Plan coverage checks
Separate selected content, installed files, activation, and demonstrated decisions.
Open this resource →Comparison · activity and change
A report and a rule answer different questions.
Use bounded activity records to investigate behavior without confusing a received event with an active control.
An unexpected agent action creates two jobs: understand the available record and decide whether the shared setup needs a reviewed change.
01 / Comparison · activity and change
Put each mechanism on the timeline
A release review happens before approved content reaches a client. An action check evaluates an implemented event. An activity report describes what the client reported. Their timing determines what each can establish.
Activity records can help locate an unexpected decision or a recurring pattern. They do not themselves change the rule. A proposed response still needs an owner and the appropriate review.
An active local check can make a decision even when a central report is unavailable. Conversely, a received event can describe an operation that no gate could restrict. Presence in a dashboard settles neither question.
Identify which job is currently needed. Investigating a pattern, changing a shared instruction, and restricting an operation may all matter. Keep the corresponding acceptance checks separate.
02 / Comparison · activity and change
Questions for the record and the release
| Subject | What activity can help investigate | What the change process must establish |
|---|---|---|
| An operation | The facts and decision context the client reported | The approved revision expected at that supported event |
| A changed pattern | Differences across available reported records | The author, reviewer, and content of the proposed response |
| An absent result | Which expected events are unavailable | Whether the relevant gate was supported and activated |
| A proposed improvement | Outcomes recorded for applicable work | The exact verified revision approved for shared adoption |
03 / Comparison · activity and change
Example: a selected hook has not produced a decision
In this hypothetical case, an administrator expects a shared hook to check one tool operation. Resource retrieval shows the selected hook is installed. The first test has no corresponding decision record.
The administrator begins with the intended event. The adapter must support that event and operation. If it does not, the requirement needs another control rather than an installation repair.
For a supported event, the developer checks required trust and activation locally. Installed files can coexist with incomplete plugin setup. The team also compares the installed release identity with the intended team revision.
Next, the developer repeats a narrow permitted case and a narrow restricted case. The expected result is written before execution. The team records whether the event ran and what reason was available.
A new decision can confirm behavior in that focused case. It cannot reconstruct every earlier action. Missing context from the first attempt remains unknown rather than becoming an inferred rule match.
| Finding during this hypothetical check | Question to investigate | Useful next source |
|---|---|---|
| Required event is unsupported | Does the requirement need a different control? | Client compatibility description |
| Expected release differs from installation | Was the intended team revision adopted? | Team approval and local release identity |
| Trust step is incomplete | Can the native integration run its check? | Setup diagnostics for that client |
| No reason is available | Can this record establish a policy decision? | Another focused case with local diagnostics |
| Reason and revision are reported | Do they match the expected rule? | Recorded decision and approved content |
The developer checks task correctness independently after the control test. A restricted operation can behave as intended while the resulting code remains wrong. These outcomes require different corrections.
04 / Comparison · activity and change
Know what the central record does not contain
The bounded activity model excludes work content, command text, arguments, and paths. That choice sets a limit on central reconstruction. It is not a promise of full execution tracing.
An investigator should select diagnostics that fit the information actually available. A missing command field is not an invitation to infer the command from nearby records. Use appropriate local checks for the investigation.
Sanitized account or resource identifiers can still carry organizational context. Review which identifiers are reported with the people who own the rollout. Bounded collection is not synonymous with context-free data.
If an evaluation requires complete work traces, document that need explicitly. Compare it with available fields and the organization data policy. A bounded decision record cannot answer every forensic question.
05 / Comparison · activity and change
Define the cases before calling them coverage
Counting incoming events does not define the population you intended to cover. List the selected client versions and required operations first. Include the trust and activation conditions for each case.
Classify unsupported and inactive cases explicitly. Neither should disappear from the evaluation because other events arrive frequently. A common operation can dominate totals while a consequential one remains unchecked.
Reports are best effort. An absent event can reflect missing reporting, an operation that never occurred, or an uncovered boundary. Central records alone may be unable to separate those explanations.
Keep one expected result per planned case. Record observations and uncertainties next to it. That structure gives the administrator a concrete next check instead of a broad percentage without a denominator.
- Identify the client releases in scope.
- Select the supported operations to exercise.
- Record required activation and trust steps.
- Write a permitted and restricted result for each check.
- Compare local results with the available reports.
- Preserve cases with missing decision context.
- Repeat a case after its specific setup correction.
- Run task acceptance checks as a separate activity.
06 / Comparison · activity and change
Choose the next action from the question
When the question is what clients reported, inspect activity records. When a shared instruction needs revision, use configuration review. When an operation must be restricted, establish the relevant gate and its prerequisites.
A rollout may need all of these mechanisms. Begin with the one that resolves the current decision, then connect the others where their evidence is useful. More records alone do not establish more control.
Describe results at the tested boundary: this action, client release, approved revision, and activation state. A reader can assess those conditions. A general compliance claim hides them and makes investigation harder.
07 / Comparison · activity and change
Interpreting an incomplete record
Is client-reported activation a machine integrity check?
It reports the integration state supplied by the client. It does not attest the device or establish that all native operations passed through Betterloop.
Can an absent denial rule out a restricted operation?
No. The action may be outside adapter coverage, or reporting may be incomplete. Inspect the supported event and local state before reaching a conclusion.
Can the event stream establish that a code change works?
Task acceptance requires its own check. A rule decision reports control behavior, not the correctness of every output produced during the session.
Should we fill missing context from nearby events?
Keep the unavailable facts unresolved. Gather a focused result and relevant diagnostics instead of converting surrounding activity into an unsupported rule match.