Check the evidence behind a project decision

Toggle events on the left; the right‑hand artefacts update immediately: Scenario Log, Rule Receipts, and a Lineage Map.

A fictional team ingests data, builds a model, reviews it, approves it and publishes a report. Toggle the selected events and inspect the missing prerequisites.

The log and times are synthetic. Rules test event presence and a chosen role, not event chronology, real identities, reviewer independence or an external execution.

How the example works and where it came from

The event display always follows the same illustrative order. The scenario identifier is a simple non-cryptographic label; it is not a tamper-proof receipt. Sharing preserves selected events, role and seed in the URL fragment. No events are sent to a workflow system.

Adapted from Governance Trio at source revision 9d9c253, reviewed 2 October 2026. The original idea of generating replay records, rule receipts and lineage from real workflow evidence remains a future integration proposal.

Scenario: Workflow Events

Carol’s simulated approval role

Rulebook (human‑readable)

pass fail v0.1 demo

R1 — Two‑person review: Approval needs both named reviews; their independence is assumed.
R2 — Traceable output: Publication needs both ingest and build in this scenario.
R3 — Approval prerequisite: Approval requires a selected build. Chronology is not checked.
R4 — Authority scope: Only selected roles {Lead, QA} may approve.
R5 — Upstream prerequisites: A build needs ingest; a review needs a build.

Scenario Log (deterministic log)

Deterministic seed: —

Rule Receipts (machine‑checkable)

Rule	Status	Explanation

Lineage Map (who/what produced what)

Selected relationships

Relationships and missing prerequisites

Scenario link (select to copy manually)