# First workflow investigation Trace one bounded queue before proposing automation. This sheet includes completed hypothetical records and blank fields for your own investigation. The examples establish no customer result. Your real work requires permitted access, an approved evidence store, and the workflow owner's participation. ## Investigation boundary | Field | Hypothetical completed entry | | ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Workflow | Domestic purchase requests for existing suppliers | | Start / end | Request received / buyer accepts for order preparation | | Exclusions | New suppliers, international orders, restricted purchases | | Operational owner | Procurement lead | | Observer / operator | Delivery analyst / procurement coordinator | | Upstream / downstream participants | Requesting manager / buyer | | Sample | 12 recent eligible records chosen for a first investigation; include a routine completion, a return, and a waiting case | | Selection limitation | Deliberate convenience sample, not representative population measurement; no defect-rate claim | | Access | Read-only redacted walkthrough approved by the owner; no model-provider upload or record mutation | | Evidence handling | Approved internal workspace; source references and relevant fields only; follow the owner's retention and deletion policy | | Open authority question | Source owner must confirm access to the authoritative cost-center record | ## Completed case traces | Case / step | Actor and decision | Source / revision | Recorded result and limitation | | ---------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | P-41 / receipt | Manager submits required fields | Request P-41 revision 1; queue history Q-41 revision 1 | Request entered the scoped queue | | P-41 / checking | Coordinator checks fields and attaches supplier evidence | Redacted walkthrough O-41 revision 1; supplier S-12 | Required fields present in this case; no claim about all requests | | P-41 / acceptance | Buyer inspects and accepts for order preparation | Queue acceptance A-41 revision 1 | This bounded segment completed; no order, delivery, or payment proved | | P-47 / receipt | Manager submits request without a cost center | Request P-47 revision 1; queue history Q-47 revision 1 | Missing field recorded | | P-47 / return and correction | Coordinator asks requester; copies the emailed value into the queue | Permitted redacted correspondence E-47 revision 1 and walkthrough O-47 revision 1 | Manual bridge observed; no permission inferred from its occurrence | | P-47 / buyer return | Buyer returns the request, citing a closed cost center | Return R-47 revision 1; source confirmation still required | Return recorded; was the value closed, and how often does this happen? Both remain to be checked. | If an interval has no permitted evidence, record `unknown`. Timestamp gaps measure elapsed time between recorded events, not active handling time. Do not infer missing work, duration, or cause. ## Separate the claims | Class / claim | Source and owner | Scope / limitation | Next validation | | ---------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ | | Stated: requests checked before buyer receives them | Interview I-1 revision 1; coordinator | Reported practice; no population guarantee | Compare cases and configuration | | Observed: buyer returned P-47, citing a closed value | Q-47, E-47, O-47, R-47; coordinator and buyer | P-47 return only; source state and frequency remain unconfirmed | Validate source state and selection method | | System-enforced: nonempty field required at handoff | Form configuration Q-3; system owner | Presence check only; no current-value check proved | Inspect permitted validation path | | Policy-authorized: buyer acceptance required | Policy PR-4; policy owner | Scoped domestic requests; no consistent-execution claim | Confirm revision and applicability | | Inference: saved template caused the old value | Upstream report I-2; requester | Explanation unverified | Inspect permitted redacted template | ## Upstream and downstream follow-up - Upstream question: Where did the requester find the cost center? Inspect the saved template with permission; a reported explanation is not a confirmed cause. - Downstream question: What evidence lets the buyer accept a request? Compare one accepted and one returned case; ask which unresolved questions need escalation. - Owner question: Who can permit a bounded test? Record the role and basis; sponsorship alone is insufficient. - Verifier question: Who can reject a prepared request against the authoritative source? This role remains to be confirmed before a pilot. ## Completed next-step decision Decision: **narrow and investigate** cost-center completeness and currentness for the scoped request segment. The procurement lead requests source-owner confirmation of the authoritative record and permitted lookup. The buyer helps define a review-ready request. The manual queue and buyer acceptance remain unchanged. Compare a repaired template and deterministic lookup before considering model interpretation. No pilot, data-access expansion, or action approval is recorded. ## Your working copy ### Start with these questions 1. Where does this queue start, and what accepted result ends the work? 2. Can you follow one routine case and one returned or waiting case with permission? 3. What did you see, and what did someone only report or infer? 4. Which unanswered question should the owner investigate next? ### Record the cases and decision - Which workflow and version are you investigating, who owns it, and what is the evidence cutoff? - What are its start and accepted end? Which cases qualify, and which are excluded? - How many cases did you inspect, how were they selected, and what can that selection not tell you? - Which access, evidence store, redaction, retention, and deletion rules are approved? - For a routine case, what triggered it, who decided, which sources were used, who received it next, and what proves completion? - For a material exception, where did the path change, return, escalate, or need recovery? - What can upstream and downstream participants show, and which questions remain open? - Is each claim stated, observed, system-enforced, policy-authorized, or an inference? - For each claim, which source ID, revision, owner, scope, currentness check, and limitation apply? - Which handling time or work was not observed, and which claims conflict? - What is the smallest proposed change, and which simpler repair will you compare? - Should the owner investigate, narrow, defer, or stop? What evidence and authority support that decision? - What happens next, who is accountable, which evidence is needed, and when will it be reviewed? Keep observation, frequency, permission, and acceptance separate. A filled worksheet is an investigation record, not production approval.