See how NUMA helps with the next step.

Person doing the work: Individual

1. Signal

   Calendar, travel and two urgent messages compete for the same hour.

2. Context

   NUMA brings the changed calendar, live travel time and the two chosen messages into one private morning view.

3. Understand

   The fixed appointment needs a travel buffer; one reply can wait and the other changes the route.

4. Options

   Three workable sequences show departure time, deferred messages and the risk of arriving late.

5. Approval

   The individual chooses the sequence and whether either draft reply may be sent.

6. Action

   One approved sequence replaces five disconnected reminders.

7. Evidence

   The resulting plan keeps the calendar change, route source and chosen replies together without publishing private reasoning.

Person doing the work: Individual

1. Signal

   A care appointment moves while transport and medication timing remain linked.

2. Context

   Only the care appointment, transport booking, medication window and chosen trusted contact enter this view.

3. Understand

   Moving the visit also moves the safe departure time and may conflict with medication already prepared.

4. Options

   NUMA compares accepting the new slot, requesting another time or changing transport with the care constraints visible.

5. Approval

   The individual or authorised carer confirms the revised care and transport plan.

6. Action

   The revised plan respects the private care context.

7. Evidence

   Appointment notice, chosen response, transport confirmation and medication reminder remain one private chain.

Person doing the work: Individual

1. Signal

   A cancelled connection affects arrival, pickup and a booked meeting.

2. Context

   The cancelled leg is read beside the booked meeting, pickup promise and live alternatives—nothing else from the traveller’s day.

3. Understand

   The original arrival is impossible; protecting the meeting means changing either the pickup or the route.

4. Options

   Alternative trains, a later pickup and a remote meeting are ranked by time, cost and people affected.

5. Approval

   The traveller selects the route and explicitly approves each notification or rebooking.

6. Action

   Options and consequences are ready before rebooking.

7. Evidence

   Cancellation source, selected alternative, changed bookings and sent notices remain reviewable together.

Person doing the work: Individual

1. Signal

   A letter creates a deadline, required documents and a follow-up decision.

2. Context

   NUMA links the received letter to its deadline, requested attachments and the owner’s existing document folder.

3. Understand

   Two required documents are present, one is outdated and one decision cannot be inferred from the letter.

4. Options

   The owner sees a complete-response route, a clarification request and the consequence of missing the date.

5. Approval

   The owner confirms the response, selected attachments and destination before anything leaves OPS.

6. Action

   The source and response remain one attributable chain.

7. Evidence

   Original letter, extracted deadline, approved documents, submission receipt and follow-up stay linked.

Person doing the work: Individual

1. Signal

   A receipt, product photo and fault report need to become one claim.

2. Context

   Pieter’s receipt, coffee-machine identity, fault video and retailer warranty terms are assembled inside his private OPS context.

3. Understand

   The purchase is in warranty; the visible fault and serial number meet the evidence requirement, but no claim has been sent.

4. Options

   NUMA prepares repair, replacement and retailer-contact routes with timing, packaging and data-sharing differences.

5. Approval

   Pieter selects the repair claim and approves exactly the receipt, product identity, fault evidence and contact details to share.

6. Action

   The claim is prepared with complete evidence.

7. Evidence

   The submitted claim, approved payload, retailer receipt and repair status form one chain; unrelated private context never crosses.

Person doing the work: Individual

1. Signal

   A recurring cost changes outside the expected range.

2. Context

   The changed charge is compared with its contract, earlier payments and the owner’s chosen alert threshold.

3. Understand

   The increase is real, starts next cycle and compounds beyond the amount the owner marked as acceptable.

4. Options

   Keep, downgrade, negotiate and cancel routes show annual impact, notice period and service loss.

5. Approval

   The owner chooses whether NUMA may draft a response, schedule a reminder or take no action.

6. Action

   NUMA shows impact and waits for the owner’s decision.

7. Evidence

   Price notice, comparison, chosen action and supplier confirmation remain attached to the recurring cost.

Person doing the work: Individual

1. Signal

   Travel, accessibility, meals and availability must align.

2. Context

   Only shared availability, travel needs, accessibility requirements and agreed meal preferences enter the visit plan.

3. Understand

   The first date excludes one visitor and the easiest venue creates an accessibility problem.

4. Options

   Two dates and one hybrid visit show who can attend, travel burden and meal consequences.

5. Approval

   The organiser chooses the proposal before NUMA sends any invitation or exposes availability.

6. Action

   One plan exposes conflicts before invitations go out.

7. Evidence

   The agreed date, accessibility plan, invitations and later changes stay together; rejected private details do not.

Person doing the work: Individual

1. Signal

   A private note implies a reminder without needing to be shared.

2. Context

   The private note is interpreted locally beside the owner’s reminders and chosen project—without copying its sensitive wording.

3. Understand

   A reminder is useful, but the reason behind it is not necessary for the task or anyone else.

4. Options

   NUMA offers a neutral reminder, a private follow-up or no action, each with a visible disclosure level.

5. Approval

   The owner confirms the neutral wording, timing and whether the note may remain linked privately.

6. Action

   The action exists; the sensitive reason stays private.

7. Evidence

   The reminder records its approval while the sensitive source remains separately protected.

Person doing the work: Individual

1. Signal

   A cancellation needs notice timing, proof and confirmation.

2. Context

   Contract start, renewal date, notice rule, recent invoice and cancellation channel are assembled.

3. Understand

   The owner can still avoid the next renewal, but only if the notice is delivered through the stated channel.

4. Options

   Immediate cancellation, end-of-term cancellation and downgrade show cost, access and timing.

5. Approval

   The owner chooses the exit route and approves the final notice before submission.

6. Action

   The complete exit trail remains reviewable.

7. Evidence

   Contract rule, approved notice, delivery proof and supplier confirmation form the complete exit trail.

Person doing the work: Auditor

1. Signal

   The owner requests a portable history of selected projects.

2. Context

   The owner selects projects, date range and attachment classes; unselected private areas remain closed.

3. Understand

   Some records depend on connectors, so the export must preserve source references and identify unavailable material.

4. Options

   Portable archive, evidence-only package and human-readable report show different completeness and size.

5. Approval

   The owner confirms the scope, destination and encryption choice before generation.

6. Action

   Context exports without hidden supplier dependency.

7. Evidence

   The export contains a manifest, source map, omissions and checksum so it remains usable beyond one supplier.

Person doing the work: Resident

1. Signal

   A photo, resident message and contractor availability arrive separately.

2. Context

   The House connects the leak photo, affected room, resident access window, earlier repair and contractor availability.

3. Understand

   Water must be contained now; the contractor needs location detail but no unrelated household information.

4. Options

   Emergency containment and two repair appointments show access, price and disruption.

5. Approval

   An authorised resident chooses the contractor, work scope and temporary access window.

6. Action

   The House approves one repair chain with evidence.

7. Evidence

   Request, quotation, access grant, completion photo and resident sign-off remain one repair record.

Person doing the work: Resident

1. Signal

   Residents have overlapping work, school, care and visitor commitments.

2. Context

   Each resident shares only relevant busy/free windows from work, school, care and visitor calendars.

3. Understand

   The apparent free evening conflicts with care pickup and one visitor access requirement.

4. Options

   The House proposes two shared windows and one split arrangement without exposing event titles.

5. Approval

   Residents confirm the shared entry and which participants receive it.

6. Action

   Only relevant shared availability becomes visible.

7. Evidence

   The household event keeps participant approvals and changes, while each private calendar remains private.

Person doing the work: Resident

1. Signal

   A guest needs temporary access without receiving resident authority.

2. Context

   Guest identity, door, permitted time and the responsible resident are combined for this visit only.

3. Understand

   The guest needs entry but neither resident membership nor access to other rooms.

4. Options

   Single-use code, supervised entry and timed mobile access show convenience and risk.

5. Approval

   The responsible resident chooses the method, door and expiry.

6. Action

   Access expires automatically with a retained grant record.

7. Evidence

   Grant, use, expiry and revocation are recorded without turning the guest into a resident.

Person doing the work: Resident

1. Signal

   A resident offers a tool for a defined period and condition.

2. Context

   Tool identity, condition, availability and the owner’s lending rules are prepared inside the House.

3. Understand

   The offer can be public, but household notes, address detail and member history are not part of it.

4. Options

   Direct neighbour loan, MY-HOUSE listing and no publication show reach, custody and privacy differences.

5. Approval

   The owner approves the public description, pickup window and condition rule.

6. Action

   The approved public offer reaches MY-HOUSE; private context does not.

7. Evidence

   Published offer, borrower acceptance, pickup condition and return condition form the loan trail.

Person doing the work: Resident

1. Signal

   House rules, availability, price and resident approval must align.

2. Context

   Room facts, House rules, resident approvals, available dates and desired price are assembled.

3. Understand

   Two private House rules need a publishable version; one date conflicts with resident use.

4. Options

   Short stay, recurring rental and no listing show revenue, access and household impact.

5. Approval

   The authorised residents approve dates, public description, price and house conditions.

6. Action

   The publishable offer and commercial consequence are separated.

7. Evidence

   The approved projection can reach MY-HOUSE or CORE while private deliberation stays in OPS.

Person doing the work: Resident

1. Signal

   A household asks for cleaning, repair or care support.

2. Context

   The household need, chosen photos, access limits and preferred service window are gathered privately.

3. Understand

   A provider needs a bounded job description—not the family situation that caused the request.

4. Options

   Local providers, timing and service levels are compared against access and care constraints.

5. Approval

   The resident chooses the provider-facing brief and approves publication or direct delivery.

6. Action

   Private need becomes a scoped request, not a public profile.

7. Evidence

   Request, quotes, selected scope, access grant and completion proof remain attributable.

Person doing the work: Resident

1. Signal

   Several residents contribute preferences and approval to one purchase.

2. Context

   Each resident’s preference, budget contribution and approval right are visible in one House decision.

3. Understand

   The cheapest option misses one required feature; the preferred option exceeds one member’s mandate.

4. Options

   Three products show feature fit, total cost, split contribution and delivery consequence.

5. Approval

   Every required resident confirms the item and their own contribution before purchase.

6. Action

   Authority and payment consequence remain attributable.

7. Evidence

   Preferences, approvals, payment shares, order and receipt remain one attributable House purchase.

Person doing the work: Partner

1. Signal

   A contractor needs site detail but not private household notes.

2. Context

   The contractor receives the site, task, hazard, appointment and access details selected by the resident.

3. Understand

   Private household notes and unrelated rooms do not help complete the work and must stay hidden.

4. Options

   A scoped Role App, one-time brief or supervised visit show different access and update paths.

5. Approval

   The resident confirms the exact work boundary and temporary authority.

6. Action

   The Role App exposes only the work boundary.

7. Evidence

   Viewed instructions, access use, contractor updates and completion sign-off remain in the job chain.

Person doing the work: Resident

1. Signal

   Residents prepare a shared event and choose what becomes public.

2. Context

   The Community House brings organiser tasks, resident availability, shared equipment and the proposed public invitation together.

3. Understand

   Every resident has a different role, but the public event must have one time, capacity and contact point.

4. Options

   Two dates and venue layouts show volunteer coverage, weather fallback and public capacity.

5. Approval

   Participants approve their tasks; the organiser approves the shared Community House projection.

6. Action

   MY-HOUSE receives the approved projection only.

7. Evidence

   The central event entity links each approved task and public update while private messages stay with their residents.

Person doing the work: Auditor

1. Signal

   Membership and temporary access need periodic review.

2. Context

   Current residents, managers, guests, contractors, devices and expiry dates are shown by scope.

3. Understand

   One guest grant expired, one contractor can still view a finished job and one resident role is broader than needed.

4. Options

   Keep, narrow, suspend and revoke actions show who loses which capability.

5. Approval

   The House owner or delegated manager confirms each consequential authority change.

6. Action

   Expired or excessive authority is identified before misuse.

7. Evidence

   Previous scope, reviewer, approved change and effective time remain visible after authority changes.

Person doing the work: Professional

1. Signal

   An authorised inbox receives a credible enquiry with intent, timing and contact detail.

2. Context

   The authorised inbox message is read beside existing contacts, services, availability and duplicate leads.

3. Understand

   The enquiry is credible, time-sensitive and new; one requested promise still needs clarification.

4. Options

   NUMA proposes a lead, a project or a clarification reply with ownership and next dates.

5. Approval

   The professional confirms the record type, owner and any outgoing reply with one tap.

6. Action

   NUMA proposes a lead or project with one tap and retains the source conversation.

7. Evidence

   Source conversation, accepted fields, created work item and response remain linked.

Person doing the work: Professional

1. Signal

   Scope changes affect cost, timing and earlier commitments.

2. Context

   The requested scope change is compared with the current proposal, costs, delivery plan and earlier commitments.

3. Understand

   The extra work changes price and timing; keeping the original date requires removing another deliverable.

4. Options

   Three revisions show scope, price, delivery risk and what remains unchanged.

5. Approval

   The responsible professional approves the selected revision before the client sees it.

6. Action

   The new option exposes every consequence before sending.

7. Evidence

   Request, compared versions, internal approval and sent proposal keep their sequence.

Person doing the work: Professional

1. Signal

   A meeting produces tasks, risks and decisions for several owners.

2. Context

   Transcript, agenda, referenced files and participant roles are brought into the meeting workspace.

3. Understand

   NUMA separates decisions from suggestions, identifies unresolved risks and finds two tasks without owners.

4. Options

   A decision list, task plan and follow-up agenda show owners, dates and unresolved questions.

5. Approval

   Participants confirm their decisions and owners; the chair approves the distributed record.

6. Action

   Each action keeps its reason and authority.

7. Evidence

   Each task and decision retains its meeting moment, source words, owner confirmation and later outcome.

Person doing the work: Professional

1. Signal

   A dependency slips and affects customer expectation.

2. Context

   The slipping dependency is viewed beside the plan, downstream tasks, customer promise and available capacity.

3. Understand

   Without intervention the customer date moves; only one task can be parallelised safely.

4. Options

   Resequence, add capacity and renegotiate routes show cost, risk and customer impact.

5. Approval

   The accountable lead selects the recovery route and approves any external expectation change.

6. Action

   NUMA prepares recovery options and escalation.

7. Evidence

   Original dependency, risk detection, approved recovery and customer communication form one timeline.

Person doing the work: Professional

1. Signal

   Two versions contain material differences and missing evidence.

2. Context

   Both authorised versions, their dates, authors and referenced evidence are aligned section by section.

3. Understand

   Three changes alter obligations, one attachment is missing and two edits are cosmetic.

4. Options

   Accept, reject or ask clarification actions are prepared per material difference.

5. Approval

   The reviewer confirms each material decision and the final version status.

6. Action

   The reviewer sees changes, impact and unresolved questions.

7. Evidence

   Version hashes, highlighted differences, decisions and final document remain linked.

Person doing the work: Professional

1. Signal

   A supplier cannot meet the agreed quantity or date.

2. Context

   Supplier notice, agreed quantity and date, current stock, customer commitments and alternatives are combined.

3. Understand

   The shortage affects two commitments; substituting everything would breach one quality rule.

4. Options

   Partial delivery, approved substitute and alternate supplier routes show cost, timing and affected orders.

5. Approval

   The responsible buyer approves the exception and any changed customer promise.

6. Action

   Alternatives are compared against operational impact.

7. Evidence

   Supplier notice, evaluated alternatives, approval and revised fulfilment remain attributable.

Person doing the work: Operator

1. Signal

   A mobile worker records completion, exception and photo proof.

2. Context

   The worker’s assigned task, location, checklist and permitted evidence fields are loaded on the mobile Role App.

3. Understand

   The work is complete but one visible deviation requires explanation before the office can accept it.

4. Options

   Complete, complete-with-exception and request-review states show the next responsible person.

5. Approval

   The worker confirms the captured state; a supervisor approves any consequential exception.

6. Action

   The office sees trusted state without retyping.

7. Evidence

   Time, location, checklist, photo, exception and sign-off reach the office without retyping.

Person doing the work: Professional

1. Signal

   A colleague takes over during absence or role change.

2. Context

   Active tasks, decisions, deadlines, client promises and selected source documents are grouped for the receiving colleague.

3. Understand

   Two items need action during the absence; one sensitive thread must stay with the original owner.

4. Options

   Full task handover, limited cover and escalation-only routes show authority and continuity differences.

5. Approval

   The current owner and manager confirm scope, duration and excluded context.

6. Action

   Open decisions, risks and sources travel with the work.

7. Evidence

   Transferred tasks, temporary authority, acknowledgements and return of ownership remain visible.

Person doing the work: Professional

1. Signal

   A planned action moves beyond delegated spending authority.

2. Context

   The planned purchase is compared with budget, delegated limit, project need and existing commitments.

3. Understand

   The action is justified but exceeds the professional’s authority by a visible amount.

4. Options

   Reduce scope, split timing and request approval show project and supplier consequences.

5. Approval

   The designated approver receives the complete reason and confirms or rejects the commitment.

6. Action

   The right approver receives context before commitment.

7. Evidence

   Requested amount, delegated limit, supporting context, decision and purchase remain linked.

Person doing the work: Manager

1. Signal

   Several projects compete for the same people and budget.

2. Context

   People, budget, milestones, dependencies and client commitments are compared across the active portfolio.

3. Understand

   Three projects need the same specialist in the same week; only two commitments can remain unchanged.

4. Options

   Resequence, substitute capacity and renegotiate routes show portfolio-wide trade-offs.

5. Approval

   The portfolio manager confirms priority and every resulting client or team change.

6. Action

   Trade-offs become visible across the portfolio.

7. Evidence

   Competing demands, selected trade-off, approvals and changed milestones remain reconstructable.

Person doing the work: Professional

1. Signal

   The Pocket device goes offline while authorised mail and operational events continue to arrive.

2. Context

   OPS detects the Pocket device is offline while authorised mail, tasks and operational events continue arriving.

3. Understand

   Nothing is lost, but device-bound approvals and private notifications cannot be assumed delivered.

4. Options

   Queue, approved desktop fallback and trusted-contact escalation show what can continue safely.

5. Approval

   Only fallbacks previously authorised by the user activate; new authority waits.

6. Action

   OPS queues visible work and uses only user-approved fallbacks.

7. Evidence

   Arrival time, offline period, fallback use, deferred approvals and later device receipt remain visible.

Person doing the work: Auditor

1. Signal

   A client or auditor needs the basis for one consequential decision.

2. Context

   The request is scoped to one decision, entitled requester, time range and permitted supporting records.

3. Understand

   The reason and approval are shareable; unrelated client work and private notes are not.

4. Options

   Summary, full evidence line and machine-readable export show disclosure and verification differences.

5. Approval

   The evidence owner confirms requester, scope, redactions and destination.

6. Action

   The relevant chain exports without unrelated private context.

7. Evidence

   The export records what was included, withheld, approved and checksummed.

Person doing the work: Hotel manager

1. Signal

   An absence collides with capacity, accessibility and customer arrival.

2. Context

   Absence, live staffing, required skills, customer arrivals and fixed accessibility duties are combined.

3. Understand

   The normal rota no longer covers the first arrival; one task can move and one cannot.

4. Options

   Resequence, call-in cover and reduced service routes show workload and customer impact by role.

5. Approval

   The duty manager approves the temporary operating brief and any promise change.

6. Action

   A human-approved operating brief resequences the day.

7. Evidence

   Absence signal, chosen cover, role instructions and resulting service state remain linked.

Person doing the work: Supply operator

1. Signal

   A critical delivery delay affects several teams and promises.

2. Context

   The supplier delay is matched with on-hand stock, production needs, open orders and role responsibilities.

3. Understand

   The delayed item stops one line tomorrow and affects two customer promises later in the week.

4. Options

   Reallocate, substitute and alternate-source routes show quality, cost and timing.

5. Approval

   The operations lead approves the response and each affected customer communication.

6. Action

   Each role receives the next authorised action.

7. Evidence

   Supplier notice, impact analysis, role actions and revised fulfilment remain one chain.

Person doing the work: Business owner

1. Signal

   A business owner adds an offer that affects price, capacity, channels and fulfilment.

2. Context

   The new offer is connected to product facts, price boundaries, capacity, channels, team roles and fulfilment.

3. Understand

   One source description can be shared, but each channel needs its own promise, stock or capacity rule.

4. Options

   Pilot, selected-channel and full-range launches show readiness, missing information and operational load.

5. Approval

   The business owner approves range, price limits, capacity promise and publication destinations once.

6. Action

   NUMA prepares every dependency; the owner approves the range once.

7. Evidence

   Every channel promise traces to the approved business source and version.

Person doing the work: Warehouse operator

1. Signal

   Received goods differ from expected quantity or condition.

2. Context

   Expected delivery, received units, condition evidence, dock location and responsible operators appear on the tablet.

3. Understand

   Quantity matches, but two units are damaged and must not enter sellable stock.

4. Options

   Accept, accept-with-quarantine and reject routes show stock and supplier consequences.

5. Approval

   The receiving operator confirms the count and a supervisor approves the exception.

6. Action

   Quarantine, evidence and escalation remain one flow.

7. Evidence

   Supplier confirmation flows to the operator’s tablet and approved receipt status returns to authorised Pocket devices in NUMA colours.

Person doing the work: Hotel manager

1. Signal

   Housekeeping, accessibility and early arrival signals conflict.

2. Context

   Room status, staff skills, delayed linen, early arrivals and a fixed accessibility need are read together.

3. Understand

   The accessible room and first arrival cannot move; the cleaning sequence can.

4. Options

   Three room plans show staffing, linen use, guest wait and risk.

5. Approval

   The hotel manager approves one plan before Role Apps update.

6. Action

   The manager approves one revised room plan.

7. Evidence

   Each room change retains its signal, manager authority, staff receipt and final readiness.

Person doing the work: Bartender

1. Signal

   Bar orders, kitchen capacity, courier timing and shortages diverge.

2. Context

   Bar orders, kitchen capacity, table state, menu stock and courier times enter one service view.

3. Understand

   The shortage affects two dishes; advancing pickups without resequencing would delay seated guests.

4. Options

   Substitution, pacing and temporary channel-limit routes show customer and workload impact.

5. Approval

   The floor manager approves the temporary service plan and any customer-facing change.

6. Action

   Bartender, floor, kitchen and courier Role Apps show one controlled response.

7. Evidence

   Bar, floor, kitchen and courier Role Apps acknowledge their part while substitutions and fulfilment remain linked.

Person doing the work: Department manager

1. Signal

   A manager delegates approval during travel or absence.

2. Context

   The manager’s absence, delegate role, current limits, affected actions and travel period are shown together.

3. Understand

   Operational approvals must continue, but pricing exceptions above the manager’s limit cannot be delegated.

4. Options

   Action-limited, amount-limited and escalation-only delegations show continuity and exposure.

5. Approval

   The manager confirms delegate, scope, limits, start and automatic expiry.

6. Action

   Authority is limited by action, amount and time.

7. Evidence

   Grant, every delegated approval, rejected over-limit action and expiry remain attributable.

Person doing the work: Marketplace manager

1. Signal

   An independent dealer needs a space, scoped access, clear duties and its own business authority.

2. Context

   Dealer identity, assigned space, shared opening duties, requested access and own business authority are mapped.

3. Understand

   The marketplace may govern shared space and safety, but cannot approve the dealer’s products or prices.

4. Options

   Trial, standard and event-only participation show duties, access and publication scope.

5. Approval

   Marketplace and dealer each approve only the responsibilities that belong to them.

6. Action

   Shared market access begins without taking control of the dealer’s business.

7. Evidence

   Participation terms, space assignment, access grants and independent business approvals remain separate but connected.

Person doing the work: Business owner

1. Signal

   Model, connector or supplier costs rise outside expectation.

2. Context

   Model usage, connector fees, supplier rates, activity volume and budget thresholds are compared by cause.

3. Understand

   The increase comes from two sources: higher volume is expected, but a supplier rate changed without an approved forecast.

4. Options

   Limit, reroute, renegotiate and accept routes show service and financial consequences.

5. Approval

   The accountable manager selects controls and approves any service reduction or new commitment.

6. Action

   NUMA exposes cause, impact and available controls.

7. Evidence

   Baseline, detected drift, cause, chosen control and later cost outcome remain reviewable.

Person doing the work: Auditor

1. Signal

   An auditor reviews who could see, approve and change one process.

2. Context

   The auditor receives the process, time range, role definitions, authority grants and consequential actions—not universal access.

3. Understand

   One action was correctly approved, one view was broader than the task required and one expired grant remained unused.

4. Options

   Confirm, remediate and escalate findings show affected capability and evidence strength.

5. Approval

   The authorised audit owner approves findings and any operational authority correction.

6. Action

   The evidence shows authorised views without universal exposure.

7. Evidence

   Grant, view, action, approval, finding and correction remain ordered without exposing unrelated context.

Person doing the work: Marketplace manager

1. Signal

   Private work produces an agreement or payment consequence.

2. Context

   OPS isolates the agreed product or service, parties, amount, conditions and approving authority from the private work behind it.

3. Understand

   CORE needs the authorised consequence; it does not need drafts, private reasoning or unrelated project history.

4. Options

   Draft, approve-and-send and hold routes show exactly what will cross the boundary.

5. Approval

   The entitled partner confirms payload, destination and commercial consequence.

6. Action

   Only the approved consequence crosses from OPS to CORE.

7. Evidence

   OPS retains the approval; CORE returns an attributable receipt for the accepted or rejected result.

Person doing the work: Resident

1. Signal

   A House chooses to publish an event, offer or request.

2. Context

   The House separates the proposed event, offer or request from resident identities, private messages and internal notes.

3. Understand

   Only the public description, place scope, timing and response route are required outside the House.

4. Options

   Neighbour-only, city-visible and no-publication routes show audience and response consequences.

5. Approval

   The authorised House members approve the projection and its expiry.

6. Action

   Public content is projected without private members or notes.

7. Evidence

   Published version, audience, approvals, responses and withdrawal remain linked; private membership does not cross.

Person doing the work: Operator

1. Signal

   A connected source stops responding or returns old state.

2. Context

   Last successful sync, source timestamp, expected refresh and dependent work are shown beside the stale value.

3. Understand

   The value may still be useful as history, but it cannot support a current promise or automatic action.

4. Options

   Wait, verify manually, use an approved alternate source or pause the dependent action.

5. Approval

   The responsible operator chooses whether to proceed with a visibly qualified source.

6. Action

   NUMA marks the limitation and blocks false certainty.

7. Evidence

   Staleness detection, warning, selected fallback and later recovery remain in the connector history.

Person doing the work: Manager

1. Signal

   An organisation removes a supplier or data connection.

2. Context

   Connector identity, granted capabilities, dependent workflows, retained history and replacement plan are visible.

3. Understand

   Future transfers can stop immediately while existing evidence remains necessary for operations and audit.

4. Options

   Suspend, revoke now and revoke-after-migration routes show continuity and exposure.

5. Approval

   The authorised manager confirms capability closure and any replacement route.

6. Action

   Authority ends while retained history remains usable.

7. Evidence

   Grant, last accepted transfer, revocation, rejected future calls and retained records remain attributable.

Person doing the work: Marketplace operator

1. Signal

   A VDC operator scans a barcode or QR code, confirms the sale or pickup and selects a receipt or label.

2. Context

   The operator sees the scanned object, seller, valid price, stock state, pickup promise and approved printing devices.

3. Understand

   The object is available and the price is valid; sale and pickup must be confirmed as separate physical moments.

4. Options

   Sale now, reserve for pickup and cancel show payment, custody and receipt consequences.

5. Approval

   The VDC operator confirms the transaction and chooses receipt or label output on the authorised bridge.

6. Action

   Order, stock and payment stay aligned; printing uses the authorised device bridge or a visible system fallback.

7. Evidence

   Scan, operator confirmation, payment, stock change, print result and later pickup stay aligned.

Person doing the work: Auditor

1. Signal

   An outcome depends on signals from several connected systems.

2. Context

   Entitled records from OPS, the approved handoff, CORE consequence and external receipts are aligned by correlation identity.

3. Understand

   The outcome spans systems, but each source retains its own authority, timestamp and disclosure boundary.

4. Options

   Evidence summary, participant receipt and full entitled chain show different disclosure scopes.

5. Approval

   The evidence owner confirms requester, scope and redactions before export.

6. Action

   Source, approval and consequence remain attributable end to end.

7. Evidence

   Source events, approvals, handoff receipt, CORE state and later correction remain ordered end to end.