Repeated information
- The same fact is typed into more than one system
- Information is copied from email into a document or spreadsheet by hand
- A later reviewer must search for the original source
- Different files contain conflicting versions of the same fact
Handoffs
- Work waits because the next owner is unclear
- Status is tracked through inbox searches or verbal updates
- A handoff lacks required inputs or acceptance criteria
- The next person repeats checks that should already be documented
Corrections
- The same correction appears in multiple projects
- Review comments are applied manually in several places
- A change in one section can leave related sections inconsistent
- The team cannot distinguish a source correction from a stylistic edit
Exceptions
- Missing information is buried inside notes or messages
- Work can appear complete while a material issue remains unresolved
- No one owns the next action for an exception
- There is no rule for when an exception blocks delivery
Approval and evidence
- The final reviewer cannot see which sources were used
- Approval is implied rather than recorded
- The final file overwrites earlier versions without a clear change record
- The team cannot reconstruct why a material decision was made
Choose the first improvement
Circle the repeated step creating the most avoidable correction, delay, or uncertainty. Record its input, owner, expected output, common exception, review evidence, and the measure that would show improvement.