I accordingly recommend that a similar procedure should be considered when technical advisers (particularly engineers) are providing specific technical advice in relation to a project such as the RHCYP and DCN. There should be a clear record of the advice requested, and the advice tendered. This should ensure that there is clarity around what expert input advisers are providing in circumstances where such input is required. This is particularly important where, as on the RHCYP and DCN project, the technical advisers work closely day-to-day with the health board's project team and are engaged in commenting on design or construction proposals. Such arrangements can lead to informality and a lack of clarity about the scope and role of the advice, and the reliance which can be placed upon it. In contrast, the approach I recommend should be such as to generate a sufficient body of evidence to support and document relevant decisions. This should contribute to more robust governance and oversight of decision making.