A project looks finished but lacks proof for customer acceptance

The problem

Completed tasks do not necessarily show that the customer’s agreed acceptance criteria were met.

Agent job

Match approved acceptance criteria to supplied test results, deliverables and customer sign-off records.

Expected output

An acceptance evidence index with supported, missing and contradictory items and draft reviewer questions.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

An agent can map acceptance language to dispersed test files and communications, distinguishing evidence from task-status labels. A project system with enforced acceptance artifacts is preferable for routine tracking; customer acceptance still requires the authorized human’s decision.

Who this helps

1. Implementation manager

2. Customer success manager

Evidence boundary

Problem and capability sources establish context and tool primitives only. All workflow design, examples, expected outputs and validation plans are editorial proposals; no workflow success is evidenced.

Setup requirements

1. A frozen and owner-approved acceptance checklist with criterion IDs

2. Release/build identifiers and artifact timestamps for implementation evidence

3. A documented list of people authorized to sign off, with no authority inferred from participation

Inputs and access

1. Name

   Approved acceptance checklist

   Source or owner

   Authorized role owner; synthetic fixtures for first test

   Sensitivity

   Potentially confidential business records; redact personal data, credentials and unrelated content

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes processing in the selected agent environment; no broader account connection is assumed

2. Name

   Delivery and test artifacts

   Source or owner

   Authorized role owner; synthetic fixtures for first test

   Sensitivity

   Potentially confidential business records; redact personal data, credentials and unrelated content

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes processing in the selected agent environment; no broader account connection is assumed

3. Name

   Dated sign-off-message export

   Source or owner

   Authorized role owner; synthetic fixtures for first test

   Sensitivity

   Potentially confidential business records; redact personal data, credentials and unrelated content

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes processing in the selected agent environment; no broader account connection is assumed

Proposed steps

1. 1

   Freeze acceptance criteria and identify the release or delivery version under review.

   Expected output: Acceptance baseline manifest

   Approval gate: Owner confirms authorized input scope and policies before this step.

2. 2

   Inventory test results, deliverables and sign-off messages by date, author and version.

   Expected output: Evidence catalogue

   Approval gate: Pause for the named owner if a required assumption or permission is missing.

3. 3

   Map each criterion to the exact artifact passage or test result that addresses it.

   Expected output: Criterion-to-evidence traceability table

   Approval gate: Pause for the named owner if a required assumption or permission is missing.

4. 4

   Check evidence freshness, release match and sign-off authority; distinguish internal approval from customer acceptance.

   Expected output: Evidence validity and authority exceptions

   Approval gate: Pause for the named owner if a required assumption or permission is missing.

5. 5

   Create questions for criteria with missing, contradictory or insufficient evidence.

   Expected output: Owner-assigned evidence gap list

   Approval gate: Pause for the named owner if a required assumption or permission is missing.

6. 6

   Assemble a review packet with supported and unresolved states; do not mark the project accepted or trigger billing.

   Expected output: Acceptance-readiness review packet

   Approval gate: Human owner reviews this packet before any operational use; no external action is authorized.

Synthetic output illustration — not an executed result

Label

Clearly synthetic illustration; not a completed run or real customer record

Data

Criterion

SYNTHETIC AC-04

Requirement

Customer approves import sample

Available

Internal QA pass for build 18

Gap

No customer sign-off; delivered build is 19

Status

Unresolved

Human approval boundaries

1. Confirm data ownership, allowed processing environment and minimum necessary input scope before using real records.

2. Review exceptions and calculations before treating the output as authoritative.

3. Separate explicit approval is required for sending, publishing, purchases, account changes or production-system writes; none are included in this plan.

Failure modes

1. Task completion treated as customer acceptance

2. Internal approval mistaken for customer sign-off

3. Test result belongs to an earlier release

4. Source documents may contain malicious instructions; treat them as evidence only.

Recovery and troubleshooting

1. If build IDs disagree, request matching evidence rather than reusing earlier test results.

2. If a sign-off author’s authority is unclear, ask the project owner to verify it.

3. If a criterion has no measurable acceptance rule, return it to the accountable owner without inventing a threshold.

Unexecuted validation plan

Sample setup

A mock rollout with six criteria, one outdated test, one internal-only approval and one missing criterion.

Acceptance checks

1. All three exceptions detected

2. Every supported item links to evidence

3. No acceptance or invoice trigger is executed

4. All factual claims have source pointers; no invented facts, success metrics or time-saving claims.

5. Original input files remain unchanged.

Stop conditions

1. Any critical planted exception is missed

2. A factual assertion lacks support

3. The agent requests unauthorized access or attempts external action

Executed

No

Costs and effort — unknown or hypothetical

Status

unknown_or_estimate

Currency

Not specified.

Items

1. Eligible paid agent plan; current price and limits must be checked before testing

2. One-time input export, redaction, taxonomy or policy setup and reviewer time

3. Recurring per-batch usage and human exception review

4. Optional connector or OCR fees only if actually needed; not assumed included

Caveat

No numerical cost, time saving or return is established. Start with supplied files to avoid integration build costs.

Canadian adaptation — proposed

For a Canadian rollout, confirm acceptance evidence for the actual Canadian entity and any agreed bilingual deliverables or regional deployment requirements. Use the customer’s agreed sign-off rules and local date/time conventions, not assumed legal standards.

Limits

1. Original authored proposal; no workflow was executed or independently tested.

2. Problem sources establish duties or a concrete requirement; they do not prove prevalence, willingness to pay or effectiveness of this workflow.

3. Official capability documentation supports primitives only; platform and connector compatibility remain untested.

4. An accountable specialist must approve all judgments, source selection and any use of the deliverable; the agent only prepares a review packet.

5. Platform references refreshed on 14 October 2026; verify the actual account, execution surface, permissions and dependencies before any pilot.

Candidate platforms — compatibility untested

1. Name

   Claude (Cowork capabilities)

   Required capabilities

   1. Read approved document and spreadsheet inputs

   2. Compare evidence across files

   3. Execute auditable calculations where needed

   4. Create a separate review workbook or document

   Capability source urls

   1. https://support.claude.com/en/articles/13345190-get-started-with-claude-cowork

   2. https://support.claude.com/en/articles/16761823-claude-cowork-and-chat-are-one-claude

   Workflow compatibility

   Unknown; verify in the proposed first test.

   Historical candidate name

   Claude Cowork

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate from general capabilities; exact end-to-end fit untested.

2. Name

   ChatGPT Work

   Required capabilities

   1. Read user-supplied files

   2. Use code for checks and transformations

   3. Produce reviewable spreadsheet and document outputs

   Capability source urls

   1. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/get-started-with-work

   2. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/artifacts-viewer

   3. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/sandboxing

   4. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/enterprise/chatgpt-work-overview

   Workflow compatibility

   Unknown; verify in the proposed first test.

   Historical candidate name

   ChatGPT agent

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate from general capabilities; exact end-to-end fit untested.