Discovery Agent · Evidence to governed delivery

One workflow enters as a request.
Watch it earn its way forward.

Follow a synthetic wire-exception workflow from stakeholder intake and source-linked evidence through human decisions, accountable delivery, controlled release and outcome review.

Discovery Agent structures the evidence and drafts the case. Named client owners decide. The Innorve pod completes and deploys the approved solution on the institution's approved stack.

01 REQUEST02 EVIDENCE03 SEPARATION04 CLARIFY05 FEASIBILITY06 DECIDE07 BUILD-READY08 DELIVER09 RELEASE10 LEARN
01

Request and ownership

The request arrives as a sentence. Ownership must arrive with it.
Operations owner · opens INIT-0417
“Automate wire exceptions.”
Workflow boundarywire-exception handling
Business ownerVP Operations
Metric to baselinemanual touches per exception
Risk / control ownerNOT YET CONFIRMED
Production ownerNOT YET ASSIGNED

STATUS: INTAKE OPEN · EVIDENCE NOT YET ASSESSED — missing owners stay visible as obligations.

02

The evidence packet

The workflow is not one document. It is a contested record.
Contributed →SOP & tracker screenshotOperations SME
Contributed →Control policyRisk & control owner
Contributed →Process diagramTechnology
Contributed →Sanitized exception-log extractData owner
Contributed →Approval threadOperations owner
Contributed →Integration constraintsArchitecture owner
Contributed →Walkthrough notesFrontline SME

Every artifact keeps its contributor, revision, recorded date, freshness state and permitted-use scope.

03

Evidence separation

The record separates what is sourced, what conflicts and what remains unresolved.
Source-linked

“Six months of exception volumes” — exception-log extract · CSV

Conflict · kept visible · owner response required

“SOP: a supervisor approves exceptions” — Wire SOP v3, rev 2024

“In practice: the duty manager approves after hours” — approval thread · EML

Asserted — not yet supported · moved to unresolved register

“Takes five minutes, usually.” · “Everyone knows the workaround.” · “Should be easy to automate.”

Cited evidence stays linked to its source. Unsupported assertions stay visible — outside the decision basis.

04

Guided clarification

The system asks what the documents cannot answer.
Q → Operations owner

Who currently authorizes an exception above the desk limit?

Response recordedduty manager, after hours · interview ref · affects control design

Q → Risk & control

Which decision must remain human, and what evidence must the reviewer see?

Response recordedthreshold approval stays human, with case evidence attached

Q → Architecture

Which approved path reaches the tracker without core writeback?

Response recordedtracker API path approved; core writeback deferred

Q → Data & security

Which fields may be used and retained?

Response recordedsanitized field list · retention scope set

Q → Finance / metric owner

What baseline and observation window apply?

Response recorded6-month baseline · 90-day observation window

Disagreements branch; they are not overwritten. A strategist may resolve a conflict — the model does not resolve it by itself.

05

Feasibility, scope and assumptions

Before choosing a platform, the case must survive its constraints.
Feasibility Passport
Low-code workflow strong fit: native approval queue, approved connector to tracker
RPA on tracker partial: surface-level only, brittle under UI change
Custom core integration deferred: no API, change-control burden
Estimate band8–13 weekssynthetic · assumptions stated · dependencies open
Skeptic · advisory

Volume claim unsourced; approval-authority conflict must be resolved by the owner before build-ready.

Recommended starting point based on stated assumptions. Architecture review remains required.

06

Human disposition and solution posture

Technology is not the default answer.
Level one — intake disposition
ProceedDeferDeclineReroute → process redesign · control fix · self-service
Level two — solution posture (combinable)
Simplify first + bounded automation

Remove duplicate tracker re-keying · automate routing and evidence assembly · keep threshold-exception approval human · defer core-system writeback

Decision recorded by Operations owner · risk concurrence recorded · basis: source-linked evidence and one resolved control conflict.

Defer, decline or reroute would also have been legitimate outcomes. The record advances only when a named human decides.

07

Build-ready is earned

The chosen path becomes a reviewable implementation case.
PDDTarget-state mapSDDRACIRAIDRequirementsTest packageRunbookControl matrixRollback
Every artifact begins: draft · human review required
SME sign-offcontent matches practice
Strategist reviewone artifact returned: exception path under-specified → routed back to open questions, corrected, resubmitted
Strategist reviewaccepted on resubmission
Department leadapproval recorded
Build ready — discovery-to-planning gate passed

The model can draft. Only named humans make it build-ready. Later release decisions belong to the client's delivery governance.

08

Accountable build and test

Discovery structures the case. The Innorve pod delivers it.
Case passed to — your Innorve FDE lead

Process & operating model · Risk & controls · Automation & AI engineering

Intake & routing workflowDRAFT → REVIEWED → ACCEPTED
Human approval queueDRAFT → REVIEWED → ACCEPTED
Evidence assembly & loggingDRAFT → REVIEWED → ACCEPTED
Acceptance test 07AMBER → design assumption corrected → RE-REVIEWED → ACCEPTED
Runbook & rollback procedureACCEPTED

The generated starter is a reviewed foundation, not a production automation. The Innorve pod completes and tests the working path on the approved stack.

09

Release and controlled production

Production remains a client-owned decision.
Release pending · production owner not assigned
Operations owneruser acceptance & exception paths reviewed
Risk & controlcontrol evidence & retained human authority reviewed
Technologyintegration, security & operability reviewed
Production service ownermonitoring, support, runbook & rollback ownership accepted
Controlled release authorized — named client decisions recorded
test env → approved release window → controlled production → monitoring & exception queue

Discovery Agent: evidence, decision & case record · Innorve pod: implementation · Approved client stack: runtime · Client service owner: production operation. The Innorve lead prepares and links the evidence — the client approves.

10

Outcome return and learning

Observed results return without rewriting the projection.
Projected at decision

8–13 wks · directional, assumptions stated (synthetic)

Observed after release

delivered week 11 · recorded observation (synthetic)

Owner-confirmed

process owner's response to that exact observation — recorded

Independently validated

not yet — no independent review in this example

Calibration review: no change — comparable-outcome evidence floor not met. One outcome does not manufacture a learning claim.

An eligible, consented outcome can return to its strategic objective through OpsForge.

AI drafts. Evidence constrains. Named humans decide. Accountable teams deliver.

Terms used above
Evidence basis

which recorded source supports a statement, and what remains unresolved.

Human gate

AI may draft and challenge; a named person records the consequential decision.

Directional estimate

a bounded estimate with stated assumptions, not a guaranteed outcome.

Build ready

the reviewed case has completed its named discovery approvals; it is not yet a production deployment.

Controlled release

release occurs through the client's approved SDLC after acceptance, control and operating-ownership decisions.

Outcome status

projected, observed, owner-confirmed and independently validated states remain separate.

The system does not erase uncertainty. It shows what changed, who decided and what remains unconfirmed.

Bring us one stuck workflow

25-minute workflow fit · No production data required for the first conversation · A no-go is valid
Start the workflow fit OpsForge — the outcome record