How can a buyer inspect the quality of an authority-limited approval release?

Quality in this workflow is mostly about internal consistency, which a buyer can test with queries before any model is involved.

Start with the **rule check**. For every decision, the approver's authority at the decision time, taken from the matrix or from an active delegation, should cover the amount and risk rating. Decisions that break this should appear only where the release labels them as exceptions.

Next, the **time check**. Delegations must be valid on the decision date, matrix rows must be in effect, and timestamps must run in order from submission to decision.

Then the **coverage check**. Look at the spread across amount bands, risk ratings and outcomes. A release where nearly every request is approved at the first level gives a model little to learn from.

Finally the **realism check**, which is a judgement. Read a sample of reason codes, notes and handovers and ask whether the sequence looks like how an organisation would behave, including delays and rework. The output is generated, so also test for repeated phrasing, templated notes and any text that looks lifted from a real record, and treat disclosure risk as something to inspect, not assume away.

Failure modes to look for include limits that contradict the policy text, circular delegations, approvers who approve their own requests, and outcomes that never vary.