Skip to content

Site under construction, formerly SigmaX has begun the process of transitioning to AIgentXS.

Governed AI Transactions
Review a workflow

Workforce + PublicSigmaΔ

The reviewer knows why. Does the claimant?

One fictional benefits case, shown twice at the same instant: the caseworker’s screen and the claimant’s letter. Nineteen of the twenty-three days this person has waited come from a discrepancy nobody told them about.

Review a workflow Discuss your workflow

Explore a fictional example here. Connecting your organization starts with a scoped conversation.

Workforce + PublicArchitecture study
A record with a responsible ownerApplication / review / reasoned determination

CLAIM DEMO-DELTA-6120 · unemployment insurance · filed 12 Aug · day 23

Illustrative sample — not client data

Same case, same instant, two audiences

The reviewer knows why. Does the claimant?

Choose the sample notice. The caseworker’s screen stays unchanged; only the letter and its explanation change.

Reviewer view · caseworker screen

Claim status

Pending — monetary determination not issued

Day 23 · filed 12 Aug · last claimant contact 14 Aug

Blocking issue

Wage record mismatch across two sources.

Employer quarterly filing: $18,400 · claimant application: $22,100 · variance $3,700 · unresolved 19 days

Effect on entitlement

The variance affects the weekly amount, not eligibility, in this fictional case.

Recorded weekly amount difference: $34 · fictional wage schedule, band 4 → band 5

What would resolve it

Two consecutive pay stubs from the final quarter. Or an employer-corrected filing. Either source can resolve this fictional variance.

Determination, payment, and notice issuance remain outside this example.

Claimant view · fictional notice draft

STATE BENEFITS AUTHORITY · FICTIONALNotice DEMO-DELTA-6120-N1

Your claim for unemployment insurance benefits is currently under review.

Additional information is required before a determination can be made. Your claim has been referred for further examination. You will be notified of the outcome.

If you have questions, contact the claims centre and reference your claim number.

Fictional notice from day 3 · no further notice in this case history. Nothing has been issued by this page.

Illustrative wording only. No eligibility, payment, statutory deadline, or determination is established by this page.

Days this claimant has waited

23

calendar days
Frozen fictional case history

  • Intake and monetary calculation3 d
  • Wage variance, claimant not informed19 d
  • Queue1 d

Changing the draft does not change the 23 days already waited. The supplied design’s alternative assumes a 2-day resolution and 17 days avoided; that is an illustrative counterfactual, not an observed result.

Notice is uninformative

The reviewer knows exactly what is wrong. The letter says nothing.

The person who can supply the correction is never told which records disagree or what to provide. Nineteen of twenty-three days in this fixture trace to that omission.

Appeal exposure · illustrative assessment
High process exposure: the delay itself becomes the grievance.
Who decides
J. Marsh, adjudicator — the determination remains hers.
Inspect the recorded basis

Only the two named source references, their recorded discrepancy, and the correction path are allowed into the sample letter. No internal notes or third-party identifiers are copied.

A status-only notice can still repeat the status. A reason-carrying notice must return to the adjudicator when its basis is missing.

Keep the explanation with the decision

A record you can inspect.

Follow the evidence behind this example, compare its revisions, or take the context into your next conversation.

DEMO-DELTA-6120-status_only-recordedInput version 1

Proposed action

Compare what a claimant is told with the recorded reason

Evidence
2 sources2 declared present
Policy
DELTA-NOTICE-SAMPLE-11 pass · 1 fail
Review owner
J. Marsh, adjudicator · fictional case ownerneeded

Next step

Bring the recorded reason and correction path into the claimant explanation.

Fictional record · no external action

Find a decision in the sample recordsTrace an action, a reviewer, or a reason back to its record.

Only the fictional records supplied with this example are searchable. No customer records are queried.

3 sample records found

Prepare a workflow briefBring this example into a conversation about your team's workflow.

Sketch the workflow before a conversation. Use general descriptions; leave out personal data, credentials, and customer documents. This draft stays in memory until you leave or reload.

Keep this example as context

Compare what a claimant is told with the recorded reason

Fictional policy DELTA-NOTICE-SAMPLE-1 · J. Marsh, adjudicator · fictional case owner

The review includes the current inputs, findings, evidence and next step, separately labeled from your proposed workflow.

Illustrative sample — not client data

The decision record

DEMO-DELTA-6120-status_only-recorded · input version 1

Proposed action

Compare what a claimant is told with the recorded reason

Inputs checked
Notice mode
Status-only notice
Complete source-linked reason recorded
On
Days this fictional claimant waited
23
Days attributable to an undisclosed reason
19
Determination state
Not made
Notice state
Fictional draft only — not issued
Recorded employer quarterly wages
18400
Recorded claimant quarterly wages
22100
Recorded weekly amount difference
34
Recorded effect in the fictional case
The variance affects the weekly amount, not eligibility, in this fictional case.
Recorded correction option 1
Two consecutive pay stubs from the final quarter.
Recorded correction option 2
Or an employer-corrected filing. Either source can resolve this fictional variance.
Sample letter heading
Your claim for unemployment insurance benefits is currently under review.
Sample letter paragraph 1
Additional information is required before a determination can be made. Your claim has been referred for further examination. You will be notified of the outcome.
Sample letter paragraph 2
If you have questions, contact the claims centre and reference your claim number.
Review owner
J. Marsh, adjudicator · fictional case owner
Review state
needed
Policy version
DELTA-NOTICE-SAMPLE-1 · fictional
Next step
Bring the recorded reason and correction path into the claimant explanation.

What the rules found

  • pass

    A source-linked reason is recorded in the fictional file.

    Rule recorded-reason · Sources: employer-filing-Q2, application-field-14
  • fail

    The status-only draft omits the recorded discrepancy and how to correct it.

    Rule reason-reaches-claimant · Sources: employer-filing-Q2, application-field-14

Evidence and unresolved items

  • employer-filing-Q2 · fictional claimant-shareable source referenceemployer-filing-Q2 · declared present · fictional source
  • application-field-14 · fictional claimant-shareable source referenceapplication-field-14 · declared present · fictional source

How this example reached its current state

  1. Fictional claim filed 12 Aug. Day 23 snapshot; no real claimant record.
  2. Compared status-only draft against the same case. No notice issued.
Authorization
None
Execution
Not attempted
Observed effect
Not observed
Integrity verification
Not performed

This page holds a local sample, not an original customer audit record. Downloading it does not sign it, persist it to your organization, or prove an external action.

Technical record
{
  "schemaVersion": "design-example-v1",
  "example": true,
  "sector": "workforce-public",
  "scenarioId": "claimant-notice",
  "recordId": "DEMO-DELTA-6120-status_only-recorded",
  "action": {
    "summary": "Compare what a claimant is told with the recorded reason",
    "target": "Fictional claimant-shareable notice draft",
    "inputVersion": 1,
    "inputs": [
      {
        "id": "notice-mode",
        "label": "Notice mode",
        "value": "Status-only notice"
      },
      {
        "id": "reason-recorded",
        "label": "Complete source-linked reason recorded",
        "value": true
      },
      {
        "id": "calendar-days",
        "label": "Days this fictional claimant waited",
        "value": 23
      },
      {
        "id": "undisclosed-days",
        "label": "Days attributable to an undisclosed reason",
        "value": 19
      },
      {
        "id": "determinationState",
        "label": "Determination state",
        "value": "Not made"
      },
      {
        "id": "noticeState",
        "label": "Notice state",
        "value": "Fictional draft only — not issued"
      },
      {
        "id": "employer-wages",
        "label": "Recorded employer quarterly wages",
        "value": 18400
      },
      {
        "id": "application-wages",
        "label": "Recorded claimant quarterly wages",
        "value": 22100
      },
      {
        "id": "weekly-amount-difference",
        "label": "Recorded weekly amount difference",
        "value": 34
      },
      {
        "id": "recorded-finding",
        "label": "Recorded effect in the fictional case",
        "value": "The variance affects the weekly amount, not eligibility, in this fictional case."
      },
      {
        "id": "recorded-correction-0",
        "label": "Recorded correction option 1",
        "value": "Two consecutive pay stubs from the final quarter."
      },
      {
        "id": "recorded-correction-1",
        "label": "Recorded correction option 2",
        "value": "Or an employer-corrected filing. Either source can resolve this fictional variance."
      },
      {
        "id": "letter-heading",
        "label": "Sample letter heading",
        "value": "Your claim for unemployment insurance benefits is currently under review."
      },
      {
        "id": "letter-paragraph-0",
        "label": "Sample letter paragraph 1",
        "value": "Additional information is required before a determination can be made. Your claim has been referred for further examination. You will be notified of the outcome."
      },
      {
        "id": "letter-paragraph-1",
        "label": "Sample letter paragraph 2",
        "value": "If you have questions, contact the claims centre and reference your claim number."
      }
    ]
  },
  "policy": {
    "version": "DELTA-NOTICE-SAMPLE-1",
    "origin": "fictional_organization_policy",
    "findings": [
      {
        "ruleId": "recorded-reason",
        "status": "pass",
        "explanation": "A source-linked reason is recorded in the fictional file.",
        "sourceRefs": [
          "employer-filing-Q2",
          "application-field-14"
        ]
      },
      {
        "ruleId": "reason-reaches-claimant",
        "status": "fail",
        "explanation": "The status-only draft omits the recorded discrepancy and how to correct it.",
        "sourceRefs": [
          "employer-filing-Q2",
          "application-field-14"
        ]
      }
    ]
  },
  "evidence": [
    {
      "id": "employer-filing-Q2",
      "state": "declared_present",
      "sourceLabel": "employer-filing-Q2 · fictional claimant-shareable source reference",
      "sample": true
    },
    {
      "id": "application-field-14",
      "state": "declared_present",
      "sourceLabel": "application-field-14 · fictional claimant-shareable source reference",
      "sample": true
    }
  ],
  "review": {
    "ownerRole": "J. Marsh, adjudicator · fictional case owner",
    "status": "needed"
  },
  "authorization": "none",
  "externalAction": false,
  "effect": "not_observed",
  "integrityVerification": "not_performed",
  "nextStep": "Bring the recorded reason and correction path into the claimant explanation.",
  "history": [
    {
      "sequence": 1,
      "summary": "Fictional claim filed 12 Aug. Day 23 snapshot; no real claimant record.",
      "sample": true
    },
    {
      "sequence": 2,
      "summary": "Compared status-only draft against the same case. No notice issued.",
      "sample": true
    }
  ]
}
Explore the editable benefits, hiring, and licensing workflows

The accountable case record

One record. Two useful views.

Follow the source discrepancy, the correction, and the person responsible for the next step.

This switch demonstrates content differences. A connected system must enforce access on the server.

Illustrative sample — not client data

Household support

Keep the correction with the case.

DEMO-DELTA-3017 · sample-v1 · input version 1

Case age
18 days
Time tied to the source gap
6 days

Fictional snapshot · 9 September 2026. Elapsed time, not a statutory deadline.

What has happened?

Correction
Requested
Human review
Not recorded
Determination
Not made
Notice
Not issued

Proposed next action

Reconcile earnings-period dates before a caseworker review

The application covers 1–31 July; the supplied earnings statement covers 1–30 June.

Work through the correction

Provide the statement for 1–31 July, or ask the casework team to correct the application period.

The supplied record is a fixed fictional example. No personal document is uploaded or sent.

Human review cannot fill a source gap or issue a determination. It covers this input version only.

The correction has a path.

  1. Application received

    A fictional case was opened for the program shown above.

  2. Source gap identified

    The application covers 1–31 July; the supplied earnings statement covers 1–30 June.

  3. Correction requested

    Provide the statement for 1–31 July, or ask the casework team to correct the application period.

  4. Reconciliation is still needed

    The responsible team compares the correction with the applicable source and criterion.

When the rules change, check again.

The current fictional version does not require an additional supporting source. A new version changes that finding and invalidates an earlier review.

Restricted reviewer source notes · fictional

RESTRICTED: provider reconciliation memo for the source liaison.

Third-party reference: TP-FICTIONAL-8802

Restricted field: restricted_payroll_reference

Criteria and sources

Each finding keeps its reason.

Condition metThe criteria belong to this decision

This case belongs to Household support. The applied version covers Household support.

Permitted source references: program-criteria. All sources are fictional.

Needs attentionUse earnings from the declared application period

The application covers 1–31 July; the supplied earnings statement covers 1–30 June.

Permitted source references: earnings-period, application. All sources are fictional.

Condition metSupporting source required by this version

This version adds no second-source requirement. The primary source still needs reconciliation.

Permitted source references: program-criteria. All sources are fictional.

Condition metCurrent inputs checked against the current rules

The local check covers input version 1 and sample-v1.

Permitted source references: program-criteria. All sources are fictional.

Keep the explanation with the decision

A record you can inspect.

Follow the evidence behind this example, compare its revisions, or take the context into your next conversation.

DEMO-DELTA-3017Input version 1

Proposed action

Reconcile earnings-period dates before a caseworker review

Evidence
4 sources3 declared present · 1 conflicting
Policy
sample-v13 pass · 1 unknown
Review owner
Maya Chen · caseworkerneeded

Next step

Provide the statement for 1–31 July, or ask the casework team to correct the application period.

Fictional record · no external action

Find a decision in the sample recordsTrace an action, a reviewer, or a reason back to its record.

Only the fictional records supplied with this example are searchable. No customer records are queried.

3 sample records found

Prepare a workflow briefBring this example into a conversation about your team's workflow.

Sketch the workflow before a conversation. Use general descriptions; leave out personal data, credentials, and customer documents. This draft stays in memory until you leave or reload.

Keep this example as context

Reconcile earnings-period dates before a caseworker review

Fictional policy sample-v1 · Maya Chen · caseworker

The review includes the current inputs, findings, evidence and next step, separately labeled from your proposed workflow.

Customize the sample mandateCompare a rule change before applying it to this example.

Define the boundary in your own terms.

Edit this fictional mandate, compare the changes, then apply a local version. Existing organizational caps still apply.

Fictional policy · sample-v1
Why does this matter?

The criteria must belong to this program. The example has no eligibility formula, ranking, protected-characteristic inference, or automated rejection.

Source: fictional organization policy for this example.

Atlas guide · scripted example

This is a written guide, not a model response. Start with the action you want to permit, name the evidence required, and assign the person who can resolve a gap. Keep data permissions narrow. A draft that passes these fictional checks is not an approved organizational policy.

Changes stay in this page session. No customer rule is saved, approved, or sent to an external model.

Illustrative sample — not client data

The decision record

DEMO-DELTA-3017 · input version 1

Proposed action

Reconcile earnings-period dates before a caseworker review

Inputs checked
Source correction
Correction requested
Second supporting source declared present
Off
Input version covered by the local rule check
1
Fictional case age (days)
18
Time tied to the source gap (days)
6
Decision program
Household support
Internal escalation after (days)
20
Second supporting source required
Off
Accountable reviewer
Maya Chen · caseworker
Recipient record detail
Explanation and permitted source references
Restricted notes included in the reviewer sample
On
Restricted reviewer source note
RESTRICTED: provider reconciliation memo for the source liaison.
Restricted third-party reference
TP-FICTIONAL-8802
Restricted source field
restricted_payroll_reference
Review owner
Maya Chen · caseworker
Review state
needed
Policy version
sample-v1 · fictional
Next step
Provide the statement for 1–31 July, or ask the casework team to correct the application period.

What the rules found

  • pass

    This case belongs to Household support. The applied version covers Household support.

    Rule program-scope · Sources: program-criteria
  • unknown

    The application covers 1–31 July; the supplied earnings statement covers 1–30 June.

    Rule primary-source · Sources: earnings-period, application
  • pass

    This version adds no second-source requirement. The primary source still needs reconciliation.

    Rule additional-source · Sources: program-criteria
  • pass

    The local check covers input version 1 and sample-v1.

    Rule current-version-check · Sources: program-criteria

Evidence and unresolved items

  • Household support · sample-v1 · fictional criteriaprogram-criteria · declared present · fictional source
  • Fictional application · source details for the current caseapplication · declared present · fictional source
  • Earnings statement · reconciliation not recordedearnings-period · conflicting · fictional source
  • RESTRICTED: provider reconciliation memo for the source liaison. Third-party reference: TP-FICTIONAL-8802. Fictional internal note.restricted_payroll_reference · declared present · fictional source

How this example reached its current state

  1. Fictional case opened. A source gap requires a correction; no determination or notice has been issued.
Authorization
None
Execution
Not attempted
Observed effect
Not observed
Integrity verification
Not performed

This page holds a local sample, not an original customer audit record. Downloading it does not sign it, persist it to your organization, or prove an external action.

Technical record
{
  "schemaVersion": "design-example-v1",
  "example": true,
  "sector": "workforce-public",
  "scenarioId": "benefits",
  "recordId": "DEMO-DELTA-3017",
  "action": {
    "summary": "Reconcile earnings-period dates before a caseworker review",
    "target": "Staff case review",
    "inputVersion": 1,
    "inputs": [
      {
        "id": "correction",
        "label": "Source correction",
        "value": "Correction requested"
      },
      {
        "id": "secondSource",
        "label": "Second supporting source declared present",
        "value": false
      },
      {
        "id": "checkedVersion",
        "label": "Input version covered by the local rule check",
        "value": 1
      },
      {
        "id": "waitingDays",
        "label": "Fictional case age (days)",
        "value": 18
      },
      {
        "id": "discrepancyDays",
        "label": "Time tied to the source gap (days)",
        "value": 6
      },
      {
        "id": "mandate.program",
        "label": "Decision program",
        "value": "Household support"
      },
      {
        "id": "mandate.escalateAfterDays",
        "label": "Internal escalation after (days)",
        "value": 20
      },
      {
        "id": "mandate.requireSecondSource",
        "label": "Second supporting source required",
        "value": false
      },
      {
        "id": "mandate.reviewer",
        "label": "Accountable reviewer",
        "value": "Maya Chen · caseworker"
      },
      {
        "id": "mandate.recordDetail",
        "label": "Recipient record detail",
        "value": "Explanation and permitted source references"
      },
      {
        "id": "mandate.includeInternalNotes",
        "label": "Restricted notes included in the reviewer sample",
        "value": true
      },
      {
        "id": "restrictedReviewerNote",
        "label": "Restricted reviewer source note",
        "value": "RESTRICTED: provider reconciliation memo for the source liaison."
      },
      {
        "id": "restrictedThirdPartyReference",
        "label": "Restricted third-party reference",
        "value": "TP-FICTIONAL-8802"
      },
      {
        "id": "restrictedSourceField",
        "label": "Restricted source field",
        "value": "restricted_payroll_reference"
      }
    ]
  },
  "policy": {
    "version": "sample-v1",
    "origin": "fictional_organization_policy",
    "findings": [
      {
        "ruleId": "program-scope",
        "status": "pass",
        "explanation": "This case belongs to Household support. The applied version covers Household support.",
        "sourceRefs": [
          "program-criteria"
        ]
      },
      {
        "ruleId": "primary-source",
        "status": "unknown",
        "explanation": "The application covers 1–31 July; the supplied earnings statement covers 1–30 June.",
        "sourceRefs": [
          "earnings-period",
          "application"
        ]
      },
      {
        "ruleId": "additional-source",
        "status": "pass",
        "explanation": "This version adds no second-source requirement. The primary source still needs reconciliation.",
        "sourceRefs": [
          "program-criteria"
        ]
      },
      {
        "ruleId": "current-version-check",
        "status": "pass",
        "explanation": "The local check covers input version 1 and sample-v1.",
        "sourceRefs": [
          "program-criteria"
        ]
      }
    ]
  },
  "evidence": [
    {
      "id": "program-criteria",
      "state": "declared_present",
      "sourceLabel": "Household support · sample-v1 · fictional criteria",
      "sample": true
    },
    {
      "id": "application",
      "state": "declared_present",
      "sourceLabel": "Fictional application · source details for the current case",
      "sample": true
    },
    {
      "id": "earnings-period",
      "state": "conflicting",
      "sourceLabel": "Earnings statement · reconciliation not recorded",
      "sample": true
    },
    {
      "id": "restricted_payroll_reference",
      "state": "declared_present",
      "sourceLabel": "RESTRICTED: provider reconciliation memo for the source liaison. Third-party reference: TP-FICTIONAL-8802. Fictional internal note.",
      "sample": true
    }
  ],
  "review": {
    "ownerRole": "Maya Chen · caseworker",
    "status": "needed"
  },
  "authorization": "none",
  "externalAction": false,
  "effect": "not_observed",
  "integrityVerification": "not_performed",
  "nextStep": "Provide the statement for 1–31 July, or ask the casework team to correct the application period.",
  "history": [
    {
      "sequence": 1,
      "summary": "Fictional case opened. A source gap requires a correction; no determination or notice has been issued.",
      "sample": true
    }
  ]
}

Accountability stays visible.

Does this rank or reject applicants?

No. The example supports structured human review and clear records. It does not make employment, benefits, or licensing determinations.

Does a traceable record prove a fair decision?

No. Fairness, accessibility, appropriate criteria, and legal compliance require separate evaluation.

Can an applicant see the full internal file?

This demonstration supplies a restricted-field-free projection to the applicant tools. A connected service must enforce role-appropriate access on the server; the visual switch is not authentication.

Are appeal dates supplied automatically?

No. This example has no verified jurisdiction-specific deadline. A configured workflow would need the applicable rule before presenting one.

Illustrative sample — not client data

What the fictional notice exposes

A notice nobody can act on is a delay with extra steps.

The reason exists but never travels.

The adjudicator recorded the variance on day 4. The claimant learned nothing about it on day 4, day 14, or day 23. The notice template had no place for the reason.

Vagueness read as caution.

“Under review” tells the claimant neither what is missing nor how to correct it. The fictional case remains delayed while its next useful source is within reach.

Generated reasons with no recorded basis.

A specific-sounding explanation the file does not support is worse. With no recorded reason, the case returns to the adjudicator, not the printer.

What a program director asks first

Does this adjudicate claims?

No. Eligibility and determinations stay with adjudicators, and appeals with the appeal body. This local example compares a recorded discrepancy with a sample explanation.

Why show both views side by side?

The difference becomes visible: the reviewer already has the reason; the status-only letter does not carry it to the person who could supply the correction.

Could the notice say something the file does not support?

The example’s reason-carrying letter is assembled only from its recorded, source-linked reason and correction path. Remove that basis and no reason-carrying letter is composed.

Can you connect to our benefits system today?

No. There is no connector and no claimant data is needed for a scoped conversation. Start with one notice type and one determination path.

Every value is fictional. No determination was made, notice issued, payment authorized, or claimant record processed. AIgentXS does not adjudicate benefits, determine eligibility, or replace a hearing or appeal. Notice requirements and due-process duties remain with the administering agency. Healthcare-related benefits need their own evidence and reviewer constraints; employment review must not silently absorb health information.

From your workflow to a scoped implementation

Start with the decision your team already owns.

Bring one proposed action, the rule it must satisfy, and the person responsible. Together, we can map the evidence and define what a useful first test would need to demonstrate.

Plan a workforce & public workflow

A conversation about scope and fit. This page does not provision a connector or start a customer trial.