Understand governance reporting and recovery¶
Governance reporting starts with a recorded outcome: a review, decision, approval, compliance action, escalation or risk-prevention claim. The source service turns that record into structured evidence that reporting services can receive and reconcile. This helps preserve responsibility and trace the result back to its work and supporting references.
A saved outcome, evidence sent for reporting and a report that has received it are different milestones. The governance source does not itself calculate a contribution score, publish an executive dashboard or confirm that every report is current. A connected reporting journey and its delivery status still need separate verification.
Read the result in context¶
Different outcomes carry different information. A decision identifies a recorded determination. An approval includes reported timing. A review or compliance action can carry a quality assessment. An escalation carries a claimed resolution and proof reference. Risk prevention carries an impact assessment and demonstration reference.
These descriptions do not add independent evidence to the original claim. In particular:
- A quality label can come from the record's supplied assessment and the service's standard classification. It is not a separate quality-review sign-off.
- Risk-prevention evidence contains an impact category and demonstration reference, without a measured financial value or calculated avoided loss.
- The reported completion time comes from the submitted record. It is not confirmation of when a report received the evidence.
- The participants carried into reporting come from the recorded outcome. They do not establish everyone who attended, voted or contributed.
For a management review, examine the source work, supporting material, actual review and relevant reporting period together. Do not interpret an absent report entry as proof that no work happened, or a positive label as proof of a measured business benefit.
Why a daily inventory matters¶
The source retains the exact evidence for each outcome revision. It can also publish a daily inventory: a list of the evidence identities expected for a particular outcome type and UTC day. A summary identifies the inventory and its expected count so that receiving services can compare what they have with what the source listed.
An empty inventory is meaningful: the source explicitly listed no evidence for that type and day. It does not prove there was no activity across the organization, that all work was recorded, or that every other source has finished reporting. The day follows the outcome's reported completion time, which may differ from the day someone later entered the record.
Once the first inventory for that exact daily grouping is retained, an exact repeat reuses it. If the source later finds a different inventory for the same grouping, it rejects the conflicting close rather than silently replacing the first one. Late entries or corrections can therefore need support reconciliation. The inspected source does not establish an automatic solution for every such conflict.
Replay recovers evidence¶
Replay asks the source to send specific retained evidence again. It preserves the original evidence and its trace information while identifying the recovery request separately. It does not reapprove a request, sign a document, rerun a review or create a new governance outcome.
Recovery is selective. The requested records must match the source's current daily inventory and their retained content. A mismatch is a reason to investigate the source and reporting state, not to change the underlying business facts or repeatedly submit the original action.
Corrections remain separate revisions of the same outcome. A reporting consumer must interpret that revision and its correction or retraction reference. Republishing a correction does not itself prove that every report has applied it, and retracting a claim does not undo the source business action.
Linked communication needs its own evidence¶
An outcome linked to communication can also publish a reference connecting that communication to the work. The source carries the recorded author and derived verifier identity. As the outcome guide explains, selecting a different verifier does not collect that person's independent confirmation.
Receipt of the governance evidence does not establish receipt of the linked-communication reference. The receiving communication and reporting services have their own processing responsibilities. Confirm actual communication content, access and review before relying on it.
Resolve a reporting discrepancy¶
| What you observe | What to establish next |
|---|---|
| The outcome is saved but absent from a report | Confirm the original save, outcome type, completion day and the receiving report's processing state |
| The report shows an earlier result | Identify the correction revision and whether that report applied it |
| The same work appears more than once | Distinguish separate outcome types, separate records, corrections and replay before assuming duplicate work |
| A daily count conflicts with later entries | Preserve the original inventory and late-entry details for authorized reconciliation |
| Replay is rejected | Have support compare the requested day, records and retained evidence; do not resubmit the business action |
| A linked message or meeting is missing | Check its own access and receiving-service state separately from governance evidence |
Give authorized support the workspace, work reference, outcome type, reported completion time, last confirmed result and correction details where applicable. Keep sensitive evidence in its approved source. These identifiers help support trace the discrepancy without requiring a public attachment containing the underlying material.
There is no verified self-service replay screen in this guide. Recovery belongs to authorized support and operations until an actual connected journey is established. A completed recovery should be checked at the receiving report as well as the source.