The Decision Room is the governed decision record system — not a collaboration room, a workflow board, or a meeting space. It holds the evidence, the review, the approval, and the audit trail behind a consequential workforce decision.
Evidence basis
Named source posture and role context present
Human accountability
Consultant review and client approver remain explicit
Artifact lineage
Outputs link back to the record and stay watermarked when representative
Runtime honesty
Public preview does not claim protected workspace activation
Governance narrative
This is the operating model that connects the Decision Room, Companion Intelligence, Trust, and Proof. Each stage has a named human owner. Companion assists; it never approves, grades, or decides.
Role evidence, decision context, and source-rights posture enter under a structured intake. Gaps and contradictions are surfaced, not hidden.
The protected methodology runs structure, grading, and scenario logic against the assembled evidence — a bounded evaluation, never a finalised decision.
A consultant reviews the prepared evidence and applies professional judgment before anything advances.
Assumptions are tested, alternatives weighed, risks named, and open questions recorded against the record before approval.
A named human approver accepts the decision basis at a governed approval gate, or sends it back.
The accountable owner decides. The decision, its rationale, and its evidence basis are bound together as the governed decision of record.
A bounded, representative artifact is generated — evidence-dependent and traceable, never a final automated decision.
Evidence, reviewer, rationale, approver, and timestamp are recorded append-only and stay re-openable.
The governed decision becomes durable precedent — traceable context the institution can reopen and learn from.
Accountable
A named human owns every consequential decision. Companion Intelligence prepares evidence and frames options under this sequence — it does not approve, grade, set pay, or override governance.
One representative decision shown whole: the role and grade move, the market, internal-equity, cost, and risk signals, a guided Companion challenge, and the watermarked artifact. Demo data — human review required, never a final compensation decision.
Should this critical role be regraded from the Senior Manager band to the Director band, with the associated pay adjustment?
Current grade
M4 · Senior Manager band
Proposed grade
M5 · Director band
Market signal
Above current bandRepresentative market posture places the role's total-cash near the upper edge of the current grade band — a regrade is directionally supportable, not confirmed.
Internal equity signal
Watch — peer compressionTwo adjacent roles already sit inside the proposed band. Moving this role without re-reading the peer set risks compression that the review must resolve.
Cost signal
Contained, recurringThe adjustment is a bounded recurring cost. It compounds through any downstream equity true-ups the internal-equity signal implies.
Risk signal
Governed — approver requiredA critical-role pay move is a governed decision: it needs a named reviewer, a named approver, and an audit trail before it is anything other than a proposal.
Recommendation
Directionally support a one-band regrade, contingent on a peer-family equity review and a named human approval. This is a proposal for review, not a final compensation decision.
Guided Companion challenge
Guided actions only — the anonymous Companion answers from a fixed set. There is no open, free-text AI on this preview.
The recommendation is directional, not decided. Before accepting it, confirm the peer set the internal-equity signal flags and check whether the market read holds once the role's scope is verified.
For the CHRO the exposure is equity and precedent: regrading one critical role can reset expectations across its peer family. The compression flag must be resolved so the move is defensible, not ad hoc.
For the CFO the exposure is recurring cost and knock-on true-ups. The single adjustment is contained; the risk is the equity corrections it can oblige downstream if peers are moved to match.
Missing before approval: verified current-role scope, the confirmed peer comparison set, and the downstream equity impact estimate. The decision stays a proposal until these are attached.
A safer path is a scoped, time-bound adjustment paired with a peer-family review — capturing retention risk now while deferring the full regrade until the equity read is complete.
Proposal: regrade the critical role one band, contingent on a peer-family equity review and a named approval. Market supports the direction; internal equity and downstream cost are the open items. Human review required — not a final decision.
Anonymous export is disabled. The watermarked artifact above is representative only.
Take the next step
You have seen the governed decision. Continuing captures your work email, company, role, and use case — access is never granted on submit; every request is human-reviewed.
Each stage is recorded. Nothing advances without evidence, review, and a named human approver.
01
Issue raised
A material workforce question is opened with a named owner and scope.
02
Evidence assembled
Role evidence, context, and source-rights posture enter under structured intake.
03
Assumptions documented
The assumptions behind the decision are written down, not left implicit.
04
Scenarios reviewed
Alternatives are framed with explicit caveats so the chosen path is defensible.
05
Risks identified
Compensation, equity, and governance risks are named against the record.
06
Reviewers engaged
Consultant and seat-role reviewers examine the evidence and apply judgment.
07
Approvals captured
A named approver accepts the basis at a governed gate — or sends it back.
08
Decision recorded
The decision, rationale, and evidence basis are bound together in the record.
09
Artifacts generated
Bounded, traceable artifacts are produced for the audit trail and institutional memory.
A representative record binds evidence to review to approval to outcome — so the decision can be reopened and defended.
The role evidence and decision context the record is built on, with source posture.
What was taken as given — stated explicitly so it can be reopened and tested.
The scenarios considered, each with its caveats, before the path was chosen.
Named compensation, equity, and governance risks attached to the decision.
Who reviewed the evidence, in which seat role, and what they confirmed.
The named human approver and the governed gate the decision passed through.
The reasoning that connects evidence and review to the decision taken.
The recorded decision and the artifacts it generated, kept re-openable.
Approval gates
No decision is recorded as approved without a named human approver accepting the basis.
Role controls
Review and approval are bound to seat roles — the right accountable human, not anyone.
Audit trail
Evidence, reviewer, rationale, approver, and timestamp are recorded append-only.
Decision lineage
Every record traces back to the evidence and forward to the artifacts it produced.
Traceability
The chain stays visible and re-openable; protected methodology mechanics stay confidential.
This preview is built from a representative proof case at runtime. It shows the review-grade Decision Room slice — advisory, evidence-dependent, and never a final compensation decision.
Evidence, risk, advisory AI, review state, and next actions are shown as a product preview. No client data, no proprietary survey values, and no automated approval.
decision room preview
Show the future operating model.
governance review status
Build trust through process transparency.
compensation risk governance flags
Reduce executive anxiety.
ai companion notes
Explain AI safely and credibly.
recommended next actions
Create natural expansion.
Built from the same projection the export route uses — a bounded artifact that binds the decision question, evidence, assumptions, risks, alternatives, recommendation framing, review and approval state, Decision Room reference, and audit reference. Print or export it as a PDF. Representative only — no client data, no protected methodology.
Evalio Release-0 · governed artifact v1 · Generated 2026-06-01T09:00:00.000Z · Case r0-representative-eng-manager · Lifecycle PREVIEW · Status review_recommended
Decision question
Is Engineering Manager correctly leveled at grade G13 for a S3 organization, and is that level defensible for a governed workforce decision?
Evidence summary
Assumptions
Risks
The role claims budget authority, but the evidence base does not yet confirm whether the authority is held or recommended.
Recommended action: Confirm the budget authority claim with the role owner during review.
Some tension exists between the stated title and the evidence base.
Recommended action: Spot-check scope claims with the role owner.
Budget authority claim is not fully evidenced.
Recommended action: Review during consultant assessment.
Alternatives considered
Route to guided review
Resolve open evidence gaps with a guided review before the level is treated as defensible.
Accept the bounded level for consultant review
Carry the indicative grade into consultant review as the working position, subject to human confirmation.
Escalate to expert review
Where contradictions are material, escalate to expert review before any reliance on the level.
Recommendation framing
Advisory framing: the evidence indicates G13 at moderate confidence. This is a bounded recommendation for human review — not a final grade, not a pay decision, and not an approval. AI prepares · consultant reviews · client decides.
Human review
Guided review recommended
Evidence gaps or ambiguity warrant a guided consultant review before reliance.
Approval state
Draft — not approved
The case is in draft. No human approval has been recorded.
Decision Room reference
r0-representative-eng-manager
Audit reference
5 events
evaluation_completed, confidence_computed, review_recommended, final_state_emitted
Pay moves, grade changes, and off-cycle adjustments become reviewable records with a named approver.
Job architecture and role-mapping decisions are recorded with their evidence and review state.
Capacity and cost scenarios are decided with explicit assumptions and an audit trail.
Board-facing governance packs are produced from recorded decisions, not assembled after the fact.
