Operational Ontology Framework workflow report

Type: agentic-system-analyses/types/agentic-system-workflow-report.md

Workflow account

The representative workflow is the weekly client review already declared as RT-RTE-weekly-review. It was selected because SRC-1, docs/conceptual-example.md, connects inputs, decision rules, an AI draft, human review and write-back in one example. This is a prescribed multi-step human–AI workflow, not an observed agent run. The boundary covers the public reference, not the unpublished implementation. Direct inspection for this member covered docs/conceptual-example.md, docs/governance-principles.md and docs/anti-patterns.md under SRC-1; all supply doctrine/design evidence. No target execution or external kit inspection was performed.

Request and drafting handoff

The source starts with a recurring review routine rather than an explicit user request or scheduled invocation. It supplies active clients, open commitments, deadlines, last confirmed status and a named source of truth. It does not identify who collects these inputs, how they reach the AI, or how the source's currency is checked. Thus the workflow has a declared input set, but no inspectable context-assembly or invocation protocol (SRC-1, docs/conceptual-example.md; RT-RTE-weekly-review).

The intended AI assignment is limited to preparing a prioritized draft. The handoff conceptually supplies both Data and Logic: overdue commitments take precedence; missing status must be flagged rather than inferred; completion requires recorded confirmation; sensitive or disputed items go to a human. These rules constrain the proposed output, not a demonstrated executable selector. The source explicitly withholds client contact and source-system updates from the AI role. No sub-agent, worker pool, parallel task distribution or separate verifier model is described in this example. The human delegator's identity and the actual prompt remain unspecified (SRC-1, docs/conceptual-example.md; RT-CMP-ai, RT-RTE-weekly-review).

Verification and rejection branch

The draft is an intermediate result for a human reviewer, not delivery of completed operational work. The reviewer decides which items are accurate, which require correction and which may proceed. This is content-level human judgment, not merely permission to start the workflow. Recorded confirmation and source-of-truth information supply the intended references; no automated answer oracle, acceptance test or fixed review checklist is supplied (SRC-1, docs/conceptual-example.md; RT-RTE-weekly-review).

A source-supported problem branch occurs when status is missing or an item is disputed. Missing status is labeled for verification instead of being filled in; disputed or sensitive items are escalated to a human. An item requiring correction is not thereby confirmed or approved. The reviewer owns the accuracy/proceed decision, but the source does not assign the subsequent editing or fact-finding work to a specific actor. It supplies neither a revision-and-resubmission loop nor a retry count. Remaining blockers can survive into write-back; escalation is not evidence that an issue was resolved (SRC-1, docs/conceptual-example.md; RT-RTE-weekly-review).

The governing completion standard rejects treating a plausible draft as evidence of execution:

Producing an answer is not evidence that work happened. Completion requires an observable result appropriate to the action. --- docs/governance-principles.md

This is a policy-level acceptance criterion, not an implemented verification gate. The human-authority mechanism and its enforcement limits remain those of RT-CLM-human-authority and RT-BAP-action-authority. No supplied trace shows a reviewer rejecting a draft or an observable result satisfying completion (SRC-1, docs/governance-principles.md, docs/conceptual-example.md).

Write-back, delivery and continuity

After review, approved status and remaining blockers are prescribed for recording in the organization's authorized source, alongside a short handoff preserving the next review point. This separates the draft producer from write-back responsibility: the AI's draft-only restriction does not prohibit the organization from recording the approved result. The physical writer, authorization interface and persistence acknowledgement are unspecified. The example therefore establishes intended delivery artifacts, not a verified durable update (SRC-1, docs/conceptual-example.md; RT-RTE-weekly-review).

The next operator is the intended consumer of continuity information:

Execution should update durable state so the next operator inherits decisions, results, blockers and the next safe action. --- docs/governance-principles.md

The weekly example narrows this to approved status, blockers and the next review point. It does not show a subsequent invocation selecting, receiving or acting on the handoff. Delivery has a prescribed organizational endpoint, but actual persistence, read-back and behavioral activation remain unobserved (SRC-1, docs/conceptual-example.md, docs/governance-principles.md; RT-RTE-weekly-review).

For execution or write-back failure, the governance document requires implementers to address idempotency, retry safety, rollback or compensation and incident ownership. It supplies no recovery executor, transaction boundary or implemented failure path. Human correction and escalation are the example's available policy responses; they cannot be promoted into a technical recovery guarantee. This limits the workflow conclusion to a coherent manual review prescription, not autonomous delivery or demonstrated reliability (SRC-1, docs/governance-principles.md, docs/conceptual-example.md; RT-RTE-weekly-review).

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-weekly-review

Workflow-specific interpretation: the consequential handoffs are input/rule supply to the draft producer, draft delivery to the human reviewer, approved content to authorized organizational write-back, and continuity information intended for the next review. Only the reviewer has an explicitly assigned content-level accept/correct/proceed decision. Input preparation, correction execution, physical writing and subsequent reload have no specified executor or interface. Missing status and disputed items take verification/escalation branches; remaining blockers need not be resolved before the approved portion is recorded. The delivered-result criterion is reviewed state recorded in the authorized source plus a next-review handoff, not the AI draft alone. These are prescribed responsibilities, not exercised handoffs or demonstrated acceptance.