Skip to content
PROTOTYPE — MOCK DATAFigures are generated fixtures derived from the registry. Not ACF actuals.
Menu (13)
?
RESOURCES
What's new

Every sprint from F0, generated from the plan ledger — including the findings, not only the features.

KPI dashboard documentation

The fourteen numbered deliverables, what each one answers and who it is for.

SUPPORT
KPI dashboard universityNOT BUILT

Not built. The nearest real thing today is the 25-minute walkthrough in 07 §2 and the tile-state gallery.

Upskill with KPI dashboardNOT BUILT

Not built. Role-based training belongs after UAT, when the packs people are trained on are the ones they will use.

Create support ticketIN THE ESTATE

ACF's service desk is ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus — already a source system here (IT-04…IT-10). Q-08 is what would let this raise a ticket rather than describe one.

Ticket dashboardIN THE ESTATE

Same system, same question. The IT Ops pack already measures its SLAs.

Give feedback

Six rounds so far, and what each one produced. This is the loop the product was actually built on.

Vu Tuan Minh (CEO)
exec · read-only
Layers
L1, L2, L3
Scope
ACF and below
Packs in scope
13 of 13
Employee record
— a role, not a person
Settings — access rules and audit →

Clears the persona and returns you to the default reader. At fullstack this is Entra ID (A-21) and the identity stops being a cookie.

← Appraisal / Underwriting
PEOPLE & LEARNING · KRI · LAGGING

KRI 376/2024 — fraud/collusion detectedAP-12

0✓ On target◇MANUAL
THRESHOLD BANDS — Decision 376/2024
DEFINITION
Formula
detected cases per quarter
Unit / direction
number · higher better
Source system
Fraud + Appraisal
Refresh
daily_t1
Target
acceptable = 0
Target status
From an ACF document
Baseline in context/
bands: 0 / 1–2 / ≥3 quarterly
OWNERSHIP — two roles, two people (R-G-02)
Metric owner — owns the target and the result
Head of Appraisal Department
Data owner — owns the source system and pipeline
IT System Planning

Both proposed by Ikigai and awaiting ACF confirmation (DEC-02).

Run the data-integrity checks on this series →
PRIORITY — PROPOSED BY IKIGAI (13 §A.2)
P3
ACF has already written a target for it in a document
Clause that fired
target taken from an ACF document (T-01) - ACF has already written a number for it
Share of people & learning
10.0%
Of total attention
1.00% at the approved weighting

The band is derived, not chosen — a published rule over facts already in the registry, re-runnable with tools/assign_weights.py. It is what the strategy simulator splits a perspective’s weight by, which is why it is not cosmetic: change this band and the shortlist changes. Q-28 asks who at ACF owns the decision.

COMMENTARY — why the number is what it is

No commentary recorded for this metric. A red tile with no explanation is the failure mode the current monthly pack already has.

Commentary is attached to the metric and period, not to a slide. It survives the month — which is what makes a variance reviewable at the next meeting instead of re-argued. Prototype — read-only fixtures; at fullstack this is the COMMENT table with author identity from AD.