LensReading which lens this session carries.
SC10B-1026Evidence postedlow materiality

Network study at execute

Victor Sandoval

Supply Chain · Network Design · SC10B Footprint Change

$1k

value

84%

confidence

26

people affected

1h 0m

age

1h 26m

sla

100%

progress

Currently held by

Cost-to-Serve Agent

An agent owns the next move

Raised by

Amara Tanaka

Requester of record

At station

Execute

Workflow layer · station 6 of 6

Where this train is on the line

SC10BFootprint ChangeTransactional · 6 stations

Approve study

7 q

Model impact

31 q

Business case

13 q

Board approve

3 q

Sequence

29 q

Execute

1 live

Evidence trail

Every station this unit has passed, who acted, and what they left behind

This is the readable trail.

  1. Cleared model impact

    -60m

    Cost-to-Serve Agent

    Inputs, rule version and output hash written to the evidence log

  2. Cleared business case

    -48m

    Footprint Scenario Agent

    Inputs, rule version and output hash written to the evidence log

  3. Cleared board approve

    -36m

    VP Supply Chain Strategy

    Approval recorded with rationale and policy clause cited

  4. Cleared sequence

    -24m

    Carbon Modeling Agent

    Inputs, rule version and output hash written to the evidence log

  5. Holding at execute

    -12m

    Network Strategy Agent

    Inputs, rule version and output hash written to the evidence log

What happens next

The next station and its rule

This is the last station.

Why the signal is what it is

Derived from time against commitment, not from the state

Green. This item is still inside the time it was committed to, and it is not close enough to that line for its materiality to pull it forward. Green says nothing about who holds it: an item can be green and sitting with a person.

clock 1h 0m against a commitment of 1h 26m · 70% of the time used
materiality low · blast radius 26 records or people downstream
state evidence-posted — held separately, and deliberately not part of this reading