the question. For example, with `ask=how do I create an API token`, a goal like `automate deployments from our CI pipeline` lets GitBook tailor the answer to that use case. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.