Kureos.The Time and Authority AuditSpecimen — synthetic data
The written read

One
constraint.
Not five.

Four dimensions, scored by you and independently by the people around you. Ordered as a chain, because that is how they actually operate.

Respondents4 + you
Binding constraintExpectation clarity
Elapsed3 weeks
12182430EXPECTATION CLARITY12 /30DECISION LOCATION17 /30BLIND SPOT +8.7TIME INTEGRITY14 /30CONSEQUENCE FOLLOW-THROUGH19 /30
What you reportWhat your people reportOne respondentSpread between them
01

The constraint

One sentence. Where more than one dimension sits in the bottom band, the one upstream is named.

Nobody around you can tell what good looks like before they start, so every judgement call travels up to you, and your calendar is the bill.

Expectation clarity scores 12 of 30 against the people around you. Everything else is downstream of this. It sits upstream of the other three, and it is the only one whose repair moves the others without being worked on directly.

02

The evidence

Numbers, not adjectives. Every figure is generated by you or by the people around you.

Only I can do this
19%

Of scheduled time, against the three priorities you named in the framing call.

Should sit elsewhere
57%

Someone else should be doing it, or it should not be happening at all.

Meetings you did not call
68%

You spoke for more than a third of 71% of them.

Decisions brought to you
34

Logged live across five working days. 22 could have settled one level below.

Of the 22 that could have settled below you, the dominant reason was not permission and not capability. It was I tried before and it was overturned.” That accounted for 14 of 22. It is the most common of the four causes, the least often admitted, and the fastest to reverse.

03

The chain

How the four are feeding each other here. This section is the difference between a report and a read.

forces
consumes
leaves no room to reset
04

Who is inside the average

The diamond shows the mean. This shows the people it was made from.

Expectation clarityDecision locationTime integrityConsequence follow-throughMean
You1526132118.8
Respondent 11423162118.5
Respondent 21012121712.8
Respondent 31115141914.8
Respondent 41319142016.5
Spread41144

On Decision location the 4 people around you scored 12, 15, 19, 23. A spread of 11 points on the same question, about the same leader, in the same quarter. Two of them experience someone who distributes decisions well. Two experience someone who holds everything. Both are describing you accurately.

That is authority granted personally rather than structurally. People you trust are given latitude. Everyone else escalates. It reads to you as a difference in the calibre of your people. It is a difference in the design of their authority, and it is yours to fix rather than theirs.

It also explains the blind spot. You score Decision location at 26. Your people score it 17.3. You are not wrong about your own experience of it. You are describing the half of the team that has the latitude.

05

Three commitments

Each lands in a calendar entry, a meeting agenda or a written standard. Nothing is accepted that exists only as an intention.

01

Write the standard for the four decision types that generated 14 of the 22 escalations, and publish it to the team in writing.

Removes the overturned-before cause at source. One page, not a policy.

ArtifactWritten standard
OwnerYou. Once.
DateWithin 14 days
02

Name, in the next team meeting, the two decisions you overturned last quarter, and say which one you were wrong to overturn.

The cause is a belief about you. Only you can contradict it, and only in public.

ArtifactMeeting agenda item
OwnerYou
DateNext scheduled
03

Give the two respondents who scored lowest the same standing latitude the top two already have, and tell all four you have done it.

Converts personal authority into structural authority. This is the one that moves the spread.

ArtifactCalendar, four conversations
OwnerYou, then them
DateWithin 21 days
06

The thirty day check

Written so someone other than you can verify it, without your account of it.

What will be differentEvidenceVerifiable by
Escalations of the four named decision typesDecision log re-run for five days. Baseline 34 total, 22 avoidable.Anyone reading the log
The written standard exists and is findableA link a new joiner can be sent without explanation.A new joiner
Spread on decision locationFour respondents re-score six statements. Baseline spread 11.The re-score itself
Time in code ATen working days re-coded. Baseline 19%.The calendar