Function coverage
Administration
The platform observes 50.0% of the 8,420 items a week in scope here, reconstructs 30.0%, and estimates that 1,684 happen where it cannot read them. This statement was produced by interview with the function and carries a band of plus or minus 24%.
The method behind this statement
Interview with the function · owned by Chief Administrative Officer · Function head
Observed is the request count. The remainder was estimated by the administration operations lead from a two-week manual tally.
The unseen share was given by the function rather than computed. It is the weakest method here and is labeled as such wherever the figure appears.
Facilities and travel requests raised by email or in person.
Who has signed for it
1 signature stands against something inside this scope. Each one names whether it came from an individual or from the office they hold.
The unseen figure for Administration came from a two-week manual tally that I ran. It is an estimate and it will be wrong in both directions on any given week.
Work filed here that the platform could not see
1 item has been filed by somebody who did the work off-platform.
Gaps raised against this function
1 gap in a chain that something must have filled.
Requests are being raised in person or by email and never entered.
What this statement is, and what it is not
Coverage can only ever be estimated from the outside. Observed is a count the platform can produce from records it holds. Inferred is a count it reconstructs by rule or by cohort. Unseen is an estimate of work the platform knows exists and cannot read, and every statement carries the method that produced it and a stated uncertainty. Nothing here is rounded up.
A coverage statement is disputable by design. The way to disagree with one is to inspect the method and the basis for the unseen figure, both of which are on the statement, rather than to argue about the number.