# LPM Reusable Communication Map v1

**Object type:** LPM Knowledge Object  
**Primary LPM layers:** Communication Architecture, Information Ecology, Governance Architecture, AI Amplification  
**Connected layers:** Ownership Map, Decision Architecture, Platform Structure, Identity & Incentives  
**Primary use:** Map how critical information moves across people, teams, systems, forums, AI tools, and executive controls.  
**Website use:** Downloadable template, workshop guide, AI readiness resource, JSON object for Lapemo ingestion, and future guided skill.  
**Version:** 1.0  
**Owner:** LPM / Lapemo  
**Last reviewed:** 2026-06-24

## What this knowledge object does

The Communication Map defines how important information is supposed to move across the enterprise. It separates collaboration from official record, status from decision, signal from noise, and AI-assisted communication from human-approved communication.

For AI scaling, this object matters because AI will increase the speed, volume, and polish of communication. Without a communication map, companies get faster confusion: more summaries, more channels, more unclear owners, and more decision latency.

## Core principles

- **Communication is an operating system:** Channels, forums, rituals, alerts, and updates shape how work moves and how risk becomes visible.
- **Every message needs a source of truth:** High-value communication should point back to a system, decision, owner, artifact, or evidence record.
- **Not all channels are equal:** Slack, Teams, email, meetings, dashboards, product tools, and executive forums should have clear purposes.
- **Urgency needs rules:** Escalation should be based on severity, decision rights, customer impact, control risk, AI risk, and dependency impact.
- **AI changes communication load:** AI can summarize, route, and draft communication, but it can also amplify noise, stale facts, and false confidence.
- **Communication gaps are ownership gaps:** When people do not know where to communicate, who to inform, or where truth lives, accountability breaks.
- **The map must be maintained:** As teams, systems, vendors, AI workflows, and forums change, communication paths need review and version control.

## Required fields

| Field | Definition | Required |
|---|---|---|
| Communication object ID | Unique identifier for the communication path, forum, channel, ritual, alert, or broadcast | Yes |
| Communication type | Decision, status, risk, incident, dependency, customer issue, employee issue, AI event, governance event, launch, change, or executive update | Yes |
| Purpose | What this communication exists to accomplish | Yes |
| Primary audience | Who needs to receive, act on, approve, or be aware of the communication | Yes |
| Sender / initiator | Role or system that starts the communication | Yes |
| Accountable owner | Person or role accountable for quality, timing, accuracy, and follow-through | Yes |
| Source of truth | System, record, dashboard, artifact, decision log, evidence pack, or owner record that supports the message | Yes |
| Primary channel | Official channel where this communication belongs | Yes |
| Secondary channel | Optional support channel for awareness, reminders, discussion, or routing | Optional |
| Cadence / trigger | When the communication happens: event-driven, daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, launch, incident, risk threshold, or decision gate | Yes |
| Expected response | Inform, acknowledge, decide, approve, reject, review, escalate, resolve, or archive | Yes |
| Response SLA | Expected response window based on severity and business impact | Required when action-bearing |
| Escalation trigger | Condition that moves communication to another owner, forum, control group, or executive level | Required when material |
| Decision link | Connection to Decision Log, Decision Rights Matrix, Escalation Map, or approval record | Required when decision-bearing |
| Evidence link | Connection to Evidence Checklist, source dashboard, data object, audit record, or support record | Required when claim-bearing |
| AI involvement | None, AI summarized, AI routed, AI drafted, AI classified, AI recommended, AI sent, or AI executed | Yes |
| Human review rule | When a human must approve, validate, or correct the communication before use | Required when AI-assisted or material |
| Sensitivity level | Public, internal, confidential, restricted, regulated, customer-sensitive, employee-sensitive, or legal-sensitive | Yes |
| Retention / archive location | Where the communication record is stored for future replay, audit, onboarding, or governance review | Yes |
| Review date | Date the communication path must be reviewed, refreshed, replaced, or retired | Yes |
| Version | Artifact version, owner, last reviewed date, and change history | Yes |

## Scoring logic

| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 0 | Communication is informal, personality-driven, scattered across channels, and not tied to source systems or decision records. |
| 1 | Some channels and forums exist, but ownership, source of truth, cadence, escalation, or response expectations are unclear. |
| 2 | Communication paths are documented, but not consistently connected to decisions, evidence, AI workflows, or governance controls. |
| 3 | Critical communication is owner-backed, source-linked, channel-specific, escalation-aware, and reviewed on a defined cadence. |
| 4 | Communication is governed as a live operating layer with AI-assisted routing, evidence links, audit trails, stale-path detection, and executive visibility. |

## Communication types

| Type | Purpose | Common source of truth |
|---|---|---|
| Decision communication | Records what was decided, by whom, why, and what changes downstream | Decision Log, decision forum, product council |
| Status communication | Shares progress, blockers, risks, and next actions without creating a decision by itself | Jira, portfolio dashboard, weekly update |
| Risk communication | Signals risk exposure, control issue, dependency risk, customer impact, vendor risk, or AI risk | Risk register, GRC, escalation forum |
| Incident communication | Coordinates urgent operational, technical, customer, compliance, or AI-related response | Incident tool, war room, executive alert |
| Dependency communication | Clarifies cross-team need, owner, date, blocker, impact, and escalation path | Program board, Jira, dependency register |
| Change communication | Explains what is changing, who is affected, timing, training, adoption, and support path | Change plan, Teams post, enablement hub |
| Governance communication | Confirms review, approval, exception, policy interpretation, or control decision | GRC, governance forum, approval workflow |
| AI event communication | Reports AI launch, model change, agent action, drift, hallucination, boundary breach, human override, or value result | Model registry, AI control plane, AI owner register |

## Channel rules

| Channel | Best use | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Email | Formal external communication, executive summaries, approvals when workflow tooling is not available | Do not use as system of record for active work or hidden approvals |
| Slack / Teams chat | Fast collaboration, awareness, triage, lightweight discussion, working-team context | Do not treat chat as final decision memory unless captured elsewhere |
| Meetings | Alignment, sense-making, decision preparation, tradeoff discussion, cross-functional resolution | Every material meeting needs output, owner, and record link |
| Jira / work system | Work status, backlog, dependency, execution state, blockers, delivery ownership | Avoid duplicating work state in decks and chats without links |
| Confluence / knowledge base | Durable documentation, operating standards, decisions, runbooks, onboarding context | Needs owner, review date, and source links |
| Dashboards / BI | Metrics, trends, adoption, performance, financial, risk, and value signals | Needs metric owner, refresh logic, and evidence confidence |
| GRC / risk tool | Policy, controls, risks, exceptions, audit, regulatory or security evidence | Must link back to decision and source evidence |
| AI tools / agents | Summarization, routing, classification, drafting, recommendation, and workflow assistance | Material output needs source, confidence, and human review rules |

## Map template

| Communication path | Object / event | Accountable owner | Source of truth | Official channel | Response expectation | Escalation rule |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision approval | [Decision type] | [Decision owner] | [Decision Log / Rights Matrix] | [Forum or workflow] | [Decision needed by date] | [Escalation if blocked] |
| AI risk event | [AI initiative or agent] | [AI owner + control owner] | [AI Owner Register + evidence] | [AI control channel] | [Severity-based SLA] | [Governance / executive trigger] |
| Dependency blocker | [Team or platform dependency] | [Dependency owner] | [Jira / dependency register] | [Work system + team channel] | [Delivery impact date] | [Program or exec path] |
| Customer impact | [Customer segment / account] | [Customer owner + product owner] | [CRM / support / evidence pack] | [Customer impact forum] | [Urgency by severity] | [Business and risk escalation] |
| Control exception | [Policy or control] | [Control owner] | [GRC / audit evidence] | [Governance forum] | [Compliance SLA] | [Risk executive path] |
| Operating model change | [Role, process, platform, or AI workflow] | [Change owner] | [LPM object + change record] | [Change channel] | [Launch cadence] | [Transformation council path] |

## AI communication controls

| AI capability | Allowed use | Control rule |
|---|---|---|
| AI summarization | AI may summarize long threads, meetings, reports, or updates | Human verifies material claims, owners, dates, and decision implications |
| AI routing | AI may route messages based on type, severity, owner, or system | Routing rules must be explainable and reviewed |
| AI drafting | AI may draft status updates, executive summaries, customer notes, or change messages | Human approval required for external, sensitive, or decision-bearing communication |
| AI classification | AI may classify risk, urgency, affected layer, audience, or escalation tier | Classification must include confidence and override path |
| AI sending | AI may send low-risk internal notifications when preapproved | No autonomous external or high-risk communication without explicit controls |
| AI memory | AI may help maintain communication maps by detecting stale paths or missing owners | Human accepts changes before the knowledge object is updated |

## 500+ employee version

| Dimension | Recommended pattern | Design note |
|---|---|---|
| Primary problem | Communication is fast but inconsistent, driven by relationships, founders, strong operators, meetings, chat, and informal memory | Create simple official paths before AI accelerates noise |
| Minimum map | Critical decisions, risks, customer issues, AI pilots, dependencies, launches, and executive updates | Do not map every conversation |
| Channel standard | Define what belongs in chat, email, Jira, Confluence, dashboards, meetings, and decision logs | Stop treating every channel as equal |
| Owner standard | Every critical communication path has one accountable owner and one source of truth | No ownerless update paths |
| AI standard | AI can summarize and draft, but material communication must be human reviewed | Keep boundaries simple and strict |
| Review rhythm | Review monthly during scaling, hiring, new systems, major launches, or AI pilot expansion | Prevent tribal knowledge from hardening |

## 5,000+ employee version

| Dimension | Recommended pattern | Design note |
|---|---|---|
| Primary problem | Functions have mature channels, but communication breaks across departments, systems, governance forums, and transformation initiatives | Create cross-functional communication control |
| Minimum map | Enterprise initiatives, decision forums, dependencies, risk events, AI initiatives, data changes, customer impact, platform change, and governance approvals | Connect communication to operating objects |
| Channel standard | Separate collaboration channels from official record channels and executive control paths | Reduce status theater |
| Owner standard | Each communication path has business owner, operating owner, system owner, and governance owner where needed | Make handoffs explicit |
| AI standard | AI may route, summarize, and classify, but high-impact communication needs source links, confidence, and human approval | Prevent AI from creating false alignment |
| Review rhythm | Review quarterly and after major org, platform, AI, compliance, or operating-model changes | Treat stale paths as risk |

## 10,000+ employee version

| Dimension | Recommended pattern | Design note |
|---|---|---|
| Primary problem | Communication overload hides decision latency, duplicated forums, inconsistent executive updates, broken escalation, and ungoverned AI-generated summaries | Operate communication as an enterprise control layer |
| Minimum map | Enterprise communication taxonomy, official channels, decision forums, escalation tiers, AI events, regulatory paths, executive dashboards, and cross-region governance | Make communication auditable |
| Channel standard | Approved communication paths are tied to source systems, policy, audience, severity, retention, and decision authority | No hidden shadow operating model |
| Owner standard | Assign communication domain owners, source owners, control owners, and enterprise review bodies | Separate signal ownership from broadcast ownership |
| AI standard | AI-assisted communication must be logged, confidence-rated, source-linked, governed by sensitivity, and reviewable for regulated or material decisions | Agentic communication requires controls |
| Review rhythm | Review continuously through control-plane alerts, with formal quarterly governance and annual model refresh | Use automation to flag staleness, not silently rewrite |

## Workshop steps

| Step | Action | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Select communication scope | Choose one initiative, business unit, platform, AI portfolio, operating layer, or enterprise forum set. |
| 2 | List critical communication types | Capture decisions, risks, dependencies, AI events, customer impact, incidents, launches, and governance events. |
| 3 | Identify official source of truth | Tie each communication path to a system, artifact, evidence pack, owner record, or decision record. |
| 4 | Assign owners and audiences | Name sender, accountable owner, primary audience, secondary audience, and approver where needed. |
| 5 | Define channels and response rules | Set official channel, backup channel, trigger, cadence, expected response, SLA, and retention path. |
| 6 | Attach escalation logic | Map severity, impact, blocked decision, AI risk, or control trigger to the right escalation path. |
| 7 | Add AI communication boundaries | Define where AI can summarize, route, draft, classify, send, or maintain the map. |
| 8 | Score and remediate | Score each path from 0 to 4 and turn gaps into ownership, channel, evidence, governance, or AI-control actions. |

## Validation rules

- Every critical communication path must have one accountable owner.
- Every claim-bearing communication must link to evidence or an explicit evidence gap.
- Every decision-bearing communication must link to a decision record or approval path.
- Every AI-assisted material communication must include AI involvement, confidence, and human review rule.
- Every urgent or risk-bearing path must include escalation trigger and response SLA.
- Every official communication path must define source of truth and retention location.
- Every sensitive communication must include classification and approved channel handling.
- Communication paths with missing owners, stale review dates, or unclear source of truth should be flagged for remediation.
- Status updates should not create new decisions unless captured in the Decision Log or decision workflow.
- AI should not silently update this object. It should propose changes for human approval.

## AI prompts

| Prompt | Use |
|---|---|
| Map creation prompt | Using the initiative, system, team, or forum context provided, create a Communication Map that lists critical communication types, audiences, channels, owners, source of truth, cadence, response expectations, escalation triggers, AI involvement, and review dates. |
| Gap detection prompt | Review this Communication Map and identify missing owners, unclear channels, duplicate forums, missing source of truth, stale review dates, ungoverned AI communication, weak escalation logic, and communication paths that create decision latency. |
| Scale adaptation prompt | Adapt this Communication Map for a [500 / 5,000 / 10,000+] employee company. Adjust governance depth, source-of-truth requirements, AI boundaries, response SLAs, escalation tiers, and executive visibility. |
| AI control prompt | Identify where AI may summarize, route, classify, draft, or send communication. For each use, define risk level, human review rule, source requirement, audit requirement, and escalation rule. |
| Maintenance prompt | Compare the current Communication Map against recent org changes, system changes, AI initiatives, governance changes, and incident patterns. Propose updates and mark each as approve, reject, defer, or needs human review. |

## Mapping rules

| Connected object | Mapping rule |
|---|---|
| Ownership Map | Communication owner, source owner, escalation owner, AI owner, and control owner must map to named ownership records. |
| Decision Rights Matrix | Decision-bearing communication must map to decision authority, approver, consulted roles, and escalation rules. |
| Decision Log | Decisions created or changed through communication must be captured as decision records. |
| Evidence Checklist | Claim-bearing communication must map to evidence source, confidence, freshness, and reviewer. |
| Escalation Map | Urgent, blocked, risk-bearing, customer-impacting, or AI-risk communication must map to escalation paths. |
| Platform Structure | Official channels must map to the platforms where work, knowledge, data, governance, and AI activity are managed. |
| AI Initiative Owner Register | AI-generated, AI-routed, or AI-sent communication must map to the initiative, owner, risk tier, and control boundary. |

## Reuse model

This artifact should exist in four layers: a human-readable guide, a downloadable template, a machine-readable schema, and a guided Lapemo skill. AI can propose updates when communication paths become stale, owners change, systems change, AI initiatives expand, or escalation patterns reveal hidden bottlenecks. Human approval should remain required before the canonical object is updated.