# Workflow team coverage

Staff the contributions and decision gates for one bounded workflow. This worksheet is a hypothetical planning example plus a blank record. The people, time, cohort, and deadlines are invented inputs, not recommended staffing ratios, an org chart, or evidence of operating readiness. A title or entry in this table grants no access or approval authority.

## Completed hypothetical read-only scope

- Job: draft internal variance commentary from approved calculations and accountable-owner explanations.
- Maximum effect: read permitted sources and prepare a draft; no financial record change or external distribution.
- Accepted result: finance verifies figures, evidence references, explanation, and unresolved facts before accepting internal use.
- Proposed first group: ten cases each week; actual timings and source quality still need evidence.
- Existing fallback: normal finance preparation and checking remain available.

| Contribution or decision                           | Hypothetical primary and coverage            | Availability and evidence                                                                               | If unavailable                                                          |
| -------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Workflow scope and policy                          | Mira; approved finance delegate Luis         | Scope/period/exclusions decision before design; operator case walkthrough                               | Hold scope change; preserve prior process                               |
| Domain observation and review-surface testing      | Mira with an operator                        | Trace ordinary and exception cases; exercise correction, rejection, and missing explanation             | Reduce proof to teaching records; no target-usability claim             |
| Architecture, software, and bounded model drafting | Lin; engineering backup Theo                 | Eight protected engineering hours/week; source/input contract, implementation, tests, deployment limits | Reschedule build; do not transfer approval rights to another function   |
| Source and data expertise                          | Tess; approved source backup Uma             | Two source-review hours/week; access, metric, period, keys, lineage, reconciliation, freshness          | Teaching records only until target-data evidence is established         |
| Independent business checking                      | Jo; qualified independent backup Lee         | Two-hour checking session/week; approved figures and owner explanations; reject wrong work              | Hold acceptance if no qualified independent reviewer is available       |
| Security/privacy/risk                              | Rae; organization-approved risk delegate     | 90-minute pre-pilot review plus separate release slot; fields, provider route, retention, permissions   | No governed source use or effect awaiting approval                      |
| Service lifecycle                                  | Nia                                          | Two reserved support/planning hours/week; incident, change, rollback, cost and retirement path          | Keep bounded proof; no unsupported service launch                       |
| Day-to-day operation                               | Omar; Nia only for delegated operating cover | Named support hours and escalation; rehearse missing-source and rejected-case handling                  | Constrain intake; preserve support and reconciliation for existing work |

A role may cover multiple contributions. Required independent approvals still use separate authorized people. If Lee built the result being checked and independence is required, find another qualified delegate; do not use the backup label to bypass the requirement.

## Hypothetical review capacity

```text
Reserved checking time = 2 hours = 120 minutes/week
Assumed review time = 8 minutes/case
Ten cases = 80 minutes; leaves 40 minutes for correction/discussion
Twenty cases = 160 minutes before correction; exceeds reserved time
```

The ten-case group is a planning response to these assumed timings, not a universal limit. Exercise a representative review burst and check whether the 40-minute reserve covers real correction work. Find more cover, reduce the group, or defer intake when it does not.

## Controlled-write additions

Do not treat the following as approved because the read-only draft worked.

| Added responsibility         | Required evidence and decision                                                                                                                                                                                                |
| ---------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Finance-system owner         | Decides which financial correction the service may apply, who may request it, which records and versions it covers, how long approval remains valid, and which saved result confirms success.                                 |
| Architecture and integration | Establish whether the receiving system can check the current record during the write, recognize repeated requests for the same operation and prevent applying the correction twice, and report what happened after a timeout. |
| Software implementation      | Test duplicate requests, denied access, expired approval, old record versions, and writes whose result is unknown. Do not blindly send another correction after a timeout.                                                    |
| Independent evaluation       | Have a separate qualified person check expected results against their sources. Test deliberately wrong results and forbidden requests using the exact code and tool-contract versions proposed for release.                   |
| Security/risk approval       | Check the proposed correction against the actual system's allowed actions and policy. Keep approvals separate from the requester or builder wherever policy requires it.                                                      |
| Service/operating cover      | Practise receiving an alert and stopping new work. Check an uncertain correction in the source system before deciding whether to retry; retain support for pending cases and a permitted recovery or correction path.         |

If permission to make the correction, a responsible source-system owner, or a practised recovery path is missing, keep the service at a reviewed draft or preparation step that cannot post. A sponsor can reprioritize funding and scope but cannot substitute for those system decisions.

## Blank capability and capacity record

Start with the next decision, not every job title in the table. For a finance draft, someone must establish which figures are approved, someone must build the draft, and a qualified reviewer must have time to check it. Add the other contributions the design requires. A backup counts only if they have the necessary skill, access, authority, and available time.

| Contribution / decision right             | Required work and evidence | Primary | Approved backup | Confirmed availability / decision deadline | Independence / access constraints | If missing |
| ----------------------------------------- | -------------------------- | ------- | --------------- | ------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------- | ---------- |
| Workflow analysis and domain judgment     |                            |         |                 |                                            |                                   |            |
| Product / UX and review surface           |                            |         |                 |                                            |                                   |            |
| Architecture and integration              |                            |         |                 |                                            |                                   |            |
| Data / source-system expertise            |                            |         |                 |                                            |                                   |            |
| Software / AI / ML expertise as selected  |                            |         |                 |                                            |                                   |            |
| Evaluation and independent verification   |                            |         |                 |                                            |                                   |            |
| Security / privacy / risk                 |                            |         |                 |                                            |                                   |            |
| Adoption / service / day-to-day operation |                            |         |                 |                                            |                                   |            |

Add only work relevant to this slice and explain any material omission. Specialists may join for a particular decision rather than full time. A delivery lead coordinates coverage; that title does not supply every specialism or permission to decide for the source-system owner.

## Decision rights and rehearsal

- Who decides what the workflow is for and what a usable result must contain?
- Who checks the result against its sources, and what would make them reject it?
- Who can settle which source, calculation, and policy apply?
- If a record will change, who may approve that exact change? Which approvals require separate people?
- Who may release the tested software, and what evidence must they check?
- End-to-end service owner:
- Day-to-day operator, support hours, and escalation:
- Who can constrain, pause, recover, change, or retire the service:
- Which duties does one person combine, how much time have they reserved, and would any combination undermine an independent check?
- How many cases arrive, including a burst, how long does review take, and how much waiting or spare capacity is allowed?
- Can the backup access the current records, perform the work, and make the delegated decision during the required hours?
- Missing-source, rejected-result, support-alert, and recovery exercise:
- Gaps found; owner and next decision:
- Current disposition: narrow, defer, stop, continue proving, or propose a bounded release with the required evidence:

Keep required authority separate even when decisions occur in one meeting. A receiving team must demonstrate its own coverage; the delivery engineer performing every exercise does not prove that team can operate after handoff.