Is this campaign approved for this location and revision?
On this page
Is this location’s campaign package ready for marketing owner review? This worked example follows Maple Commons · Toronto North store (fictional) through missing records, mismatched approvals, explicit refusals and a policy boundary.
Synthetic demonstration · Pack v0.1.0 · 4 source artifacts · 18 project test cases
Download the one-page brief (PDF) or get the complete example (ZIP).
Pain points to validate
- Central approval can accidentally be reused for a different location, locale or campaign revision.
- Local teams chase brand, offer and publishing checks across separate tools.
- An agent can create content quickly while ownership of exceptions remains unclear.
These are discovery hypotheses. The example shows repeatable checks; it does not establish how frequent or expensive the problem is in a real organization.
The decision and its owner
The accountable reviewer is Regional marketing owner. A possible sponsor is VP Marketing / multi-location operations or agency lead. Every artifact must match the same location identifier, campaign revision, channel scope before its facts can support the gate.
| Required artifact | Source owner |
|---|---|
| Location registry record | Location operations owner |
| Campaign offer and budget | Campaign manager |
| Brand and content review | Brand reviewer |
| Channel and locale preflight | Regional marketing owner |
Follow the evidence
A campaign has brand approval, but for the previous creative revision. Show why that is unknown, replace it with the matching review, then exceed the local spending limit.
| What changes | Result | Next step |
|---|---|---|
| A required review is missing | Unresolved: missing required evidence and unknown | Obtain the review; its exception flag is unknown too. |
| A review covers another case, revision or scope | Unresolved: unknown | Retrieve the matching record. |
| A source is unavailable | Unresolved: unknown | Restore acquisition; failure does not prove absence. |
| A prerequisite is explicitly false | Hold the campaign review | Resolve the negative prerequisite with its owner. |
| An explicit exception is raised | Unresolved: exception escalation | Ask the accountable owner to review it. |
| Campaign spend (CAD) is 1000.01 with all other prerequisites met | Budget exception review | Review the policy boundary. |
| Matching records meet the standard gate | Ready for marketing review | The accountable person reviews the evidence package. |
This example does not publish content or spend advertising budget. The CAD 1,000 limit is fictional. It does not claim an existing Uberall integration or a policy used by Uberall. No notification or external action is sent. The role named in a handoff is a declared target, not a delivered assignment.
From artifacts to facts
The Runner mapping reads four separate local records. It checks their case parameters, then projects fields into facts and evidence availability. A matching file can contain a refusal: presence is not approval. Missing, mismatched and unavailable sources have distinct diagnoses.
All fixtures are asserted inputs. Matching identifiers does not authenticate their origin, approver authority or freshness by age. The example uses neither a live vendor account nor an LLM call. Candidate production integrations are documented in the integration plan and need their own configuration.
Inspect and reproduce
| Artifact | Purpose |
|---|---|
| One-page PDF | Discuss the problem with a business owner. |
| Pack | Read the explicit decision policy. |
| 18 test cases | Inspect expected outcomes, unknowns, exceptions and boundaries. |
| Source mapping | Read the source binding and derivation rules. |
| Walkthrough and setup | Run the example and configure a separate job. |
| Integration plan | Review source ownership and real connector requirements. |
| Pilot plan and worksheet | Measure whether the workflow is worth adopting. |
| Coverage review | Understand the remaining advisory conflict probe. |
With Runtime v0.23.1 installed and its published checksum verified, extract the ZIP, open its directory, then run:
jpack packs validate --config jpack.json
jpack packs test --config jpack.json
Expected: 18 passed, 0 mismatched. The matrix evaluates captured projected inputs; it does not re-acquire records or re-run the mapping. The pack declares JPS Core 0.2.0-draft; the project matrix and Runner mapping are companion-tool conventions. These cases are not the normative JPS conformance corpus.
Repeat the check as evidence changes
A configured Desk/Runner can freeze this policy and mapping in a job release, retain each run, save a shared brief on demand, and repeat from new local files on an event or a schedule. The website provides static files; the ZIP does not install a job, trigger, account or connector. Follow the setup guide to preview a complete source batch before enabling repeated execution.
Test the business value
Location and marketing platforms already offer approvals and publishing controls. Look for a recurring gap across brand, offer and channel systems that those controls do not cover.
Start with one owner and roughly ten historical or shadow-mode cases. Compare evidence-assembly time, missing-record resolution, rework and disagreements against the existing process. Include integration and maintenance costs; do not assume the business value of an order, campaign or asset is value created by the tool.