Review Scope
The review assesses whether a proposed China entry is ready for board approval across ten dimensions: customer, market access, product compliance, entry model, partner, location, technology and data, organization, finance and execution. It is not a ranking of service providers or a substitute for project-specific legal and tax advice.
Review Method
Each dimension is rated evidenced, conditional or unresolved. Evidence must be current, attributable and connected to the company’s exact activity. Conditional items have an owner and defined next step. Unresolved critical items can block investment even when the overall average appears positive.
Scoring Framework
| Status | Meaning | Board Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Evidenced | Current source and company facts support the conclusion | May support approval |
| Conditional | A defined customer, authority, contract or technical step remains | Approve only with owner and deadline |
| Unresolved | Facts or legal route are not sufficient | Do not make irreversible commitment |
Dimensions should not all carry the same weight. Market access, product approval, lawful data architecture and adequate funding can be mandatory. Customer demand and operating capability may also be gates. Lower-risk issues can be managed after initial approval when the exposure is limited and reversible.
1. Customer Evidence
The review looks for target segments, named opportunities, buyer and user interviews, procurement, price, competition, service and switching barriers. Market size without accessible customers receives a weak rating. Distributor forecasts are not treated as customer confirmation.
2. Market Access
The exact revenue activity is checked against the current foreign-investment negative list and sector rules. The record identifies permitted, restricted, prohibited and uncertain activities. Old summaries and local promotional claims do not replace the current source.
3. Product or Service Compliance
The review checks classification, registration, testing, standards, labeling, telecommunications, environmental, import or other requirements as applicable. The plan identifies the responsible entity, authority, evidence and dependency. Marketing does not exceed the approved scope.
4. Entry Model
Export, distributor, cross-border channel, representative office, wholly owned company, joint venture and licensed-provider options are compared. The selected route should explain contracts, invoices, employees, imports, control, licensing, tax and exit.
5. Partner Quality
Partners are reviewed for legal identity, ownership, permits, finance, customers, compliance, facilities and conflicts. Contributions are verified and measurable. Contracts protect customer information, quality, technology, data, audit and transition.
6. Location
The location analysis covers customers, talent, suppliers, logistics, regulators, premises, utilities and management reach. Factories receive technical and environmental diligence. Incentives are treated as conditional unless eligibility and payment are confirmed.
7. Technology, IP and Data
China trademark and other IP strategy, employee and partner rights, access controls and ownership of improvements are reviewed. Data maps identify purpose, storage, vendors, administrators, overseas access, retention and cross-border route.
8. Organization and Control
The company has accountable officers, delegated authority, seal and bank control, accounting, tax, systems and reporting. One provider or employee cannot control all practical access. The staffing plan covers the skills and employment arrangements needed for launch.
9. Finance and Tax
The model includes formation, premises, people, systems, licenses, testing, inventory, equipment, tax and working capital. It shows delayed launch and lower revenue. Capital, debt, services, royalties and dividends are modeled separately.
10. Execution
The project has one activity map, dependency schedule, investment gates and stop conditions. Dates are confirmed, estimated or externally controlled. Launch is defined as first compliant revenue, not only incorporation.
Evidence Findings
A project is generally ready when customer and access evidence are strong, critical product and data routes are defined, the selected entity can operate the model, and funding reaches the next commercial gate. A large unresolved license, customer or funding dependency should be visible in the board decision.
Evidence Request by Function
Commercial teams provide target accounts, interviews, pipeline quality, price and channel economics. Legal and regulatory teams provide the activity map, current rules, classifications, licenses and unresolved authority questions. Operations provides premises, people, supplier, logistics, service and quality evidence. Technology and security provide IP and data-flow controls.
Finance and tax provide the three-year model, delayed-launch scenario, capital, tax, customs, cash and repatriation analysis. HR provides role-level hiring, employment and work-authorization plans. The project leader integrates these records and identifies contradictions, such as a sales plan that requires a service the selected entity cannot perform.
Board Review Questions
- Which customer evidence supports the first two years of investment?
- Which activities and approvals are critical to first revenue?
- Why is the selected route better than a smaller test?
- Which partner or provider claims have been independently verified?
- What data and technology will cross organizational or national boundaries?
- How much cash is committed before the next proof point?
- What event stops or changes the project?
Limitations
The review cannot predict authority decisions, customer demand or policy change. It improves decision quality by showing assumptions and missing evidence. Scores should be updated when the product, activity, city, partner or rule changes.
Risk Analysis
The highest risks usually come from mismatch: activity versus business scope, product versus approval, contract versus licensed entity, global systems versus China data rules, or capital versus operating needs. These mismatches deserve priority over cosmetic project milestones.
Risk treatment should be specific. A classification risk may require authority consultation; customer risk may require a paid pilot; partner risk may require financial and operational diligence; data risk may require an architecture change; funding risk may require a smaller phase. General monitoring is not an adequate response to a known gate.
Review Finding Examples
A project can receive a positive commercial rating and still be unready because the product approval path is undefined. Another can be legally open but commercially weak because customers will not accept the proposed channel. A third may justify formation but not manufacturing, allowing the board to approve a sales and service phase while reserving factory capital.
Recommendation
Approve staged entry only when critical dimensions are evidenced or subject to controlled conditions. Assign unresolved items to executives and define the decision date. Reject pressure to average a critical regulatory or commercial gap into a favorable total score.
