Sig workflow report
Type: agentic-system-analyses/types/agentic-system-workflow-report.md
Workflow account
Selection and evidence boundary
The representative workflow is meeting capture → private synthesis → organizational draft → human approval → team publication → teammate context. It is selected because SRC-1, README.md explicitly connects these stages, rather than merely listing separate capabilities. RT-RTE-capture-share supplies the route and its verbatim evidence; this member adds the handoff, rejection and delivery account without declaring the same route again.
The frozen source is release documentation, not application code. The boundary establishes a complete documentary artifact but a partial application loop. I inspected the complete README.md and RELEASE_NOTES_v0.1.0-beta.md under SRC-1 at the reviewed commit. These supply doctrine/design and reported operation, not an observed run. No new source was acquired. The trace below is therefore the declared sequence, not demonstrated successful execution.
Request, transformation and handoffs
| Stage | Owner and supplied material | Declared result and consequential limit |
|---|---|---|
| Enter and capture | The user opens the app and talks through a meeting, supplying raw narrative, shorthand and personal observations. | Sig receives the work account. Installation and first-run storage selection are documented in SRC-1, RELEASE_NOTES_v0.1.0-beta.md; capture input processing and its invocation contract are not supplied. |
| Private synthesis | Sig takes the capture and structures it, separating facts from personal observations. | A private note is retained locally as markdown. The user chooses the storage folder, but this does not establish approval of every local write. Synthesis prompts, fact-checking, intermediate state and model-call ownership are uninspected. |
| Prepare team material | Sig prepares a clean organizational version; the user decides what to include. | The proposed text reaches the human review step. The documents do not specify the exact input subset used to construct it, whether the user edits text directly, or how the personal layer is excluded computationally. |
| Review and send | The user reviews the exact proposed text and explicitly approves publication by clicking send. | Approval is the stated condition for team sharing. There is no supplied executable gate, checker, acknowledgment protocol or trace showing enforcement. |
| Synchronize and consume | Sig shares the approved organizational material to a central knowledge base; git is named as the background synchronization mechanism. | The README claims a teammate's Sig receives it as context immediately. Repository configuration, conflict handling, recipient selection and actual model-visible context are unspecified. |
The source support for these transitions is SRC-1, README.md, retained in RT-RTE-capture-share. The personal-layer restriction is retained in RT-CLM-private-sharing. Local storage and retention are also expressly described in SRC-1, RELEASE_NOTES_v0.1.0-beta.md:
Captures and notes are stored as plain markdown in the folder you choose during first-run setup. ---
RELEASE_NOTES_v0.1.0-beta.md
This is a handoff of work between a human, Sig and a synchronization mechanism. It does not establish agent-to-agent delegation. The source does not disclose separate agents, task assignments, worker contexts, handoff prompts, return contracts or a coordinator that resumes after workers finish. Nor does it establish which transformation calls the external model. RT-RTE-provider-message is a separate documented message path; joining it to synthesis as a proven internal subroutine would invent orchestration.
Verification, rejection and recovery
The only documented acceptance decision in the selected workflow is human review of the organizational text before team publication. The user supplies the initial account, Sig proposes transformed text, and the user decides what may be shared. This is an open work request, not an experiment with expected answers. No reference-answer oracle, automated correctness check or fact-verification process is supplied. Separating facts and observations is the requested transformation, not evidence that the resulting facts are true (SRC-1, README.md; RT-RTE-capture-share).
The source-supported rejection boundary is withholding publication approval: the declared policy says nothing reaches the team without explicit approval. That supports a human veto on the proposed share, but not a documented reject button, revision loop, draft deletion or automatic regeneration. The private note precedes that gate; rejection of sharing is not documented as rejection or rollback of the local capture. The policy remains claimed, with implementation and operation uninspected (RT-CLM-private-sharing, SRC-1, README.md).
No failure-recovery sequence is specified in the inspected README or release notes. For a synthesis error, provider failure or git synchronization conflict, retry ownership, preserved intermediate state, resumption conditions and terminal failure reporting cannot be established. The user can delete local files, and uninstallation leaves captures behind, but neither operation establishes rollback of a team publication:
Your captures stay on your computer as plain markdown in the folder you picked during setup. Delete that folder if you want them gone. ---
RELEASE_NOTES_v0.1.0-beta.md
Remote retraction and stale recipient-context invalidation remain unresolved. This is a bounded recovery limit, not evidence that the app lacks recovery.
Delivery and its limits
There are two declared delivery milestones. Private capture yields a local structured note; approved sharing yields organizational knowledge that is claimed to reach a teammate's Sig as context. Review-ready text is a proposal, not team delivery. Clicking send is the user's publication action, not observed synchronization success. The documentation claims immediate recipient context but supplies no completion signal, payload trace or downstream invocation proving what was consumed (RT-RTE-capture-share, SRC-1, README.md).
The approval policy covers team publication, not all outbound traffic. Provider messages have a separately described direct egress path; telemetry is also separate. Consequently, this workflow cannot support a universal claim that human text approval mediates every network request (RT-RTE-provider-message, RT-RTE-analytics-egress). No observed delivery, behavioral activation or improvement in AI answers follows from the documented sequence alone.
Shared records
Components
none declared in this member
Operative objects
none declared in this member
Routes
none declared in this member
Claims
none declared in this member
Evidenced absences
none declared in this member
Behavioral-authority paths
none declared in this member
Annotations
On RT-RTE-capture-share
- Workflow selection: The source explicitly connects capture, private synthesis, organizational preparation, review/send and recipient context, making this the representative documentary workflow.
- Handoff responsibility: The human supplies the meeting account; Sig structures and proposes text; the human chooses shared contents and authorizes send; git is the named synchronization mechanism. Agent-to-agent task delegation and return contracts are uninspected.
- Verification and rejection: Exact-text human review is the stated publication gate. Withheld approval is a policy-level veto, not an inspected reject/revise implementation. No expected-answer oracle or automated correctness acceptance is disclosed.
- Recovery ownership: Uninspected — the source does not allocate retries, resumption, conflict resolution or remote retraction to a participant. Local file deletion does not establish team rollback.
- Delivery criterion: Local retention and recipient-context availability are distinct claimed milestones. The source supplies neither an observed synchronization acknowledgment nor a downstream consumption trace.