BotCurrent↗
← Back to examples

Official recipe

Triage project entries against the applicable approval policy

A project manager can mistake an apparently complete entry for one that meets the correct policy, especially when exceptions differ between projects.

Read original recipe
Suggested result

A draft entry-review worksheet showing the applicable policy version, checked conditions, missing evidence and questions for the approver.

What you need: Source-named agent: Dynamics 365 Project Operations; Approvals Agent. Suggested inputs: Policy packet; Entry copies; Scope map. Use offline fictional records; keep the original entries unchanged. Write a policy-precedence table before judging entries. Workflow costs and current compatibility remain unverified.

Proposed: keep the first evaluation classification-only. Authorized staff owns policy interpretation, rejection reasons and every consequential financial approval; no automatic approval or ledger action in the proposed check.

Official recipe. BotCurrent has not independently tested this workflow.

Setup and access

Proposed inputs

  1. Name

    Policy packet

    Owner

    Policy owner

    Minimum scope

    One dated organization policy and one project exception

    Quality check

    Name the authority and effective dates.

  2. Name

    Entry copies

    Owner

    Project manager

    Minimum scope

    Six fictional records with stable IDs

    Quality check

    Preserve missing fields and units.

  3. Name

    Scope map

    Owner

    Administrator

    Minimum scope

    Projects and entry types included in this check

    Quality check

    Do not assume every project is opted in.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

  1. Use offline fictional records; keep the original entries unchanged.

  2. Write a policy-precedence table before judging entries.

Compatibility unknowns

  1. Unknown: tenant roles, customized trigger fields and whether every policy condition is actually observable.

External actions requiring approval

  1. Real-data access, persistent connections, policy changes, record rejection and financial approval.

Detailed steps and output format

At a glance

Suggested result
A draft entry-review worksheet showing the applicable policy version, checked conditions, missing evidence and questions for the approver.Suggested; untested.
Tool
Dynamics 365 Project Operations; Approvals AgentSource-named; check current access.
Suggested inputs
Policy packet; Entry copies; Scope mapProposed; access notes below.
Human review
Proposed: keep the first evaluation classification-only. Authorized staff owns policy interpretation, rejection reasons and every consequential financial approval; no automatic…
Read full note

Proposed: keep the first evaluation classification-only. Authorized staff owns policy interpretation, rejection reasons and every consequential financial approval; no automatic approval or ledger action in the proposed check.

Suggested boundaries; source approvals below.
Setup notes
Use offline fictional records; keep the original entries unchanged. Write a policy-precedence table before judging entries.Guide notes; proposed setup untested.
Cost
Workflow cost not established. Check current tool pricing, setup and human review costs before trying it.No measured cost or time added.
Content depth
Source-linked example · suggestions untestedDepth does not establish successful execution.
Check source evidence and limits ↓

Function and scope

Operations, Finance · Ongoing responsibility

Editorial classification; no execution or compatibility test is implied.

No tool mapping reviewed for this task.

Source-backed example. Practical decision guidance is proposed and untested; this is not a full implementation guide.

The problem

A project manager can mistake an apparently complete entry for one that meets the correct policy, especially when exceptions differ between projects.

Suggested task · untested

Proposed: Prepare a policy-selection and exception worksheet for one small review queue.

What you could produce

A draft entry-review worksheet showing the applicable policy version, checked conditions, missing evidence and questions for the approver.

Where these suggestions come from
  • Core problem: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
  • Agent job: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
  • Expected output: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
  • Relevant job roles: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
  • Benefit type: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
Suggestions and their limits

Describes the proposed purpose and review output; measured benefit and successful delivery are not established.

Editorial synthesis based on the linked source. This framing does not add evidence of successful delivery or results.

Before you try it · suggestions untested

Original decision guidance and first check are proposals. The source supports the attributed task; this guidance has not been executed.

Read the attributed source evidence and original caveats below ↓

Why use this

  1. The difficult part is deciding which rule applies and what evidence is absent. A tidy record can still belong to an exception path.

  2. A review worksheet could make each judgment traceable before anyone authorizes a transaction.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Relate ambiguous descriptions to a supplied rule and explain uncertainty.

Simpler alternative

Use database validation for fixed numeric limits and required fields.

Unsuitable when

The policy is disputed, required evidence is unavailable or a binding financial decision is requested.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

A draft entry-review worksheet showing the applicable policy version, checked conditions, missing evidence and questions for the approver.

Critical checks

  1. Every finding cites a rule and input field.

  2. Missing evidence remains unresolved.

  3. A project exception affects only its intended type and dates.

Missing output evidence

Unknown: no actual tenant output or completed run independently inspected.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Six invented entries: two policy-compliant, one conflicting project exception, one missing required field, one out-of-scope project and one previously classified under an older policy.

Acceptance checks

  1. Preserve all six IDs.

  2. Explain policy selection and unresolved fields.

  3. Produce no approval or rejection action.

Stop conditions

  1. Real transactions, live connections or any auto-approval request.

Tasks: Security & compliancePlanning & operationsMoney & accounting

Useful for: Project managerFinance professional

Editorial relevance from the title and source-supported actions; not evidence of the operator’s occupation.
Dynamics 365 Project Operations; Approvals AgentIndependent testing: No
Failure handling, costs and limits

Failure signals and proposed responses

  1. Signal

    Policy mismatch

    Why it matters

    A valid rule can be applied to the wrong project.

    Proposed response

    Stop classification and resolve scope.

  2. Signal

    Unsupported condition

    Why it matters

    A missing signal can look like a passed check.

    Proposed response

    List the missing evidence without guessing.

  3. Signal

    Policy changed

    Why it matters

    Old classifications may be stale.

    Proposed response

    Mark affected entries for a fresh review.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

  1. Map policy authority and field availability.

Ongoing review

  1. Review exceptions and changed policies.

Unknowns

  1. Unknown: licenses, usage charges, customization effort and exception volume.

Limits

  1. This proposed check evaluates reviewability, not legal compliance or entitlement.

Full source evidence

Official recipe · Tool workflows

Original task title: Triage project entries against the applicable approval policy

Editorial candidate. This is source-backed reporting or a documented workflow. BotCurrent has not independently tested this task. A proposed Canadian adaptation is not evidence of a Canadian deployment or compliance certification.

Original source

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dynamics365/project-operations/approvals/approvals-agent-intro ↗

Attributed to: Microsoft Learn

Supporting source context

Project documentation supporting the linked recipe’s scope, permissions and limits. These references do not establish an independent test or add counted jobs.

Official recipe
Original action type
tool_action
What the source reports
Queues submitted time, expense and material entries; applies the relevant policy; creates classification records; supports re-evaluation after policy changes.
Source outcome limits
Production-ready preview. Missing policy prevents classification for that entry type. Classification is not independently verified compliance or a completed financial approval.
Evidence attribution caveat
This official recipe describes a procedure; it does not prove successful execution or independently reproduced results.
Source approval description
Classify mode leaves approval to the project manager. Classify and auto approve mode processes eligible records automatically; Microsoft calls for prior testing.
Named tools
Dynamics 365 Project Operations; Approvals Agent; Copilot Studio; Dataverse.
Model or version
Unknown
Publication date
Unknown
Source last checked
2026-10-14
Demonstrated in Canada
Unknown
Canadian availability
Unknown
Proposed Canadian adaptation
Proposed: have the local process owner verify language, access, work rules and retention. Canadian execution and tenant availability are unverified.
Recommended approval boundaries
Proposed: keep the first evaluation classification-only. Authorized staff owns policy interpretation, rejection reasons and every consequential financial approval; no automatic approval or ledger action in the proposed check.

Explore related work

Operations examples ↗ Finance examples ↗

These tasks share reviewed function and task-category labels. Similarity does not establish an equivalent outcome or tested compatibility.