Mock v2

Operational review: six-step workflow

From exception to an authorized, auditable disposition. One clear action per screen. Every claim is sourced, permissions are rechecked, and a person records the decision.

Frame 1 Open case: evidence set builds, with a source failure state. E01 · E09 · E14

Operational reviewAnalyst example
  1. 1Open case
  2. 2Sources
  3. 3Draft
  4. 4Submit
  5. 5Decision
  6. 6Audit

Build the evidence set

Case EX-0142 example · Service exception

  • Case system12 records
  • Document repositoryDidn’t load
  • Ticketing, call recordings, policyNot in Release 1
One source failed. The draft waits until every connected source loads, so nothing is missing silently.

Frame 2 Sources: permissions. E04 · E07 · E14

Operational reviewAnalyst example
  1. 1Open case
  2. 2Sources
  3. 3Draft
  4. 4Submit
  5. 5Decision
  6. 6Audit

Sources used

Only sources you can open in the original system appear here.

  • S1Exception recordWhy: the case itselfCase system
  • S2Service log extractWhy: matches the exception timeRepository
  • S3Prior case, same accountWhy: similar exceptionCase system
  • 1 source hiddenYou don’t have access in the source system. Title and content are not shown.Restricted

Left out: 2 records, with the reason for each. See why

Frame 3 Draft packet: uncertainty and low confidence. E03 · E04 · E06 · E10 · E13

Operational reviewAnalyst example
  1. 1Open case
  2. 2Sources
  3. 3Draft
  4. 4Submit
  5. 5Decision
  6. 6Audit

Review the draft

3 claims, each linked to its sources example text

  1. The exception was raised after a delayed settlement.

    S1S2

  2. The delay started before the cut-off time.

    S2S3
    Low confidence. Two sources give different times. Check before you submit.

  3. Recommendation: correct the record and notify the account owner.

    S1

AI draft v1 is kept. Your edits are saved as v2, never over it.

Confirm the flagged claim first

Frame 4 Submit: re-check with a revoked document. E07 · E11

Operational reviewAnalyst example
  1. 1Open case
  2. 2Sources
  3. 3Draft
  4. 4Submit
  5. 5Decision
  6. 6Audit

Final check before submit

  • Your access to each sourceStill valid
  • Source S3 was revokedRevoked after the draft was made. Claim 2 relied on it.Removed
Submit is paused. The revoked document has been removed from the packet. Refresh the evidence to rebuild claim 2.

Frame 5 Reviewer decision: a human records the final disposition. Scenario · E05 · E06

Operational reviewReviewer example
  1. 1Open case
  2. 2Sources
  3. 3Draft
  4. 4Submit
  5. 5Decision
  6. 6Audit

Record the disposition

Recommendation from the analyst example

Correct the record and notify the account owner.

3 claims · all sourced · 1 low-confidence claim checked by the analyst

Your decision
RULENever fully automatic. Humans govern disposition in multiple layers, in every release.You record the final disposition. The system never does.Release 1 rule (S), from E06: compliance has not approved automated dispositions.

Frame 6 Audit record and export. E06 · E07 · E10 · E14

Operational reviewReviewer example
  1. 1Open case
  2. 2Sources
  3. 3Draft
  4. 4Submit
  5. 5Decision
  6. 6Audit

Audit record

  1. Source set 3 used, 1 hidden, 1 revoked and removed
  2. Model and prompt version recorded e.g. model v1.2, prompt v4
  3. AI draft v1 kept unchanged
  4. Analyst edits v2 and low-confidence check
  5. Permission re-check before submit
  6. Disposition recorded by the reviewer example: Approved

Append-only. Export leaves out restricted sources whole, because field-level redaction is not available across all sources.

Copy to case system

Evidence pack (E01-E14)

Every evidence ID cited in the frames above, from the case Evidence Pack. Wording is quoted or closely paraphrased from the source. Frame 5 also draws on the Customer Scenario. Tap a frame number to jump to it.

IDTitleWhat it saysUsed in frames
E01Operations analyst interviewsAnalysts spend a median 11.5 hours on each exception case; 4.2 hours go to locating and reconciling source records.Limitation: Six interviews from one operations team1
E02Pilot telemetry18% of eligible weekly cases used the draft-summary pilot more than once.Limitation: Eight-week pilot; usage instrumentation does not explain abandonmentNot cited in these frames
E03Pilot quality review84% of sampled summaries were judged materially accurate; 14% contained at least one claim reviewers could not trace to a displayed source.Limitation: Fifty sampled cases; reviewers used the current manual standard3
E04Frontline interviewAnalysts value a starting draft but reopen source systems because the draft does not show why a source was selected or what was omitted.Limitation: Repeated in four of six interviews2 3
E05Operations leaderStandardize the final review packet and reduce median case cycle time by 40% this quarter; a narrower first release is acceptable if it is used consistently.Limitation: Commercial commitment has already been discussed with executives5
E06Compliance leadEvery material claim must link to an authorized source; the human approver, source set, model and prompt version, edits and final disposition are kept in an auditable record.Limitation: Compliance has not approved automated dispositions3 5 6
E07Compliance leadA user must not see or retrieve a source they could not access in the underlying system; exported packets must not reveal restricted source content.Limitation: Existing access groups are available; a new identity system is not2 4 6
E08CTOThe six-week executive demo should show ingestion from all five source systems, autonomous research, automatic disposition and a configurable executive dashboard.Limitation: No engineering estimate has been completedNone. Automatic disposition conflicts with S's RULE; not planned.
E09Engineering discoveryReliable connectors already exist for the case system and document repository; ticketing, call-recording and policy systems would each need a new connector and security review.Limitation: Two engineers are available for four weeks before one moves to another commitment1
E10Support observations27% of pilot outputs are manually reformatted before review; users also copy the final packet into the case system.Limitation: Based on 63 support-tagged cases3 6
E11Incident reportIn three pilot cases, a revoked document remained in an already generated draft until the user refreshed the evidence set.Limitation: No customer data was exposed outside authorized users4
E12Sales noteNorthstar's renewal sponsor wants proof of measurable adoption and a credible path to broader source coverage, not necessarily all five connectors at launch.Limitation: The renewal decision is in ten weeksNot cited in these frames
E13Designer usability sessionUsers missed low-confidence language shown only as a small badge; they noticed an inline explanation and a required confirmation step.Limitation: Five participants3
E14Security architectureOn-prem model endpoints, role groups, append-only audit storage and source-system permission checks are in place; there is no field-level redaction across all sources.Limitation: Architecture review is current as of the fictional case date1 2 6