@Dash counsel wants to know how many change approvals went through without a second reviewer in Q2. They are asking for a login. I would rather they never touched the system.
Live in Slack or Microsoft Teams
Answer legal's question without system access
Outside counsel needs to know what a process did and when. Dash retrieves the answer, the records behind it and the approval trail, and posts it in the channel, so the lawyer gets the evidence without ever being given a login to the system.
Get started for free Chat with Dash, the AI teammate that works inside Slack and Microsoft Teams.
They do not need one. Here is the answer with the evidence attached.
Q2 change approvals
- Total approvals · 318
- With a second reviewer · 311
- Without · 7
All seven are the same shape: emergency changes raised outside business hours, where the policy permits a single approver with a retrospective review. Five had the retrospective review logged within 48 hours. Two did not.
Each of the seven is listed with its date, the approver, the reason recorded at the time, and whether the retrospective review happened. That is the file counsel actually needs.
The two without a retrospective review are the problem. What happened there?
Both fall in the week of 9 June. The reviewer named on the rota was on leave and no cover was assigned, so the review step had nobody to route to and expired silently.
I can tell you the review did not happen and why the routing failed. I cannot tell you whether anyone noticed at the time, because there is no record either way. Do not let that gap get written up as "no issue identified".
Everything above is posted here in the channel. Counsel can be sent this thread. No system access, no export, nothing granted.
Teams @Dash counsel wants to know how many change approvals went through without a second reviewer in Q2. They are asking for a login. I would rather they never touched the system.
They do not need one. Here is the answer with the evidence attached.
Q2 change approvals
- Total approvals · 318
- With a second reviewer · 311
- Without · 7
All seven are the same shape: emergency changes raised outside business hours, where the policy permits a single approver with a retrospective review. Five had the retrospective review logged within 48 hours. Two did not.
Each of the seven is listed with its date, the approver, the reason recorded at the time, and whether the retrospective review happened. That is the file counsel actually needs.
The two without a retrospective review are the problem. What happened there?
Both fall in the week of 9 June. The reviewer named on the rota was on leave and no cover was assigned, so the review step had nobody to route to and expired silently.
I can tell you the review did not happen and why the routing failed. I cannot tell you whether anyone noticed at the time, because there is no record either way. Do not let that gap get written up as "no issue identified".
Everything above is posted here in the channel. Counsel can be sent this thread. No system access, no export, nothing granted.