The regulation says the regulatory agencies "expect" an assessment done in the manner of a business or marketing plan. However, the revised Q&A states that a plan is not required. At the CRA Conference sponsored by the SF FRB the agencies' representatives stated that a formal plan is not required, but at the same time documentation about the performance context should be done. Over and over again, the regulators stated that an institution should be able to present its "story" to the examiners and they emphasized that a self-assessment program was highly desirable, but not mandatory.
IMO, an ISB should have some form of documentation regarding the performance context since it is risking its entire CRA PE on the CD test. If the examiners uncover CD opportunities that you were not aware of, you would be at risk for criticism. But if you have the documentation to back up your assessment you are in a much stronger position to defend your record. Put yourself in the shoes of the examiner. A bank has few if any CD activities and maintains that there are no CD opportunities in the AA, but has no documentation to support its position. You speak to community organizations that say they never had contact with the bank and there have been opportunities. Are you likely to give this bank a "satisfactory" rating for CD activities? Prudence would suggest that a documented assessment should be developed and maintained. If my job depended on it, there would be no doubt I would make certain I documented my performance, wouldn't you?
_________________________
CRA Exam Preparation, CRA Performance Evaluations, Key Performance Benchmarks, & maps