← All scenarios

Regulated approvals

Proving who approved it, months later

An inspector asks who approved a decision, how they proved it was them, and whether anything could have changed afterwards.

Regulated and compliance-driven organizations

These are illustrative scenarios showing how the products are used, not customer case studies.

The same sequence, twice

The same sequence today, and with SynaptaGrid.

Today

  1. Approver clicks approve
  2. User id and timestamp stored
  3. Presence unprovable
  4. Evidence assembled later

With SynaptaGrid

  1. Task presents the decision
  2. Re-authenticate to sign
  3. Reason code recorded
  4. Signature chained, payload frozen

The situation

The approval is a row with a user id and a timestamp. Whether that person was actually present, what they were shown, and whether the record was altered later are questions the system was never designed to answer — and they get asked long after the fact.

How it is approached

A step pauses for a human decision, and that decision can require re-authentication at the moment of signing, with a second factor where it warrants one, and a reason chosen from codes defined for that step. Signatures are appended and chained so alteration is detectable, and the decision payload becomes immutable once recorded. The options and the form are fixed when the task is created, so editing the workflow later never reshapes a task somebody has already opened.

What changes

The inspector’s question is answered from the record. Approval rules can be a named person, anyone in a role, a quorum or a weighted vote, and changing them does not disturb the decisions already taken under the old ones.