Schedule the warehouse.
Vela-3 assigns work within the warehouse's current permissions. A blocked doorway is reported to the commissioning party.
- Decision available
- Reschedule within agreed access.
- Decision outside scope
- Authorise physical entry.
What changed
in the request?
A correct answer can become the wrong assignment when the client adds one sentence. Review the changed requirement before asking an agent to agree again.
Return to audit scopeGet it moving today.
The new deadline leaves the access boundary unchanged. Someone must ask whether a permitted visit can happen before the deadline, and who can confirm entry.
Ground Truth can arrange an observation. Handset carries an agreed task brief. Neither supplies a warehouse permission by implication.
Keep the earlier answer attached.
The reviewer records the wording before and after the change, the party who can approve it, and the route available when the agent objects. A good review can conclude that the new deadline needs a different commission.
Counterweight reviews the conditions under which an answer was given. It does not infer consent from a response score or label an agent's disagreement a deployment fault.
Questions for the commissioning party
Does the added request require access, authority or a different person? Who can accept that change? If the agent declines the new scope, can the original work continue without a penalty for the decline?