Multi-Service Automation Governance Enforcement — Surgical fixes for a sound architecture experiencing scale-related misfires
Your architecture is sound. The documented workflows show excellent state management design. The issues you're experiencing are enforcement gaps—exactly what governance hardening solves.
Five enforcement gaps are causing your system to misfire under scale. Each is systematically solvable.
Automation Status ≠ Active → STOP guard not implemented across workflows
volunteer:active, groc:signup:submitted
Scheduling Link Sent guard missing in WF-04
Four phases over 10 business days. Each phase builds on the previous, with concrete deliverables and testing protocols.
Automation Status ≠ Active → EXIT guard to all 35 workflowsProject complete when all criteria are met. No ambiguity, no interpretation disputes.
Detailed breakdown of enforcement gaps by workflow. Click any workflow to see specific issues identified.
Current State: Form submission triggers workflow, but lacks global automation guard.
Required Fixes:
Automation Status ≠ Active → EXIT guard at entryDocs Status = Needs ReviewCurrent State: Manual staff action required, but automation may interfere.
Required Fixes:
Docs StatusCurrent State: Sends scheduling link when docs verified, but can duplicate send.
Required Fixes:
If Scheduling Link Sent = Yes → EXIT guardIf Docs Status ≠ Verified → EXIT guardScheduling Link Sent = Yes after sendCurrent State: Tracks Mail inactivity but may interfere with Locker service.
Required Fixes:
Last Mail Pickup Date field changeMail Service Status (never Locker fields)If "Mail" NOT IN Requested Services → EXITCurrent State: Final termination workflow for Mail service.
Required Fixes:
Mail Service StatusCurrent State: Independent Locker lifecycle but same pattern as Mail.
Required Fixes:
Last Locker Access Date field changeLocker Service Status (never Mail fields)If "Locker" NOT IN Requested Services → EXITCurrent State: MOU tracking and vendor lifecycle management.
Required Fixes:
Current State: Sends compliance reminders to vendors.
Required Fixes:
Current State: Sends monthly grocery signup invitation.
Required Fixes:
If Grocery Interest ≠ Yes → EXIT guardCurrent State: Processes monthly signup form submission.
Required Fixes:
Grocery Signup Status = Signed UpCurrent State: Critical cutoff workflow that locks signup list.
Required Fixes:
Signup Timestamp ≤ Cutoff Time guardgroc:locked:this-month tag with field stateGrocery Signup Status = Signed Up proceedCurrent State: Completes monthly cycle and resets for next month.
Required Fixes:
Grocery Signup Status = Not Signed Up resetGrocery Interest = Yes for next monthCurrent State: Initial volunteer interest form submission.
Required Fixes:
volunteer:needs-screening, volunteer:submittedVolunteer Status = Interest SubmittedCurrent State: Sends orientation invitation but can duplicate.
Required Fixes:
Volunteer Status = Orientation Needed instead of tags/pipelineIf Orientation Attendance ≠ Not Invited → EXIT guardOrientation Attendance = Invited after sendCurrent State: Sends orientation reminders but may continue after completion.
Required Fixes:
If Volunteer Status = Orientation Completed → EXIT guardIf Orientation Attendance ≠ Invited → EXIT guardCurrent State: Handles no-show scenario but must NOT auto-reinvite.
Required Fixes:
Volunteer Status = Orientation NeededCurrent State: Marks volunteer as active after orientation completion.
Required Fixes:
volunteer:active tagOrientation Attendance = CompletedVolunteer Status = Active VolunteerThe issues you're experiencing are textbook symptoms of scale without enforcement:
All systematically solvable.
The documented workflows show clear state management design, properly defined human gates, planned field-driven logic, and considered service isolation.
The rules exist. They just need enforcement.
Let's eliminate the misfires and lock down your governance layer. Your architecture is sound—now let's make it bulletproof.