State the decision requested in an academic committee paper
Make the requested outcome in an academic committee paper match the receiving body’s role, using an original fictional routing example.
About 4 min read · Allow extra time for the practical checks
Tell the committee what you are asking it to do before asking members to work through the background. A paper for discussion, a recommendation to another body and a request for approval are different requests. Clear wording helps readers examine the proposal without treating a proposed action as an existing decision.
Use the current committee template, submission instructions and applicable terms of reference. This guide concerns writing an ordinary paper for consideration. It does not determine a committee’s authority or replace institutional review and approval requirements.
Identify the request before drafting the history
The University of Manchester’s report-and-paper guidance, checked on 3 November 2026, distinguishes requests to approve, recommend, note or discuss. It connects the requested decision with the committee’s authority and calls for essential decision information in the main paper. Its word limits, formatting and submission timetable are local requirements, not rules for every university.
Check the receiving body’s actual role. If you cannot establish whether it may approve a proposal or only recommend it onward, resolve that through the applicable institutional route. Do not choose a stronger verb simply because it makes the paper sound decisive.
In working notes, complete this sentence: “After considering this paper, the committee is asked to…” Then check that the rest of the paper equips members to consider that request.
Test an original fictional routing problem
The bodies, proposal and documents below are invented teaching material. They describe no real committee, delegation or approval.
Imagine a fictional programme working group preparing a proposal to change the order of two workshop sessions. The exercise’s supplied routing note says that the working group may discuss the proposal and recommend it to a programme board. Only the programme board may decide whether to adopt the change. The current paper is going to the working group.
A draft request says:
Approve the revised session sequence and begin implementation.
That request exceeds the working group’s stated role in this exercise. A narrower request would be:
Consider the proposed session sequence in document P2 and, if supported, recommend it to the programme board for decision.
The second version still asks for meaningful consideration. It does not imply that the proposal has already passed the board or that implementation can begin.
| Part of the fictional paper | What the reader needs to distinguish |
|---|---|
| Purpose | Consider a proposed sequence change |
| Requested outcome | A recommendation to the programme board |
| Supporting document | P2, the actual version being considered |
| Current status | Proposal awaiting the required decision |
| Next stage | Submission to the board if recommended, rather than immediate implementation |
The routing note supplies the authority boundary only for this invented exercise. Your own paper needs the real controlling information; this table grants no authority to an actual committee.
Make the main paper answer the decision question
Explain why the proposal is before this body now, what would change and which evidence and unresolved matters affect consideration. Keep the version identity visible when members are comparing documents. A reader should not need to guess whether an appendix contains the current proposal or an older draft.
Distinguish the justification for the proposal from the status of its approval. A well-supported recommendation can still be awaiting a decision. Equally, an item submitted for noting should not quietly ask readers to accept an unannounced change.
The report-recommendation guide addresses how evidence supports a proposed action. It cannot establish which body may authorise that action. An executive summary can orient the reader, while the full paper retains the essential reasoning.
Reconcile the request before submission
Read the title, purpose, recommendation and next-step wording together. They should ask for the same kind of consideration. Check whether words such as approved, agreed or implemented describe a verified past event or have accidentally replaced proposed, requested or recommended.
After the meeting, use the actual outcome to prepare the required record. Manchester’s minutes-and-actions guidance treats minutes as records of business and decisions. The request in a submitted paper is evidence of what was asked, not proof of what the meeting decided.
Before circulation, follow the applicable checking process and confirm that references point to the documents included in the final package. A precise request makes the writing easier to assess; the authorised body’s actual decision remains a separate event.
