Executive-conflict investigation-intake scoring revision approved for live use¶

Canonical pattern(s): Approval-gated optimization-state release Source Markdown: instances/hr/executive-conflict-investigation-intake-scoring-revision-approved-for-live-use.md

Linked pattern(s)¶

approval-gated-optimization-state-release

Domain¶

HR.

Scenario summary¶

An employee-relations risk steward has prepared one exact intake-scoring revision for executive-conflict workplace investigation review after replay shows that the current live profile underweights reporting-line proximity, prior protected-concern linkage, and access-sensitive retaliation indicators when senior-leader cases arrive in bursts. The candidate revision raises sensitivity for those protected conflict signals, carries forward the prior trusted profile as the restore target, and exposes blocker state if org-chart provenance, prior-case lineage, or delta-signoff evidence is incomplete. The workflow must release that exact scoring revision into bounded live use only after the Director of Employee Relations Risk approves the manifest, delta lineage, validity window, rollback packet, and named executive-conflict intake lane, while staying centered on governed optimization-state release rather than allegation substantiation, investigator assignment, executive communication, policy adjudication, or downstream case execution.

flowchart TD A["Prepare exact executive-conflict intake-scoring revision candidate"] --> B["Verify replay evidence, candidate hash, delta lineage, blocker register, named lane owner, and restore target"] B --> C{"Manifest complete with provenance, validity window, expiry, and rollback packet?"} C -->|"No"| D["Hold release until missing provenance, unresolved blockers, or control defects are corrected"] C -->|"Yes"| E{"Director of Employee Relations Risk approves that exact revision for the named protected lane?"} E -->|"No"| D E -->|"Yes"| F["Activate approved revision in the executive-conflict intake review lane and write audit trace"] F --> G{"Override spikes, protected-case misses, fairness drift, or expiry?"} G -->|"No"| H["Keep revision live only within approved scope and validity window"] H -->|"Within window"| G G -->|"Yes"| I["Restore the prior trusted profile and record rollback or expiry action"]

Target systems / source systems¶

Versioned employee-relations intake-scoring registry with the current live profile, candidate revision hash, prior trusted revisions, and supersession links
Replay and shadow-analysis workspace with hotline and manager-escalation intake history, supervisor overrides, protected-case misses, fairness checks, and committee bounce-back outcomes
Org-chart, executive reporting-line, access-scope, and prior-case lineage stores used to prove provenance for the candidate revision and highlight blocker conditions when source snapshots are stale
Approval, manifest, and delta-ledger tooling used by employee-relations leadership to authorize one bounded live scoring revision for the named executive-conflict intake lane
Audit, rollback, and restoration controls that can re-activate the prior profile if protected-case handling, fairness posture, or reviewer trust worsens
Restricted intake-review dashboards and oversight surfaces that consume the active scoring policy after approval

Why this instance matters¶

This grounds the pattern in an HR governance lane that is materially different from leave and accommodation review. The released artifact is one versioned intake-scoring revision for executive-conflict investigations, not a recommendation about case outcomes and not a decision about whether any allegation is substantiated. The approval boundary matters because sensitive investigation intake tuning can look strong in replay while still requiring explicit human sign-off on provenance, visible blockers, expiry timing, rollback readiness, and named lane ownership before one exact revision becomes live.

Likely architecture choices¶

flowchart LR Replay["Replay and shadow-analysis workspace with intake history, supervisor overrides, protected-case misses, and fairness checks"] Lineage["Org-chart and lineage stores with executive reporting lines, access scope, and prior-case references"] Approval["Approval, manifest, and delta-ledger tooling binding one exact revision, lane scope, and validity window"] Audit["Audit, rollback, and restoration controls with restore target, expiry, and rollback packet"] Registry["Versioned intake-scoring registry with live, candidate, and prior trusted revisions"] Dashboards["Restricted intake dashboards and oversight surfaces"] Replay -->|"Supplies replay evidence and guardrail checks"| Approval Lineage -->|"Supplies org-chart provenance and prior-case lineage"| Approval Registry -->|"Supplies live profile, candidate hash, and restore target"| Approval Approval -->|"Releases only the approved scoring revision"| Registry Approval -->|"Writes manifest, delta lineage, and validity window"| Audit Audit -->|"Restores the prior trusted profile on rollback or expiry"| Registry Registry -->|"Publishes the active scoring policy"| Dashboards

Approval-gated execution fits because the scoring revision can be technically ready in the registry while activation remains blocked until a named employee-relations owner approves that exact version and restricted intake-lane scope.
Human-in-the-loop review remains necessary because accountable HR risk leaders must accept the trade-offs among protected-case sensitivity, reviewer burden, and fairness posture before bounded live use begins.
A governed release agent can compare revision hashes, verify provenance snapshots, surface unresolved blockers, register the restore target, and write the audit trace, but it should not assign investigators, contact executives or reporters, decide retaliation findings, or trigger downstream case actions.

Governance notes¶

Approval should bind to one exact scoring revision, one named executive-conflict intake lane, one approver, and one validity window so later tuning edits cannot inherit stale authority.
The release manifest should preserve explicit provenance: replay cohort window, org-chart snapshot id, prior-case lineage references, candidate hash, prior trusted revision id, and field-level delta summary against the live profile.
Visible blockers such as stale executive hierarchy data, unresolved prior-case linkage gaps, or unsigned delta evidence should hold release rather than being collapsed into a generic ready state.
Expiry should restore the prior trusted profile automatically unless employee-relations leadership deliberately renews the revision after reviewing live override, miss, and fairness signals.
Rollback triggers should include unusual supervisor or committee override spikes, degraded handling of protected retaliation-adjacent cases, or fairness regression across lower-visibility worker populations.
Audit records should preserve the approved and prior revision ids, provenance artifacts consulted, blocker state at approval time, approver identity, validity timing, rollback criteria, restore action, and any manual extension or rollback decision.
The workflow must not substantiate allegations, assign investigation owners, communicate with reporters or executives, impose employment action, or open downstream execution workflows; it only governs release of the scoring revision used by human intake-review surfaces.

Evaluation considerations¶

Reduction in protected-case misses, supervisor overrides, and late committee bounce-backs after the approved scoring revision becomes live
Accuracy of manifest binding among the approved revision hash, provenance artifacts, named executive-conflict lane, and activated live scope
Reliability of automatic expiry or rollback when fairness posture, protected-case sensitivity, or reviewer-trust assumptions breach the approved guardrails
Time required for employee-relations leaders to inspect one revision, verify blocker visibility and delta lineage, approve bounded live use, and confirm safe restoration to the prior trusted profile