Email → tracker copy

Building Back Office Correlation key: thread_id · 91.8%

Still worked by hand end to end — 5.2 h/week across everyone who runs it.

Case footprint: median 4.4 h elapsed, 22m 37s of it hands-on, across 1 work session and 0.2 calendar days. 9 of the 9 happy-path waits exceed the 150 s idle-gap threshold, but a gap only ends a work session when it outlasts one (59 min, the fleet's mean). None here do: the case is put down and picked up inside the same sitting, while the person works other cases.

Cases: 146
Activities: 11
Variants: 29
Median throughput: 4.4 h
p95 throughput: 23.6 h
Working time / Waiting time: 22m 37s / 4 h
Rework: 15%
Fitness: 0.9
Precision: 0.76

No filters — showing every case

146 of 146 cases (100%)

Directly-follows map

Discovered from the event log. The editable automation design is the last tab.

showing 11 of 11 activities · 100% of activity instances covered

Geometry is computed at build time, so nothing reflows when you filter. 25 of 65 directly-follows relations sit below the 0.20 noise threshold and are hidden; together they carry 2.2% of transitions.

Node fill 0–20%20–40%40–60%60–80%80–100% Happy path Loop back Self-loop

Five discrete steps. Edge thickness is a square-root scale on frequency, so the busiest edge is 8 px and the quietest 1 px.

Where the hours go

Edges ranked by total recoverable waiting time, not mean.

7.4% working 92.6% waiting · mean 34m 35s · p95 2 h · 122 cases affected · 11% of total cycle time
6% working 94% waiting · mean 32m 43s · p95 1.9 h · 105 cases affected · 9% of total cycle time
5.8% working 94.2% waiting · mean 25m 38s · p95 87m 09s · 116 cases affected · 7.8% of total cycle time
4.6% working 95.4% waiting · mean 26m 14s · p95 89m 12s · 107 cases affected · 7.5% of total cycle time
9.8% working 90.2% waiting · mean 25m 50s · p95 87m 50s · 106 cases affected · 7.2% of total cycle time

Variant explorer

One row per distinct end-to-end activity sequence, ranked by case count. Row 1 is the happy path and every other row is column-aligned to it, so deviations read as vertical discontinuities.

Top 12 variants cover 88.3% of cases.

Select exactly two variants to compare.

#	Variant	Sequence	Cases	% of cases	Cumulative	Median	p95	Steps	Δ vs happy path	Conformance	Compare
1	V-01 Happy path	OEPFMCCVPVOWSWAL	46	31.5%	31.5%	3.1 h	13.4 h	8	—	Conforming	Compare V-01
2	V-02	OEPFMCCVPVOWSWAL	14	9.6%	41.1%	4.3 h	18.8 h	6	-2 · 74m 51s	Deviating	Compare V-02
3	V-03	OERFPFMCCVPVOWSWAL	12	8.2%	49.3%	3.3 h	13.5 h	8	—	Deviating	Compare V-03
4	V-04	OEPFMCCVRFPV^×2OWSWAL	11	7.5%	56.8%	4.6 h	23.8 h	10	+2 · 1.5 h	Deviating	Compare V-04
5	V-05	OERFPFMCCVPVOWSWAL^×2	9	6.2%	63%	4.9 h	23.5 h	10	+2 · 1.8 h	Deviating	Compare V-05
6	V-06	POOEPFMCCV^×4PVDCOWSWAL	8	5.5%	68.5%	7.5 h	28.6 h	12	+4 · 4.4 h	Deviating	Compare V-06
7	V-07	OEPFMCPOCVPVOWSWAL	7	4.8%	73.3%	3.4 h	21.9 h	7	-1 · 20m 46s	Deviating	Compare V-07
8	V-08	OEPFMCCVPVPOOWSWAL	6	4.1%	77.4%	5.2 h	38.4 h	9	+1 · 2.1 h	Deviating	Compare V-08
9	V-09	OE^×2PFMCCVPVOWSWPOAL	5	3.4%	80.8%	4 h	30 h	9	+1 · 53m 53s	Deviating	Compare V-09
10	V-10	OEPFMCCVPVPORFOWSWAL	4	2.7%	83.5%	3.7 h	25.1 h	9	+1 · 39m 12s	Deviating	Compare V-10
11	V-11	OEPFPORFMCCVPVOWSWAL	4	2.7%	86.2%	5.5 h	35.1 h	10	+2 · 2.4 h	Deviating	Compare V-11
12	V-12	OEPFMCCVRFDCPVOWSWAL	3	2.1%	88.3%	5.8 h	40.8 h	10	+2 · 2.7 h	Deviating	Compare V-12
—	Other variants (5) · 3.4% of cases	Activity sequence —	5	3.4%	100%	—	—	—	—	—

17 variants (58.6% of all variants) occur exactly once, together 11.6% of cases.

Variant distribution

Rank on a log scale against cases on a log scale, with cumulative coverage on the right axis.

Cases (log scale) Cumulative coverage (%) Variant rank (log scale) 9 variants cover 80% of cases

Variant comparison

Two variants on the same alignment columns. Colour says which side; hatching repeats it, so the diff survives greyscale.

Variant A

Variant B

A · V-01

Merged activity set

B · V-02

Merged activity set

Every alignment column, coloured by which side uses it.

In both Only in A Only in B In neither

List of changes

Side by side
Side by side	A	B	Δ

Attributes associated with each branch

These are associations measured on the log, not causes. Every rule prints the number of cases it was measured on.

Sender domain `sender_domain`

143 of 146 cases · 2.2% missing

internal61 · 41.8%
partner39 · 26.7%
supplier26 · 17.8%
unknown17 · 11.6%

Rule statements

Ranked by lift × support. Each rule is a sentence you can read aloud.

When department = Finance → the case takes “Reformat in the sheet” in 77.1% of cases (baseline 30.8%, lift 2.5×, n = 32).
77.1% confidence 30.8% baseline 2.5× lift n = 32
When row_count > 125 → the case takes “Double-check the totals” in 34.7% of cases (baseline 11%, lift 3.15×, n = 10).
34.7% confidence 11% baseline 3.15× lift n = 10
When sender_domain = supplier AND department = Sales → the case takes “Reformat in the sheet” in 73.1% of cases (baseline 30.8%, lift 2.37×, n = 8).
73.1% confidence 30.8% baseline 2.37× lift n = 8
When week_of_month = W5 AND shift = Late → the case takes “Ping the owner to check” in 60.8% of cases (baseline 26%, lift 2.34×, n = 8).
60.8% confidence 26% baseline 2.34× lift n = 8

Decision point

Pick an exclusive choice in the map to see its branch shares and the attributes that discriminate between them.

Decision point

Branch

Extract the figures106 · 72.6%
Reformat in the sheet23 · 15.8%
Map the rows to tracker columns11 · 7.5%
Double-check the totals3 · 2.1%
Ping the owner to check2 · 1.4%

Pick an exclusive choice in the map to see its branch shares and the attributes that discriminate between them.

Conformance against the reference model

Reference model v3, 22 Jun 2026

Fitness0.9

Precision0.76

Fitness and precision trade off; we report both rather than a single model-quality score.

Conforming cases — 46 (31.5%) Non-conforming — 100 (68.5%)

Deviations by type

A deviation is not necessarily an error — it is behaviour the reference model does not allow.

					Breaks conformance
Skip	100	68.5%	3m 41s	6.1 h	Breaks conformance
Activity retry	40	27.4%	5m 47s	3.9 h	—
Invalid activity	88	60.3%	2m 23s	3.5 h	Breaks conformance
Loop back	16	11%	9m 33s	2.5 h	—
Exclusive-choice violation	13	8.9%	2m 43s	35m 19s	Breaks conformance
Invalid start/end	8	5.5%	0s	0s	Breaks conformance

Conforming cases over the window

Conforming cases (%) · 16 Jun – 13 Jul 2026

Conforming cases (%)16 Jun – 13 Jul 2026

Rework and loops

Self-loops and loop-backs, with loop inflow, outflow and net gain.

Activity	Kind	Self-loops	Cases affected	Mean repeats	Loop in	Loop out	Net gain	Total waiting
Extract the figures	Loop back	0	23	2×	23	18	+5	17.4 h
Paste into the target field	Loop back	0	14	2×	14	15	-1	7.6 h
Append to the change log	Self-loop	13	11	2.18×	13	12	+1	2.2 h
Open workbook	Loop back	0	11	2×	11	10	+1	16.4 h
Open workbook	Loop back	0	10	2×	10	9	+1	12.1 h
Copy values between windows	Self-loop	26	9	3.89×	26	21	+5	5.9 h
Open the weekly numbers email	Loop back	0	8	2×	8	6	+2	13.8 h
Copy values between windows	Loop back	0	8	2×	8	6	+2	4.8 h

Rework cost €1,192–1,788 · 22 cases · 60 h Costed at the €25/h loaded rate used everywhere in this dashboard.

Cases

Showing 16 of a 40-case sample drawn from 146 cases, across the 24 variants listed on the Variants tab. The totals above are exact; this table is sampled.

Variant				Roles	Departments		Conformance
V-05	2026-07-13 13:24:18	6 h	10	Back-Office ClerkOperations Lead	backofficeops	1	Deviating
V-11	2026-07-13 12:06:41	4.1 h	10	Operations Lead	backoffice	0	Deviating
V-05	2026-07-13 10:51:30	9.8 h	10	Operations LeadOperations Coord.	backoffice	1	Deviating
V-17	2026-07-13 09:34:08	5.1 h	9	Back-Office ClerkOperations Lead	backoffice	0	Deviating
V-01	2026-07-09 11:07:08	66m 43s	8	Back-Office ClerkOperations Coord.	backofficeops	0	Conforming
V-01	2026-07-09 09:57:14	5.7 h	8	Operations Coord.Operations Lead	backoffice	0	Conforming
V-01	2026-07-06 13:24:52	3.2 h	8	Operations Coord.	backoffice	0	Conforming
V-03	2026-07-06 09:52:58	5.8 h	8	Back-Office Clerk	backofficeops	0	Deviating
V-01	2026-07-03 16:58:36	7 h	8	Back-Office ClerkOperations Coord.	backofficeops	0	Conforming
V-12	2026-07-03 13:59:05	2.6 h	10	Operations LeadOperations Coord.	backofficeops	0	Deviating
V-09	2026-07-03 12:25:55	32.4 h	9	Back-Office Clerk	backofficeops	1	Deviating
V-11	2026-07-03 11:16:00	33m 26s	10	Operations Coord.Operations Lead	backofficeops	0	Deviating
V-01	2026-07-03 08:03:23	11.5 h	8	Operations Coord.Operations Lead	backoffice	0	Conforming
V-04	2026-07-02 11:35:48	1.9 h	10	Operations Coord.	backoffice	1	Deviating
V-03	2026-07-02 11:10:40	6.6 h	8	Back-Office ClerkOperations Lead	backoffice	0	Deviating
V-01	2026-07-01 16:09:24	10.1 h	8	Operations LeadBack-Office Clerk	backofficeops	0	Conforming

16 of 40

Building 84% confidence

Automation design

The Map tab is what the event log shows. This is the automation you are designing from it.

OutlookExcel

5.2h reclaimed / week across everyone who runs it

Case V-01 Conforming

—

· Process: Email → tracker copy · Correlation key thread_id

Total duration

Working Waiting Steps · Rework

Field	Value
`thread_id`	THR-2026-62206
`queue`	Tier 1
`priority`	P2
`requester_ref`	cust_8421
`contact_email`	•••••••@•••••.••• · masked at capture (Email address masked at capture)

Field	Value
`thread_id`	THR-2026-60014
`queue`	Billing
`priority`	P1
`requester_ref`	cust_1514
`contact_email`	•••••••@•••••.••• · masked at capture (Email address masked at capture)

Field	Value
`thread_id`	THR-2026-83294
`queue`	Onboarding
`priority`	P3
`requester_ref`	cust_1459
`contact_email`	•••••••@•••••.••• · masked at capture (Email address masked at capture)