Quality & safety
Inspect work and close a non-conformance
Inspect the work against its acceptance criteria, raise a non-conformance the moment it fai…
3 steps10 minOpen
Cases / Quality & safety
Quality & safety
Automate a check you keep doing by hand
Take the check you run manually every week, build it once as a pipeline from a ready-made template, lint it so nothing is quietly wired to nothing, and leave it in the library so it runs the same way every time.
How it works, step by step
4 steps across the platform - what you do at each one, and why it matters.
1
Start from a template
PipelinesOpen the pipeline builder and take the ready-made graph closest to the check you do by hand: flag positions still at zero, list the costliest items, guard a budget ceiling, or gate an export behind validation. It lands on the canvas already wired and already runnable.
Why: An empty canvas is where most automation ideas die, because the first hour goes on working out which port feeds which. Starting from a graph that runs on the first click means you begin by reading logic that works, and change it, rather than guessing at logic that does not.
InThe check you do by handTemplate galleryOutA graph that already runsNamed pipeline
2
Point it at your own data
PipelinesSwap the template's source for your own bill, catalog or validation findings, then set the numbers that matter on this job: the ceiling the budget guard trips at, the figure a threshold gate compares against. Add a computed column, a group and total, a rename or a fan-out where the shape does not quite fit, and a non-empty guard so an empty source stops the run instead of passing it.
Why: A template carries the logic, never your project's numbers. A ceiling left at the demo figure passes everything you feed it, which is worse than having no guard at all, because the run goes green and everyone believes a check was done.
InTemplate graphYour bill or catalogOutGraph bound to real dataThresholds set for this job
3
Lint it, then run it
PipelinesRead the issue count before you press run. It flags any step whose required input has no incoming wire, and any node sitting on the canvas as an island with no wire at all. Clear those, run the pipeline, then read what each step actually did rather than just the final total.
Why: A step wired to nothing does not fail. It simply never runs, and the pipeline reports success while doing less than the canvas makes it look like it does. That is the failure worth hunting, because a green run is precisely what stops anyone looking again.
InWired graphRequired inputs per nodeOutIssue count at zeroA run with findings
4
Act on what it found
ValidationTake the findings through into validation, fix the positions they point at, and save the workflow so it shows up in the picker next month instead of being rebuilt from memory.
Why: Automation only pays back on the second run. A check that lives in one person's head gets skipped the week they are on leave, and on a long job that is reliably the week it would have caught something expensive.
InPipeline findingsThe positions they point atOutCorrected positionsA check that now runs itself
Modules in this playbook
2 / 184 platform modules
