This is the public record behind the artifact: what changed, what another person can reuse, what supports the system, and what the build is not entitled to claim.
MAKING
What changed
Started from a service workflow rather than from a desire to automate something.
Inherited Build 003’s decision-gap score as visible context rather than hiding it inside a new black box.
Added separate signals for value, repeatability, rule clarity, expert judgment and exceptions.
Separated candidate dispositions into AUTOMATE, KEEP HUMAN and REMOVE so repetitive work is not automatically treated as software-worthy.
Added a local workflow map export and an interactive B-Web service-path split.
METHOD
What travels
Map the service as concrete steps before choosing technology.
Test whether each step creates enough value to deserve preservation at all.
Protect expert judgment, exception-heavy work and high-consequence ambiguity from premature automation.
Treat stable, explicit, repeated work as an automation candidate—not a deployment decision.
Keep the inherited decision-gap signal visible so the system remembers why the service problem matters.
EVIDENCE
What supports it
The disposition rules and thresholds are product heuristics recorded in data/build-005-engine-v1.json.
Build 003 decisionGapScore is the concrete inherited primitive.
Adversarial browser fixtures test removal, human-judgment protection, local export and B-Web scenario changes.
LIMITS
What it cannot claim
The classifier is not a validated ROI model.
AUTOMATE does not mean deploy; it means prototype and investigate.
KEEP HUMAN does not mean software can never assist the step.
REMOVE must be validated with the people affected rather than silently deleting work.
The build does not establish demand, willingness to pay, implementation feasibility, labor impact, legal approval or safety.
VISUAL ASSET REVIEW
Hook image, source candidate, and release gates
The creator-owned cover remains live unless every external-candidate gate is explicitly complete. Disabled controls report canonical status; they do not imply an approval action occurred here.
Live official source-context cover
Status: Promoted after direct-fit review
The GOV.UK Service Standard, shown as public-service design context.
Credit: Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: UK Government Digital Service, GOV.UK Service Standard.
Rights: Open Government Licence v3.0 · Crown copyright source
Supports recognition of GOV.UK Service Standard and the limited source context adjacent to Build 005; it does not prove RN's prototype performance, compliance, safety, effectiveness or institutional endorsement.
Use only the exact document treatment under its recorded terms. Exclude logos, seals, people and third-party material; attribution does not imply that UK Government Digital Service endorses RN or Build 005.
Official visual candidate
Disposition: CLEARED-NOT-SUBSTITUTED
CLEARED — exact document asset may be reused under the recorded public-domain/open-license terms, subject to the stated attribution, exclusion and no-endorsement conditions.
Orientation/dimensions: responsive document; no intrinsic pixel dimensions; × . Exact HTML document; capture dimensions must be specified at production time.
Crop: Crop boundary: Main article only: page H1 “Service Standard” plus its introductory sentence and numbered criteria headings; exclude GOV.UK crown/logo, global header, navigation, feedback and footer.
Alt text: Official GOV.UK Service Standard document or guidance page, selected as contextual evidence for Build 005, Service Path Split.
Credit: Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: UK Government Digital Service, GOV.UK Service Standard.
Claim boundary: Supports recognition of GOV.UK Service Standard and the limited source context adjacent to Build 005; it does not prove RN's prototype performance, compliance, safety, effectiveness or institutional endorsement.
Final hook-image decision
PROMOTED · LIVE
Direct recognizable-source mapping; readable 1200×1500 production derivative; required attribution, source, claim boundary, rights line and no-endorsement notice remain visible.
1. Hook DON’T AUTOMATE THE SERVICE. Separate the steps first.Visual, rights, and accessibility instructions
Use the complete live official source-context cover at /media/100-builds/production-source-variants/build-005-official-context.svg. Do not crop text, credits, safe margins, or claim boundary.
Claim boundary: Supports recognition of GOV.UK Service Standard and the limited source context adjacent to Build 005; it does not prove RN's prototype performance, compliance, safety, effectiveness or institutional endorsement.
Accessibility: Slide 1 alt text must identify Build 005, the hook function, essential visible text, and the information conveyed by the visual. Keep reading order headline → visual → boundary/credit.
Rights: Open Government Licence v3.0 · Crown copyright source
2. Problem The problem: Service Path Split fails when the underlying decision, audience, or evidence boundary is left implicit.Visual, rights, and accessibility instructions
RN-owned problem framing: isolate the tension behind “DON’T AUTOMATE THE SERVICE. Separate the steps first.”. Use typography plus one simple contrast or decision fork; no stock people.
Accessibility: Slide 2 alt text must identify Build 005, the problem function, essential visible text, and the information conveyed by the visual. Keep reading order headline → visual → boundary/credit.
Rights: Use RN-owned typography, diagrams, and verified prototype captures only.
3. System The system: make the mechanism inspectable—show what enters, what changes, who retains authority, and what leaves the system.Visual, rights, and accessibility instructions
Show an RN-owned diagram or prototype view of the Service Path Split mechanism. Label inputs, decision/action, and output; do not depict outcomes not present in the build.
Accessibility: Slide 3 alt text must identify Build 005, the system function, essential visible text, and the information conveyed by the visual. Keep reading order headline → visual → boundary/credit.
Rights: Use RN-owned typography, diagrams, and verified prototype captures only.
4. Evidence Evidence context: The GOV.UK Service Standard, shown as public-service design context.Visual, rights, and accessibility instructions
Use only the recorded official source-context treatment from https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/service-standard; preserve attribution, rights line, no-endorsement language, and exact claim boundary.
Claim boundary: Supports recognition of GOV.UK Service Standard and the limited source context adjacent to Build 005; it does not prove RN's prototype performance, compliance, safety, effectiveness or institutional endorsement.
Accessibility: Slide 4 alt text must identify Build 005, the evidence function, essential visible text, and the information conveyed by the visual. Keep reading order headline → visual → boundary/credit.
Rights: Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: UK Government Digital Service, GOV.UK Service Standard. Open Government Licence v3.0 · Crown copyright source
5. Demo Demo: walk through one bounded state change in the Build 005 prototype. Show the interaction or decision path, not an invented result.Visual, rights, and accessibility instructions
Use an authentic RN prototype/interface capture from Build 005, or a faithful RN-owned diagram if no stable interface view exists. Clearly label simulated, fictional, or illustrative states.
Claim boundary: Show only an observed prototype state; label simulation and fiction; do not imply deployment or outcome.
Accessibility: Slide 5 alt text must identify Build 005, the demo function, essential visible text, and the information conveyed by the visual. Keep reading order headline → visual → boundary/credit.
Rights: Use RN-owned typography, diagrams, and verified prototype captures only.
6. Implications Implication: Service Path Split can make the relevant structure visible and discussable. It does not by itself prove performance, compliance, safety, effectiveness, causation, or endorsement.Visual, rights, and accessibility instructions
Use a two-column RN synthesis: what this build makes possible / what it does not establish. No universal, causal, safety, compliance, or effectiveness claim.
Accessibility: Slide 6 alt text must identify Build 005, the implications function, essential visible text, and the information conveyed by the visual. Keep reading order headline → visual → boundary/credit.
Rights: Use RN-owned typography, diagrams, and verified prototype captures only.
7. CTA + sources Explore Build 005, Service Path Split: watch the cut, inspect the motion argument, test the interactive prototype, and review its evidence boundary.Visual, rights, and accessibility instructions
Use a quiet RN-owned closing card with Build 005, the canonical dossier URL, CTA, source/credit line, and “RN synthesis · no endorsement” where an institution is named.
Accessibility: Slide 7 alt text must identify Build 005, the cta + sources function, essential visible text, and the information conveyed by the visual. Keep reading order headline → visual → boundary/credit.
Rights: Use RN-owned typography, diagrams, and verified prototype captures only.
Platform repurposing
Instagram: Publish all seven 4:5 slides; keep credits and boundaries on-slide; write the supplied alt text manually.
LinkedIn: Export as an accessible seven-page PDF; preserve live links in the post copy and use the build dossier as the canonical source.
Reels/TikTok: Animate slides 1–6 as silent-first vertical beats; retain captions, visible source credit, and final CTA; do not imply motion footage is documentary.
Web/newsletter: Use slide 1 as the preview and embed/link the dossier; do not detach the source-context image from its caption, credit, and limitation.
All seven accessible 1200×1500 slides for this build are generated and included in the deterministic distribution packages. Metadata retains exact alt text, visual guidance, credit, source, rights, and claim boundaries.
This build’s current cover and complete metadata are included in the deterministic 100-cover handoff. The package preserves this dossier’s official/RN decision, source, rights, claim boundary, and rollback state.
A public build record has four sections and they are ordered on purpose. Making is the narrative of what changed, written so that someone who was not there can follow the decisions in sequence. Method is the part meant to travel: the rules and structures another person could apply to a different problem in a different field. Evidence is what supports the system, stated as specifically as the underlying material allows. Limits close the record because they determine how far everything above them can be carried.
The reason limits come last is that they are the part most often left out, and a record without them is a marketing page with citations. Every claim in the sections above is bounded by what the final section says, and a reader who skips it will overstate what the build establishes. If you only have time for two sections, read Method and Limits: together they tell you what you could reuse and how far you could trust it.
Where external sources appear, each is given with an exact locator rather than a bare link, so the specific passage relied on can be checked instead of the whole document. A scope limit accompanies each one. That limit describes what the source was used for in this build, which is frequently narrower than what the source as a whole covers, and quoting the source for a broader claim than the scope allows would be a misuse of it even though the link resolves.
Language here is chosen to hold up under scrutiny rather than to sound confident. Where a review is complete, the record says so and names what the review covered. Where a review remains open, the record says that instead, and continues to say it until the work is done. A statement that something is a demonstration, a synthetic fixture or an unverified claim is a factual description of that artifact, and it stays on the page because removing it would make the surrounding claims read as stronger than the evidence supports.
Finally, this record documents one build among a hundred that are designed to inherit from each other. What Method describes is often the thing a later build depends on, so a record is worth reading alongside the lineage view rather than purely on its own. That is where the capability described here can be traced forward into whatever was built on top of it.
