Use case · delivery operations
Your written process, actually applied.
Every professional services team has a handbook. It says how a statement of work is drafted, what has to be checked before a release, what hands over from sales to presales. It is correct, it is agreed, and most weeks it is not the thing that happens.
This is the use case with the least technology in it and the most value, because the assistant is not being asked to be clever. It is being asked to know what your process says and to record that somebody checked something against it.
Why this one is different
It needs nothing connected.
The other use cases wait on a database or a document library. This one runs on your own written rules and the record of checks made against them, both of which live in the governed layer already. It is the shortest path from signing to something working.
Your rules, not our template
The handbook is drafted from what you actually do, in your vocabulary, and then approved by a named person before anything uses it. Versioned, so an answer can say which version it applied.
The check is a record, not a chat
"I reviewed this against the requirements" becomes a row with the evidence quoted, the outcome, and who stands behind it. A conversation that scrolled away is not an assurance.
Undetermined is a permitted answer
If the source it needs is not reachable, the honest outcome is that the check could not be made. A tool that produces a confident verdict from nothing is worse than one that stops.
The one that had to be built
An assistant cannot sign off its own reading.
This was found by using the thing rather than reviewing it: an assistant made an assessment and then confirmed its own assessment sixteen seconds later, in the same session. Both steps were permitted. Together they turned a model's reading into a recorded human sign-off.
| The move | Why it is tempting | Why it is wrong |
|---|---|---|
| Assess, then confirm | It is the natural next tool call, and both are things the person is allowed to do. | The record then says a check was confirmed, and nobody read anything. The evidence is genuine and the assurance is not. |
| Filter the model's prose for honesty | It feels like the fix, and it can be made to pass a test. | It is unwinnable, and a filter that appears to work is worse than none, because everything downstream then assumes the text is safe. |
| Separate the two acts | Slower, and somebody has to actually do the confirming. | This is the one that holds. Reading is a draft; standing behind it is a separate act by a person who can be asked about it later. |
Why this is on a marketing page. It is the most useful thing we know about putting an assistant near a governed process, it was found the hard way, and a page that only described the happy path would be less useful to you than this row is.
Before this is real for you
What has to be true first.
Shorter than the other pages, because this use case depends on the fewest external systems. The work is yours rather than ours, which is the honest description of it.
Yours to do
- Somebody has to own the handbook. A named approver, not a committee, or nothing ever reaches approved.
- The process has to be written down somewhere, even badly. A local session drafts from what exists; it cannot draft from what nobody has said.
- Decide who may confirm a check, because that is the signature and it should not be everybody.
Ours, and where it stops
- The handbook tools work without a connected system, so a client who has connected nothing is still a serving client.
- Reviewing a document against your requirements needs the documents, and the delegated sign-in for document libraries is not configured yet.
- Answer quality is not measured here yet. The harness that separates "it answered" from "it answered correctly" has not been brought across.
Send us the checklist somebody keeps skipping.
That is the fastest thing to make real, and it is a better test of whether this helps than anything we could demonstrate on our own data.