Part 3 workflow/SOP progression. Course path note: Part 3 workshop page for enrolled learners.
Part 3 | Practice workshop
Identify repeated task candidates and rank them by frequency, stability, evidence availability, handoff value, and risk.
A team sees many repeated tasks and wants to know which ones are worth turning into workflows first.
The trap is choosing tasks because they are annoying. D62 selects repeated tasks by frequency, risk, evidence availability, owner clarity, and payoff.
“Candidate: the task everyone finds annoying.”
The weak version contains annoying, everyone, no frequency, no owner clarity.
How often the task repeats.
What can go wrong and what proof exists.
Who can approve or stop it.
Use this rule before filling the build table. The goal is a decision-ready artifact, not a broad summary.
How often the task repeats.
What can go wrong and what proof exists.
Who can approve or stop it.
After defining workflow anatomy, the worker must choose which repeated task is worth mapping first instead of turning every annoyance into a workflow.
Identify repeated task candidates and rank them by frequency, stability, evidence availability, handoff value, and risk.
Choosing the most annoying task rather than the most repeatable and reviewable workflow candidate.
Core: 3 candidates; Deep: improve the same 3 candidates with stronger evidence, limits, and repair notes. Choose by repetition, input stability, owner, evidence, handoff value, and risk.
Previous artifact: D61 workflow_foundation_note.md
Next artifact: D63 workflow_io_definition.md
Learning checkpoint: Keep the handoff useful to the next lesson by naming evidence, limitation, owner, and stop rule.
This page keeps Day 62 connected to the surrounding course path. Use the previous artifact as working input, produce today's artifact, and hand it to the next lesson with limitations visible.
Compare three repeats: weekly renewal-risk review, ad hoc executive questions, and quarterly policy interpretation. The best candidate repeats often, uses stable inputs, and has bounded risk; policy interpretation is repeated but too judgment-heavy to workflow first.
Pick the task with stable inputs and a known owner. Hold tasks with variable evidence. Reject tasks where each run requires new authority or policy interpretation.
Use these cards before the wide table so the example does not depend on horizontal scrolling.
Repeated-task candidate ranking
Pick the task with stable inputs and a known owner. Hold tasks with variable evidence. Reject tasks where each run requires new authority or policy interpretation.
| No. | Candidate task | Frequency | Input stability | Decision owner | Evidence available | Handoff value | Risk / sensitivity | Candidate decision | D63 input-output need |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Weekly renewal-risk update | Weekly | Mostly stable | Sales ops lead | Strong / traceable | High | Medium | Promote to D63 | Define required input packet and manager-ready output |
Core: 3 candidates; Deep: improve the same 3 candidates with stronger evidence, limits, and repair notes. Choose by repetition, input stability, owner, evidence, handoff value, and risk. Blank required fields create export warnings.
| No. | Candidate task | Frequency | Input stability | Decision owner | Evidence available | Handoff value | Risk / sensitivity | Candidate decision | D63 input-output need |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |||||||||
| 2 | |||||||||
| 3 |
Use this pass to find the row that would make the artifact look ready while hiding evidence gaps, unclear owner decision, missing exception, or weak handoff.
Weak row: Candidate chosen because it is annoying.
Repair move: Add frequency, evidence, risk, owner, and payoff.
Better row: Candidate: weekly renewal-risk review; repeats weekly; evidence exists in CRM; owner CS manager; risk unsupported claim.
Choose the row you would be comfortable carrying into the next day.
Choose the row most likely to fail before AI use.
Sentence starter: The weak row is weak because ___. I will repair it by adding ___ before using AI.
This file is today’s work receipt. It should show the exact decision or handoff that the next day can use, not just that you filled a table.
What this artifact proves: This file proves the learner can select repeated task candidates that deserve workflow design.
Weak export: Candidate chosen because it is annoying.
Good export: Candidate: weekly renewal-risk review; repeats weekly; evidence exists in CRM; owner CS manager; risk unsupported claim.
Click Generate Markdown to create repeated_task_candidates.md.
Built from your course work.