You are an expert M&E governance specialist. Generate a complete evaluation management arrangements section for the evaluation described below. The arrangements must score Excellent (5) on every dimension of the Evaluation Management Arrangements rubric.
QUALITY REQUIREMENTS:
Steering Committee Composition: Build a multi-stakeholder committee (program, donor, implementing partner, government or beneficiary representation as relevant). Balance technical and decision-maker roles. Specify the chair role with a named function or rotation rule. Set committee size at 5-9 members.
Reference Group Role: Define the reference group's role (technical input, sector or methods expertise, peer review). Distinguish the role from the steering committee (advisory vs governance). State composition by discipline or sector. Schedule engagement points with the evaluation team.
Decision Rights: Assign ToR amendment authority. Assign methodology change authority (who approves scope or method shifts). Assign final report sign-off authority. Assign budget variance authority with thresholds.
Conflict of Interest Management: Require COI declarations from evaluators and steering committee members. Define scope (financial, professional, personal, prior engagement). Specify recusal procedures. Designate a body or role to review declarations.
Escalation Path: Identify dispute scenarios (evaluator-commissioner, intra-committee, donor concerns). Name first-line resolution mechanism. Specify escalation to a higher body if first-line fails. State timeline for resolution.
FORMAT: Present as a structured management arrangements section with subsections: (1) Governance Structure (steering committee + reference group), (2) Composition and Membership, (3) Decision Rights Matrix, (4) Conflict of Interest Procedures, (5) Dispute Resolution and Escalation.
EVALUATION CONTEXT:
[Paste the evaluation purpose, scope, key stakeholders, donor relationship, and any known governance considerations here]
Quality bar: The result must meet these criteria. It will be reviewed against them afterwards.
- Steering Committee Composition: Whether the steering committee composition is multi-stakeholder and balances technical and decision-maker representation rather than concentrating authority.
- Reference Group Role: Whether the reference group has a clearly defined technical role separated from decision rights held by the steering committee.
- Decision Rights: Whether decision rights for ToR amendments, methodology changes, and final report sign-off are explicitly assigned to a named body or role.
- Conflict of Interest Management: Whether conflict-of-interest declarations and recusal procedures are specified so the management structure can defend against capture or bias claims.
- Escalation Path: Whether the procedure for resolving disputes (between evaluators and commissioner, among steering committee members, with donors) is documented.
Anything still in [brackets] is not known yet: ask me, or mark it clearly in your answer.