All processes, even high-level ones, should adhere to the active verb-noun phrase naming convention. The original name for this diagram of just “Compliance” does not adequately describe the purpose of the process so instead I have suggested it be called “Assess Compliance”.
It is important to distinguish the event(s) that trigger a process from its inputs. E.g. the original diagram has “Agreed site compliance assessment plan” as a triggering event, whereas this would seem to be an input. Event names must adhere to noun phrase - passive verb such (e.g. “Site compliance assessment plan agreed”) to show that something has happened which initiates the process. In this case the trigger is that information has been received from Permitting.
It is left unclear from the scenario whether both a Site and Sector Compliance Assessment Plan are required for every assessment, and so the logic in the model answer works either way.
Depending on whether different people are responsible for providing the Site/Sector Plans, it could have been clearer to show two separate branches coming off the main flow, with two separate results. Further analysis would clarify this, as well as possibly identifying other artefacts or conditions that must be in place before the assessment can begin.
The Assessment Plan is subject to feedback/revision iterations until agreed, and so an iteration group is used to show this. If this were usually a straightforward activity (e.g. little or no feedback received or revisions made) then this could be shown as a single step.
The main assessment itself is then conducted, and may include one or more of the activities in the bulleted list. Some activities may not always be required, and others may be performed many times (e.g. multiple site assessments for multiple sites). For this reason the activities are placed in a process group.
Although each of the activities will require additional information to be requested (reports, data, etc) it is not necessary to show at this level. These activities are the core part of this process and would be strong candidates for describing individually in more detail.
Collating and agreeing the findings is shown as a single step as no mention is made of review/rework in the scenario. Depending on the number of different people involved in the different assessment activities this might turn out to be a complex process in practice.
The key step of deciding a response then takes place, with only the three possible outcomes outlined in the scenario (i.e. there is no option to request further information before making a decision).
Again, the active verb-noun phrase naming convention is important – on the original these were labelled simply as (e.g.) “Compliant response”
Producing the Site report and agreeing any further actions have been grouped together as one step, as it is likely that the “further actions” would form part of the report. If not, then these could be separated.
If there are no further actions then the Assessment is complete, otherwise further actions must be taken as appropriate. Again, a process grouping is used to show that one or more of these activities may happen.
Note the use of the optional connector to show that a programme level review would sometimes follow-on from a site level review, but that it would never be initiated without a site level review having first been performed
The result of the process is simply that the assessment is complete. The original diagram showed a result of “proposed changes to sector compliance assessment plan” which might sometimes be a result of one of the individual steps, but which wouldn’t always be a result of the process as a whole