Find customer instructions missing from production handoffs

Setup requirements

1. Use only non-safety-critical cosmetic, labeling or packaging instructions in the fixture.

2. Require explicit note scope and work-order lineage; physical proximity of a note is not sufficient authority.

3. The production owner decides semantic equivalence and whether a corrected instruction is fit to use.

4. Agree this bounded synthetic scope and confirm a real unresolved need before any implementation pilot. The written design does not authorize executing it.

Inputs and access

1. Name

   approved_order_copy.txt

   Source or owner

   Order owner

   Scope

   Synthetic order and line IDs, approved note text, note revision and customer approval evidence.

   Sensitivity

   Synthetic fixture only. A real-data pilot requires a separate minimized scope and approved handling.

   Permission needed

   Owner approval of exact data, processing environment, retention and recipients before a pilot. No pilot is authorized by this plan.

2. Name

   handoff_exports.json

   Source or owner

   Production coordinator

   Scope

   Synthetic work-order IDs, order-line links, visible instruction fields and revision timestamps.

   Sensitivity

   Synthetic fixture only. A real-data pilot requires a separate minimized scope and approved handling.

   Permission needed

   Owner approval of exact data, processing environment, retention and recipients before a pilot. No pilot is authorized by this plan.

3. Name

   instruction_scope_map.json

   Source or owner

   Order owner

   Scope

   Explicit note-to-line or note-to-entire-order scope; ambiguous positional notes labelled unresolved.

   Sensitivity

   Synthetic fixture only. A real-data pilot requires a separate minimized scope and approved handling.

   Permission needed

   Owner approval of exact data, processing environment, retention and recipients before a pilot. No pilot is authorized by this plan.

4. Name

   coverage_rules.json

   Source or owner

   Production coordinator

   Scope

   Required destinations, instruction categories and approved equivalent wording; safety-critical content excluded.

   Sensitivity

   Synthetic fixture only. A real-data pilot requires a separate minimized scope and approved handling.

   Permission needed

   Owner approval of exact data, processing environment, retention and recipients before a pilot. No pilot is authorized by this plan.

Human approval boundaries

1. Before a pilot, the accountable owner approves exact synthetic/minimized copies, processing environment, retention and allowed recipients.

2. Owner validates identity mappings, authority, status definitions and all unresolved evidence.

3. Any source mutation, account access, upload, external communication, commercial commitment, payment or changed permission requires separate appropriate authorization.

The problem

Order-specific notes may disappear or lose their product association before production. The coordinator needs to know which approved instructions are absent, conflicting or attached to the wrong work order.

Suggested task

Compare approved order-line instructions with explicitly linked production handoff copies and prepare traceable gaps.

What you could produce

An instruction-to-work-order coverage matrix with missing, conflicting and unassigned instructions for coordinator approval.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

An agent may compare varied instruction wording and explain omissions. Exact IDs and destination coverage are deterministic. If the source system reliably propagates a structured instruction field, use that native configuration and a simple validation report instead.

When this work comes up

Role

Order administrator and production coordinator

Trigger

Work-order drafts are released after a customer-specific order or note revision.

Human approval

Owner reviews scope, rules, identities and findings; operating decisions remain separately authorized.

Finished output

An instruction-to-work-order coverage matrix with missing, conflicting and unassigned instructions for coordinator approval.

Proposed evaluation scope — no pilot authorized

Scope

One approved order revision, at most 20 instructions and 10 explicitly linked work orders; cosmetic/labeling/packaging only.

Limit origin

Original editorial evaluation bound, not a verified tool limit.

Overflow action

Stop and request owner-approved partitioning; no silent truncation.

Pilot authorized

No

Evidence boundary

Source facts describe human friction; O*NET describes duties; shared official documentation supports file primitives. The six-step workflow, safeguards, numerical fixture and outputs are original proposed designs.

Proposed steps

1. 1

   Freeze the approved order revision and all expected handoff destinations.

   Output: Revision and destination manifest.

   Expected output: Revision and destination manifest.

   Checkpoint: Retain source IDs/spans and explicit unknown states. No source writes or external action.

   Approval gate: Owner approves exact inputs and rule scope before any pilot.

2. 2

   Extract instruction atoms with exact wording, source spans and owner-confirmed scope.

   Output: Instruction register.

   Expected output: Instruction register.

   Checkpoint: Retain source IDs/spans and explicit unknown states. No source writes or external action.

   Approval gate: Owner resolves ambiguous meaning, identity or authority before affected rows advance.

3. 3

   Join each scoped instruction to all explicitly linked work orders; quarantine orphan or positional-only links.

   Output: Expected instruction destinations.

   Expected output: Expected instruction destinations.

   Checkpoint: Retain source IDs/spans and explicit unknown states. No source writes or external action.

   Approval gate: Owner resolves ambiguous meaning, identity or authority before affected rows advance.

4. 4

   Compare exact text first, then propose semantic-equivalence candidates with citations; preserve negation, units and exceptions.

   Output: Coverage and conflict matrix.

   Expected output: Coverage and conflict matrix.

   Checkpoint: Retain source IDs/spans and explicit unknown states. No source writes or external action.

   Approval gate: Owner resolves ambiguous meaning, identity or authority before affected rows advance.

5. 5

   Prepare missing-instruction and conflict questions with suggested copy-only text, never new process guidance.

   Output: Coordinator correction drafts.

   Expected output: Coordinator correction drafts.

   Checkpoint: Retain source IDs/spans and explicit unknown states. No source writes or external action.

   Approval gate: Owner reviews draft findings; no operational action authorized.

6. 6

   Package the matrix and synthetic acceptance oracle for review; leave production records unchanged.

   Output: Release-review packet.

   Expected output: Release-review packet.

   Checkpoint: Retain source IDs/spans and explicit unknown states. No source writes or external action.

   Approval gate: Owner accepts the review artifact; any live change or communication needs separate approval.

Original starter prompt — proposed

Origin

editorial_proposal

Execution authorized

No

Text

Using only {approved_synthetic_inputs} and {owner_rules}, Compare approved order-line instructions with explicitly linked production handoff copies and prepare traceable gaps. Follow the six-step design. Preserve exact identities, source citations and uncertainty; make calculations inspectable. Write only separate review drafts to {approved_output_folder}. Do not guess missing facts, alter sources, access accounts, send, upload, buy, post, settle, make personnel decisions or claim the fixture passed.

Expected output schema — proposed

Primary key

1. order_id

2. order_revision

3. instruction_id

4. work_order_id

Columns

1. order_line_id

2. scope_basis

3. source_text

4. destination_text

5. coverage_state

6. conflict_detail

7. source_spans

8. owner_decision

Record status

draft_review_only

Common provenance columns

1. input_snapshot_id

2. rule_version

3. source_document_id

4. source_row_or_span

5. reviewer_decision

Unknown value policy

Unknown numeric values remain null, never zero. Preserve raw rows and typed relation/allocation IDs; unresolved rows do not silently enter approved totals.

Synthetic output illustration — not an executed result

Label

Synthetic authored example, not observed output

Synthetic

Yes

Executed

No

Input

Instruction n1

No exterior logo

W1

No exterior logo

W2

Add exterior logo

Expected

1. Work order

   W1

   State

   covered

2. Work order

   W2

   State

   conflict

   Release decision

   owner_required

Limits

1. Original proposed and untested design; no source documents this complete agent workflow.

2. A reported problem is not proof of prevalence, willingness to pay, harm magnitude or current demand.

3. Historical product reports require current-installation checks; a current capability document only establishes general primitives.

4. Native reports or a deterministic script may be simpler. Exports, identity mappings, context size, privacy controls and actual tool compatibility remain untested.

5. Numerical fixtures are synthetic and have not been executed. Owner review is necessary; no time saving, cost saving or revenue outcome is asserted.

Candidate platforms — compatibility untested

1. Name

   ChatGPT Work

   Required capabilities

   1. Assess this plan’s input, operation and output requirements before selecting an account.

   Capability source urls

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

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate only. Shared source facts are general primitives; this plan remains unexecuted.

   Workflow compatibility

   BotCurrent has not tested this workflow.

2. Name

   Claude

   Required capabilities

   1. Assess this plan’s input, operation and output requirements before selecting an account.

   Capability source urls

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

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate only. Shared source facts are general primitives; this plan remains unexecuted.

   Workflow compatibility

   BotCurrent has not tested this workflow.

Failure modes

1. A note placed between lines is attached to the wrong product.

2. A paraphrase loses a negation or reverses an exception.

3. Only one of several work orders receives a shared instruction.

Recovery and troubleshooting

1. Signal

   A note placed between lines is attached to the wrong product.

   Recovery

   Hold scope until the order owner assigns an explicit line or order-level ID.

   Resume condition

   The accountable owner supplies the missing authoritative evidence or approved interpretation; otherwise keep the affected result unresolved.

2. Signal

   A paraphrase loses a negation or reverses an exception.

   Recovery

   Show exact source and destination text side by side and require manual equivalence review.

   Resume condition

   The accountable owner supplies the missing authoritative evidence or approved interpretation; otherwise keep the affected result unresolved.

3. Signal

   Only one of several work orders receives a shared instruction.

   Recovery

   Enumerate all approved destinations and show one coverage row per instruction/destination.

   Resume condition

   The accountable owner supplies the missing authoritative evidence or approved interpretation; otherwise keep the affected result unresolved.

Unexecuted validation plan

Sample setup

Order O1 has L1 blue sleeves with instruction N1 no exterior logo. L1 creates W1 and W2. W1 contains N1; W2 says add exterior logo. L2 has a separate label instruction. N3 lies between lines without an explicit scope. An obsolete order revision has different text.

Acceptance checks

1. N1/W1 is covered and N1/W2 is a contradiction, not a paraphrase match.

2. N3 remains unassigned; no nearest-row guess.

3. The obsolete revision does not override the approved one.

4. L2 instructions do not leak into W1/W2.

5. No work order is modified or released and no technical safety procedure is authored.

6. Every conclusion traces to approved source rows or an explicitly labelled owner rule; rerunning the same frozen input must not change identities or totals.

7. All source copies remain unchanged. Any duplicate, missing key, stale snapshot or conflicting authority is held visibly.

Stop conditions

1. Input scope, required identity or calculation policy is missing.

2. Unexpected real sensitive/personal data is supplied before handling approval.

3. The requested output would require live account access, external upload/send, accounting posting, purchase, access change or irreversible action.

Executed

No

Fixture status

Designed only; no acceptance fixture or workflow executed.

Costs and effort — unknown or hypothetical

Status

unknown_or_estimate

Currency

Not specified.

Items

1. Plan access, model usage, tool runtime and storage costs unknown.

2. Export preparation, evidence cleanup, review and correction effort unmeasured.

3. No native integration, paid service, new account or software installation assumed.

4. Case-specific effort is unknown: source extraction, identity repair, owner-rule preparation, fixture design and review may dominate model cost.

Caveat

No measured time saving, current demand, ROI or price claim. Compare the simpler remedy first.

Canadian adaptation — proposed

Verify local privacy and organizational record-handling requirements before any real-data pilot; preserve original currency, business calendars and time zones. No Canadian deployment or compliance claim.