# CP-01 · The owner is away. Why does the whole process stop?

An account-protection request depends on one person. If I owned this improvement, what would I check, record and hand over? Starting from a public case, I work through example CP-01 from intake to the post-release review.

## D01 · Intake record

- **Case**: CP-01 · Handoff of account-protection requests
- **Problem → purpose**: Context sits with one person → another operator can continue using the same evidence
- **Initial change**: One request view for evidence, responsible role and progress
- **Information requested**: A delayed request, a routine completed request and the current workaround
- **Expected change**: Less waiting and repeated clarification, checked per request

Ready for the next step when: Agree on the affected task with operations, then trace the current workflow. Keep changes to detection policy separate.

## D02 · Current workflow map

- **Intake**: Operations registers the request, targets and evidence; missing inputs go back to the requester
- **Review**: Reviewer checks evidence and applicable policy; confirm the substitute-owner rule
- **Approval**: Approver confirms targets and action scope against a review version
- **Execution and follow-up**: Executor checks target-level results; support uses those results
- **Duplicate work to examine**: Separate messages, status enquiries and manual list updates

Ready for the next step when: Connect inputs, work, records, handoffs and return paths before defining the measurements.

## D03 · Data request and metric definitions

- **Counting unit**: One request; incorrect account actions counted separately per account
- **Turnaround**: Intake to target-level result confirmation; open requests tracked separately
- **Waiting stages**: Evidence completion, review, approval and result lookup
- **Workload**: Handling time, clarification requests and duplicate entry per request
- **Comparison**: Same request types, scope and period definitions; report counts and missing data

Ready for the next step when: Align definitions and source checks with operations and the data owner, then compare improvements for the observed bottlenecks.

## D04 · Options and scope decision

- **A · Connect existing tools**: First option to assess; confirm change history and substitute-owner support
- **B · New approval inbox**: Reconsider only if existing tools cannot provide the required controls
- **C · Automated judgment**: Separate project: accuracy, incorrect actions, recovery and cost validation
- **Included scope**: Request visibility, handoff, approval scope checks and result linkage
- **Scope decision inputs**: Engineering constraints and change size; operations identifies manual work to retire

Ready for the next step when: Record the selected option, rejected alternatives and the conditions that would reopen the decision.

## D05 · Compliance review and design mapping

- **C-01 · Purpose**: Processing basis and protection purpose → privacy review → D07 fields
- **C-02 · Access**: Minimum information for operations, review, approval and execution → permission matrix
- **C-03 · Retention**: Purpose, period and deletion owner for source evidence, review versions and action history
- **C-04 · Reconsideration**: Support lookup and authorized recovery path → operating procedure
- **Decision record**: Question, reviewing role, answer date, decision and affected document version

Ready for the next step when: Link each answer to a design change. Hold the affected feature if an unresolved issue controls execution rights or essential data.

## D06 · State transitions and exceptions

- **R-01 · Evidence to review**: Operations completes required evidence; record review owner and receipt time
- **R-02 · Review to approval**: Bind targets, action and evidence into the version the approver sees
- **R-03 · Change after approval**: Return to review; preserve the difference and earlier approval history
- **R-04 · Lost response**: Check target-level outcomes before deciding whether any unprocessed target can be retried
- **Verification links**: R-01→T-01, R-02→T-02, R-03→T-03, R-04→T-04

Ready for the next step when: Define allowed and blocked actions, responsible roles, history and exceptions before specifying the screen.

## D07 · Screen fields and action specification

- **Header**: CP-01, state, owner role, last change and handoff role
- **Targets and evidence**: Masked targets, evidence reference, check time and policy version
- **Approval area**: Approved v1 alongside current v2; emphasize changed scope
- **Action controls**: Check role, state and evidence; explain why an action is unavailable
- **Pending and error states**: Result lookup, duplicate prevention, target-level outcomes and recovery route

Ready for the next step when: Walk through the same request with product, design and engineering. Resolve missing states and copy before fixing the handoff version.

## D08 · AI assignment and revision record

- **Input and assignment**: CP-01 and latest D01–D07; identify conflicts, exceptions and test candidates
- **Review example 1**: Execute after approval → execute only when targets and action still match the approved version
- **Review example 2**: Retry on failure → look up lost responses and assess confirmed unprocessed targets
- **Reason for edits**: Apply R-03 and R-04 to prevent expanded approval scope and duplicate actions
- **Record during actual use**: Tool, time, input version, original response location, editing rationale and reviewer

Ready for the next step when: Check suggestions against the source material, resolve decisions with the responsible roles and update requirements and tests together.

## D09 · Engineering handoff and decision log

- **R-01 · Evidence completion**: D06 transition ↔ D07 required evidence ↔ T-01 missing evidence
- **R-03 · Target change**: D06 review transition ↔ D07 version comparison ↔ T-03 execution block
- **R-04 · Lost response**: D06 pending result ↔ D07 result lookup ↔ T-04 duplicate prevention
- **Example decision**: Adding C after v1 approval of A/B requires review because the approved scope changed
- **Open issue entry**: Question, owner role, target date, affected scope and condition for starting work

Ready for the next step when: Agree on included scope and treatment of open items, freeze the handoff version and track subsequent changes.

## D10 · Verification scenario and defect record

- **T-03 preconditions**: CP-01; approved v1 targets A/B; role with execution permission
- **Steps**: 1 Add C; 2 save v2; 3 request execution under the previous approval
- **Expected**: Return to review, block execution and show target C and the next reviewing role
- **Observed-result field**: Not yet tested; enter observation, environment versions, time and evidence when run
- **Regression scope**: Unchanged v1 execution, rejection/resubmission and result lookup after a lost response

Ready for the next step when: Keep requirement-level results, unresolved defect impact and retest evidence before deciding on release.

## D11 · Release, recovery and operations acceptance

- **Before release**: Policy and access decisions, requirement version, QA evidence and unresolved defects
- **After release**: Role-based access, handoff, approved-version comparison and target-level result lookup
- **Stop conditions**: Out-of-scope action, duplicate action or inability to trace outcomes
- **Recovery sequence**: Stop new actions → reconcile in-flight results → restore intake route → assess account recovery
- **Retire old work**: End separate manual handoffs after reconciliation and operational acceptance; name the owner

Ready for the next step when: Check release, operations acceptance and retirement of old work separately. Set the owner and timing of the outcome review.

## D12 · Outcome review and follow-up record

- **Original problem**: Request context tied to individuals creates repeated handoffs and status checks
- **Decisions retained**: Integrate first; review changed approval scope; reconcile outcomes before retry
- **Measures**: D03 definitions for handling/turnaround, clarification, duplicate entry and incorrect actions
- **Result entry**: After measurement, enter period, count, before/after values, gaps and interpretation; no result is claimed for this example
- **Next decision**: Improvement → retain process; stagnation → investigate remaining wait; harm → reduce scope and recover

Ready for the next step when: Ensure the next owner can follow D01 through D12. Assign an owner role and next check to every unfinished item.

## AI requests

### 1 · Align vocabulary and scope

```text
Work only on CP-01 from evidence checks to the approval request.
A node is one box; the node title names it; its description states the check; the branch label belongs on the connecting line.
Separate evidence availability from approval status.
First describe your understanding of the start, checks, actions and next step. Do not change the screen yet.
```

### 2 · Apply one reviewed segment

```text
Apply the agreed evidence-check segment and leave the post-approval flow unchanged.
Give each node a title and description, label each branch and merge paths only when their outcomes match.
Align node dimensions, spacing and starting positions; route lines clear of boxes and labels.
Verify the rendered start, branches, merges and next-stage connection after editing.
```

### 3 · Challenge the missing behavior

```text
Why does every lookup failure end the process?
Separate cases that can continue with verified information from cases blocked by missing essential evidence.
For each case specify the displayed message, next responsible role and recorded event.
Update the specification and affected tests with the agreed rules.
```

Source: https://www.intelligencelabs.tech/310dadb5-6b2f-811e-9e46-f4b1ddfe6b93

https://wekeylab.com/guides/account-protection-workflow/en/