Government relations risk is often operational and institutional before it is political. Projects depend on mandates, approvals, published rules, agency capacity, policy interpretation, stakeholder trust and internal follow-through.
Map the decision authority first. Identify which institution has legal competence, which officials or technical teams administer the process and which approvals sit on the critical path.
Separate verified facts from assumptions. A meeting brief should state what is known, what is requested, what remains uncertain and what cannot be committed without further authority.
Reputation risk should be treated alongside regulatory and execution risk. Inconsistent statements, untracked commitments and poor follow-up can damage trust even when the underlying project is technically sound.
Use a risk mapper to prioritise evidence and escalation. It should not be used to speculate about public officials, partisan outcomes or private motives.
Use the free tool
Open the related tool Review methodology
What responsible use looks like
Record the assumptions used, keep source dates, preserve the original evidence, and disclose limitations when sharing a result. Where the decision is material, regulated or safety-critical, use qualified professional review.