Place an approved contract into the correct workflow

Why use this

1. A contract may be described as approved in conversation while several document versions and workflow instances remain visible. Moving the wrong version can restart reviews, notify unintended participants or create the impression that a substantive legal decision has already been made.

2. A precise transition preview could connect the approved document to the intended process and show the expected state change. The authorized owner could confirm that administrative action without delegating signing, acceptance or legal interpretation to the routing assistant.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Reconcile document references and workflow status while exposing ambiguity about version or destination.

Simpler alternative

Use the contract system directly when the approved document and destination are already unambiguous.

Unsuitable when

Counsel approval is missing or the requested transition itself would sign or accept legal terms.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Approved-document reference

   Owner

   Authorized legal owner

   Minimum scope

   Document ID, version and approval evidence

   Quality check

   Confirm approval applies to that exact version.

2. Name

   Workflow instruction

   Owner

   Process owner

   Minimum scope

   Current instance, destination and intended transition

   Quality check

   Identify notifications or downstream effects needing review.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Read-only exported status records and a transition preview; no contract-system writes.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Unknown: current runtime, contract connector, transition semantics and confirmation behavior.

External actions requiring approval

1. The exact workflow write and any additional notifications or sharing; signing and legal acceptance remain with authorized people.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Transition preview listing document version, current state, target state and unresolved side effects.

Critical checks

1. Approval evidence matches both document and version.

2. The proposed action is administrative and does not imply signature authority.

Missing output evidence

No new workflow run or output inspection is performed for this editorial layer. The linked implementation evidence retains the original source-specific outcome and artifact limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   Approval references an earlier document version.

   Why it matters

   The current document may contain unreviewed changes.

   Proposed response

   Stop the transition and request approval evidence for the exact intended version.

2. Signal

   Two workflows have similar names.

   Why it matters

   The contract could enter an incorrect review process.

   Proposed response

   Require an explicit destination identifier and owner-confirmed state preview.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Identify authoritative document and workflow IDs.

Ongoing review

1. Recheck state immediately before any approved write.

Unknowns

1. Unknown: transition side effects, rollback support and administrative review effort.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

A fictional contract has versions A and B, approval for A only and two similarly named destination workflows.

Acceptance checks

1. Reject the ambiguous transition proposal.

2. Name the missing version approval and destination identifier.

Stop conditions

1. Live contract data, workflow writes or legal acceptance is required.

Limits

1. This review proposal offers no legal judgment about a contract or authority to sign it.