Blueprint

Governed Intake Router

Deterministic qualification and engagement routing for advisory, co-build, and managed modes.

Designed for

Operations and revenue leaders who need fast, explainable intake decisions without turning a first-pass assessment into an opaque lead-scoring system.

Operating model

A browser-safe intake captures a bounded set of facts, a versioned rubric calculates the recommendation, and a named operator owns every exception or policy-sensitive account. The model may summarize context, but it never changes the score or sends an external commitment.

Problem

Lead qualification often collapses into manual interpretation, delaying response times and creating inconsistent engagement recommendations.

Constraints

• No backend dependency for first-pass qualification
• Deterministic classification with transparent scoring
• Human override for edge cases and high-risk accounts

Design assumptions

The organization can define its target engagement modes and disqualifying conditions before launch.
Required intake fields are available at the point of submission or can be explicitly marked unknown.
A qualified owner is available to review high-risk, low-confidence, or incomplete submissions.

Non-negotiable constraints

No backend dependency for first-pass qualification
Deterministic classification with transparent scoring
Human override for edge cases and high-risk accounts

System shape

Architecture flow

Control specification

Controls that make the model operable

Each control has a defined purpose and an auditable evidence trail so operators can explain what happened, not merely observe an outcome.

Required-field gate

Prevents a recommendation when the minimum decision context is absent.

Evidence produced

Field-completeness receipt with the rubric version and missing-field list.

Versioned scoring matrix

Makes the engagement recommendation reproducible and reviewable.

Evidence produced

Score breakdown, threshold band, and matrix version stored with the brief.

Risk escalation rule

Routes regulated, sensitive, or ambiguous requests to a human before outreach.

Evidence produced

Escalation reason, assigned owner, and resolution decision recorded in the operator queue.

Boundary contracts

What crosses each boundary

Intake form → deterministic scorer

Required contract

Normalized organization profile, stated objective, systems context, risk flags, and a schema version.

Failure policy

Reject invalid payloads; keep the user-facing draft intact and identify the field that needs correction.

Scorer → policy gate

Required contract

Score band, triggered rules, and the complete decision trace; no free-text rationale is authoritative.

Failure policy

Default to review when the trace is incomplete, the rubric version is unknown, or two policy rules conflict.

Policy gate → operator handoff

Required contract

Recommendation, evidence summary, escalation reason, and next permissible action.

Failure policy

Create a non-sendable review item; no automatic calendar booking or commercial commitment is made.

Delivery sequence

Build the control surface before scaling it

01 · Calibrate

An agreed rubric with explicit inclusion, exclusion, and escalation thresholds.

Map current intake decisions and identify disagreement patterns.
Define required facts, score weights, and high-risk conditions with accountable owners.

02 · Build the bounded path

A schema-validated intake and deterministic recommendation artifact.

Implement form validation, score calculation, and policy evaluation as separate functions.
Generate a reviewable JSON brief with a stable rubric version and timestamp.

03 · Prove and release

A controlled launch with measurable consistency and operator ownership.

Replay historical examples and compare system decisions with approved dispositions.
Run a monitored pilot, then publish an exception-review cadence and change-control rule.

Verification model

Signals required to operate with confidence

Recommendation trace completeness

Target ·100% of submitted recommendations carry a rubric version, score breakdown, and route.

Response ·Block delivery and create an implementation defect when any trace field is absent.

High-risk escalation capture

Target ·No submission matching a risk rule bypasses the named review queue.

Response ·Review rule misses weekly and add test fixtures before changing thresholds.

Operator override rate

Target ·Overrides are explained, categorized, and used to improve the rubric rather than silently replace it.

Response ·Investigate sustained category-specific overrides before expanding automation coverage.

Implementation guidance

Decisions to retain through delivery

Use weighted criteria with explicit thresholds to avoid opaque recommendations.
Emit JSON artifacts for downstream operator workflows and reproducible audit trails.
Keep channel and risk questions near the beginning of flows for better branch precision.

Handoff pack

What the team keeps

Versioned scoring rubric and policy rule register
Intake schema with invalid-state examples
Decision-trace JSON specification and operator queue contract
Pilot fixture set, override taxonomy, and change-control checklist

Download the full specification

Signals required to operate with confidence

Recommendation trace completeness

Target ·100% of submitted recommendations carry a rubric version, score breakdown, and route.

Response ·Block delivery and create an implementation defect when any trace field is absent.

High-risk escalation capture

Target ·No submission matching a risk rule bypasses the named review queue.

Response ·Review rule misses weekly and add test fixtures before changing thresholds.

Operator override rate

Target ·Overrides are explained, categorized, and used to improve the rubric rather than silently replace it.

Response ·Investigate sustained category-specific overrides before expanding automation coverage.