Identify review events
Owner role · Reviewer coordinator
Evidence: Each request and response has a timestamp and round ID.
Work measurement / Team leads and delivery coordinators
Handoff sequenceReconstruct review wait from event timestamps
Separate waiting for a review response from revision work using an explicit event timeline.
A request-to-response clock differs from created-to-accepted duration; stop each review round at the actual response.
Opens the current invite-request page. Access is subject to approval; this example is not imported automatically.
Put the outline to work
- Pair each request with its first substantive response.
- Keep revision and subsequent review rounds distinct.
- Check missing response events before publishing wait totals.
Make each handoff explicit
Sequence worksheetSynthetic example: On the same UTC day, review is requested at 09:00, a reviewer responds at 12:00, a revision runs until 14:00 and a second response accepts it at 15:00.
Separate revision intervals
Owner role · Task owner
Evidence: 12:00–14:00 is recorded as a revision interval, not review wait.
Verify the handoff rule
Owner role · Review lead
Evidence: The reporting note explains whether each response requests changes or accepts work.
Decision to make: Record three hours of first-round wait and one hour of second-round wait, with two hours of revision work kept separate.
Worked reporting note
Invented planning text. Adapt it to your evidence and confirmed owners.
Review note: two review rounds, four elapsed waiting hours, two hours in the revision interval; acceptance is separately evidenced.
From a useful outline to team work
Explore TeamBoostAI for your team
Use this manual measurement rule as context when planning or reviewing owned work in TeamBoostAI. Confirm the fields and reports available in your account; the worksheet is not imported automatically. Confirm the workflows available in your account before adopting this outline.
Request TeamBoostAI access
Opens the current invite-request page. Access is subject to approval; this example is not imported automatically.
A worked measurement study
Inspect the data. Trace the decision.
Every record here is synthetic. Use the rule to review your own evidence before taking action.
Follow the example events
- 09:00Request 1
Round 1 wait begins
- 12:00Changes requested
Revision begins
- 14:00Request 2
Round 2 wait begins
- 15:00Accepted
Second response ends wait
Work through the rule
Closed review waits = (12−9) + (15−14) = 4 hours. Total request-to-acceptance span is 6 hours; revision accounts for 2.
Review note: two review rounds, four elapsed waiting hours, two hours in the revision interval; acceptance is separately evidenced.
Invented records · inspect every count
| Interval | Start UTC | End UTC | Elapsed time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Round 1 wait | 09:00 | 12:00 | 3 hours |
| Revision | 12:00 | 14:00 | 2 hours |
| Round 2 wait | 14:00 | 15:00 | 1 hour |
On small screens, scroll a wide table sideways to see all columns.
Download example data (.csv) · Download method worksheet (.json)
Keep evidence and inference separate
Observed
Paired requests and responses
Supports closed-round waiting intervals.
Unknown
Time each reviewer actively spent
Do not turn elapsed wait into reviewer effort.
Next check
Audit one unpaired review request
Show open wait at its checkpoint.
Questions about this workflow
Does the first response mean the task is finished?
No. Here it requests revision; acceptance occurs only in the second round.
Should the full six-hour span be called review wait?
No. The span includes two hours of revision in this worked example.
What if a request is still waiting?
Treat it as an open interval at a named checkpoint; do not invent a response timestamp.
Does this create tasks in the product?
No. The brief is a manual planning resource. Use the product access link to check onboarding and the workflows available in your account.