Sending twenty folder links to a new collaborator may look generous. Without a starting point, it transfers the job of reconstructing the project to them. I see handover as building an entry route, not merely providing access to everything.
Explain the present first
Why does the project exist, which stage has it reached and what is the next important decision? These points provide a frame for understanding the historical material. They may be more useful initially than a complete chronology.
Role boundaries also need clarity. What can the person decide, what requires discussion and whom should they consult? Unclear responsibility can turn a helpful contribution into an accidental reversal of an existing decision.
Select the initial reading
The current brief, latest approved version and core decision record can form a starting package. The wider archive remains available, but the first documents to read are identifiable.
Rejected directions can be worth showing so that the same idea is not developed again without context. The conditions under which an earlier decision might change should also be visible.
Choose a small, real first contribution
A bounded task makes understanding observable. Reviewing one page’s links or preparing questions for a specific section can introduce the working process. The purpose is orientation, not a hidden test.
During the first review, I ask where information was difficult to find as well as examining the output. Repeated questions from new collaborators reveal gaps in the handover material.
Include access boundaries
Necessary access should be ready, unnecessary access withheld and permissions reviewed when the assignment ends. Sharing knowledge does not require unrestricted system access.
I do not measure successful onboarding by the absence of questions. Better-informed questions and a confident first contribution are more useful signs.