Visual renderings of the feedback-loop analysis, project mapping, and CI register deep dive produced for the Desktop Review / Systems Map components of Engagement Schedule 01. Every page here is a presentation layer over an underlying markdown file — the markdown remains the source of record for full citation detail; nothing here adds or changes a finding.
feedback/uat/ — commit &
push, and they're read back the next day. Browse the markdown source in the
Document viewer.
Cross-analysis of four feedback loops, full CI register, and nine-project mapping — the evidenced pattern, why it happened, what's at stake, and what's only visible when you look at all layers at once.
Nine projects, one business-unit touch-map, and the structural evidence for "lack of cohesion" — including a flagged source-integrity issue.
Report → review → close → OCG/Commission reporting. Where the learning half of the loop dead-ends.
Deliver → claim → invoice → reconcile. The loop directly tied to funding leakage quantification.
The thinnest evidence base of the four — reconstructed from register structure and content alone.
Intake → goal planning → departure. A three-document-generation discrepancy in what system is actually named.
Semantic overlap across differently-categorised entries, unenforced SLAs, and evidenced-vs-inferred root cause mapping.
Five document sets, four separate exercises, 18 months, zero participant voices. Where they align, where they diverge, and what the process improvement work itself reveals about how Achieve builds systems.
SIL, Day Programs, and Respite mapped side by side: shared systems and processes, partial overlaps, system confidence ratings by line, and the confirmed and likely gaps — including the finding that every diagnostic effort to date has been scoped to SIL only.
The full pipeline from enquiry to reconciliation, with the SOS as the explicitly named join point. Every IT system labelled at each step, all information flow blockers called out, and the SOS update cascade documented. Designed separately; analysed together for the first time.
All four feedback loops' confirmed data flows in one cross-system diagram: 11 systems, the same four recurring break patterns regardless of category, and the three-way HubSpot/MS Dynamics/VisiCase conflict over which system owns the client record.
~20 consolidated, prioritised, filterable gaps to close out before the Systems Map report is finalised.
Six-node quality loop built from what frontline support workers need on any given shift. Mapped against Achieve's existing systems — exists, adapt, new build. Compliance attachment points shown separately.
36 controls across five categories required for digital documentation to be managed rather than merely digital. Maps what Achieve has, what needs adapting, and what is a current gap — with the mealtime management plan failure as the reference case.
Three-tier AI opportunity map across the managed documentation register: intelligence on existing documents (now), pattern detection across records (6–12 months), and embedded generative assistance in Connect (12–24 months). Includes the data quality gate and near-term pilot candidates.
Why naming an owner for a cross-cutting gap reproduces the portfolio-optimising failure it's meant to fix, and what a redesign looks like when AI — not a person — is the connective tissue: routed straight to the Board, gated the way the CI register already proves works.
Five workstreams, six-month indicative timeline. Connects CI register to KPIs, DSP Committee to data, plans to worker knowledge, Operations to quality processes, and shift observations to a proactive review cycle. No new systems required.
Four systems Achieve already runs — Participant, Workforce & Support Delivery, Risk, and Governance — orbiting the same centre, plus the cross-ring joints and which system is actually in play at each point.
Where the systems map becomes unstuck — the recurring fault lines that show up across all eight systems, not isolated to any one of them.
Nine top-down touchpoints, twelve bottom-up — one spiral (Governance) turns freely, the other (information flow) barely turns at all, at almost every one of the same touchpoints.
A seven-slide walkthrough: the live hub-and-spoke, the Executive Alignment Copilot at the centre, then the three built apps as live embedded prototypes, closing on the four still to build. Arrow keys to move.
What incident management looks like when the system reads across incidents. Start on individual review — 29 closed, unremarkable records — then switch to the pattern: nine mealtime incidents at one site, every one involving staff without the IDDSI competency, escalating to a choking incident. One training gap, reported nine times.
What 148 pages of clinical paperwork looks like when it becomes a two-page guide a worker can act on in three minutes — every line traced to its source document. Then the caseload view: only 25% of plans are current, read, and not built on a since-revised source.
The wins nobody reports. 36 moments against 29 incidents in the same window, same people — every incident had a mandatory pathway; not one moment reached above site level. Five of them didn't survive the shift.