For outplacement, alumni-careers and workforce-transition teams. Graph One keeps the brief, firms, people, evidence gaps, routes, choices and owners joined; it is not a direct consumer job service.
What changes: each firm, judged reason, evidence gap, relevant person, possible route and next owner stays with the participant’s choice. Openings and employer decisions stay in their source systems.
TR–021 · Local sample
Product and operations leadership transition
One participant-owned brief for an adviser to turn into a firm, person and evidence review. This is not a job recommendation.
Phone case record · TR–021
01 · Exact boundary
The production query editor uses three supported organisation fields. Common Thread enters the initial set; no exact field makes it a fit, a current employer option or an available role.
Start with one de-identified programme brief. We will test which fields belong in Search, human review and the formal programme record.
02 · Judged evidence
Evaluative Search records why available text merits inspection. Supported, Partial and Open stay review states with reasons, not scores for fit or suitability.
TR–021 · Human review
The participant has not accepted or declined this target. The adviser records why it stays in review and what remains open.
Participant state
Consider – adviser check open
Available organisation work text
Local sample organisation text names product work. This supports inspection, not role fit.
Available organisation profile text · 14 August 2026 · Sample
Current team scope
Available person role text
Local sample current-role text names Product lead. Authority and current remit are not shown.
Available current-role text · 14 August 2026 · Sample
Role history and current remit
Work pattern and transition constraints
No approved source is supplied. The participant and adviser must decide what may enter the case.
No approved source supplied
Work pattern and any agreed constraint fields
03 · Firm and person records
Open Common Thread first, then Taylor Brooks. Each record keeps its source class, observed date, judged reason, open gap and reviewer without claiming verified employment or current authority.
ORG–CT–104 · Local sample
Organisation profile · Sample data
PER–TB–208 · Local sample
Person profile · Sample data
04 · Available path
Only after Common Thread and Taylor Brooks enter review does the participant inspect one possible route. The route remains evidence of an available path, not permission to contact.
Taylor Brooks
Product lead · Common Thread · Local sample
Person profile · Sample data
Whom could you ask?
Check the evidence on both legs before making the ask.
Owen Reed
Available two-leg path · Request state kept separate
Shared relationship record · 12 August 2026 · Local sample value
User-owned request state
Ask adviser to review
Alex asks Maya to check whether a request is appropriate. No message has been sent and no intermediary response is shown.
The relationship owner checks consent, willingness, endorsement, availability and interest before choosing whether and how to respond outside this proof.
05 · Reviewed case View
The Table keeps the brief, firm, person, source, gap, reviewer, participant choice, route state, owner and hand-off together. Views separate adviser checks, holds and participant declines; comments stay with each row.
Swipe the Table to inspect every field. Phone readers get the compact TR–021 case record near the top rather than a reduced Table.
06 · Shown access state
The sample Table names the participant owner, adviser grant, programme-team path and inherited folder path. The programme owner checks public-link policy and the full control set separately.
TR–021 · Employer-and-contact review
Table sharing · Sample data
Alex Morgan · Participant
Owns this item
Maya Chen · Adviser
Shared with you
Transition programme team
Workspace share
Career cases
Shared folder
The shown access state does not claim case isolation, audit, retention, deletion, data location, safeguarding approval or participant offboarding. The enterprise review and contract must set those terms.
07 · Owned next work
The Board holds only participant and adviser work. A programme, ATS or CRM may receive the agreed record; outreach, applications, employer replies and formal outcomes remain there.
Desired work, role classes, permitted constraints, programme rules and any source-specific sector or setting fields.
Brief ID, firm and person records, available source text, judged reason, gap, reviewer, participant state, route note, comments, access paths and next owner.
Formal service record, outreach, applications, employer replies, offers, outcomes, retention, reporting and any case closure required by the programme.
A scoped hand-off can carry TR–021, ORG–CT–104, PER–TB–208, the review state, source class, observed date, gap, reviewer, participant choice, request state, owner and next review date. This page does not claim a live integration, message send, application update, employer response or completed hand-off.
Field plan, not coverage proof
TR–021 shows one firm-and-person review. These variants show which buyer fields and formal gates would change. Each buyer checks sector coverage, credentials, clearance, openings and suitability.
Public body + programme + role family
Mandate, grade and programme context from the buyer or an approved source
Public-sector approval and formal appointment stay in the public body’s process
Site + process + role family
Site, equipment and technical context from the buyer or an approved source
A technical reviewer checks plant fit and scope beyond the company record
Care setting + service + role family
Care setting and service context from an approved source
Credentials and patient data stay outside this research record
Regulated setting + function + role family
Control setting and role evidence from an approved source
Conflicts, suitability and outreach follow the bank’s controls
Mission + place + programme stage
Mission and programme context from the participant or an approved source
No inference of standing, donor ties, community consent or safeguarding approval
Exact first-meeting return
One transition brief, one review method, one hand-off boundary
The first meeting will test exact Search fields, participant and adviser inputs, judged questions, source scope, firm-and-person evidence, participant choice, safe request, shown access and the programme, ATS or CRM hand-off. It will return one agreed field-and-source plan, one dated employer-and-contact review View specification and one access-and-hand-off boundary – not a shortlist, job recommendation, contact permission, application update or placement outcome.