Where contribution evidence comes from¶
HiveOrbit uses recorded work to explain contribution and recognition. A work event, its supporting evidence, the applicable role and the calculation are different parts of that explanation. Source Health helps administrators investigate the condition of the incoming records; reconciliation checks retained records against the originating system's inventory.
For employees and managers, the practical question is whether the right work has been recorded and explained. For executives, it is whether the coverage and limitations support the decision being made. Neither a high contribution value nor a healthy source badge establishes that all work has been captured, that people are directly comparable or that an employment decision is justified.
Use the Source Health guide for the designed administration journey, contribution insights for personal and team interpretation, evidence and calculations for an individual record, and configuration for role assignments and policies.
Availability and what has been verified¶
The backend contains source contracts, publication journals, evidence processing, calculation, reconciliation and a Source Health read. The final designs show the intended administration experience. The frontend remains in progress, and this documentation does not establish that those screens or their background dependencies are running in your environment.
The inspected source catalog defines 64 activity types across 13 source systems. Every source is marked as having a ready contract; none carries measured-readiness evidence in that catalog. A contract describes what may be sent. It does not prove that every business path emits it, that historical records were imported or that delivery meets a measured service level.
The Source Health read depends on stored observations. A production path that populates those observations was not found in the inspected code. An empty health view therefore cannot be used as evidence that the system is fully monitored. Establish observation ownership and environment verification before using the screen as an operational assurance.
Catalogued work sources¶
The following table translates the current activity catalog into business language. Entries describe supported evidence categories, not an assertion that every activity in each product is scored.
| Source | Catalogued evidence categories | Activity types |
|---|---|---|
| Workflow and requests | Completed work, resolved requests, completed handoffs, recorded decisions, preventive rejection and response service-level outcomes | 6 |
| Projects | Accepted deliverables and repository evidence, completed execution items and reviews, achieved milestones, resolved dependencies and completed shared delivery | 7 |
| Cases | Completed handling, recorded responses and outcomes, resolution, completed escalation, service-level outcomes and quality review | 7 |
| Records | Completed registration, filing, retrieval, closure, disposition, review, compliance and stewardship | 8 |
| Correspondence | Published memos, prepared and dispatched letters, completed responses, confirmed delivery, completed review and approval | 7 |
| External work | Acceptance, execution, review and completion of exchanged work | 4 |
| Enterprise collaboration | Acceptance, execution, review and completion within enterprise collaboration | 4 |
| People services | Completed people-service, approval, review and operational work | 4 |
| Meetings | Recorded decisions, assigned actions, completed follow-up, verified facilitation and recorded attendance | 5 |
| Governance | Completed review, decision, approval, compliance action and escalation, and verified risk prevention | 6 |
| Messaging | A verified response linked to work | 1 |
| A verified response linked to work | 1 | |
| Shared document sessions | Completed review, signature, release and processing | 4 |
Sending a message, receiving email, attending a meeting or opening a document is not automatically a positive contribution. The event's classification, verified participation, control, supporting facts and role applicability determine its treatment. Technical processing activity does not become employee contribution merely because it appears in monitoring.
How a work record becomes an explanation¶
- The source records the work. The originating product retains an identified event and revision. Sending the same retained identity again is different from recording a new business outcome.
- HiveOrbit checks the delivery and contract. The tenant, source, version and payload must agree. Invalid records can be retained for investigation without being turned into a contribution.
- The applicable context is resolved. The processor checks licence eligibility at the event time and looks for the relevant employee, hierarchy, role assignment, model and policy. Missing context can withhold calculation; missing configuration can stop processing.
- Participation is explained. Claims and proofs connect a person and their verified role to the work. Shared work does not require dividing a fixed reward between all participants.
- Eligible contributions are valued. The current calculation uses standard model factors and creates retained calculation evidence and recognition-point entries where applicable. Neutral activity can remain evidence without a positive score or award.
- Views and recognition are updated. Period projections and recognition processing have their own conditions and limitations. Receipt, calculation, projection and award issuance are separate milestones.
- Retained inventories are compared. Reconciliation can detect missing, changed, extra or incomplete retained records. It cannot discover real-world work that the originating system never recorded.
These stages can complete at different times. A successful action in WorkOS does not promise an immediate HiveOrbit score or award. Do not repeat the business action to try to force a missing contribution; first inspect the original work and its evidence.
Why recorded work may not produce a contribution¶
Reconciliation accounts for retained work; it does not require every item to become a score or award. When investigating an item, distinguish these outcomes:
| Outcome | What it means |
|---|---|
| Accepted record | The saved work and its supporting analytics evidence satisfy the current comparison checks. Calculation and award correctness still need their own evidence. |
| Excluded under a recorded rule | The system retained the item but excluded it because it predates available supporting history, falls outside the applicable admission period, or the employee's required licence was not effective. A valid exclusion can be accounted for without awarding a contribution. |
| Waiting for admission | The work is retained but has not yet been admitted into contribution processing. It remains unresolved for reconciliation; waiting does not mean that the work was lost or invalid. |
| Incomplete or invalid | Processing or supporting evidence is missing, or retained facts do not agree. The cause needs investigation rather than an assumption about the person's contribution. |
An unexplained exclusion is not something to dismiss: support must establish the recorded reason and the relevant history, period and eligibility. A waiting item can be reconsidered after its processing conditions change, but a refresh or another comparison does not itself admit the work. There is no automatic promise of a score, award or repair deadline.
A reconciled result can therefore include legitimately excluded work. It establishes agreement under the retained-record checks, not that every recorded item was scored or that every real-world activity was captured.
Calculation and coverage limits¶
The current implementation needs further reconciliation before it can support a claim of complete period accounting. Normal evidence processing builds period updates from individual claims, while the newer personal, team and organization reads use the latest stored period revision. The inspected processing path does not establish that this revision combines every earlier contribution in that period.
The same path derives required-source confidence from the proof it is processing instead of independently checking all required source-health records. A Complete confidence label must therefore be read with its evidence and source coverage; it is not a certification that every required source was reconciled. Older scorecard rebuilding code exists separately and does not establish that the newer period projections are complete.
Saved configuration is also distinct from applied calculation. The normal evidence-processing call does not select a configured tenant bonus rule, and several factor values come from the standard implementation. Administrators should not promise a changed score merely because they saved a bonus or catalog setting. The configuration guide describes the available controls and remaining delivery gaps.
Corrections and duplicate delivery¶
An identical delivery can be recognized and handled without recreating the same retained identity. An older revision is different from a newer revision with a missing intermediate update. The processor can retain a gap until the required sequence is available.
Identity checks do not prove that two different source events describe different real-world work. A separate semantic-deduplication component exists, but its connection to the normal processing path was not established by this intake. Do not claim universal duplicate-work prevention from message retry handling.
A correction preserves the original evidence and appends compensating recognition-point entries that reference earlier entries. In the inspected normal correction path, replacement valuation and immediate recognition are skipped. This is not a general promise that every award, lifetime progress figure, comparison and historical view is automatically rebuilt or reversed. Support must inspect the affected evidence and downstream outcome.
On Source Health, the current Corrected count means corrections still pending. The label is awaiting design reconciliation. A refresh does not apply those corrections.
What source health does and does not show¶
| Signal | Useful interpretation | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| Completeness | Projected records compared with the expected count for that stored daily record | 100% can coexist with warnings; zero expected records can also produce 100% |
| Delivery delay | Time from the latest recorded occurrence to receipt, where those timestamps are available | Not average latency, oldest-record age or a recovery estimate |
| Processing delay | Time from receipt to the latest projection, where available | Any positive delay currently produces Delayed when no higher-priority state applies |
| Reconciliation | Whether the retained source inventory matches independently retained evidence under current checks | Not proof that all real-world work was recorded or that all business calculations are correct |
| Reference continuity | The condition of one selected supporting employee, hierarchy or eligibility stream | Not a complete report on every dependency |
| Reporting coverage | People currently assigned to matching source rules and visible within the permitted scope | Not historical participation or a performance assessment |
| Launch impact | Whether this record affects the specific current readiness check, or whether that relationship is unknown | Required, delayed and unhealthy do not each imply a launch blocker |
Summary cards count matching daily records across the selected filters and pages. They do not count distinct services, unique employees or every source in the catalog. Use the guide to avoid confusing filtered totals with complete platform coverage.
Period closure and recognition¶
Background processing starts closure and reconciliation as separate pieces of work. Reconciliation uses completed days in UTC, the time standard used for these checks. On the configured first UTC processing day, closure can run before an eligible day has finished. A later scheduled run can request reconciliation for the completed UTC day immediately before its cutoff. Delayed work can still refer to an earlier scheduled cutoff, so its execution date need not be its data day.
Dispatch completion means the dispatch recorded its progress; it does not prove that all downstream work succeeded.
Recognition closure resolves configured calendar, scoring and recognition prerequisites. Missing configuration yields a waiting result. The current service creates checkpoints for day, week, month and year, but only monthly checkpoints enter recognition evaluation. It resolves a recent due period for each duration rather than performing an unlimited historical catch-up.
A month can be marked complete with no projected people, or after evaluation produces no award. The current evaluation does not independently consult source reconciliation and correction backlog before marking closure complete. Later corrections are not a promise that an already completed monthly checkpoint will automatically reopen. Treat closure, coverage, qualification and award issuance as separate facts.
Investigate a missing or unexpected contribution¶
Start with the original work and its actual state, then inspect the evidence explanation. Check the selected period and timezone, participation, applicable role assignment and any unavailable or withheld reason. If you have access, review the corresponding Source Health record and preserve its warnings.
Ask support to distinguish missing source publication, delivery delay, incomplete references, unresolved role/configuration, calculation limits and a reconciliation mismatch. Those conditions need different remedies. Repeating an action, changing a person's role or changing policy merely to make a score appear can obscure the original issue.
Operators own replay, quarantine investigation and recovery through controlled internal procedures. The public screen provides read and retry controls, not authority to replay messages or edit retained history. The current recovery services also have limits: queued reprocessing is not completed repair, some counts are estimates, and reference recovery does not by itself resolve every missing role assignment.
Questions for business review¶
Before relying on these views for a decision, establish which work categories are actually emitted in your environment, which expected sources are observed, which people and periods are included, and whether known calculation gaps affect the decision. Review the evidence with the person responsible for the work. An unexplained absence should be investigated rather than interpreted as lack of contribution.
This local draft awaits initial review by the platform owner. It does not record audience acceptance or production readiness.