Worked research case
Solowly
Review a change with its sources and open questions.
See how a team tests whether a reviewer can understand and question a proposed change.
Read-only worked research
- For
- Leaders coordinating a consequential decision across product, operations, and finance.
- Decision
- Cross-functional teams cannot confidently act on a consequential decision when the intended change, assumptions, uncertainty, and provenance are scattered.
- Sessions
- 0 recorded
Author · The problem
The details are scattered.
The team is considering an onboarding change. The proposal, its sources, and an unanswered question are in different places, making it hard to review them together.
Move onboarding to guided self-service
Replace the default kickoff call with an in-product guided setup and optional specialist help.
We do not know whether regulated customers can complete identity setup without a live specialist.
Can regulated customers complete identity setup safely?
?Author · What to find out
Can a reviewer see the whole picture?
The creator thinks reviewers need the proposed change, its sources, and its open questions in one place. They write down what a reviewer should be able to do.
Move onboarding to guided self-service
Replace the default kickoff call with an in-product guided setup and optional specialist help.
We do not know whether regulated customers can complete identity setup without a live specialist.
Can regulated customers complete identity setup safely?
?Stakeholders will review and endorse a decision when its intended change, assumptions, uncertainty, and provenance are visible together.
- Prediction
- At least four of five eligible decision owners submit the onboarding record for review with a concrete challenge while provenance remains visible.
- What would change your mind?
- Three or more eligible decision owners omit the challenge, lose the provenance, or revert to a separate summary document.
- Alternatives
- A concise decision memo with linked sources may be enough without a structured review record.
- Confidence before testing
- 65% before participant evidence
Show authored assumption questions
- Why can the team not act confidently?
- The intended change, uncertainty, and source trail are split across meeting notes and function-specific documents.
Author · The prototypes
Try a review packet or a challenge card.
Compare a review packet with a challenge card. Both keep the proposal and its sources together.
Move onboarding to guided self-service
Replace the default kickoff call with an in-product guided setup and optional specialist help.
We do not know whether regulated customers can complete identity setup without a live specialist.
Can regulated customers complete identity setup safely?
?Show model relationships and queries
- Commands
- submitDecisionForReview, submitSummaryWithoutProvenance
- Entities and fields
DecisionRecord: title, intendedChange, uncertainty, sourceId, reviewNote, status
ProvenanceSource: label, capturedOn
- Events
- decisionSubmittedForReview, provenanceOmittedFromReview
- decisionProvenance
- DecisionRecord.sourceId → ProvenanceSource (one)
- listDecisionRecords
- DecisionRecord
Show scenario definition
{
"records": {
"DecisionRecord": [
{
"id": "example-solowly:scenario-record:DecisionRecord:1",
"title": "Move onboarding to guided self-service",
"intendedChange": "Replace the default kickoff call with an in-product guided setup and optional specialist help.",
"uncertainty": "We do not know whether regulated customers can complete identity setup without a live specialist.",
"sourceId": "example-solowly:scenario-record:ProvenanceSource:1",
"reviewNote": "No review question recorded yet.",
"status": "draft"
}
],
"ProvenanceSource": [
{
"id": "example-solowly:scenario-record:ProvenanceSource:1",
"label": "Support themes from Q2 and onboarding funnel review",
"capturedOn": "2026-08-28"
}
]
}
}Show authored model questions
- What behavior would show the record is reviewable?
- A decision owner submits the record with a concrete challenge while its intended change, uncertainty, and provenance remain together.
Tester · Try the task
Take the reviewer's place.
Review the onboarding decision and add a question about regulated customers. You can try this below.
Move onboarding to guided self-service
Replace the default kickoff call with an in-product guided setup and optional specialist help.
We do not know whether regulated customers can complete identity setup without a live specialist.
Can regulated customers complete identity setup safely?
✓A leader coordinating a consequential onboarding decision across product, operations, and finance.
Show screening and observation criteria
- Are you currently coordinating a consequential decision across more than one function? (eligibility)
Support signal: decisionSubmittedForReview is recorded
Refute signal: provenanceOmittedFromReview is recorded
Show authored prototype-test questions
- What should an eligible leader attempt?
- Open cross-functional review of the onboarding change and name the regulated-customer uncertainty reviewers should challenge.
Local simulation · not recorded
Author again · What happened
Check what happened.
The example run submits the record with a question attached. It shows how the task works; it doesn't mean a real stakeholder has approved the change or answered the question.
Move onboarding to guided self-service
Replace the default kickoff call with an in-product guided setup and optional specialist help.
We do not know whether regulated customers can complete identity setup without a live specialist.
Can regulated customers complete identity setup safely?
✓No participant evidence yet.
Show authored learning question
- What endorsement evidence exists?
- No stakeholder review sessions have run; the record is test-ready, not endorsed.
The example command supports the authored observation rule. It is a local, runnable demonstration—not participant evidence.