Supporting Potential — Systems Model · Digitised from working sketch
Four systems Achieve already runs — Participant, Workforce & Support Delivery, Risk, and Governance — orbiting the same centre, drawn as your original sketch had them: each its own ring. The dots on each ring are real. The lines between rings are what this page adds — the joints your sketch was already reaching for when you drew "Access info to Deliver Support" cutting straight across it.
Two more layers on top of the first version: four additional cross-ring joints (including the one place two rings turned out to be genuinely, evidencedly connected — not everything here is a gap), and which system is actually in play at each point, where that's evidenced. Where a system tag is missing, that's not an oversight — no document in this engagement's evidence base names one.
feedback-loops/angela mock.jpg — a hand-drawn working sketch, photographed at an angle. Ring assignment and point order are my best-effort reading, organised by theme rather than pixel-exact position. A handful of words were genuinely illegible (one scribbled label on the workforce ring near "Incident Mgmt & Documentation," and "By Trtn./Support" near the risk ring, dropped rather than guessed) — flag anything misread and I'll correct it. System tags are sourced from the four feedback-loop deep dives and the board-KPI-reporting loop, not inferred from the sketch itself.
Thirteen joints — what the evidence says about each
The one connector already in your original sketch — you drew it straight across the page. Staff need current, structured participant information to deliver support; ~98% of Achieve's client documentation is still Word/Excel/paper with zero metadata, and the SOS itself is a non-searchable PDF.
Karen Moore-Evans interview, 2 Jul 2026; achieve-funding-billing-claims-loop.mdStaff onboarding and participant onboarding share one word on the sketch and, largely, in Achieve's own documents. No process artefact in the evidence base draws the two apart explicitly.
achieve-client-lifecycle-loop.md — three-generations-of-source-of-truth findingEvery generic Governance-category risk field in the 251-point data dictionary — risk register, corporate risks, clinical risks — is tagged "Unknown – please advise." Individual risk gets flagged at the point of planning; nothing aggregates it.
achieve-org-design-governance-deep-dive.md §6The board's own risk register exists and is reviewed — but every High/Extreme-rated item on it is a workforce or payroll risk. Not one participant-facing risk currently reaches that threshold.
visuals/exec-summary.html — board risk register findingEscalated incidents do reach the Board — the ALERT→ERT→CERT pathway is real and produces action plans. What's unconfirmed is whether routine, non-escalated incident volume ever reaches governance as a trend, rather than case by case.
achieve-incident-management-loop.md — Interview corroboration, Jul 2026Pay inquiries and rostering duplications are still occurring after the VisiCase uplift. Asked who owns the fix: "I don't think you can pinpoint that to the one person. I think it's more the process."
Jay Balana interview, 9 Jul 2026, 6:53Reconcile Payments — the step that should join claiming activity to financial governance — is still labelled "Role TBC." Asked directly in July 2026, neither the CFO nor the GM Finance could name an owner.
Wally Phillips/Frankie Poon interview, 10 Jul 2026, 19:53–20:21Not in your original sketch — added because it's arguably the single best-evidenced gap in the whole engagement. No CI item references a KPI. No KPI cites CI activity as a leading indicator. 191 items closed; no evidenced connection to any KPI movement.
visuals/exec-summary.html — root cause section; Connection A, connective-project-plan.htmlCorrected from an earlier version of this page, which overstated this as a confirmed working connection. What's actually evidenced: the ALERT→ERT→CERT pathway is designed to feed CI, not ad hoc — Tina's own phrasing was conditional ("would follow"), describing intent. Only 2 of ~38 sampled CI register rows (~5%) trace to an incident, and the full register volume was never obtained. A designed-but-rarely-used pathway and a reliably-working one look identical from this evidence alone — don't claim more than "designed" without a fuller register extract.
Tina McManus interview, 9 Jul 2026, 23:27; achieve-ci-register-loop.md and achieve-incident-management-loop.md — Interview corroboration, correctedSame label appears on the Workforce ring and the Risk ring. No document in the evidence base states whether these are the same activity viewed twice, or two genuinely different processes that happen to share a name.
Digitised from working sketch — flagged for confirmation, not yet independently evidenced either wayBlocked for years by the absence of a single source of truth for client data. The Client Risk Management Framework — meant to join individual safety planning to support planning — is only now reaching pilot.
Tina McManus interview, 9 Jul 2026; achieve-client-lifecycle-loop.md — Interview corroborationA plan can be current and a worker can be untrained on its content simultaneously, with no system aware of the gap. Behaviour Support Plan expiry tracking is manual-entry-dependent and known to go stale.
Jay Balana interview, 9 Jul 2026; Stream C rationale, connective-project-plan.htmlYou've diagnosed your own diagram, and you're right. As drawn, each ring is internally coherent and externally silent — four real, functioning cycles (Participant, Workforce, Risk, Governance) that never once reference each other's dots. That's not a drawing problem. It's the same finding this whole engagement keeps landing on from every other angle — the funding loop's "Role TBC," the incident loop's dead-end at "Share Any Information and Lessons," the org design deep dive's "no aggregate risk view exists anywhere in the evidence reviewed" — expressed here as a structural property of the diagram before a single word of analysis is added to it.
Two things about that are worth naming directly:
Where this is strongest as a report visual: unlike a linear swimlane process map, this format makes the absence of a connection visually obvious rather than requiring a reader to notice a missing arrow. A blank space between two rings reads immediately as "nothing joins these." That's a genuine advantage over the four separate feedback-loop diagrams already built for this engagement, which each show one system in isolation by design and can't show this kind of cross-system gap at all.
Where it needs care before it goes in front of Sarah or the Steer Co: