Brief → Placement
One bounded workflow, not an open-ended transformation programme.
SYNTHETIC DEMONSTRATION / NOT A CLIENT CASE STUDY
What a 21V Diagnostic
actually looks like.
This fictional example shows the structure of a fixed-scope Operational Diagnostic: one workflow, evidence, findings, an Improvement Mandate and clear acceptance measures.
Important: every company, evidence item and finding on this page is fictional. Nothing here is a claimed customer result, ROI outcome, case study, certification or real client turnaround.
EXAMPLE SCOPE
One workflow. Clear boundaries.
Fictional subject: a recruitment business reviewing its client-brief-to-placement workflow. The question is not “where is the company failing?” but “what does the evidence show about ownership, handoffs, exceptions and acceptance points?”
Six fictional evidence items
Intake, ownership, qualification, exception, submission and follow-up records.
Facts separated from hypotheses
Every finding states the evidence, observation, cause status and limitation.
Prioritised next moves
Recommendations carry an owner and an acceptance measure rather than a vague “improve this”.
SAMPLE FINDINGS
Evidence before recommendation.
SYN-F01 — Ownership evidence before work starts
Observation: the fictional records do not consistently show a named accountable owner before search begins.
Cause status: HYPOTHESIS — the example does not prove why the field is absent.
Acceptance measure: percentage of in-scope briefs with an evidenced named owner before search; real target agreed with the client.
SYN-F02 — Exceptions are visible but not classified
Observation: fictional exception notes exist without a shared taxonomy.
Cause status: UNKNOWN.
Acceptance measure: percentage of in-scope exceptions with a classification and accountable owner.
SYN-F03 — Submission readiness lacks an explicit control point
Observation: the fictional handoff does not record a clear “submission ready” acceptance point.
Cause status: HYPOTHESIS.
Acceptance measure: proportion of submissions carrying the agreed acceptance evidence before release.
IMPROVEMENT MANDATE
Turn findings into decisions.
| Priority | Action | Evidence needed in a real engagement | Acceptance measure |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Make pre-work ownership explicit | Real intake + assignment records | Named-owner coverage before work starts |
| P1 | Classify exceptions | Real exception / rework records | Classified exception coverage |
| P1 | Define submission-ready acceptance | Real submission + correction evidence | Accepted-evidence coverage before release |
AUTOMATION SCREEN
Automate only after the process is clear.
A real Diagnostic may identify automation candidates, but 21V does not treat “AI” as the answer before the workflow and evidence are understood. A useful automation recommendation defines BASELINE → CHANGE → ACCEPTANCE MEASURE → REALISED IMPACT. Machine runtime is not the same thing as human time saved, and forecast savings are not realised savings.
START WITH ONE WORKFLOW
Want this level of clarity on a real process?
Start with the free 20-minute Workflow Pressure Test. If it establishes genuine scope fit, commercial terms are confirmed in writing before any paid engagement begins. Tell us which workflow you want examined and what decision you need to make from the evidence.