Give Ginsi a mission.
A question to investigate. A change to watch for. Follow this illustration from an agreed mission to a finding worth your attention.
“Keep an eye on changes against our revenue goal.”
Start with what
you want to know.
Set the objective in your own words. Agree what Ginsi should examine, what matters and who should receive the finding.
- The mission
- Watch for material change
- The evidence
- Reported revenue · agreed objective
Your team approves the scope before work begins.
- Earlier reviewNo material change
Let the question
keep working.
The review returns to the same objective as new evidence arrives. It keeps a record of what changed, what did not and where the evidence falls short.
The same question. Fresh evidence. An ongoing record.
- New evidenceCompared with the agreed objective
Come back to
something that matters.
A material finding can become a Case for the person responsible: the evidence, the open questions and a basis for deciding what happens next.
The cause is still open. Your team decides the next step.
A change worth
a closer look.
Reported revenue has crossed the agreed review threshold.
Evidence carried into a CaseIllustrative Workflow · sample evidence
Explore the homepage Workflow illustrationWhat makes the review repeatable?
The Workflow contract is the recorded agreement about the question, its evidence and the work allowed. These checks define what may be approved. Activation and execution have separate requirements.
Resolve the request
A clear request within the supported scope can become a proposal. If several permitted sources or comparison periods could fit, Ginsi must ask for clarification. A request outside the supported scope is declined without creating a Workflow. Rephrasing cannot supply a missing capability or permission.
Check the permitted evidence
Code checks the proposed sources, fields and operations against what the company and Workroom may use. Unknown fields, invented capabilities and a wider scope are rejected. The language model cannot grant itself access or relax the privacy rules.
Approve an exact version
The person approving a version is separate from its author. Once published, its scope is fixed. Changing sources, comparison rules or allowed work requires a new version and approval. A draft cannot execute, and an approved version still has to pass current access checks.
Keep a record of each run
A review follows an agreed schedule or a defined change trigger. Each run records its contract version, evidence and outcome, including stopped or incomplete work. That lets a reviewer distinguish a new finding from a new interpretation of older evidence.
What the contract fixes.
| Boundary | Recorded agreement | Enforcement |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence | Named sources, permitted measures, comparison periods and the point through which data has been processed. | Source access alone does not make every field or comparison valid. |
| Access | Company membership, Workroom membership and current permission to use each source and operation. | Sharing the Workflow does not grant access to its underlying evidence. |
| Execution | Time and cost limits, checkpoints, stop conditions and bounded retries. | The model cannot increase the budget or continue past a stop condition. |
| Review-only scope | Launch reviews can surface findings as Cases for human review. Their action and delivery sets are empty. | No email or Teams delivery, customer messages or changes to external records. |
No material change
is a result, too.
A completed review with no meaningful change is different from one that lacked enough evidence to judge. A partial review must state its limits. A material finding brings new evidence for someone to review.
Evidence, recovery and decisions.
Make the comparison meaningful.
A revenue objective alone does not define a useful review. The reporting period, the meaning of each measure and the threshold for attention need to be agreed. Comparing incomplete data with a complete period could otherwise make an ordinary reporting delay look like a business change.
Know when the evidence stops being usable.
Missing reporting periods, an outdated source or a group too small to report can limit a review. These conditions must stay visible. Missing is not zero; information withheld to protect a small group is not evidence that nothing happened.
Permission is checked again when work runs. If access is withdrawn, an earlier approval cannot keep the review running outside its allowed scope. Restoring access does not automatically reactivate the Workflow.
Recover without repeating uncertain work.
A timeout does not prove that a request failed to reach an external service. The recovery contract preserves the same recorded attempt and reconciles what happened before deciding what can follow. A request whose send may already have started is not sent again simply because its reply was lost.
Retry limits, stopped work and unresolved outcomes belong in the run record. They remain visible even when a failure cannot be recovered automatically.
Carry the finding into a decision.
A material finding can become a Case: a shared investigation that keeps the evidence, interpretation and open questions together. The responsible person can add context, challenge the reading and record a decision. The launch reviews stop at that human decision: they do not send messages or change records in other systems.
A later review can then refer back to what the team knew and why it acted. It records what changed afterwards, including no material change or insufficient evidence. Improvement after a decision does not establish that the decision caused it.
