Skip to content
PROTOTYPE — MOCK DATAFigures are generated fixtures derived from the registry. Not ACF actuals.
Menu (13)
LAYER 4-B · BEHIND A FEATURE FLAG THAT IS OFF

FY2026 second-half appraisal

Decision 184/2023 — six-tier rating with forced distribution. Status: not open.

WHY THESE SCREENS EXIST WHILE THE FLAG IS OFF

So the gate is a working control, not a paragraph. `00` §6.1 argued in prose that Layer 4 should not reach people until the instruments are calibrated. A red gate that visibly refuses to let a rating be entered is worth more than any amount of that prose — and 4 of 4 conditions are red right now.

So HR and the COO can see what they would be switching on. A decision taken with the screens in front of you is a better decision. Deciding against it is a legitimate outcome — and it is evaluation question L6: is there anything here you would delete on principle?

L4B_RATING = OFFOwner: COO and HR jointly (DEC-14) — not IT— DEC-14 is open until that is named in writing.
THE SIX TIERS — PLACEHOLDERS, AND LABELLED AS SUCH
Rating tiers and their forced-distribution quotas
TIERLABELMAXMIN
A+Outstanding10%
AExceeds20%
B+Fully meets (upper)35%
BFully meets35%
CPartially meets
DDoes not meet5%

A-46 / Q-17. Tier names and quota percentages are PLACEHOLDERS (A-46). ACF's own six tiers and quotas are Q-17, and they are configuration — changing them re-renders this page and changes nothing else.

THE CYCLE, AS A STATE MACHINE
  1. 1draft
  2. 2distribution checkQUOTA CHECK
  3. 3calibrationHUMANS
  4. 4locked
  5. 5published

A manager over quota in the top tier cannot submit, and the screen names who is closest to the boundary — but the software never auto-demotes anyone. Forced distribution applied by a machine with no human in the loop is the fastest way to destroy trust in the whole platform, and it would take Layers 1–3 down with it.

Appeal is a first-class state, not an email. The evidence trail on each line is what makes it answerable.

COMPANY-WIDE READINESS
26
EMPLOYEES LOADED
26
SCORECARDS BUILT
26
PROVISIONAL
coverage below 60%
0
CAN BE RATED
gate still closed regardless

Zero is the honest answer today, and it is computed rather than asserted: with 0 of 140 metrics certified and 102 carrying no numeric target, no scorecard in the company reaches 60% coverage. Applying a forced distribution on top of that would rank staff using measurements that are keyed by hand, unowned, and in many cases untargeted.

ELIGIBILITY GATE — CLOSED · Telesales — North team
0 of 4 conditions met
  1. G1Signed org chart with a named headnot met

    Head named (Do Thi Huong) but chart_signed_on is null — DEC-02 has not been issued

    CLOSED BY
    COO / HR
  2. G2DoA entry exists for the unitnot met

    No DoA matrix exists company-wide

    CLOSED BY
    Corporate Governance
  3. G3An appraisal cycle is open and the roster is completenot met

    FY2026-H2 is not open. HR-05 is the dependency indicator for the whole programme

    CLOSED BY
    HR & Administration
  4. G4Scorecard coverage ≥ 60% and no sub-Managed line over 20% weightnot met

    Best coverage on this team is 35%. 0 of 140 metrics are certified today

    CLOSED BY
    Metric owners (it is earned, not granted)
FLAG L4B_RATING = OFFOwner: COO and HR jointly (DEC-14) — not IT

The screens exist so the gate can be demonstrated and so HR can see what they would be switching on. Deciding against it is a legitimate outcome. See what is behind the flag.

Where people actually are

Channel adapter:— same payload, same audit event. Q-21: which is authoritative?
ALERT CARD — A MISSED DELIVERY WINDOW
ACF KPI app · #telesales-data

Telesales — StringeeX daily has missed 3 consecutive windows and has been suspended. TS-01, TS-02 and TS-05 are now not_reported.

Open the feedAcknowledgeSnooze 24h

This is the §A.6 escalation, delivered where people actually are. A dashboard someone has to remember to open gets forgotten — which is how the DDR breached its cap for about twelve months before reaching a board deck.

APPROVE ACTION — AND THE RULE IT CANNOT BYPASS
ACF KPI app · direct message

SUB-1043 — NS-01 POS activation, 2026-09. Submitted by Ngoc. Awaiting a checker.

/kpi submit — A MANUAL-ENTRY DOOR
/kpi submit TS-03 4.89
  → opens the same modal as the web form
  → same plausibility check, same evidence requirement
  → lands in the same approval queue

One endpoint, one validation path, one audit trail. The chat client is a door, not a second system — exactly the bargain the CSV upload makes with the push API.

WHAT THIS INTEGRATION WILL NEVER DO
  • · Count messages as a metric. Message volume measures verbosity. The people who talk most are not the people who deliver most, and the moment a count is scored the channels fill with noise — which degrades the tool for everyone else too.
  • · Read message content for measurement. Under Decree 13/2023 that is a processing activity over employee personal data needing a lawful basis and a DPIA, and it is a line ACF cannot walk back.
  • · Request channels:history on channels it was not invited to, or read DMs. The bot sees what it is invited to and nothing else.
  • · Store message text — except a commentary the user explicitly submits against a period, which is R-P-06 and is attributed to them.
BEFORE THE FIRST INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL INGEST — ALL THREE, NOT ANY
  1. 1 · Notice to staff describing exactly what is collected, from which tools, and why — Labour Code 2019, internal labour regulations.
  2. 2 · The DPIA extended to workforce data — Decree 13/2023. R-S-10 already requires a DPIA for the analytical use of PII; this widens it to employees.
  3. 3 · An opt-out that degrades gracefully — lane-2 weight to zero and renormalise, other lanes untouched. An opt-out that penalises the person who takes it is not an opt-out, and one person on this team has already taken it.

These are Q-19 and R-S-14, they are the long pole on S7, and they depend on no code at all. They can start the day this page is read — which is why they are on it. Identity reconciliation is the other half of getting this right.