Choose against the task constraints
A fictional team receives eight routine completion notices and two requests requiring decisions before 15:00. A digest runs at 17:00. This is an original timing exercise; it specifies no universal alert cadence or messaging-provider delivery promise.
| Condition | Individual actionable alerts | Grouped digest |
|---|---|---|
| Decision due before digest | Can route the actionable item in time | Would arrive after the stated deadline |
| Routine completion information | May create repeated interruptions | Can group identities with a useful summary |
| Ownership and acknowledgement | Track the decision request itself | Reading a digest does not approve its records |
Keep the two 15:00 decision requests out of the 17:00-only digest path. Group routine completion information if staff can still inspect individual identities. Escalation should follow the agreed owner and deadline, not a count of messages opened.
Grouping must respect the decision time
| Class | Count | Timing |
|---|---|---|
| Routine completion | 8 | No action deadline in this example |
| Approval request | 2 | Decision before 15:00 |
| Digest | 1 grouped message | 17:00 |
Can all ten items wait for the 17:00 digest?
Show the worked answer
No. The two decision requests would miss their stated time. The eight routine notices may be grouped, while the two actionable requests need their timely owner path.
Check the chosen interaction
- The digest retains a link or reference for every included item.
- A deadline-bearing request follows its own owner path.
- Read, delivered and decided are separate states.