Getting numbers in, controllably
110 of the 140 metrics are keyed by hand today. Manual entry is therefore not an edge case to be tolerated — it is the main path, and it is where the platform either earns trust or loses it. The evaluation question is G3: does this feel controlled, or like a back door?
POS activation rate
TO BE DEFINED WITH METRIC OWNER
Source of record: no system of record. Data owner IT System Planning. Prototype — nothing is persisted. At fullstack this writes a row to SUBMISSION and an entry to the append-only ledger, never directly to the published value.
- Enter a value more than 25% away from the prior period. The plausibility check appears and demands an explanation it will not let you skip.
- Tick Not reported. The number is refused, not invented — the tile goes stale rather than carrying last month forward.
- Submit with no evidence. It will not let you.
No system of record for this metric — the number is keyed, not extracted (D-14).
Span of control tripled in one month. Almost certainly a scope change, not a real move — the form asks before it accepts.
Submitted as NOT REPORTED rather than carried forward. This is the correct behaviour and the tile will render stale, not green.
Field collector figure submitted against the all-collector metric. Resubmit against CO-08's stated grain.
You are signed in as Ngoc, who submitted SUB-1043. Open it: the approval is refused outright, not hidden. A control you can see being applied is worth more to an auditor than one asserted in a policy document — and where a function has only one person, the fallback Checker is the division GM (A-14), because four-eyes must not be defeatable by headcount.