Workflow model reviews / Delivery leads, planning owners and acceptance reviewers

Acceptance rubric

Separate workflow path coverage from outcome coverage

Keep several paths to one result from standing in for other required outcomes.

The worked case separates distinct path count from terminal-outcome coverage on the same declared graph.

Request TeamBoostAI access Get the work brief Task table (.csv)

Opens the current invite-request page. Access is subject to approval; this example is not imported automatically.

Original worked case · Manual planning resource

Inspect the decision, not just the summary.

Start with the invented evidence, follow the reasoning, and retain its limits when adapting the brief.

02 · Follow the reasoning

How the case leads to a decision

There are three declared routes and two terminal outcomes. Two rehearsed routes give 2/3 route coverage but only 1/2 terminal-outcome coverage, because both end accepted.

The bounded result

Two passing paths cover one of the two declared terminal outcomes. Accepted has evidence; cancelled has none. Retain both path diversity and terminal-outcome coverage as separate counts.

01 · Inspect the inputs

Every record stays visible

Inspect the invented case records
Declared route	Terminal outcome	Rehearsal
Pending → ready → accepted	Accepted	Pass
Pending → amended → accepted	Accepted	Pass
Pending → cancelled	Cancelled	None

Use horizontal scrolling for wide tables. These records are invented, not customer data.

Records · CSV Complete case · JSON Manual brief · Markdown

Definitions and method context

Records, decisions and policies are original synthetic examples. External references supply context; they do not validate these cases or TeamBoostAI capabilities.

NIST: state-based and event-sequence testing context ↗
General context for state-based and event-sequence testing. All graphs, guards, fixtures and recovery contracts here are original toy definitions; the source does not certify their completeness or product behavior.

External references checked 6 October 2026. Demand for these topics has not been measured.

Review the acceptance boundary

Illustrative acceptance rubric

Synthetic planning case: A toy model has two distinct routes ending accepted: pending→ready→accepted and pending→amended→accepted. It also permits pending→cancelled. The first two routes pass rehearsal.

Evidence to inspect before accepting this outcome
Criterion	Evidence	If missing	Your review
Route coverage	Two of three declared routes	Preserve path-specific evidence	Reviewed locally
Outcome coverage	Accepted only, one of two terminals	Do not double-count accepted	Reviewed locally
Cancellation outcome	No observed trace	Assign bounded receiving check	Reviewed locally

0 of 3 checks marked locally.

Marking a row records your review on this page; it does not verify evidence, save to an account or approve product work.

Decision to make: Two passing paths cover one of the two declared terminal outcomes. Accepted has evidence; cancelled has none. Retain both path diversity and terminal-outcome coverage as separate counts.

Declare terminal outcomes

Owner role · Model owner

Evidence: Accepted and cancelled have no outgoing edges in this toy model.

Map paths to actual terminals

Owner role · Reviewer

Evidence: Both recorded traces end accepted through different intermediates.

Exercise the missing outcome

Owner role · Rehearsal owner

Evidence: Cancellation has its own expected terminal state and receiving evidence.

Filled manual planning note

Invented planning text. Adapt it to your evidence and confirmed owners.

Two passing paths cover one of the two declared terminal outcomes. Accepted has evidence; cancelled has none. Retain both path diversity and terminal-outcome coverage as separate counts. There are three declared routes and two terminal outcomes. Two rehearsed routes give 2/3 route coverage but only 1/2 terminal-outcome coverage, because both end accepted. The enumerated routes are invented and bounded; they do not describe every possible real task history.

Put the outline to work

Declare terminal outcomes. Check: Accepted and cancelled have no outgoing edges in this toy model.
Map paths to actual terminals. Check: Both recorded traces end accepted through different intermediates.
Exercise the missing outcome. Check: Cancellation has its own expected terminal state and receiving evidence.

Questions about this workflow

Is the second accepted path redundant?

Not necessarily. It supplies a different route even though it adds no new terminal outcome.

Does every outcome imply every route worked?

No. Route coverage and outcome coverage describe different obligations.

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.

From a useful outline to team work

Explore TeamBoostAI for your team

Use the owned checks and downloaded brief to discuss this planning decision alongside your TeamBoostAI tasks. Confirm available fields, roles and account features separately. The example is manual; it does not calculate live analytics, create work or run an experiment in the product. Confirm the workflows available in your account before adopting this outline.

Request TeamBoostAI access