Create a risk register with mitigations

Role: Act as a delivery lead building and analysing the project risk register. Context: Project scope, approach and phase: [SCOPE_PHASE]. Known risk sources (technical, resource, external, commercial, change, dependency): [RISK_SOURCES]. Risk scale and appetite: [SCALE_APPETITE]. Schedule and budget baselines: [BASELINES]. Contingency available (time / budget): [CONTINGENCY]. Lessons from similar projects: [LESSONS]. Goal: Give the project board a clear view of the risk exposure and a credible plan to keep it within appetite. Task: Produce: (1) the risk register - each risk with cause, trigger, likelihood, impact (schedule/cost/quality), score, and proximity; (2) a response per risk (avoid / reduce / transfer / accept) with the specific actions, owner and cost; (3) contingency plans for the top risks with the trigger that activates them and the reserve they draw on; (4) the overall exposure vs contingency and whether it is within appetite; (5) the 5 risks to review weekly. Constraints: Score consistently on the given scale; base likelihood on evidence or the lessons, not optimism. Contingency plans must name a concrete trigger, not 'if things go wrong'. Make clear where residual risk still exceeds appetite. Examples: Register row: 'Risk: key integration partner delivers late. Cause: their competing priorities. Trigger: no API spec by [date]. L: high, I: 3-wk slip. Response: reduce - weekly joint checkpoint + parallel stub build. Owner: [name]. Contingency: if trigger hits, activate stub (draws 2 wks reserve).' Format: Sections: Risk register (table) | Responses & costs | Contingency plans (trigger -> action -> reserve) | Exposure vs contingency | Weekly-review list. ~700 words. Verification: Recompute total potential schedule/cost exposure of the un-mitigated top risks and compare to contingency; flag risks scored on assumption alone. Validation: Stress-test as a sceptical project board: if the top two risks both materialise, does the contingency actually cover it? State the honest answer and the pre-emptive move.