When contribution evidence is delayed or missing¶
Verified work responses and the systems that use their evidence update at different times. A work outcome may be recorded before every downstream view has caught up. Zerohive's contribution reconciliation compares records so that missing or inconsistent evidence can be investigated.
Availability: This page explains the inspected Messaging source-side recovery behavior. It does not establish a connected reconciliation screen, a user-operated replay control, a delivery deadline or complete analytics and recognition readiness. Your support team must verify the actual service and workspace state.
Start with verified work responses and recognition if you need to distinguish a sent message, verification, contribution evidence and an award announcement.
What reconciliation checks¶
The source retains records of contribution revisions prepared for publication. It can describe the records belonging to a particular day and provide their identities and integrity checks to the receiving system. The receiving system has its own responsibility to compare that information with what it actually received and processed.
This is a check of evidence records, not a second approval of the original work. A source inventory does not by itself prove that a dashboard is current, every contribution was accepted, a score was calculated or recognition was issued.
The source groups evidence by its occurrence day in UTC. That boundary can differ from the day shown in your local time zone. When reporting an apparent omission, include the approximate time and your time zone so support can compare the right period.
Replaying evidence does not repeat the work¶
Replay means sending a retained evidence record again. It preserves the original evidence bytes and original trace references while identifying the new recovery request. It does not resend your chat message, complete a task again, create a new contribution revision or grant recognition by itself.
Recovery needs the original retained evidence and matching identities. It cannot safely replace missing historical information with guesses. A changed work outcome should follow the owning process's correction path; it should not be disguised as an unchanged replay.
Reconciliation can also describe an empty source period. “No source records in this period” is different from “the receiving system has checked everything and is complete.” Support must establish both sides before treating a gap as resolved.
Why an apparently simple retry may be rejected¶
The source preserves the first recorded inventory for a closed period. Repeating that close with the same inventory reuses its original identifying information. If the inventory changes, the source rejects the repeat rather than silently replacing the original record.
Late evidence, corrections and concurrent activity therefore need careful investigation. The inspected implementation does not establish a complete automatic solution for every late arrival or historical mismatch. A failed recovery check is a reason to reconcile the records and their ownership, not to delete history or create a substitute contribution.
An authorized operator must also identify the correct source and workspace. Recovery for one source cannot be treated as permission to inspect or republish another source's records.
What to provide when asking for help¶
| What you noticed | Useful information and next step |
|---|---|
| Work is complete but its contribution is absent | Provide the work and conversation references and expected verification time. Ask whether verification was issued, retained, delivered and processed. |
| Evidence appears under an unexpected day | Include your time zone and the original occurrence time. Ask support to compare the UTC evidence period with the displayed business period. |
| A correction has not reached a downstream view | Identify the original verification and the correction's expected outcome. Ask which revision the source and receiving system currently hold. |
| A recovery attempt is rejected | Preserve the relevant references and error context for support. Do not recreate the work, repeatedly send the same message or request deletion merely to obtain a successful status. |
| Evidence appears twice | Ask support to compare the original evidence identity and revision before counting two contributions. A replay is not another piece of completed work. |
| A report remains incomplete after replay | Confirm downstream acceptance and processing with the report owner. A successful source send alone does not prove the report is current. |
Use an authorized private support channel for sensitive details. References, expected outcome and approximate times are usually a better starting point than posting private message bodies or documents.
The Messaging data-lifecycle guide explains how organization export and deletion affect retained evidence and why an export does not establish a supported restore procedure.
For managers and service owners¶
Keep decisions tied to the current work and verified evidence while a discrepancy is unresolved. Do not substitute message counts, replay counts or an empty inventory for a complete contribution assessment.
Support owns diagnosis and coordination; the owning service and authorized operators own recovery. Historical repair, retention changes and environment rollout require their separately governed procedures. This guide neither authorizes those operations nor establishes a recovery-time commitment.