# Write decisions down where the work happens Version 1.1 · Kramaniti Kosh > How to use this file: fill in the Working template section below. It opens in any text editor, or you can paste the whole file into ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini and ask it to help you fill it in for your business. ## Intended outcome A short decision record kept beside the workflow itself, stating what was decided, why, who owns it and when to look at it again, so the team does not have to reconstruct the rule from chat or memory later. ## Before you begin - One live workflow where the same choice keeps coming up (who may do what, what needs a check, when an exception is allowed) - A place next to that work where the record will live (a sheet column, a pinned chat note, a ticket field, a shared folder) - One person who can name the owner of the decision and agree when it should be revisited ## How to use 1. Pick one decision that already shapes day-to-day work and that people keep asking about in meetings or chat. 2. Fill in the record beside that workflow: what was decided, the context and trade-offs, who decided, the date, when to revisit, and where the approved version lives. 3. Tell the team where to find it. Use it the next time the same question comes up, and revisit it on the date you wrote, or sooner if customers or money are affected in a way the record did not cover. ## Working template ## Record header Business or team: Workflow this decision sits beside: Where this record lives (sheet, ticket, pinned note, folder): Record owner (who keeps it current): Date written: ## What was decided Write the decision in one or two plain sentences. Say what people may do, what they must not do, and what still needs a named person. Decision: Scope (which jobs, clients or situations this covers): Out of scope (what this does not cover): ## Why and trade-offs Context (what problem or repeated question led to this): Options considered (at least two, in plain words): Trade-offs accepted (what you gain and what you give up): ## Who decided and when Decided by (named person): Date of decision: Who else needs to know: ## When to revisit Revisit date (required for any reversible choice that affects customers or money): Earlier revisit triggers (for example a missed review, a client complaint, a rule that no longer fits): ## Stop rules - Do not leave a decision only in chat, a meeting or one person’s head. If it changes how work runs, write it beside the work. - Do not invent volumes, error rates or how often something happens. If you have not measured it, say so or leave it blank. - Every reversible choice that affects customers or money needs a revisit date and a named owner. Without those, do not treat the record as finished. - If the decision touches filings, client advice, money, privacy or a promise to a client, the named owner confirms it before the team treats it as the rule. ## Demonstration This is an illustrative scenario, not a client case study or a measured result. Do not reuse its details as facts about your work. A sample four-person chartered accountancy practice in Bengaluru (two partners and two juniors handling filings and client queries) keeps changing which partner reviews which filings and when a junior may send a draft return to a client. The rules live in WhatsApp. Nobody has a short written record next to the filing work. ### Sample inputs Demonstration inputs only. No filing volumes, client counts or fee figures are used. From a talk with both partners: juniors prepare draft GST returns; partners disagree in chat about when a draft may go to the client; one partner wants every draft checked first for certain client types; the other sometimes replies late on WhatsApp; juniors ask again each week because the last answer is hard to find. ### Example output #### Record header [Fact within this demonstration] Workflow: sending draft GST returns to clients. Where the record lives: a pinned note in the practice’s filing channel and a one-line field on the client’s filing checklist. Record owner: [Name the partner who owns GST review]. Date written: [Today’s date in the practice]. #### What was decided [Fact within this demonstration] A junior may send a draft GST return to a client only after [Name the reviewing partner] has checked the numbers for that client type. Until that check is done, the draft stays internal. Out of scope: advice on positions the client has not already agreed, and any final filing. #### Why and trade-offs Context: the same “may I send this draft?” question keeps landing in WhatsApp, and answers disagree. Options considered: (1) every draft waits for a partner check before the client sees it; (2) juniors send drafts freely and partners only review on request. [Inference] Option 1 slows some client replies but keeps a named person on the numbers before anything leaves the practice. Option 2 is faster in chat but leaves ownership unclear. How often drafts go wrong has not been measured here. #### Who decided and when Decided by: [Name both partners, or the partner with authority for GST]. Who else needs to know: both juniors and anyone who covers filings when a partner is away. #### When to revisit Revisit date: [A date the partners agree, for example the start of the next filing season]. Earlier triggers: a draft that reached a client with wrong numbers, a client complaint about a draft, or a partner away for more than a few working days with no backup named. #### Stop rules applied [Recommendation] Keep the approved rule beside the filing checklist, not only in WhatsApp, and do not treat the record as finished until a revisit date and named owner are filled in. This recommendation is not the practice’s decision. ## Quality check The decision is stated in plain sentences; context and trade-offs are written without invented counts; a named owner and decision date are present; a revisit date is set for any reversible choice that affects clients or money; the record lives beside the workflow, not only in chat; stop rules were followed. ## Limits and human review The record captures what the team agreed and where to find it; it does not prove the decision is wise, lawful or complete, and it does not replace professional judgment on filings, tax positions or client advice. A filled record is not approval to send drafts, file returns or change client promises without the named owner. Keep consequential actions with the named human owner. ## Edition notes New in Kosh at version 1.1. Provider-neutral Markdown instructions; no installation or platform compatibility is implied. Runtime behaviour has not been verified across AI providers. Reuse terms have not yet been published. Background reading: [Put the Decision Record Where the Work Happens](/insights/put-the-decision-record-where-the-work-happens/). Keeping decision records beside the work is part of Kramaniti’s [Retainer](/retainer/) work.