Automation & Making
Describe the reminder before asking a system to prepare it
Imagine a small team with a list of items awaiting editorial review. It wants help preparing reminders, with a person checking every draft before sending. This fictional worksheet defines the intended workflow. It is a planning exercise, not an implemented automation or evidence that reminders improve response times.
01
State the trigger and identify the source of truth
Describe which event or condition makes an item eligible for a reminder draft. In the review-queue example, the team must agree how it records an item’s status and review date. Name the source the workflow should consult, and distinguish a missing value from a value that satisfies the condition. Avoid relying on a vague phrase such as overdue without defining it for the team. The brief should make clear which information is authoritative and what happens when that information cannot be read or interpreted.
02
Define the draft and the person who reviews it
List the information the reminder may include, such as the item title and a link the intended reviewer can access. Keep the proposed wording tied to the recorded facts rather than inventing an explanation for the delay. Specify where the draft appears and who checks it. Preparing the message should not silently become permission to send it. If the item has changed since the draft was prepared, the reviewer needs a way to recognise that before using it. The document should identify the boundary between assistance and external communication.
03
Write the conditions that stop or suppress the next draft
Describe what happens when an item is completed, cancelled or already has a reminder awaiting review. Decide how the workflow records a prepared draft so repeated checks do not produce an unexplained pile of copies. Include a visible way for the responsible person to pause the process and inspect unresolved cases. Later implementation and testing should compare actual behaviour with these intended conditions. Keeping the trigger, review point and stop conditions in one brief makes the workflow easier to discuss before any messages or live records are affected.