Three synthetic site cards expose different permission-management routes. S02 remains owner-unverified, S03 retains a route exception, and S01 separates intended readers from an observed access record. The page connects to no tenant.
Use the worked example
Select S03 to inspect the Teams management route and the conflicting SharePoint-only proposal. Select S02 to compare the Owners, Members, and Visitors route. The single evidence-reference box is temporary scratch space: switching sites clears it, so transfer anything you need to your team's review record first.
Keep the decision attached to its evidence
Start by confirming the site's type, then identify where permissions are managed. S01, S02, and S03 deliberately lead to different routes. Applying the communication-site approach to a private channel would direct the reviewer to the wrong administrative boundary.
Microsoft also states that Microsoft 365 group membership is not view-only. For a site-reading requirement, review the appropriate Visitors route against the actual site's constraints rather than relabeling group membership as read-only. Sharing and Permissions in the SharePoint Modern Experience
These routes organize a review; they are not evidence of actual membership or authorization in a particular tenant. Confirm the declared site type from authorized records before applying the worksheet's mapping.
Leave actual owner names, membership exports, dates, policy references, decisions and signoffs blank. Intended readership says who should be able to use a site; it does not show who currently has access.
A site visible in shared navigation or associated with a hub is not, by itself, evidence of an access grant. Record permission evidence separately rather than substituting a navigation observation for an authorization record.
S02's owner is unverified because the example contains no supporting owner record. That is a request for evidence, not a finding that the site has zero owners. Ask for the accountable owner's reference before treating this question as resolved.
Assign a responsible reviewer to each unresolved question in the maintained governance record. A prepared checklist can identify the gap, but it cannot supply an owner’s identity or an approved decision.
The synthetic proposal for S03 is a SharePoint-only permission change. Against the declared private-channel type, record a route exception and return the proposal for review through its documented management boundary.
For S01, keep the intended view-only audience question open until the appropriate route and authorized evidence are checked. Do not turn an “intended reader” label into a group-membership instruction or an executed permission grant.
For each site, ask whether the purpose is stated, the type has evidence, the owner is verified, intended access is separate from observed permissions, the route is appropriate and exceptions have a confirmed decision. A checkbox alone is insufficient: attach the supporting reference or mark the item unresolved.
For a real review, record three answers separately: the intended audience, the evidence of current access, and the route responsible for managing it. If an owner supplies only an intended-reader list, the access question is still open. If a screenshot shows navigation, ask for the permission record that supports the actual grant.
Copy a prompt for this example
Build one self-contained HTML page for discussing three fictional SharePoint governance cases. Put site buttons above a short route explanation and a table of evidence questions. Use a restrained document layout with generous spacing and a clearly labeled notes box.
S01 is a group-connected team site. Its permission review belongs with the associated Microsoft 365 group or Teams, as applicable. Explain that intended readers are different from observed access and that Microsoft 365 group membership is not view-only. Mention reviewing the appropriate Visitors route against the site's circumstances.
S02 is a communication site using SharePoint Owners, Members, and Visitors groups. No owner evidence is supplied. Display owner-unverified, never confirmed ownerless. S03 is a private channel site managed through Teams. Its proposed SharePoint-only permission change is a route exception requiring review through that boundary.
Selecting a site must update its type, management route, missing evidence, and next question together. Keep actual owner evidence, observed permissions, and decisions visibly unanswered. The notes box is scratch space for the selected case; clear it when switching sites or resetting. Start on S01 and make Reset return there.
Keep the three cases distinct rather than calculating a combined governance score. Fit the evidence table within a narrow screen, wrap long route names, and use readable labels and keyboard-accessible buttons. The page prepares a discussion; it does not inspect a tenant or change access. Return the finished HTML with its styles and interaction code included.
Return the unresolved questions to the authorized site review workflow, retaining the actual evidence and decision references there. If a sanitized reading copy helps the discussion, NOS can preview this HTML checklist. Keep owner-unverified visible until the reviewer supplies the missing record.