Andrew Osula AO

Research case R2

ACC · Agents · SharePoint · Governance

Active

ACC Review Agent

A governed workflow for consolidating ACC review issues, comments, responses and evidence into controlled draft reports.

ACC review agent / active research

A review is only useful when its evidence can be traced.

Illustrative workflow based on the controlled design baseline. No live ACC connection or project records are used.

ACC review workspaceEvidence intake / reconciliation / draft report
Controlled design baseline

System roles

ACC source evidenceIssues · review records · references
01
CopilotReview interaction
SharePointControlled registers
POWER AUTOMATE / ORCHESTRATIONDeterministic processor

Reconcile sources · validate fields · retain exceptions

↳ Evidence references retainedExceptions returned for review ↺
Human approval gateRequired
Traceable sourcesEvidence stays connected
Reconciled recordsExceptions stay visible
Accountable reviewApproval stays with a person

The challenge

Review information can become fragmented across issues, comments, attachments and source references, increasing reconciliation effort and reporting risk.

An ACC review can spread across issues, replies, mark-ups and attachments. A report assembled from those records needs to preserve the link to its sources and make unresolved conflicts visible.

The approach

The design separates read-only intake, deterministic reconciliation and draft report preparation. SharePoint registers provide a place to track the source records, while a human reviewer controls distribution.

System

Select a step to see its role in the work.

  1. 01ACC source

    Treat ACC issues, comments and attachments as source records, not final answers.

  2. 02Governed intake

    Bring records into a controlled, read-only intake with identifiers preserved.

  3. 03Copilot interface

    Use the interface to request a defined review task and inspect its draft.

  4. 04SharePoint registers

    Maintain registers that connect issues, responses and source evidence.

  5. 05Power Automate

    Move approved records through a traceable workflow.

  6. 06Deterministic processor

    Apply explicit rules where matching and reconciliation must be repeatable.

  7. 07Reconciliation

    Flag missing, conflicting or duplicate information for review.

  8. 08Human approval

    Keep the report in draft until a named reviewer approves distribution.

Current position

The Phase 0.2 design baseline is complete. Implementation and testing are still active, so the public diagram describes the intended control points rather than a finished service.

Phase 0.2 design baseline complete. Implementation and testing remain active.

Next question

Validate the reconciliation rules against representative review records, including duplicates, missing evidence and conflicting responses.

Knowledge graph

Follow the methods and information shared by this work and the cases below.

CurrentACC Review Agent
Agent governanceGoverned AI Agents & Agentic WorkflowsResearch · ResearchDeterministic reconciliationBIM Quantity Take-Off & Model ReadinessWork · ActiveM365 operating modelCross-Department Digital OperationsWork · Delivered