# Local review packet — fictional onboarding documentation

Status: proposed/local draft; handbook status: `draft_pending_owner_review`. Human review and owner approval have not been performed. Questions below are prepared, not sent. Nothing has been published or externally applied; there is no new published version, approval date or publication date. This is one execution on fictional inputs, not a completed pilot or evidence of business results.

## Working record and authority

Fixture: SYN-ONBOARDING-20261012-01. Discussion: `onboarding-qa.md`, session ONB-20261009-01, complete T01–T21 with confirmed speakers M01 (manager), N02 (new colleague), B03 (onboarding buddy). Simulated consent is recorded in the fictional source; no real consent is claimed. Turn times are elapsed from 2026-10-09T11:00:00+01:00, Europe/London; T21 ends at 11:07:04. They are not execution dates.

The five authorized sources were read in full. Baseline snapshot: 2026-10-09T10:55:00+01:00. `current-handbook.md` is approved HB-REPORTS v1.4, source effective date 2026-10-05. `pending-edits.md#EDIT-017:record` is the complete supplied relevant pending-edit list: EDIT-017, submitted 2026-10-08T16:15:00+01:00 by buddy-b03 against v1.4, remains open and unapproved, with no decision or published version. Its later submission date conveys no authority over v1.4. `document-owners.csv` identifies owner-d01 for report-handoff and report-retention and leaves contractor-report-exceptions unassigned. `publication-rules.md` supplies PUB-RULES-01. Separate revision identifiers for transcript, ownership snapshot and rules are not supplied and remain unknown.

The approved baseline remains the operational reference. M01's explanation supports the proposed addition, not a policy approval. Complete discussion evidence is later than the baseline snapshot; no later source or live state was queried. No required source file is missing. The restricted record is unavailable and outside authorized coverage; its contents and approval state are unknown.

## Proposed wording and exact claim map

`proposed-handbook.md` contains the actual draft; `handbook.patch` is a unified diff from the original. Only draft/source metadata, a draft notice and proposed subsection 3.1 are added or changed. Existing sections 1–5 and their stable anchors are retained verbatim. Section 5's approved-page reference is explicitly identified as retained baseline wording.

| Draft claim | source_reference | Baseline comparison |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Add draft report to client workspace | onboarding-qa.md T03 — 00:31 — M01; T05 — 01:10 — M01; need identified by T02 — 00:18 — N02 and T04 — 00:54 — N02 | current-handbook.md, HB-REPORTS v1.4, HB-REPORTS:approval-gate omits submission steps |
| Tag the assigned account owner there | onboarding-qa.md T03 — 00:31 — M01; T05 — 01:10 — M01 | HB-REPORTS:approval-gate omits tagging; HB-REPORTS:purpose already identifies the account owner's release role |
| Await written approval in the client workspace before client delivery; silence is not approval | onboarding-qa.md T03 — 00:31 — M01; reaffirmed by T09 — 02:40 — M01 and T20 — 06:38 — M01 | HB-REPORTS:approval-gate explicitly supplies the existing gate; repetition in steps is for clarity |
| No URL, software button or response time supplied | onboarding-qa.md T05 — 01:10 — M01 | No such details supplied in HB-REPORTS:approval-gate; none invented |
| Draft status and source-only baseline metadata | onboarding-qa.md T01 — 00:00 — M01; T21 — 07:04 — M01; scope.md Deliverables and boundaries; publication-rules.md#PUB-RULES-01:approval | HB-REPORTS:metadata and HB-REPORTS:document-review; source approval/date/version do not become draft approval/date/version |

The JSON candidate ledger is the saved extraction and page-matching record, including all T01–T21 references with speaker and elapsed time. C01 and C09 describe actual proposed edits; other candidates document deduplication, exclusions or unresolved work. For C05/C07, HB-REPORTS is only the comparison page, not an invented exception destination.

## Review questions and unresolved decisions

| Item | source_reference | question | owner | next_action |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C01 submission | onboarding-qa.md T02–T05; current-handbook.md#HB-REPORTS:approval-gate; document-owners.csv topic_id=report-handoff | Does the proposed subsection faithfully describe the routine submission process and remain current? | owner-d01 | Review steps, evidence fidelity and audience; approve or return corrections. URL, button and reply SLA remain unspecified. |
| C02 filename | onboarding-qa.md T06 — 01:38 — N02, T07 — 01:51 — M01; current-handbook.md#HB-REPORTS:filename | Has existing naming guidance been preserved without duplication? | owner-d01 | Confirm unchanged section 2; no new filename rule proposed. |
| C03 personal shortcut | onboarding-qa.md T08 — 02:18 — B03, T09 — 02:40 — M01; current-handbook.md#HB-REPORTS:approval-gate | How should the unapproved personal DM-screenshot/two-hour silence suggestion be disposed of? | owner-d01 | Resolve the suggestion in review; it is withheld from the procedure and cannot replace written approval. |
| C04 retention conflict | onboarding-qa.md T10 — 03:05 — N02, T11 — 03:23 — B03, T12 — 03:43 — M01; current-handbook.md#HB-REPORTS:retention; document-owners.csv topic_id=report-retention | Is the seven-day recollection stale, and does any orientation wording need correction? | owner-d01 | Resolve conflicting evidence. Keep 30 days after delivery followed by the workspace archive schedule until an authorized change. |
| C05 exception process | onboarding-qa.md T13 — 04:08 — N02, T14 — 04:25 — M01; current-handbook.md#HB-REPORTS:purpose; document-owners.csv topic_id=contractor-report-exceptions | Who owns contractor-report exceptions, where should instructions live, and what is the procedure? | Unassigned | Obtain an actual ownership and destination assignment through a human process; assignment authority is not supplied. Do not infer M01, account owner or owner-d01 owns it. |
| C06 confidentiality | onboarding-qa.md T15 — 04:52 — B03, T16 — 05:11 — M01; publication-rules.md#PUB-RULES-01:confidentiality | Are all generated artifacts free of restricted example details? | owner-d01 for handbook review | Review exclusion. Restricted client example excluded; no extra process step inferred. |
| C07 unavailable record | onboarding-qa.md T17 — 05:39 — N02, T18 — 05:58 — M01; current-handbook.md#HB-REPORTS:purpose | Can any case-specific approval be established from authorized evidence? | Unassigned | Keep contents and approval status unknown. No restricted lookup is authorized here. Generic submission steps do not depend on the record. |
| C08 pending edit | onboarding-qa.md T19 — 06:20 — N02, T20 — 06:38 — M01; pending-edits.md#EDIT-017:record; current-handbook.md#HB-REPORTS:approval-gate | What is the owner's decision on EDIT-017's 24-hour silence proposal? | owner-d01 | Decide separately; no decision recorded. Leave pending edit unapplied and retain written approval. |
| C09 review/publication | onboarding-qa.md T01 and T21; current-handbook.md#HB-REPORTS:document-review; publication-rules.md#PUB-RULES-01:approval | Is this patch ready for approval after fidelity, conflict, audience, confidentiality and freshness review? | owner-d01 | Conduct human review of the local packet. Record a decision separately. Only after approval and a separately authorized publication step may a new published version be recorded. |

## Audience and publication exceptions

Intended handbook audience remains client-service employees with access to the relevant client workspace. `PUB-RULES-01:author-status` permits demonstration sharing of the fictional packet but does not authorize this run to publish. `PUB-RULES-01:confidentiality` applies to every generated artifact, including this review and the diff: restricted example details are excluded and only source turn IDs identify that evidence. No confidential example is needed in the procedure. `PUB-RULES-01:claim-authority` keeps advice, uncertain recollections and pending edits separate from approved policy. `PUB-RULES-01:approval` keeps source approval, local drafting, human review and external application separate.

## Local verification and handoff

The local check record is `local-checks.json`: source hashes, JSON required-field checks, stable-anchor and unchanged-section checks, exact source-reference checks, restricted-detail exclusion, draft-state checks, and patch reconstruction on a temporary copy. These are mechanical/editorial self-checks, not human approval or independent execution-testing of the skill. Supplied sources remain unchanged. No network, external services, messages, uploads, permission changes or company-record changes were performed.

Next human action: owner-d01 reviews C01/C09 and the complete patch, considers C03/C04/C08, and checks fidelity, duplication, confidentiality, audience and freshness. C05/C07 remain unassigned and unresolved; a review packet does not assign an owner or establish a case approval. No review has occurred and no question has been sent. No pilot, time-saving measurement or customer outcome is claimed.