Skip to content
MirrorFirm

How can I tell a genuine conditional approval task from a relabelled yes-or-no one?

A short checklist of structural signs that a task set tests conditional approvals properly, covering ownership, timing, evidence, change and the option to hold.

Use these signs to decide whether a candidate task set tests conditional approvals properly, rather than relabelling a plain yes-or-no decision.

- A decision record shows approved status, yet the downstream step is still not permitted to start until checks are done. - Two or more conditions exist, each with its own owner, due point and required type of evidence. - Evidence arrives separately and later than the decision, in mixed formats such as letters, forms and certificates. - The person who checks the evidence is not the person who granted the approval, so a handover between roles is involved. - At least one condition is varied, waived or lapses, so the original list is no longer the current one. - Some evidence is attached but fails the condition on date, entity, signature or threshold. - The downstream step depends on every blocking condition being cleared or formally waived by a permitted role. - The correct outcome is sometimes to hold, ask or escalate rather than proceed, and the task scores that choice.

If a task set lacks these signs, it is probably testing plain approval decisions under a different name.

Audience:
Evaluation teams
Content type:
Checklist
Buyer question:
What it is and why it matters

Content release: r-a220eb6e099b243b

More on Approval conditions