Trace
Can I explain what happened when it is disputed?
Learn to reconstruct a disputed decision from the minimum useful records and identify what becomes unknowable when a key link is missing.
Required: your AI Operating Charter and either your own workflow or the fictional starter case. AI/GPT is not required for the core simulation.
Build the timeline, select the minimum audit record and test what happens when the approval-to-version link disappears.
A traceable evidence timeline, minimum record and resolution owner for missing links.
This session uses supplied records and decision simulations. Keep the evidence label honest: designed, simulated, inspected or independently observed.
What you will leave with
A minimum evidence record and timeline. Add this to your AI Operating Charter.
Use your own workflow or the fictional quotation case. No coding or live customer action is needed.
Start with a decision · 10 minutes
A customer asks “Who approved this?” Give a colleague the chat summary alone and ask them to reconstruct the version that was sent.
Bite A · Build a timeline from records
Question: What happened, in what order?
Input: S6/S8 including approval 10:03, M-88 10:05, timeout 10:06 and later read/acknowledgement. Open the case cards.
Try · 12 minutes: Order the records and mark uncertainty or missing links. Separate the customer’s report from what the system records prove.
Compare after you have decided
A claim, an approval and an action receipt serve different purposes. Do not invent timestamps or connect an approval to the wrong version.
Keep: Evidence timeline with gaps.
Bite B · Keep the minimum useful record
Question: Could a colleague reconstruct the decision?
Input: Request Q-104, P-SEP, v2, Mira’s approval, verified recipient, M-88 and Farah’s handoff. Open the case cards.
Try · 12 minutes: Choose the fields needed to reconstruct authority, action and unfinished work. Swap records and answer what was approved, what happened and what is owed.
Compare after you have decided
Keep request, applicable source, approved version/recipient, approval, receipt/time, unresolved state and owner. Avoid unnecessary private data.
Keep: Minimum audit record.
Bite C · Test a missing link
Question: What can no longer be established?
Input: Remove the approval-to-version link from the record. Open the case cards.
Try · 12 minutes: Explain the resulting uncertainty, who resolves it and what action should remain held. Repair only from a real record, not memory.
Compare after you have decided
An approval without its version cannot show that this output was authorised. Traceability supports investigation; it is not the business outcome itself.
Keep: Missing-link finding and resolution owner.
Put it together · 20 minutes
Another learner can reconstruct the decision and action from the record without relying on the author’s memory. Revise the weakest item and have a partner use it. Keep the result and one limitation.
Close your question · 10 minutes
Return to Can I explain what happened when it is disputed? and your own opening question. Answered, partly answered or still open? Show the evidence. Save the updated AI Operating Charter. A reasoned decision to keep a step human-led is useful work.
Common trap
Do not collect every conversation by default. More data does not fix a missing approval-version link.
Does this require specialist logging tools? No. A table of the necessary evidence demonstrates the operating requirement.
Where this appears in real work
Alamak or maintenance: connect source version, approval, change and observed result using sanitised records. The class uses the fictional packet; selected project demonstrations and technical walkthroughs can add detail later.