Skip to content
PROTOTYPE — MOCK DATAFigures are generated fixtures derived from the registry. Not ACF actuals.
Menu (13)
LAYER 4 · LINE MANAGER VIEW

IT Infrastructure & Operations

5 people, reporting to Pham Quang Huy. Viewing as Vu Tuan Minh (CEO).

0 OF 0 SCORECARDS CAN CARRY A RATING

Not because of a bug, and not because these people are unmeasured in some abstract sense — because 0 of 140 metrics are certified and 102 have no numeric target. The best coverage on this team is -Infinity% against a floor of 60%. This is `00` §6.1's argument, computed rather than asserted.

ROW SCOPE — 5 OF 5 SCORECARDS ARE HIDDEN FROM YOU

Outside your reporting line. This is the finding that makes Layer 4 a backend change, not a UI one: today's row-level security scopes by org unit (A-21), and a unit-scoped predicate would have let every agent on this team read every other agent's scorecard. Individual data needs scope by reporting line — a different relation, needing a position_hierarchy table and its own predicate (A-45).

Switch persona to Thuy (Head of Telesales) or HR Business Partner to see the full roster, and the E2E test it implies is not the S1-10 one: it is “two peers, same team, no rows”.

ROSTER
Team roster with scorecard coverage and cycle state
PERSONCOVERAGELANE 2STATEDRAFT RATING
Hidden — Outside your reporting line
———
Hidden — Outside your reporting line
———
Hidden — Outside your reporting line
———
Hidden — Outside your reporting line
———
Hidden — Outside your reporting line
———
There is no column for ticket count, and there will not be one. Lane 2 measures whether a commitment was kept, not how many were made — a volume measure becomes a target for volume inside one cycle, and the work does not improve.

R-S-16 is live on this page and is not biting. 5 people, at or above the 5-person floor. Below the floor, the distribution and both team charts are replaced by a stated refusal rather than quietly dropped — an absent chart reads as an oversight, and the next person restores it.

ELIGIBILITY GATE — CLOSED · IT Infrastructure & Operations
0 of 4 conditions met

No individual in this unit can be rated until all four are green. Everything on this page that is visibility works regardless — nothing here scores anybody, which is the entire reason L4-A could ship while L4-B waits.

  1. G1Signed org chart with a named headnot met

    Head named and in post. chart_signed_on is still null - DEC-02 has not been issued

    org_unit.head_employee_id IS NOT NULL AND chart_signed_on IS NOT NULL

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

    No DoA matrix exists company-wide

    row present in doa_matrix

    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

    appraisal_cycle.status='open' AND roster coverage = 100%

    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

    computed from the registry

    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.

Evaluation question L4: as a line manager, is the distribution screen a tool or a blunt instrument? The cycle behind it.