Example design · fictional delivery workpaper
A reviewer should be able to follow a finding back to its source. Trace a fictional capacity question from the signed brief through evidence, calculations and a decision pack prepared for professional review.
Interactive browser demonstration · Fictional data · No live AI or client results
A signed question, permitted evidence, available hours and an agreed method.
A decision-pack draft with the calculation, assumptions and source versions attached.
The named reviewer approves, returns or stops each step.
Change the reviewer hours. Watch the calculation account for analyst time, partner time and demand, then inspect what happens when a source belongs to the wrong week. Choose the situation, set the input and select “Run this case”. You make each fictional review decision; nothing is sent or applied outside the demo.
Changing the input or situation starts a fresh example.
Set the situation and input, then select “Run this case” to prepare the first output.
A fictional practice compares its current review method with a proposed method. Change available qualified-reviewer hours. The workpaper keeps analyst, partner and demand limits in view before preparing a decision pack.
Hours released at one role do not automatically become extra accepted work. Review, correction, operating effort, other roles and qualified demand remain part of the calculation.
Source excerpts and the complete design remain readable below.
Use these fictional originals to check the number, period, version and permission behind each output. Missing or conflicting evidence remains visible. These are teaching records, not client results.
Synthetic source. Case D-01 asks for a one-week role-capacity comparison, not a staffing recommendation or revenue forecast. The target is simulation week 1. There are 6 comparable candidate packs of qualified demand, 40 analyst hours and 8 partner hours. R is available qualified-reviewer hours, a whole number from 4 to 24, default 12.
Use boundary: Synthetic fixture; private review within this fictional case only.
Synthetic source. For simulation week 1 only: analyst availability 40 hours; qualified-reviewer availability R hours; partner availability 8 hours. R comes from the selected fictional allocation scenario. Allocation describes available active effort, not signed client acceptance or bankable revenue.
Use boundary: Synthetic fixture; private review within this fictional case only.
Synthetic source. The reviewer allocation of R hours is labelled simulation week 0. No week-1 reviewer allocation is supplied in this exception fixture. Analyst and partner week-1 totals remain 40 and 8. Do not treat the old reviewer number as zero or as verified current capacity.
Use boundary: Comparison only; wrong-period evidence cannot support the target week's conclusion.
Synthetic source. The evidence owner supplies the selected R reviewer hours explicitly for simulation week 1, matching D-01. Analyst availability remains 40 and partner availability remains 8. This corrects period applicability only; the reviewer still owns the comparison and professional conclusion.
Use boundary: Synthetic fixture; private review within this fictional case only.
Synthetic source. Per comparable pack, analyst effort is 8 hours and partner effort is 2 hours under both methods. Current reviewer effort = 3 review + 1 correction = 4 hours. Proposed reviewer effort = 2 review + 0.5 correction + 0.5 operating = 3 hours. For each method, whole-pack capacity = min(floor(40/8), floor(R/reviewer hours per pack), floor(8/2), 6 demand). Floor each role before taking the minimum. No client acceptance, quality equivalence or realised gain is established by these assumptions.
Use boundary: Synthetic fixture; private review within this fictional case only.
Synthetic source. The issue draft must show both methods, the original source versions, all role and demand ceilings, review/correction/operating effort and an alternative to changing the method. A qualified reviewer must test quality on comparable packs before issue. Client acceptance, corrections or disputes require their own record; this fixture contains no accepted client pack.
Use boundary: Synthetic fixture; private review within this fictional case only.
Synthetic source. At Traceable analysis, the fictional workpaper read stops. Retain the week-1 scope, allocation version and approved method. Technical diagnosis may compare source versions and propose recalculating in the local example; a matching number alone cannot approve restore, quality or professional issue.
Use boundary: Synthetic fixture; private review within this fictional case only.
Engagement lead receives signed brief and access decision and prepares mobilised case.
Decision: Lead approves plan and access. Permission: Signed case and source boundary.
Evidence owner receives permitted pack and exact question and prepares versioned facts, gaps and conflicts.
Decision: Evidence owner accepts version. Permission: Case-scoped internal corpus; no cross-client search.
Qualified practitioner receives accepted register and approved method and prepares findings and alternatives.
Decision: Practitioner owns conclusion. Permission: Approved method; public research sanitised.
Engagement lead receives approved findings and source trail and prepares review-ready deliverable.
Decision: Qualified reviewer signs issue. Permission: Approved claims and review space.
Client / authorised lead receives professionally approved version and prepares acceptance, correction or dispute record.
Decision: Client or authorised lead accepts. Permission: Agreed issue and acceptance channel.
Return route: Reviewer rejects findings. Missing or conflicting evidence, wrong tenant or unsupported conclusion stops work; rejected evidence or draft returns to its owner.
See the workflow’s inputs and owners ↗Use the no-fee Workflow Fit Call to discuss where your cases get held up. If there is a fit, a paid System Blueprint measures one service line and fully designs three connected workflows, with a ranked installation roadmap. Installation is separately scoped; pricing is quote-specific.
