Proof-based accountability
Approve work when the proof actually holds.
Work completion approval is the decision that submitted work counted. IPI supports that decision by tying proof to the original objective, context, review, confirmation, and memory.
The fork between approval and revision
The difficult moment is not assignment. It is the fork after submission: accept the work, request a revision, or refuse the claim. If the original objective, proof, and decision standard are scattered, approval becomes negotiation by exhaustion.
Why a checkbox cannot carry the decision
Approval becomes messy when the manager remembers one standard, the employee remembers another, and the proof does not clearly answer the objective.
Make the acceptance standard inspectable
IPI makes approval inspectable. Every approval or refusal is tied to the work request, evidence, review reasoning, and final human confirmation.
Approval is not automatic authority
IPI can show how the submitted proof relates to the objective and where it falls short. It does not silently approve the work: the responsible human accepts it, asks for revision, or refuses the claim.
What credible proof must answer
The approval should not rest on who argues better. It should rest on whether the proof and context support the work claim.
The precedent each decision leaves behind
Teams keep the accepted proof pattern, rejected proof pattern, and decision standard for the next cycle.
FAQ
Does IPI replace managers?
No. IPI preserves the objective, proof, context, and recommendation so the right human can confirm, adjust, or reject the decision with better memory.
Is IPI employee surveillance?
No. IPI focuses on objectives, proof, decisions, context, and outcomes rather than screenshots, keystrokes, or watching every second.
What happens when the proof is incomplete?
The responsible human can request revision against the same objective. The missing proof and decision reason stay attached instead of becoming a new, ambiguous assignment.