During a courthouse audiovisual system replacement, the county board asks for proof of every scope or design change that was formally accepted after the baseline was locked. Which predictive control artifact should the team produce?

On a predictive courthouse audiovisual replacement, proof of every scope or design change accepted after the baseline was locked lives in the approved change-requests file (or equivalent change log of authorized modifications). That control artifact shows what was formally proposed, evaluated through governance, and authorized so the baseline could be updated deliberately. County boards and auditors rely on that record to distinguish informal workshop ideas from changes that actually altered contracted scope, design, cost, or schedule.

A brainstorm sticky-note wall from the kickoff workshop fails conceptually because kickoff ideation is not authorization; sticky notes are elicitation residue, not accepted baseline deviations. A team velocity chart for unfinished backlog stories fails because velocity is an adaptive throughput signal and does not document predictive change control decisions on a locked courthouse baseline. A marketing flyer describing the new courtroom displays fails because promotional materials communicate features to the public without proving that post-baseline modifications were approved through the project's change process.

Exam caveat: CAPM expects associates to separate discovery or communication artifacts from the formal change record that governs predictive baselines. Operational check: for the courthouse AV job, reconcile the change-requests file to the current scope and design packages, confirm each accepted request has decision evidence and updated baseline references, and present that package when the county board asks what changed after lock.