Event scope changes, revision history, and role-specific decisions
I used my production experience to define scope-change requirements and review how approvals apply when the price, scope or responsible person changes. How I build and review →
Live production work involves changing requirements and several kinds of authority. I shaped this product around the difference between a requested change, its price, and the decisions required for that particular version.
A decision for an earlier amount or scope should stay in history, not silently satisfy the new request.
Represent AV scope authorization, financial approval and technical acknowledgement separately.
A pending price, missing eligible approver or declined decision needs a visible explanation.
Explore the workflow
Start with a reviewed $250 change, then create a $400 revision. Compare a financial decision alone with the complete set of decisions for the new revision.
Interactive controls are unavailable until this example loads. The complete annotated example is below.
Alternate monitor configuration
This technical override carries an advisory to review the changed configuration. The scenario requires an AV lead, a client budget owner with a $500 limit, and a client technical requester.
Simulation controls
Interactive example · fictional data. Choices stay on this page and reset on reload or when you select Reset example.
Role decisions are simulated. No event personnel are contacted and no real change is authorized.
The interactive example couldn’t continue. Read the annotated example or reload to reset.
AV lead: Authorized
Budget owner: Approved
Technical requester: Acknowledged
All three decisions apply to revision 1.
AV lead: Pending
Budget owner: Pending
Technical requester: Pending
Revision 1’s decisions remain in history and do not satisfy revision 2.
Recording finance alone leaves AV and technical decisions pending. Recording all required decisions completes the current set. If finance declines, recording the other roles preserves that decline; the example cannot claim all required approvals are satisfied.
The project materials below show the requirements, decisions and workflow behind this case. Interactive examples use fictional data.
The prototype checks that each decision belongs to the current change and revision. Earlier approvals remain in the history, while a revised request needs decisions for that new version.
Evidence: EventScope change decision evaluator and decision record models.
Technical acknowledgement is required for a technical override with an advisory. The portfolio scenario intentionally selects that condition, so all three roles have a reason to appear. It does not imply every ordinary event change requires the same three decisions.
Evidence: Original requirement evaluator and the approved technical-override scenario.
Related case
Property measurements, service scope, and itemized estimates