# DenQAI: team transition plan

File-specific companion · 2026-09-10

## Purpose

Which role-specific training, authority, or workflow change will improve continuity over 30, 60, and 90 days?

**Who:** Role owner, supervisor, and qualified job-related reviewer

**Records:** Future-state role requirements; observed work evidence; available tools/access; training plan; primary and backup coverage.

## Complete the file

1. Define competency_or_process and current_evidence for the role or position.
2. Separate root_cause into skill, environment, authority, or capacity; assign action, access, and a controlled training/work sample.
3. Set primary/backup owners and observable 30/60/90-day results, then document reviewer and status.
4. Use role_or_position_code and observation_status to describe the work evidence; keep observed skill, missing authority, environment, and capacity separate.

## Definitions

- **Root cause:** Supported explanation of whether the gap concerns skill, environment, authority, or capacity.
- **Observable recheck:** Repeatable task or evidence used to see whether the required capability improved.
- **Observation status:** Review state of the documented role or work evidence; Not yet reviewed means an observation has not been assessed.

## Fictional example

Fictional example: A billing role cannot complete reconciliation because access is missing; required_action grants the appropriate permission and tests a coded work sample before judging skill.

## Review and next action

Provide the missing authority or training and recheck the actual work sample.

This raw plan is not a validated employee assessment. Version 2026.09.1 uses coded roles and observation status rather than a numeric rating. Keep protected and unnecessary personal information out.

[Related DenQAI guide](https://denqai.com/team)

## AI coach prompt

Help me use DenQAI’s team transition plan. My question is: Which role-specific training, authority, or workflow change will improve continuity over 30, 60, and 90 days? Explain these terms in plain language: Root cause, Observable recheck, Observation status. Ask one question at a time about the required records: Future-state role requirements; observed work evidence; available tools/access; training plan; primary and backup coverage. Walk through the supplied fictional example before asking me for inputs. Treat every missing value as unknown, not zero. Do not invent source records, contract terms, legal conclusions, or clinical facts. Use only permitted fictional or aggregate, non-identifying information. Follow this boundary: This raw plan is not a validated employee assessment. Version 2026.09.1 uses coded roles and observation status rather than a numeric rating. Keep protected and unnecessary personal information out. End with the missing evidence and this next step: Provide the missing authority or training and recheck the actual work sample.

## AI review prompt

Review my permitted fictional or aggregate draft of DenQAI’s team transition plan against the file instructions. Check each required field and period, units, evidence locator, assumptions, arithmetic where formulas are actually supplied, and unresolved contradictions. Check the sequence: Define competency_or_process and current_evidence for the role or position. Separate root_cause into skill, environment, authority, or capacity; assign action, access, and a controlled training/work sample. Set primary/backup owners and observable 30/60/90-day results, then document reviewer and status. Use role_or_position_code and observation_status to describe the work evidence; keep observed skill, missing authority, environment, and capacity separate. Separate facts from assumptions and missing records. Do not supply unsupported numbers or make a professional decision for me. Apply this limitation: This raw plan is not a validated employee assessment. Version 2026.09.1 uses coded roles and observation status rather than a numeric rating. Keep protected and unnecessary personal information out. Return corrections, questions for the responsible reviewer, and the next action.