{
  "source": "Native verified Portfolio v3 export, synthetic only",
  "pages": [
    {
      "id": "executive",
      "number": "01",
      "label": "Executive",
      "title": "Executive overview",
      "image": "/reports/page-1.png",
      "purpose": "Where should leaders focus the service-improvement pilot?",
      "measures": "2,400 applications · 58.0% first-pass complete · 46-day median cycle · 29.8% SLA attainment · 394 year-end backlog",
      "reading": "Intake quality and decision delays provide a measurable reason to investigate rework. The monthly chart compares receipts and closures; the program chart shows different decision-cycle profiles.",
      "response": "Pilot guided intake and clearer handoffs, then compare service quality and cycle time with the baseline.",
      "caution": "The cohort contains 2025 arrivals followed through 31 March 2026. The backlog is a 31 December 2025 snapshot, not today’s open count. Program differences alone do not establish their causes."
    },
    {
      "id": "flow",
      "number": "02",
      "label": "Flow",
      "title": "Flow and bottlenecks",
      "image": "/reports/page-2.png",
      "purpose": "Where does work wait, and how much repeated handling occurs?",
      "measures": "2,295 closed cases · 69-day P90 cycle · 9.6 average manual touches · 9.2% reopen rate · 105 open at cutoff",
      "reading": "Stage duration, case complexity and urgency expose different delay patterns. P90 shows the long tail that a median can hide; reopening signals possible failure demand.",
      "response": "Investigate document waiting and assessment handoffs. Test explainable routing and exception ownership before changing staffing.",
      "caution": "Stage duration is elapsed time between status events, not staff labour time. Reopen rate uses closed cases. The 105 open cases at the March cutoff differ from the 394-case year-end backlog."
    },
    {
      "id": "documents",
      "number": "03",
      "label": "Documents",
      "title": "Intake and documents",
      "image": "/reports/page-3.png",
      "purpose": "Which intake and evidence problems are creating avoidable follow-up?",
      "measures": "10,341 required documents · 7,270 submitted after intake · 0 currently missing · 798 resubmission episodes",
      "reading": "The charts compare later document submissions, resubmission episodes and first-pass completeness by channel. They connect the process problem to a concrete intake-design opportunity.",
      "response": "Use a program-specific checklist, immediate validation and an authorized document-exception pathway while retaining assisted service.",
      "caution": "All recorded documents are received at this snapshot. Later submissions are a proxy for intake gaps, not proof that documents are still missing. One application can have several document records."
    },
    {
      "id": "equity",
      "number": "04",
      "label": "Equity",
      "title": "Equity and experience",
      "image": "/reports/page-4.png",
      "purpose": "Could an improvement leave some applicants behind?",
      "measures": "2,400 applications · 852 survey responses · 37.1% response coverage · 34.5% positive experience",
      "reading": "Language, digital access and recorded accessibility needs provide prompts for inclusive discovery. Survey coverage is shown alongside sentiment so the evidence is not overstated.",
      "response": "Co-design assisted and accessible pathways. Monitor experience and access guardrails alongside speed and volume during a pilot.",
      "caution": "These are fictional patterns, not findings about real communities. Coverage uses closed cases; experience describes respondents only. Real use needs privacy review, small-cell suppression and nonresponse analysis."
    },
    {
      "id": "team",
      "number": "05",
      "label": "Team",
      "title": "Team operations",
      "image": "/reports/page-5.png",
      "purpose": "How can teams reduce repeated handling and status-chasing?",
      "measures": "2,400 applications · 2,295 closed · 9.6 average touches · 8,674 communications · 2,972 status inquiries",
      "reading": "Team workloads, manual touches and contact reasons show operational demand. Status inquiries help make the case for clearer applicant-facing progress information.",
      "response": "Create the case once, improve queue visibility and offer privacy-safe status updates. Measure whether repeat contacts fall without reducing access to help.",
      "caution": "Use this for process and queue design, not individual staff rankings. Case mix affects comparisons. Count communications from their event records; do not multiply application totals through child-table joins."
    },
    {
      "id": "quality",
      "number": "06",
      "label": "Data quality",
      "title": "Data quality",
      "image": "/reports/page-6.png",
      "purpose": "Can the defined data controls support using the report?",
      "measures": "2,400 application rows · 0 duplicate IDs · 0 blank IDs · 0 non-synthetic rows · 0 defined exceptions",
      "reading": "Global controls cover identifiers, closure chronology, missing closure dates, calendar bounds and orphan document, status, communication and survey records.",
      "response": "Reconcile sources before reporting, keep quality controls global and stop publication when a required check fails.",
      "caution": "Zero means these defined checks passed, not every possible business rule. Old loaded values do not prove a new refresh succeeded; source tests and refresh evidence are still required."
    }
  ]
}