Punch List implementation in Clarity

[Dimitris Tranoudis]

Hello Clarity Community,

We are looking for best-practice guidance on handling punch list / residual items that may be delivered months after formal project acceptance, often by external providers.

Constraints:

• The main project must be closed (governance, financials, portfolio KPIs).

• We want to track, own, age, and report pending items.

• We want to avoid:

  • Keeping the project artificially open

  • Creating a "dummy" project just to host leftovers

Question:
What Clarity pattern works best in this scenario? A custom object? A custom investment? A project? A Checklist?

Interested in real-world patterns that preserve traceability without distorting portfolio metrics.

Typical punch list items may include:

• Medium / minor defects and non-blocking functional gaps

• Technical debt remediation, refactoring, configuration tuning

• Deliverables pending external or third-party dependencies

• Documentation, runbooks, training or knowledge-transfer gaps

• Data corrections, reconciliations, reporting fixes

• Security hardening or compliance follow-ups (non-critical)

• Minor UX / usability improvements and adoption adjustments

• Operational readiness items (support, monitoring, SLAs, warranties)

Thank you in advance.

-------------------------------------------

[Luis Palacios]

It can vary depending on what functionality is needed, if its more of a checklist / series of items, you could always use checklists or a subobject to track external deliverables. If they do impact the schedule, require time tracking or will have a cost, you might want to explore a design that includes tasks like leveraging a related CIT or similar

-------------------------------------------

[Dimitris Tranoudis]

Thank you, Luis. There will be no impact on schedule, as the original project is formally closed. Each punch list item has an agreed due date and may have prerequisites and/or acceptance criteria to be met. We need to review and follow up these items as "tasks", with clear owners (often external providers).

There is no additional cost outside the original project envelope and we do not plan to extend time tracking. Therefore, I'm leaning toward implementing a Custom Subobject under each Investment/Project. However, I'm unsure about the optimal structure:

• One-level model: Project → Punch List Item (flat list of items)

• Two-level model: Project → Punch List (header) → Punch List Item (detail)

Which structure is better for ongoing review/edit/update, and for reporting across the portfolio (e.g., "open punch items by project/vendor")?

-------------------------------------------

[Luis Palacios]

Hi Dimitris, have you explored using checklists? Its native and has the functionality for due dates, notes, owners as well. A custom object will work as well, only concern with a 2 level approach would be the amount of navigation and potential customizations to see global lists

-------------------------------------------

[Dimitris Tranoudis]

Thank you Luis for the insight. Checklists have some limitations in terms of visibility across the portfolio. Agree for the 2 level approach. Seems redundant.

-------------------------------------------

[Paul Schofield]

Have you explored the "To Do"  functionality?

-------------------------------------------

[Dimitris Tranoudis]

Thank you Paul. It's an interesting proposal to leverage the TODO object. Has some good capabilities embedded.

-------------------------------------------

[Luis Palacios]

Hi Dimitirs, sounds like you have at least two potential designs, this is all without being familiar with your environment, so brainstorming internally is highly recommended!

-------------------------------------------