Chapters · 5 of 8

About 16 min · Lesson and activity

Chapter 5 of 80 complete

Route Ambiguous Cases for Review

Send a human only what a human can act on, and size the queue to the people who have to clear it.

See the situation

Start with the situation below. Next, we will work through an example together before you try the activity.

Maya · Decision designer

The case

A queue that stopped being opened

A review queue needs an owner, target time, and overflow path that match the team's stated capacity.

Routing rule: Everything uncertain
Volume: About 90 items a day
Owner: One person, alongside her actual job
Week 3: Approving in batches by pattern
Week 5: Not opened. Nothing broke.

Your task

Choose a review route for each case. Decide where work goes when the reviewer reaches capacity.

Need a little guidance?

You’re done when: Every reviewed case has an owner, reason, and resolvable next step.

A review queue is a workflow, not a parking lot.

Need a reminder? Reopen the worked example

Watch one example first

A review window has capacity for one case but receives two. The first gets a reviewer; the overflow needs an explicit owner and next target time, not a disappearing row.

Why this follows from the evidence

A queue is a promise of work. Ownership, capacity, deadline, and overflow rules make that promise inspectable. A correct safety hold can be a successful outcome.

GTM Lab

Saved locally

Review Policy · 0 of 8 sections started

Saved locally to your browser.

Case evidence

A queue that stopped being opened

Routing rule: Everything uncertain
Volume: About 90 items a day
Owner: One person, alongside her actual job
Week 3: Approving in batches by pattern
Week 5: Not opened. Nothing broke.

Everything uncertain goes to a queue. Ninety items a day, one owner, alongside her actual job. By week five she has stopped opening it, and nothing broke.

Review workbench

Route a small review inbox

Use the evidence on each case, then handle work beyond the stated reviewer capacity without dropping it.

Current inbox · policy and capacityCompare each statement with its source. The labels show the state of this example.

Two sources differ on annual revenue

CRM: below threshold, 41 days ago · filing: above threshold, 11 days ago

Source: Review inbox

Not checked

Low signal; no conflict or irreversible action

Required fields agree; the score is weak, but there is no specific question for a reviewer.

Source: Review inbox

Not checked

A proposed external action is hard to reverse

The action would send a customer-facing notice; evidence is mixed.

Source: Review inbox

Not checked

1. Two sources differ on annual revenue

CRM: below threshold, 41 days ago · filing: above threshold, 11 days ago

Review action: The deciding field conflicts; a reviewer can inspect both source records and the stated authority.

2. Low signal; no conflict or irreversible action

Required fields agree; the score is weak, but there is no specific question for a reviewer.

Review action: Low confidence alone is not a useful route in this policy because no reviewer action is identified.

3. A proposed external action is hard to reverse

The action would send a customer-facing notice; evidence is mixed.

Review action: The stated policy pauses this higher-consequence action for approval even when confidence is not low.

Reviewer capacity in this one-hour window · 1 case

A required review is beyond capacity. What does the pre-taught overflow rule do?

Queue consequence · assigned, pending or resolvedFollow the example events in time order. No live integration runs here.

New cases
Three items enter the inbox
One source conflict, one low-confidence record without a specific question, and one hard-to-reverse action.
Supported
Routing
Two cases need a reviewer
Configured capacity: 1 case in the stated window.
Needs review
After the first case
1 case exceeds this window
Apply the pre-taught overflow rule to preserve ownership and make the wait visible.
Not checked

2 cases require review · stated capacity 1 · 1 beyond this window. A capacity mismatch is visible work, not a reason to silently discard a case.

Changes save in this browser as you work.

Optional: inspect the chapter check choices

Work the case · 0 of 2 sections drafted

Build a queue somebody can clear

Compare these alternatives one section at a time. Check a choice to see its consequence; the draft summary below keeps the proposed changes together.

Step 1 of 2

Which condition does NOT belong as a review trigger?

Low confidence on its ownAn action ranked hard to undoA conflict on the deciding field

This is a proposed draft until the chapter check runs. Selecting a choice alone does not complete the chapter.

2c · Proposed

Review record draft

Review record draft · current draftCompare the original state with the proposed change. This preview does not change live records.

Review record draft · current draft
Item	Before	Proposed	Why
Which condition does NOT belong as a review trigger?	No saved change in this exercise draft	Not drafted yet	Choose a proposal to see what it would add to the draft.
The queue needs three things beyond its triggers. Which set?	No saved change in this exercise draft	Not drafted yet	Choose a proposal to see what it would add to the draft.

Which condition does NOT belong as a review trigger?: BeforeNo saved change in this exercise draft; ProposedNot drafted yet; WhyChoose a proposal to see what it would add to the draft.
The queue needs three things beyond its triggers. Which set?: BeforeNo saved change in this exercise draft; ProposedNot drafted yet; WhyChoose a proposal to see what it would add to the draft.

A choice appears here as a proposal, not as evidence that a live system changed.

Your place saves as you go.

Chapter 5 of 80 complete