Question 11 · Action and evidence
Do the next thing that can change a decision.
What should we do next, and what observation would tell us whether it worked?
Start with the equipment readiness and supplier confirmation checks. Use their exceptions to resolve launch dependencies; then run the 20-job customer pilot when equipment and delivery conditions permit. Each action needs a complete set of observations before its numerical result is known.
Repair & Reuse: fictional North and South hubs · 12-week launch · £240,000 budget · six cross-trained staff. The fixtures do not establish present readiness or an approved launch.
Fictional what-if workspace. Changes stay in this tab and reset on reload; no record is saved and no external system is changed.
Three actions, three distinct questions
Select an action to inspect its rule and simulate the evidence. “Expected” is a supplied forecast, not a result.
Action → observation → decision
Supplied evidence requirement: .
Expected: . Threshold: .
Supplied follow-up: .
How to collect useful evidence
Authored protocol: define success before observing, include failures and rework, record the observation source, and avoid counting a repeat as an extra success in the original set. A corrected observation may replace an erroneous classification; a true retest is a new round.
Try an observation round
Start from no observations, load the fixture’s expected pattern, or build a different scenario. Batch simulation replaces this action’s current round; other actions remain as entered.
Select any numbered item to inspect or correct it. An item stays unobserved until you give it an outcome.
Observation 01
This updates this tab’s scenario only. Notes are visible in the result trail. Switching items discards unapplied edits.
A flagged concern holds progression even if the numerical threshold is met. Leaving it unticked does not prove safety or confer sign-off.
What would that tell us?
Unknown
In-tab result trail
A temporary account of the selected action, outcome and changes. It is not a saved record, assurance certificate or approval. Correct a numbered observation above, clear the selected action, or reset everything.
Inspect item outcomes and notes
| Item | Outcome | Source / correction note |
|---|
Evidence, interpretation and limits
| Fixture key / action | Expected / 20 | Threshold / 20 | Minimum evidence wording | Next check |
|---|
Interpretation: the fixture notes describe expected successes out of 20, while the minimum-evidence fields mix sample size and success criteria. I treat all three actions as fixed rounds of 20 observations. Equipment and supplier fields state 20 explicitly; for the pilot, the action name supplies the 20-job denominator. I keep a partly observed round unknown even if its successes already reach the threshold.
Authored sequencing: readiness and supplier checks can start together; pilot participation requires safe, usable equipment and credible delivery arrangements. The fixture has no individual checklist, criticality ratings, acceptance definition for a “successful job”, hub allocation, observation dates, sign-off or actual results. These must be specified before a real trial. The optional concern flag shows why an aggregate score cannot override a known critical issue.
What success means here: 18/20 equipment checks is 90%, all 20 supplier fields is 100%, and 16/20 pilot jobs is 80%. The expected pilot result, 17/20 = 85%, has only one success of headroom. Meeting a rule supports the stated next check; it does not establish two-hub reliability, financial viability, a causal improvement, or readiness to open bookings. Twenty selected observations are a bounded check, not statistical proof about future performance.
Acceptance checks are explicit: each action has its expected observation, numerical decision threshold and supplied follow-up; every incomplete round retains “Unknown”. The range shows what missing observations could change, without inventing them.