ECL Square
Menu
Primary diagnostic

ECL Governance Maturity Assessment

A practical 14-question diagnostic for finance, risk, modelling, controls, and audit stakeholders who need to understand whether the ECL process is fragmented, controlled, governed, or review-ready.

Score out of 100
Immediate result
Stored for follow-up
Assessment intake

Start with your role, pressure point, and declared ECL challenge.

Results are stored with your responses so the follow-up conversation can focus on evidence gaps instead of repeating the intake.

Completion
0%

0 of 14 scored questions answered

Next unanswered section: Data (0 of 2)

Scoring scale
0 - Not evidenced

Mostly informal, missing, or reconstructed late.

1 - Ad hoc

Some activity exists, but ownership and evidence are inconsistent.

2 - Partly controlled

Controls exist, but handoffs, exceptions, or review trail remain fragile.

3 - Governed

Repeatable process with visible ownership, review, and retained support.

4 - Review-ready

Integrated workflow, strong traceability, and reliable evidence pack output.

Assessment questions

14 scored questions across 7 sections.

The last six questions are in Approvals, Movement analysis, Audit evidence, and Disclosure readiness.

Data
0 of 2 answered
Staging
0 of 2 answered
Models
0 of 2 answered
Overlays
0 of 2 answered
Approvals
0 of 2 answered
Movement analysis
0 of 2 answered
Audit evidence
0 of 1 answered
Disclosure readiness
0 of 1 answered

Data

0 of 2 answered
Question 1 of 14Source exposures are reconciled, validated, and frozen before the ECL run starts.
Question 2 of 14Data exceptions are owned, resolved, approved, or explicitly carried into the allowance with evidence.

Staging

0 of 2 answered
Question 3 of 14SICR, default, cure, restructuring, and rebuttable presumption rules are approved and version controlled.
Question 4 of 14Stage overrides and reviewer challenges have rationale, approval status, and retained evidence.

Models

0 of 2 answered
Question 5 of 14PD, LGD, EAD, discounting, life, and recovery assumptions are documented with owner sign-off.
Question 6 of 14Model parameter changes can be traced from proposal to approval to final run impact.

Overlays

0 of 2 answered
Question 7 of 14Macroeconomic scenarios, weights, sensitivities, and release criteria are governed consistently.
Question 8 of 14Management overlays have a clear trigger, quantified basis, expiry or review date, and double-counting check.

Approvals

0 of 2 answered
Question 9 of 14Maker-checker, committee, and final sign-off workflows are visible in one review trail.
Question 10 of 14Open issues, late changes, and unresolved reviewer comments are tracked through closure.

Movement analysis

0 of 2 answered
Question 11 of 14Period movement is explained by portfolio, stage, model, scenario, overlay, write-off, and recovery drivers.
Question 12 of 14Management packs connect final allowance movements to approved source results and commentary.

Audit evidence

0 of 1 answered
Question 13 of 14Audit evidence packs are produced from the workflow, not rebuilt manually after the numbers are final.

Disclosure readiness

0 of 1 answered
Question 14 of 14Disclosure tables and narratives are traceable to approved ECL outputs, assumptions, and movement analysis.
Score is shown immediately after submission.