Validate and strengthen the Blueprint

Before the discussion begins, ensure participants understand the Validation objective, the scenario being examined, and the questions the team is trying to answer. Review the Blueprint decisions, assumptions, dependencies, and open questions connected to the scenario so that participants can focus their knowledge on the areas requiring confirmation or clarification.  

Blueprint Preview provides an interactive representation of the business design captured in Blueprint. It allows stakeholders to examine how the selected scenario is represented through the Case journey, Assignments, Views, Fields, Personas, Channels, decisions, and outcomes. This helps the team confirm that the Blueprint clearly represents the intended business process and the information needed to support it.  

Some aspects of the solution become available only as implementation progresses. For example, configured runtime behavior, executable Rules, runtime routing, configured access control, live integrations, production data behavior, performance, concurrency, error handling, and other implementation-specific behavior are confirmed during Authoring when the necessary implementation information becomes available.  

Establishing these expectations helps participants focus on validating the design represented in Blueprint while identifying the questions that require continued examination during Authoring. 

The Validation objective identifies the scenario being examined, the areas of the Blueprint requiring closer examination, and the participant knowledge needed to support the discussion. The practical business scenario now becomes the mechanism for bringing those elements together. 

Guide participants through the scenario from the event that begins the work to the intended or alternate outcome. Examine how the Blueprint represents the work, decisions, responsibilities, information, dependencies, and outcomes required to support it. As the discussion progresses, move between the relevant areas of the Blueprint and ask participants whether the represented Workflow, responsibilities, data, decisions, communications, integrations, and outcomes reflect how the work should operate and provide the information needed to support Authoring. 

Also, use the scenario to examine the design systematically. The following questions help the team establish whether the Blueprint supports the intended outcome and provides the information needed for stakeholders to confirm the design and for Solution Builders to continue into Authoring. 

For U+ Travel, the discussion begins with the change in operating conditions and the response the business needs to provide. As participants walk through the scenario, the Blueprint decisions supporting customer choices, Workflow progression, participant responsibilities, information needs, communications, integrations, and outcomes become visible and open for examination. 

Use business language to help participants apply their knowledge. Ask what should happen when a confirmed tour can no longer proceed, what information the Tour Operator needs, what conditions change the response, who acts on each decision, and what result each participant should recognize. Connect the responses to the relevant Case, Workflow, Persona, access, data, Channel, Decision, or integration decision in Blueprint. 

Pay particular attention to the information represented in the scenario. Use realistic sample data, labels, field descriptions, decisions, communications, and outcomes so participants can evaluate the design in a meaningful business context. Where Preview uses representative data, simplified representations, or design-time assumptions, confirm that the intended business meaning remains clear and that the Blueprint contains the information, rationale, and implementation notes needed to support Authoring.

The purpose of Validation is to establish whether the Blueprint clearly represents the work, decisions, responsibilities, information, dependencies, and outcomes needed to support the intended business result and provide the clarity required for Authoring. 

As participants examine the scenario, they may confirm aspects of the Blueprint, raise questions, identify missing information, describe alternative conditions, or explain where the represented design differs from their understanding of how the work should operate. Each significant observation provides an opportunity to better understand whether the Blueprint clearly represents the intended design and provides the information needed to support Authoring. 

Explore what led to the observation, the conditions under which it applies, and whether it concerns the design represented in Blueprint or implementation behavior that will be examined during Authoring. Follow the relevant decisions, assumptions, dependencies, and rationale before drawing a conclusion. The agreed outcome and Validation objective provide the reference point for determining why the observation matters. 

Recognize when an observation becomes a finding 

Not every observation becomes a finding. An observation becomes a finding when participant knowledge, source material, rationale, or business constraints establish that the Blueprint or an underlying decision requires clarification, refinement, or further examination. Record what was observed, where it applies, which decisions may contribute to it, and what still needs clarification. 

For example, an operator may observe that the cancellation journey needs to show how the customer selects an alternate tour. Further inquiry establishes that the customer needs available alternatives, the operator needs availability information, and the selected option affects subsequent Workflow and customer communication. The resulting finding concerns the choices, information, responsibilities, and progression required when operating conditions prevent the original tour from proceeding. 

Before selecting a response, determine whether the finding reflects confirmed intent, an assumption, a scope or framing question, a preference, a limitation of Preview, or an implementation-dependent question. Then trace the finding far enough to understand its source, reach, and relevant decision owner. 

Reconcile different perspectives 

Participants may describe the same business situation differently because they are considering different conditions, points in the journey, responsibilities, current or intended practices, constraints, or scope boundaries. Before treating their contributions as conflicting, establish whether they are describing the same circumstances and answering the same question. Their contributions may represent complementary parts of the scenario rather than competing interpretations. 

Determine an appropriate response

Discussions about findings often surface potential responses immediately. Before deciding how to proceed, confirm that participants are describing the same conditions, responsibilities, constraints, and intended outcome. A shared understanding of the finding helps the team determine whether the Blueprint requires clarification, refinement, or further examination. 

A finding may become visible in one part of the experience while originating in another decision. Trace it far enough to understand where the response should begin and which Workflow, Persona, access, data, communication, integration, scope, or dependency decisions must remain aligned.  

Identify the decision owner and involve the people needed to evaluate the available options. A contributor may provide operational knowledge, while a business owner confirms the intended outcome, a data owner clarifies business meaning, and the Solution Builder evaluates implementation considerations. 

Responses should remain proportionate to the finding. The team may decide to: 

• Retain the current Blueprint and record the supporting rationale. 
• Clarify an assumption with the relevant participants or source material. 
• Involve the owner of a business, policy, data, scope, or technical decision. 
• Refine a contained part of the Blueprint. 
• Coordinate refinement across multiple affected decisions. 
• Record an implementation-dependent question for continued Validation during Authoring. 

A contained refinement can progress during the activity when the intent is clear, the relevant owner is involved, and participants can re-examine the updated scenario. Broader responses continue through planned follow-up when they require additional participation, source information, coordinated changes, or implementation information that becomes available during Authoring. 

Where a finding supports a contained refinement, use the AI Assistant in Pega Blueprint™ to generate a proposed update. Describe the confirmed business intent, the reason for the refinement, and the decisions the proposal should preserve. 

For U+ Travel: When a confirmed tour can no longer proceed, represent how the customer can choose an available alternate tour. Account for the information the Tour Operator needs to support the choice, how the selected option affects the booking, and how the outcome is communicated. Keep the refinement within the confirmed first-release scope. 

The generated proposal provides a starting point for practitioner review. Shape and evaluate the proposal against the finding, the agreed scope, and the related decisions. 

After refinement, return to the practical business scenario that produced the finding. Re-examine the change at the level of its impact. Review a contained clarification in its original context. Where the refinement affects several decisions, follow the complete scenario and confirm that the Workflow, participant responsibilities, data, communications, and dependencies remain aligned. 

Record what was refined, which scenario was re-examined, who contributed relevant knowledge, what the updated Blueprint now supports, which implications were considered, what remains open, and who owns each next action. 

Validation strengthens the Blueprint by confirming the decisions it represents, refining areas where stakeholder knowledge supports a change, and making active Authoring questions visible. 

The resulting high-fidelity Blueprint communicates the agreed outcome and increment, the decisions and relationships required to support them, the rationale behind consequential choices, and the owned questions that continue into Authoring. The team can explain the Case Design and Workflow, the data and information used by the Case, participant responsibilities and access needs, significant Decisions and integrations, dependencies, and delivery boundaries. A fully validated and ready-to-author project meets all six quality standards, as shown in the following figure.

This establishes the validated Blueprint position. The Solution Builder and other contributors can understand what the agreed increment must achieve, why the significant decisions were made, and what remains active as Authoring begins. 

Blueprint Validation result for U+ Travel

The U+ Travel team confirms that the decision to provide defined alternatives remains supported. The Blueprint now represents the choices of the customer, the Tour Operator’s responsibility, the resulting booking progression, and communication of the outcome. The team has clarified when alternate tours, rescheduling, cancellation, or refund apply within the agreed scope. 

Questions about availability sourcing, implemented exchanges, configured access, and runtime behavior have owners and planned points for continued Validation during Authoring. The team can explain what the Blueprint supports, which refinements were made, why they matter, and what continues into Authoring.

Check your knowledge with the following interaction.